Talk:World number 1 ranked male tennis players/Archive 2

About 1953

Hello Mister Jeffreyneave.

I have rewritten my 1953 part in the section World No. 1 and 2 Tennis Players Rankings and Gonzales list and in particular I've erased all my statistics ratios because the weighting wasn't good and some of your (good) critics about it. I have also moved your last answer in this new section and I have added the right new 1953 statistics under your answer. I have also erased some of our replies (your questions and my answers) because I've confused some events (Genève and Lyon) and I have reestablished the good statistics below.

I don't still agree with your arguments for 1953 (see my rewritten part) in particular about the greatness of the Kramer-Sedgman tour because there is always this Gonzales's avoiding. I recall Budge's statement in the 1953 July edition of "Sport" magazine :"In the past two years Pancho (Gonzales) has won the majority of all the big pro tournaments. He has to be considered the best, at least until somebody proves otherwise." I do not remember the exact title of the article including Budge's declaration but it was something like "All the pros fear Gonzales". About your arguments for 1957 (Sedgman #2) and for 1958 (Sedgman #1) I don't know if you're right but your arguments deserved to be looked at (I don't know when I do it because I have no time right now but your ideas are somewhere in my head and I won't forget them). For 1952 (Sedgman #1) I'm not very convinced but I'm not very opposed to your argument so I will also think about it.

Your first (edited) talk :

• • • • ----- London clearly was the big single tournament of 1953. His win at London should probably be worth at least 3 or possibly 4 times Segura's wins at Lyon etc ; his Paris wins possibly 2 times the minor wins. Your method basically says Segura's 7-3 edge (70%) over Sedgman is worth a lot more than Kramer's 56-41 edge (58%); I'm not convinced. Kramer won the big tour and won 2 of his 3 events, only failing on the clay of South America. Segura failed at the biggest 2 events of the year and in his events with Kramer failed 2 times out of 3 times. On that basis Kramer deserves the no1 spot.

[jeffreyneave]17 Feb 2007

Your second talk:

• • • • I think wembley was a big event. Riggs and Budge played and they showed good form in the minor events that Gonzales won. Only kramer of any real significance missed the event. Concerning, Kramer avoiding Gonzales, its not that significant . Gonzales' failure in all the European events, particularly his demolition by Sedgman at Wembley means he is the number 4. Kramer's challengers for the no1 are sedgman and Segura.Unlike Rosewall in 1960, Sedgman did not dominate the tourament circuit. Segura won more events, Sedgman only won the big one and the semi-major Paris event. Sedgman also failed in the 3 touraments he played with Kramer and Segura, finishing a dreadful 4th in the clay court event. I'm not sure who is number 2, Segura and Sedgman are close. Kramer's victories in the 2 out 3 events with segman and Segura are crucial. Kramer gave Segura a chance in tournament play and came out ahead. He also confirmed his edge on Sedgman. I would treat the big tour between Kramer as a major event and not part of head to head statistics. As to 1952, Kramer probably had a bad year; with no tour he was demotivated. At the start of the tour with sedgman he was behind. He only caught him at 18 each, which suggests that Kramer improved significantly on his 1952 showing. If Sedgman played about the same as he had in 1952 at the start of the 1953 tour, he probably has a reasonable claim to be no1 in 1952. Later in the year he outplayed Gonzales. It's not certain that Gonzales had got worse in 1953. He won all his minor events and Crushed Segura at Wembley; very similar to his 1952 performance. This rating for 1952 leaves out Segura. In 1952 he proved to be a very good outdoor player, espcially on clay. It was the same in 1953, he seems to have won all his outdoor events and again came unstuck in the indoor events. As to the long term record between Sedgman and gonzales, there is no doubt in a long tour one would fancy Gonzales, especially played in America (30-21 edge of 1954 seems about right for their relative strenghts.) Howvever in short bursts Sedgman was always very competitive and in 1953 he was obviously hot for a couple of weeks in London and paris. As i've said before, I regarded Sedgman in 1958, with his 2 majors (wembley and Aussie pro) plus a 4-2 edge (including the 2 vital best of 5 set matches) over Gonzales in proper tournament play, compared to Gonzales' one major (forest hills), as the no1. SEdgman was the world no2 in 1954 and 1956. In 1957 he has claim to no2, because in the 3 most competitive events (aussie pro, Forest hills and los Angeles) he finished 2nd in all 3, beating Rosewall 3 times out of 3, who is your choice for no2 in 1957. He also has a claim to no2 in 1959 according to Kramer, because he beat Rosewall in 2 tours and also Hoad in the Euro tour of 1959. However, his distinctly 4th place showing in the 14 indvidual event competition means I'd only rank him 4th behind Hoad at no2. He was a high quality player throughout the 1950s. His 1956 defeat at Wembley to Gonzales is generally considerd to be the greatest match of the 1950s.

[jeffreyneave]20 Feb 2007

• • • • Good new 1953 statistics :

-first you were right : Kramer and Segura met only twice (I was wrongly convinced they had met in the 3 4-man tournaments)

-secondly I have previously mixed the Lyon and Geneva events as I probably thought.

Wembley was played from Monday November 16 through Friday 20

then Sedgman, Gonzales, Segura and Budge came to Paris, Palais des Sports (where Segura had defeated Kramer in January 1950) (Saturday 21 and Sunday 22) : 1st round Sedgman beat Segura 46 63 64 and Gonzales beat Budge 62 64; 3rd place Segura beat Budge 64 64 and final Sedgman beat Gonzales 61 63. Then Cawthorn (beaten by Riggs at Wembley 61 46 61 himself defeated by Budge 06 64 108) replaced Budge at Genève (according to Tennis de France N°9 Janvier 1954 : Wednesday and Thursday, November 25-26, 1953) where Segura defeated Cawthorn 64 63 and Sedgman overcame Gonzales 63 75 (there are no other results so probably Geneva wasn't a tournament but just tour matches) then the 4 players got to Lyon, November 27-28 (according to Tennis de France while McCauley proposed November 25-28 but I suppose he had incorporated the Genève and Lyon events together), played on a clay court (of a remarkable quality according to the French magazine) laid on the cement of the Palais de la Mécanique de la Foire : 1st round Sedgman defeated Cawthorn 46 61 61 and Segura beat Gonzales 16 62 62, for 3rd place Gonzales defeated Cawthorn 46 61 63 and in the final Segura took the title by overcoming Sedgman 36 64 63.

In the January 1954 Tennis de France magazine, Philippe Chatrier, then creator and editor of that magazine, being a good friend of Sedgman, has followed, interviewed and invited to dinner the Australian in Paris and to lunch the next day. As a proof of their friendship Chatrier wrote in his article that on Monday 23 Sedgman became shareholder of the very young "Tennis de France" magazine (first edition in (I believe) April 1953). Chatrier has made the report of the Paris event and has never labelled the tournament as a French Pro but has just insisted on the deplorable conditions the professional circuit with little cloakrooms and almost no public : Chatrier had seen one year before the glorious Sedgman's win at Wimbledon and was shocked by the difference of comfort (and glory) between the amateur and the professional circuits. And Sedgman would have largely preferred to play at the Pierre de Coubertin stadium than at the decayed Palais des Sports stadium with so few spectators. In this Chatrier's report the only great event of the moment was the Wembley tournament whereas Paris seemed not more important than Genève or Lyon : Chatrier then thought that Sedgman was the best pro of the moment (but he didn't give his opinion for the whole year). In L'Equipe, the tennis reporter whom I've forgotten the name, also thought that Sedgman was the #1 at the autumn 1953 (he too didn't give his opinion for the whole year).

80.70.42.194 09:25, 21 February 2007 (UTC)Carlo Colussi

• • • • Interesting information. Budge's comments on Gonzales are in july 1953. Gonzales failures occurred later in the year. Budge was also playing Gonzales in the minor events and losing. So his comments are a comfirmation that Gonzales was the best pro of 1952, but don't help his cause for 1953. Kramer's rivals for the no1 in 53 turned out to be Segura and sedgman, after Gonzales' failure to win any of his 4 competive events in '53. Its also interseting that lyon was played on clay, which is Segura's best surface. This is his only indoor tourament win of 1953, which again confirms my contention is that Segura is at his best outdoors and at the time probably quite capable of beating any of the other 3 stars in his favoured conditions. The other 3 have built their repuations at this time as pros in fast/indoor competitions. If the pro circuit had played the modern (2007) circuit, with the big events mostly on clay or outdoor hard courts, Segura might well have been able to claim the no1 spot between 1950 and 1953.

[jeffreyneave] 21 february 2007

• • • • Hello. I don't want to say that Budge's comments help Gonzales's cause for 1953. I just say that Gonzales was the best pro in 1952 : in particular he has defeated Kramer twice in two meetings so Kramer not wanting Gonzales to be the top pro in 1953 chose not to select Pancho for the 1953 big tour and not to face in 1953 the man who had dethroned him. Sedgman having faced in 1953 about a hundred times players as Kramer and Segura from January through fall while Gonzales hasn't faced any of the other big three, explains why Sedgman's level was so higher than Gonzales's in 1953. Therefore Sedgman crushed Gonzales three times in November however in the 3rd meeting Gonzales wasn't ridiculous (3-6 5-7 in Genève) and in 1954 Gonzales reached Sedgman's level if not better. So I repeat that Gonzales being out of the true circuit for 10 months in 1953 couldn't obviously compete with Sedgman in November.

About the fact that Gonzales easily defeated Segura at Wembley in 1953 (but Segura took his revenge on indoor clay at Lyon a few days later) I think the main reason is the mental. Until 1951 Segura was at least the equal of Gonzales both in results and in head-to-head matches but in 1952 Gonzales defeated Segura 4 times in 5 meetings. I then think that Segura developed a certain complex of inferiority in particular when they played on wood (as in Wembley). So I think that Segura's defeat by Gonzales at Wembley in 1953 was caused by both the mental and the surface.

If I compare with a modern situation : I am strongly convinced that Federer is really better than Nadal on cement courts but in their first encounter in 2004 at Miami, Federer was suffering (I don't remember the exact reason) and Nadal played according to himself the best match of his career to date. That meeting made the template of their future meetings : in particular in their 2006 Dubai final, on outdoor hard court, according to Borg, Federer played and won the first set 6-2 perfectly but after he lost 6-4 6-4 to Nadal who had just come back to the circuit, after his foot injury, two weeks before at Marseille. Had Federer not be complexed by Nadal, the Swiss would have won that match because on hard courts (and of course on faster courts) he is better than Nadal. I also think that Federer's mental inferiority prevented him to beat Nadal at Rome in 2006. Then I think that if Federer had won their first meeting, now he would lead Nadal in their meetings (now perhaps the trend has reversed since Federer has won their last two official meetings, Wimbledon and the Masters (and an exhibition, in Seoul, three days after their Masters semifinals) and has also captured the Australian title on a slow hard court (rebound ace), a surface where I thought (before the start of the Slam tournament) Nadal was superior). All this to say that the mental part is very important and I think is part of the reasons which allowed Gonzales to beat Segura in Wembley in 1953.

You have also written that At the start of the tour with sedgman he was behind. He only caught him at 18 each, which suggests that Kramer improved significantly on his 1952 showing. If Sedgman played about the same as he had in 1952 at the start of the 1953 tour, he probably has a reasonable claim to be no1 in 1952. but if I believe Kramer's statistics those contradict your assertion (but I recognize that Kramer's statistics aren't always reliable). He wrote in his book "The Game" p 220 : "I only beat him fifty-four matches to forty-one. I went up 11-6 in the beginning, but he came back to go on top 18-17. But in the next month , everything went my way ... Plus Sedg had trouble with a sore shoulder and a case of the flu and I won seventeen of the next nineteen to go up 34-20. And I split with him from there.". If we drew aside the matches where Sedgman had physical problems we can note that Kramer and Sedgman were very close all along the tour and moreover we can see that Kramer was not behind Sedgman at the start of the tour (as said by you and suggested by McCauley) except on some very rare occasions (the first match and the 35th match (and perhaps a few others?)) : Sedgman has won the opener in LA but it seems that very quickly Kramer led the tour before Sedgman came back and eventually led in his turn by just one match. Then followed the Australian's disastrous month because of his physical problems. The Australian's good start is then probably wrong and therefore cannot be an argument for claiming that Sedgman was the no1 in 1952.

For the second meal with Chatrier and Sedgman on Monday November 23, 1953, Chatrier asked Paul Haedens to lunch with them : the latter came with the complete collection of Tennis de France and when Sedgman has read the magazines he decided to become shareholder of the enterprise. Then Paul Haedens asked some questions to Sedgman who replied (being a French Magazine, Tennis de France has not published the English conversation but a French translation so in my turn I translate (as I can) in English but then naturally it isn't the original English version) :

Paul "Do you think that Jack Kramer is stronger than you ?"

Frank "On indoor courts, yes" answers Sedgman without any doubt, "On grass not any more now. If points are too long he lacks breath. But he has always his marvelous play instinct. Look at him play a 30-all point in an important game : you can be sure that his first serve will be good and that his first volley - when he comes to the net - will be pitiless.".

Those answers confirm what you've said about the possible superiority of Segura (and Sedgman) over Kramer on outdoor courts at the beginning of the 50's but even in 1953 Sedgman thought that Kramer was still the best on indoor courts. It is clear that in the 50's Kramer's physical condition was not good (he has written that if he hadn't been relieved from his osteoarthritis since the summer of 1950 he would have retired at 29 and not at 32). Then in 2007 conditions Segura could have been the best from 1950 through 1953 but I don't like too much 2007 conditions because now I don’t see much difference between a match at Roland Garros and at Wimbledon. If I exaggerate all the competitions are played on the same surface, mid-slow or mid-fast (as you want) because there aren’t many tournaments with really fast surface or with really slow courts. In order to favour the net players at Roland Garros the balls have been made « quicker » (sorry for my bad English but I don’t think I use the good terms) and because great servers (Ivanisevic, Sampras or Becker) had a great advantage in the 90s at Wimbledon, the courts there have been slown down in the 2000s : consequently now the clay is faster and the grass is slower. It seems too that the hard or carpet surfaces have now quite the same speed whereas in the past you could have carpets as slow as clay and other fastest than grass. Now when I look at Wimbledon I have almost the impression that the Centre court is a green clay court and that the Chatrier court is a red grass court.

In conclusion I still believe that Gonzales, surely the #4 in 1953, could have probably been the best that year if Kramer hadn't excluded his rival from the big tour. I am not sure at all that Sedgman was the #1 in 1952 because he didn't start as well as you think if Kramer's assertions are right. Finally I agree with your supposition that Segura could have been the best at the start of the 50's if pro tennis would have been more played on outdoor courts.

84.96.87.77 10:45, 23 February 2007 (UTC)Carlo Colussi

• • • • Very interesting. As to Kramer/Sedgman, the 11-6 lead certainly suggests that kramer got competitve early on . However, Sedgman won the 1st match and might well have lead the early matches. I still think kramer raised his game above the 1952 level; he hardly played. Gonzales and Segura were much more active. kramer was even less active in '52 than gonzales in'53; to take Gonzales to a very close 5 sets at Wembley is a decent effort with so little play. The run of the 1953 tour suggests Kramer and Sedgman were very equal when Sedgman was fully fit. That suggests to me that Sedgman's '52 standard was high, above Kramer's, and debatable to who was the best player: Gonzales or sedgman. Sedgman's failure in 3 touranment events with Kramer, when he was fully fit, means I give the edge to Kramer in '53. Kramer's 2 wins are indoors but his 2nd place in South America where he beat Sedgman means he has shown more adaptability that Sedgman, whose tournamemt wins are all indoors.

As to Gonzales, He had a reasonable amount of activity in the Summer of '53, playing the still useful Budge and Riggs. He came in better prepared than Kramer did in '52 to Wembley. He won his first big match against Segura very easily. Segura never beat Gonzales at Wembley in the 1950-1952 period. The fact that a week later in lyon he beat Gonzales on clay, suggests to me we can ignore your mental frailty argument. The surface is all important. Nadal has won every clay court match against Federer; conversely Federer has won the fast court matches. Hard courts are in between and relatively even between the two. Gonzales just did not measure up to Sedgman in '53, even the last match was a comfortable straight sets win, but he still had the edge on Segura in fast conditions just as he had in '52.. In later years, Sedgman/gonzales had many epic matches. The 5 set win for Gonzales in '56 in the Jamican 4 man event (the others were Kramer and Trabert) looks fantastic . The only player to extend Gonzales to 5 sets at Gonzales' greatest ever win at forest hills '57 was sedgman. Sedgman rated Kramer as a better player than Gonzales, and the only relevant Kramer for Sedgman to judge was the '53 vintage. As an indoor player, Kramer's 53 was better than Gonzales' 53 and presumably, according to Sedgman, Gonzales' 52 and '54 showing. If the fit Sedgman of 53 was a match for Kramer '53, and his 1952 form matched his early '53 form , one would conclude that Sedgman was probably better than Gonzales in '52. However, this is all speculation, there is no certainty about '52 and '53. Gonzales had an edge (3:2, which is close and could easily explain Sedgman winning some big matches like wembley in '53 and '58) over Sedgman after 1954. He might have hit his peak in 1954 at age 26 like many other players of the era. Rosewall started his peak in 1960 at 26. Laver started his peak at 26 in 1964. Kramer started his peak at 26 in 1947, when he was totally invincable outdoors on the amateur circuit. Newcombe probably hit his peak at 26 in 1970. Nastase at 26 in 1972 etc. My view is that Gonzlales '52 was not as good as gonzales '54-'57 (his definite years as no. 1). Kramer basically abidicated '52, and let the lesser ( on the basis that matches were played indoors; if outdoors competition takes precedence, Segura would be tops; he beat Gonzales in the big outdoor match of the year at the US Pro) Sedgman amd gonzales fight it out in a battle that can't be definitely resolved because they couldn't play each other.

[Jeffreyneave] 23 february 2007

• • • • Hello. Some comments :

i agree with you that Kramer's level in 1953 was probably better than in 1952 because he supposedly played only 2 tournaments the previous year (nevertheless I don't know if he played an European tour in 1952 with Gonzales, Segura and Budge : in his book Kramer wrote that the year was probably 1952 but he wasn't sure). Indeed Gonzales in 1953 was not as inactive as Kramer in 1952 but Gonzales played against Budge and Riggs who were possibly at the time the equivalents of Ancic or Berdych today, good players but not at the very top. I also agree that Kramer's show at Wembley in 1952 against Gonzales was good considering his lack of play and training. It is clear that when Sedgman was fit he was as good as Kramer in 1953 on indoor courts. It is also possible that Sedgman's level in 1952 was close to his pro debut's level but as he said himself in Tennis de France his level has truly progressed through all the year and then we can guess that the Sedgman who faced Gonzales in November was really better than the Sedgman who played Kramer in January 1953 and the amateur Sedgman in 1952. Then I think it is almost impossible to compare Gonzales's and Sedgman's levels in 1952 : in 1953 a) Sedgman and Kramer both progressed because Sedgman had better opponents in the pro circuit than in the amateur circuit and because Kramer has really played and b) Gonzales has stayed at the same level or even regressed (in 1952 he has faced Segura and Kramer 7 times (if there was no 1952 European tour) and in 1953 Gonzales played only 5 times against the best, Sedgman and Segura). So I globally agree your first paragraph but contrary to you I don't give the edge to Kramer against Sedgman in 1953 because Kramer didn't play in the second half of the year and in particular at Wembley. Kramer was undoubtedly better than Sedgman in the first half but didn't play at all in the 2nd half. Finally it is also clear that Gonzales was really better in the mid-50s than in 1952-1953 when he played little compared to the next years.

Sure the surface is important but the mental aspect is too : Gonzales was able to win his first set 6-1 against Segura on clay suggesting that Gonzales's mental domination was strong (I recall that Segura was basically a claycourt player, the surface on which he learnt tennis while Gonzales was a fast court player).

I also know that after his great clashes against Gonzales, Sedgman still thought in the 60s (and possibly even now) that the best Kramer was superior to the best Gonzales but perhaps this judgment was (is) skewed because the only year he really faced both players was in 1953 (later Kramer came back but he has fully declined) when Kramer was still a good player on best-of-3 set matches on indoor courts while Gonzales wasn't yet at his peak and moreover Sedgman's relations were probably largely better with Kramer than with Gonzales who was bad-tempered.

In conclusion it is sure that ranking the best players in 1952 (and in 1953) is awfully difficult and that any proposal is very debatable.

PS : I suppose your Jamican 4 man event was Buenos Aires.

Carlo Colussi 10:34, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

pro-Gonzales list

It is to be said, that this article suggests, that these ranking derivate from rankings of Collins, McCauley or others. That is not true.Collins in 'Total tennis' has only rankings of amateurs pre 1968; McCauley, who covers indeed the pro tours until 1968 has no rankings. It is completely speculative, to rank the pros against the amateurs in those years, because they didn't compete against each others. The rankings here are handmade by the editor himself, obviously a strong supporter of Pancho Gonzales, who sprenkles all articles on tennis players with references to Gonzales. Gonzales is a great, often overlooked player, but he needs no artificial support. In ealier versions for example, the editor gives Sedgman the Nr. 1 spot for 1951 and 1952, who was still an amateur then, because of the unclear status of the pro tour, with the main protagonists playing very little.Until 1953 Kramer was seen widely as the reigning pro champ. The editor now cites L'Equipe rankings, as given by McCauley, for 1959 to confirm the status of Gonzales, but forgets, that Hoad actually beat Gonzales 15-13 in the 4 men World series. But for 1960 and 1961 he overlooks these L' Equipe rankings, because they rank Rosewall as Nr. 1 pro, who won all significant European titles, especially Wembley. As said, Gonzales was the best pro overall in the fifties, but far from unbeatable, and he was not as dominant against Sedgman, Hoad or Rosewall, as the editor suggests. And the great years of amateurs, like that of Hoad's near Grand Slam in 1956 and Laver Grand Slam in 1962 are completely overlooked.There are factual mistakes in other articles on Gonzales. Emerson did beat Gonzales in a 10.000$ match in the 'Champions Classic' in February 1970 at Miami in straight sets, and that the 18- year old Borg should have been beaten by the 42-year old Gonzales is a myth. Borg was 14 at that time, and they never played a serious match against each other.

It's no pro-Gonzales, it's pro-facts

• If you'd bother to read the opening paragraphs of the article, it is clearly stated that these ratings come from various sources, none of which were official. Geez, if these sources can't be sited, then there wouldn't be an article at all.
• It is clear to anyone who knows anything about tennis that ever since Kramer beat Riggs in 1948 that the top pros were better than the top amateurs for any given year.
• McCauley gives rankings by others, plus writes his own opinions, in places where he says something like "so-and-so was now clearly the best player in the world."
• This article, like all Wiki articles, is an on-going work in progress. Do you think I researched and wrote this whole thing in 30 minutes or so and then posted it as a finished project? It is still being written, expanded, and corrected. Sedgman was initially tentatively assigned the No. 1 positions for 51 and 52 because I didn't have the McCauley book at the time and the other sources were very vague about the pros for those two years. Now it's clear that there was a lot of pro activity for 51 and 52 and that Sedgman must be relegated to a lower spot.
• (By the way, the Professional Lawn Tennis Association (PLTA) *did* issue official ranking for some of those years.)
• Kramer was clearly the No. 1 player for all the years that he played and this list reflects that. In 1952, however, he played only half a dozen matches or so. If you don't play, you can't be ranked. Would Roger Federer be the No. 1 in the world right now if he had only played 6 matches since January 1st? In 1953 Kramer beat Sedgman on the tour and is shown as, again, No. 1 on the list.
• I didn't forget that Hoad beat Gonzales 15-14 in 1958 and I'm going to add it. It doesn't change the fact, however, that Hoad lost lots of other matches to lesser players and was no more than the No. 4 or 5 player for the year.
• As for Rosewall in 1960 and 1961 I haven't yet gone through McCauley for those years. I will be happy to add l'Equipe's opinion also. I'm not trying to make Gonzales into the best player in the world for 1950 through 1961, the way some of his relatives insist he should be -- I'm just trying to get as close to the reality as possible.
• The great years of Hoad and Laver as amateurs mean nothing -- they turned professional and then got badly beaten, particularly Laver. Everyone beat Laver after he turned pro -- why should be be considered one of the best players in the world as an amateur in 1962? Trabert was a great amateur -- he was then beaten as a pro. Sedgman was a great amateur -- he was then beaten as a pro. Et ainsi de suite.
• I will be very happy to put in the info about Emmo beating Gonzales -- but I have spent a considerable amount of time trying to find a source for this info. So far I have found absolutely no reference to it anywhere. Please give me a reference and/or citation.
• I didn't say Gonzales beat Borg 6-1, 6-1 -- I said that Gonzales said he beat Borg -- and I give the source, the New York Times article of so-and-so date.
• Please give me any info that is as good as the Gonzales source above and I will be happy to incorporate it into this, and other, articles.Hayford Peirce 20:46, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

fact, fictions and circumstances

Champions Classic 1970: Round robin type tournament of 10.000 winner takes all matches: Febr. 15, 1970 Miami, Fl.: Roy Emerson d. Pancho Gonzales 6-2,6-3,6-2. Gonzales had beaten Laver and Newcombe in previous rounds. Semifinals. June 5 NY.: Laver-Gonzales 6-3,6-3,6-1. Rosewall-Emerson 4-6, 6-1, 6-4,4-6,6-1 Final (for 35.000): Laver-Rosewall 6-4,6-3,6-4. Source: John Barrett: World of Tennis Yearbook 71, London 1971, p.142.

The problem of the ranking is the different circuit and format of amateur and pro play pre 1968. One better makes a list of pros and a separate list of amateurs (as covered by Lance Tingay or previously Wallis Myers of the Daily Telegraph). You see at the (reasonable) attempt by Bowers, that is is quite impossible to rank the pros against the amateurs. He has 3 top players for 1937 (Perry, Vines, Budge), because he cannot bring them into an order. That the fresh pro Tilden now becomes Nr.1 again in 1931, when he was dominated the years before by Cochet, is highly disputable. Another point to be reckoned with, is the significant advantage, the old pros had against the new pros, who came fresh from the amateur ranks. Gonzales lost 40 of the first 45 matches vs. Kramer, Hoad lost 14 of his first 16 matches, Laver lost big the first half year 1963 vs. Hoad and Rosewall (but recovered pretty fast). The amateurs had no experience on indoor courts and with the format of head-to-head-matches. They all had to adjust their game to these different conditions. Trabert would have a better chance in 1956, if they had played a few more matches on hard courts and clay, Hoad took a big lead vs Gonzales on the turf in Australia, before losing it on the indoor circuit in the US. At the European and Australian segments of the tour, Gonzales was never as dominant as on home ground in US. He was constantly beaten on clay by Trabert, Sedgman and Rosewall, and won his last Wembley London pro in 1956. Wembley had far better competition than Cleveland and the US pro in that time. After that, he never reached the final again. One last word: A as long time amateur researcher on tennis history, i have a deep sympathy towards the old pros, whose majors records were shattered by this stupid regulation and banning. Gonzales was a great competitor, in my humble opinion, one of the top five all-time. But to praise a man and his memorable career, there is no need to aggressively diminish other players.

Interesting retrospects

Mr Kol, i have read your comments with great interest.As a German, i bought the Sutter book at Paris in 1991, and found it - despite some errors - a milestone in tennis history research.Ray Bowers on the webside and Joe McCauley in his Pro tennis book have done great work, too, to throw a limelight on the long forgotten pre-open tennis scene.You certainly know the wonderful webside 'histoiredutennis.com' in French and English, with great picture material.Bud Collins wrote me on the internet, that Robert Geist is preparing a work on Laver and Rosewall.He cites Laver with 185 wins overall.Your analyses of the single years are profound, but you make it clear, that retrospect rankings are always fragile, and that these rankings are your own choice.One point i would hold: I think the amateur tennis pre 68 deserves more credit. Some of the best matches played, were in fact Davis Cup or major matches played by amateurs: Crawford-Vines Wim 33, Perry-Budge US36, Budge-von Cramm DC 37, Gonzales-Schroeder US 49, Drobny-Patty Wm 53, Hoad -Trabert DC 53, Rosewall-Savitt US 56, Laver-Emerson RG 62, Laver-Santana Wim 62, Santana-Osuna Wim 63. Most of theses players later had a distinctive career as pros. And some great players, especially European players, like Drobny, Patty (American in Paris), Santana,Pietrangeli never turned pro.And i think, that the fresh pro-turned amateurs initially had problems to adjust to the different format (head-to-head, small tournaments) and conditions (mostly indoor play) of the rigorous pro tour. Gonzales, Hoad, Rosewall, Laver all took at least half a year to come to terms with the new challenges. If there would have been open tennis, all would have played mainly under amateur conditions: big draws, mainly grass and clay, and imo the amateurs would have held their own against the pros. That takes nothing away from the great pro players, whose major careers were severely hurt by the stupid segregation.

• Hello

Mister Sutter has written a new edition with the winners (and not the finalists) until 2003 (April 28 I think). I have written to him something like about 80 pages of remarks and corrections related to his two remarkable books (but I haven't yet any answer) which are backbones to my small researches.

McCauley's and Bowers's works are too remarkable (just look at all my references in this discussion page).

I thought I didn't know the webside 'histoiredutennis.com' but when I have looked at it I've remembered having visited this site where many sources come from the late French magazine "Tennis de France".

You are probably right about amateur tennis credit before 1968 but as I have tried to explain pros's exploits have been so much ignored that I am very happy when a Bowers or a McCauley or a Sutter unearths all these forgotten victories.

All the great pros before Laver are completely underestimated. In my opinion I think that Gonzales, Tilden and even Rosewall were globally superior to Laver but nowadays only Laver, Sampras or perhaps Borg are considered to be the best which I fully disagree. I just cite in this page the Gonzales example. The American dominated the 50's as no one has dominated a decade and beat Laver in 1964 in confrontations (8 to 5) when Laver became number one at 26 years old whereas Gonzales was...36. Rosewall, in his prime, has won so many big tournaments over Gonzales, Hoad or Laver that are completely and wrongly ignored by all the modern commentators that makes me sick...All these persons judge Rosewall when he was an amateur (until 22 years old) or when he was more than 33 years old (from the beginning of the open era). Do people now judge Laver or Sampras or Borg for their career after their 33th birthdays respectively after 1971, 2004 and 1989 ? If it was the case I suppose that these players would be considered as almost nothing in tennis history.

So I am a strong (perhaps too much) supporter of the pros ignored before 1968. For instance I said that in 1941 Budge was probably the third best player in the world giving thus much credit to the pros. But when I have read the new (October 1) article written by Bowers where he proposes Budge as only the sixth player that year I've changed a little bit my opinion and I was convinced by Bowers's arguments (though I disagree some of his other judgments).

All of your examples of great amateur matches are accurate and for instance Bowers considers that Crawford in 1933 was the best (pros and amateurs combined) or that Budge was equal to Vines and Perry in 1937 and myself I have even said in this page that I consider Budge as slightly ahead of Vines himself in front of Perry in 1937 (but I think that the best year by far of Budge's career was 1939 as a pro and it is probable that the greatest improvement of his whole career took place between January 3, 1939 and March 6, 1939 when he faced Vines in their first pro encounters (Budge won 22 matches to 17))  :

- Crawford Vines 1933 W was considered the best final of the tournament until Smith-Nastase in 1972.

- Perry Budge (1936 US) : in his book (see below) Budge considered this was the match which made him improve the most in his amateur career because the American thought he has lost the title for he wasn't in good condition : during the tournament he's eaten too much sugar refineries and other chocolates (Budge in "A tennis memoir", p 64 "The chocolate, the milk, the rich ice cream, and all other sweats…had turned my stomach sour in the September heat…") and from then he decided to follow a sort of dietetic mode (not as scientific as Navratilova's or Lendl's in the mid-80's) and to physically train to be perfectly fit. A few weeks later at the Pacific Southwest he took his revenge against a Perry completely unmotivated (according to Kramer, spectator of the match, see his book "The Game", page "I do not remember") after they have split the first two sets. The Pacific at LA in 1936 marked the irresistible rise of Budge to the amateur summit.

- Concerning the Budge - von Cramm clash in 1937 DC, John Donald Budge has not only devoted a whole chapter to this match in his autobiography 'A tennis memoir' but he has placed this one at the beginning of his book.

- Gonzales Schroeder is also another summit though Kramer still a spectator thought (see the same book) that Schroeder has stupidly let Gonzales come back.

- Drobny-Patty Wm 53 is I think one of the favourite match of Drobny (against Patty) : I have bought his book 'Champion in exile' and p 219 Drobny has written "What, in retrospect, has often astonished me is how either Patty or I managed to maintain what was, by common consent, such a high standard of play".

- the Hoad -Trabert DC 53 has impressed so much some observators that for example "Tennis de France" ranked Hoad number 1 amateur in 1953 though most of the others considered Trabert the best amateur ahead of Rosewall

- Rosewall-Savitt US 56 was acclaimed as the best match of the tournament though Savitt hasn't played tennis seriously since his best year in 1951 (in 1961, after ten years of sporadic playing he was still able to gain the US indoor amateur)

- Laver-Emerson RG 62 was considered a high-class match (Denis Lalanne the tennis specialist of L'Équipe, witness of the match, said that Laver, led two sets to one and three games to love, decided to throw some rockets. From that moment Lalanne was quite sure that the winner would be the younger player).

- I don't know much about Laver-Santana Wim 62 in the quarters (I think the Spaniard had a two-set lead point) and about Santana-Osuna Wim 63 in the 3rd round but it is generally agreed that Santana and Osuna were greatly gifted.

Nevertheless after Hoad turned pro in 1957 the amateurs level was less good.

For example when Laver played his first pro matches he met Rosewall and Hoad on grass (several matches were best-of-five) and though this was the less good surface of Rosewall and the best one for Laver the latter was badly dominated by Muscles. Later in the season, in US indoor matches on wood, this time Rosewall was favoured due to his 6-year experience and won easily.

Other example : Santana, Osuna or Emerson were generally dominated by the old pros (Gonzales, Rosewall, Laver) when open tennis arrived. Santana didn't pass any round of 16 in the Open Grand Slam tournaments (his best open performance was a success in the 1970 Barcelona tournament on clay against his old amateur rival, Laver). Emerson didn't reach any semifinal in the Open Grand Slam tournaments. Rosewall has made better than Emerson a) when they were both amateurs and b) during open tennis. This isn't a mathematical proof that Rosewall was better than Emerson in the meantime when Rosewall was a banished pro but the probability is great. Lastly Osuna was good but for me there isn't any comparison possible between his success at Forest Hills in 1963 and Rosewall's success at Forest Hills Pro two months and a half before. The Australian beat Laver, then holder of the 1962 amateur Grand Slam, in the final 6-4 6-2 6-2 (on grass) whereas Osuna has probably always lost against Laver when they played the same circuit in the amateurs until 1962. Here is another example of a pro (Rosewall) beating a pro rookie (Laver) on grass and on "best-of-five". To continue with Osuna he didn't do anything in the open era (in fact Osuna declined since 1965 (and tragically died in 1969)).

But you are right when you affirm that pro were favoured by their own conditions : many pro matches were played in best-of-three sets under indoor lights and courts faster than grass (and of course than clay) and sometimes with nearly no public (I have also said in this page that Gonzales has been slightly overrated at the end of the 50's and the beginning of the 60's where he has never won a great tournament with best-of-five-set matches since the first round : this is the reason why I think that Rosewall was better than Gonzales in 1961 though McCauley is not fully convinced (see the remark I've made to Hayford Peirce)).

I have also cited Robert Geist's book "DER GRÖSSTE MEISTER Die denkwürdige Karriere des australischen Tennisspielers Kenneth Robert Rosewall" (this book has not been officially published but I have ordered it two years ago at http://www.tenniscollectables.com/biosmen.htm). I am not able at all to read German so I've translated the book in French with the Google tool (Do you imagine the surreal result with this rigid word-to-word translation ? This tool does not master any language structure and all the phrases are wrongly translated) but this is enough to understand the main things. Indeed he wrote about the 185 Laver's victories (I do not remember the German term but if my memory is good it was at least 185 in Geist's comments) (I have also bought Geist's book of Hans Nüsslein but I have not translated it).

In this book Geist explains that for him Rosewall is the best of all but I don't agree all his arguments though Rosewall is my favorite player of all time (since 1920 to 2006, I rank the Australian third behind Gonzales and Tilden but before Laver, Sampras, Budge (very underrated), Borg, Kramer, Lendl, Connors, McEnroe (very overrated because too much and wrongly popular), Agassi (very overrated because also too much and wrongly popular at least in his young years when he was only an "Image" as in his advertisement but I recognize that he has very much changed and in a better way since some years) and Vines (completely forgotten today).

At last thank you for your comments that I almost entirely approve.

Carlo Colussi 15:11, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Hello, i agree, that the great pro champions are underrated today, and that it is right, so hold their memory. If one would have the time, he should go to the Roland Garros museum or the Wimbledon library, to study old examples of World Tennis or other periodicals to complete the lost records.I have bought some examples of the John Barrett annual 'Tennis World' of the early 70s on the internet, which give solid stats for the early open years, far better than the ATP webside.For the stoneage of pro tennis, Dan Maskell, himself one of the early teaching pros along Robert Ramillion, Roman Najuch and Henner Nüsslein, gives good accounts in his biography 'From where i sit'.Besides: Nüsslein, one of Geist's heroes, was beaten by von Cramm in a early 'open match' in 1936 or 37 at Rot Weiss Berlin. As good as the pros were, the new recruits from the amateur ranks weren't as bad, as the early results suggest. If you take away - for a moment -the first half year of each Gonzales (vs. Kramer), Hoad, Rosewall and Laver, you will see, that after this transitional baptism period, all held their own against the older pros. I would not assume, that Laver could not have won Wimbledon in 1961 or 62 in a 128 men draw - even with all the pros in the field. Since July 1963 - at the just moment, when the pros turned to tournament style tennis - he was closing in on Rosewall on the pro tour, and since the second half of 64 he was the main man. As you showed, one can find periodes of clear pro dominance of a pro king, Vines, Budge, Kramer, Gonzales, Rosewall and Laver, but also transitional years like 52/53, 60,61,64, even later 70, or in the computer years 75, 77, 82,98, when it is difficult and fragile to make a certain pro ranking. At last my all time list: Laver, Tilden, Sampras/ Borg, Gonzales, Rosewall, Budge, Connors, McEnroe, Lendl/Kramer.

• Second answer :

Firstly I've made some changes after you've read my first answer.

Secondly I answer to your answer :

Bowers said that von Cramm beat Nüsslein in 1934 at the Rot Weiss (and not in 1936 or 1937) and then before Nüsslein's prime. If we believe Tilden, Nüsslein has much progressed after. The American asserted that Nusslein beat von Cramm consistently in Davis Cup training in 1936 (see Bowers' 1936 account) and finally Bowers in his 1937 account wrote "Tilden in early 1938, praising Hanne's superb consistency, accuracy, and variety, added that while Vines at his best was superior, over the long haul Nusslein might be slightly above either Perry or Vines."

About Maskell's biography you would notice that he didn't even consider Gonzales as one of the Top10 (and he hasn't seen Sampras, Agassi and Federer at their prime because he died in 1992) and he placed Perry very high, #4 while he didn't include Vines in his list though he has faced the two players at their best and has underwent some big defeats from Vines (he has also trained Perry in 1937 while the latter met Vines) (I suppose Maskell was very proud of his countryman and that's perhaps a reason why he ranked the English (become a US citizen in 1938) well above the native Californian). Moreover he was well placed to witness pro tennis because he played his (nearly) whole career as a pro but in his players's ranking he oddly insisted on amateur exploits : for example I can't understand why one (and Maskell in this particular case) always recalls the 1962 Grand Slam of Laver which in my opinion isn't worth anything if I suppose that Laver was probably only the fifth player in the world at the time. It's like saying that Davydenko (now 5th at the ATP 2006 race or at the ATP rankings) is the greatest player of 2006. I'd prefer that one says that 1967 was a very great year in Laver's career when he was almost unbeatable on fast courts. His 1967 US Pro success is very higher than any of his 1962 victories.

I haven't gone to the the Roland Garros museum but I bought "World Tennis" US magazines (yesterday I was reading the "25 years ago" article of an April 1962 edition (with Bill Lenoir on cover) recalling 1937 (25 years before) accounts about, for instance, the US selection against Japan in Davis Cup) and also some John Barrett's and Lance Tingay's annual "World of Tennis" at http://www.tenniscollectables.com/biosmen.htm) and in France I have bought some "Tennis de France". Now my economies are low so I will wait before buying new magazines or books but I think I will search for "American Lawn Tennis" or "Tennis and Golf" magazines which were the equivalents of "World Tennis" and "Tennis de France" before.

Carlo Colussi 15:11, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

some notes

Hello, i read these page with interest and a bit amusement.It's more now a history of pro tennis, mainly an exegese of McCauley and Bowers.The source concept is fragile, because you don't find a acceptable ranking of pro and amateur players before 1968, due to the different circuits.What is the source for the 1952 ranking for example.The amateur champion was Sedgman with big wins at Wim and Forest Hills, and DC. The accepted pro champion still was Kramer, as Dempsey was the Heavyweight champion in say 1925, despite fighting marginally.That Perry now has 5 Nr.1 rankings, is a farce. He never was the pro champion, always behind Vines, and in 1941 he won more or less on default of the other players like Budge, who concentrated on his Tilden series. Then he broke his arm, and was a spent force.Budge was 1941 the accepted pro champion.As i said in earlier posts, in some years there was no clearcut Nr. 1, in 1961 Rosewall was Nr.1, as Laver has at least to be co-ranked with Roswall in 1964. Even in 1970 Laver has a claim for Nr.1, having a 6-0 record over Rosewall and 3-0 over Newcombe. Necombe himself in his autobiography "On and off the court" writes, that Laver was the Nr.1 in 1970. So there is always some quote, you can apprehend, but there are no sources in a historical sense. The players biographies mostly have no solid stats. You should make it clear, that all rankings are arbitrary, personal choices of yourself. To Nüsslein: I was referring to a picture without date, i have found in the Book 'Tennis Faszination' by Paula Stuck-von Resznicek, München 1968, a book, where there are personal accounts by Roman Najuch, Hanne Nüsslein and other older pros.The picture shows von Cramm and Nüsslein squaring of, but it seems later than 1934, because of Nüsslein's receding hairline. Maybe they played more than one challenge match. Nüsslein never had the status in German tennis, as von Cramm or Otto Froitzheim before him. Sadly, a good player like Daniel Prenn had to emigrate. because of his Jewish origin. To the Wembley tournament: To be added is the list in the book' Tennis-facts and feats', London 1978, by Lance Tingay, the foremost statistician of the game along Rino Tommassi. He has the Wembley tournament 34-39, and since 1949, (with several times not played in the 50s.). Since 1951, it was officially recognised by the BLTA and called 'London Pro Championships'. In 1968 it was called 'Kramer Tournament of Champions', and since 1969 it was called British Covered Court Champs. One thing i agree on, is the importance of the Forest Hills round robin for the pro tour 1957-1959. Alongside the Wembley tournament, it was the most important, and Gonzales wins there impress me more than his head-to-head-wins.In 1959, Hoad beat Gonzales quite handily, so it can be argued, that he was at least Nr.2 in 1959. In the book by his wife Jenny, it is said, that Hoad ranked Nr.1 on the pro tour, due to an overall points ranking, established by Kramer himself.He got a 100.000$ bounus for winning this year long tournament series. OK Perry injured himself at the end of 41, and won the US tournaments that year, but against whom? Budge was still the widely accepted pro champion, although he played little outside his Tilden series.In these war years, and also in the years up to 1953-5, the standard of pro tennis was overall not so high.Loook at some of the Wembley results around 1950, with quite a lot of pre-WWII players still in the draw and in the running.It changed with the arrival of Sedgman and Trabert.McCauley himself said, that the first real important pro series was 1955/56 between Gonzales and Trabert.

• Mister Peirce is the main writer of the article and has tried the best he could to find some sources. I (Carlo Colussi my real name (or Karl Kol my old surname) have begun to correct some of his writings but I mainly agree what he has written.

The source of the 1952 ranking he has found is the PLTA, that one says that Segura was the best I do not agree : I said this was Gonzales and I explained it, see my writings above but I am not an official source so PLTA being the only known one at this very precise moment, we should take it into account. You say that Kramer was the number one in 1952 but the only results we kwow are the Philadelphia and the Wembley tournaments he both lost so until we have more information, Kramer was absolutely not the best in 1952. Donald Budge declared, mid-1953, that Gonzales has won the majority of the tournaments since two years and that Gonzales was then the best until someone proves the contrary and if you look McCauley's results from mid-1951 to mid-1953 you can note that Budge's statement was right. If you have other informations I want have a look. About the 1964 rankings Peirce has chosen Rosewall #1 because many witnesses considered it was the case (if you look at my discussions you will see I think that Laver was at least the Co-No.1 if not superior and Peirce too agrees with it) but we haven't found an official source stating that Laver was the best (nevertheless I am writing a comment in Rosewall's article (still begun by mister Peirce and continued by me but not finished (there is no information between 1965 and 1973 included saying that the two Australians were probably quite equal with perhaps a slight advantage to Laver).

About Hoad in 1959 have you seen my 1959 comments ? Look at my World No. 1 and 2 Tennis Players Rankings and Gonzales list comments above and you will see that Jenny is wrong because in reality Kramer has ranked Hoad only fourth (the first place was just relative to the Ampol points at the beginning of the year (you will also see that Kramer's source is not the best one in my opinion).

You also think that Budge was the best pro in 1941 whereas he lost all the three tournaments he entered. He just beat Tilden in their 4-month tour that's not terrible : if he was, as you say, the widely accepted pro champion I fully disagree the "widely" (still see my comments for 1941). So Perry was a weak No.1 among the pros but this isn't his fault if Budge was ill or injured or overweight or unmotivated from October 1940 to May 1941.

I also wrote that Rosewall was #1 in 1961 (see my 1961 comments).

You say that Laver was #1 in 1970 but he miserably failed at Wimbledon and Forest Hills so he coudn't be the first one. Would you say that Nadal is the #1 in 2006 because he had won 4 times out of 6 against Federer ? This would be a farce because Federer has the best record by far in 2006 without any doubt. Moreover has Laver won six times again Rosewall : I will check it but I am not sure (from memory Laver has won in Sydney (Dunlop Open), St. Louis WCT, New York (Tennis Champions Classic) Louisville and at the Masters in Tokyo) so I think 5-0. Nevertheless Wimbledon and the US Open being the only 2 big great events in 1970 (see also my comments for 1970) Laver couldn't the number 1 : in 1970 he was the number 1 of the minor events that's all. In fact Laver was the number 1 of the best-of-three set minor events until April 1972 but in the very big events with best-of-five set matches with all the best players he won absolutely nothing after Forest Hills 1969 and then cannot be considered as a number one after 1969, he couldn't win even the WCT Finals he so badly wanted.

And please think of signing your comment Carlo Colussi 08:53, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

84.96.87.77 12:44, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

POV

It has "not enough points were (and still are) allotted to the Grand Slam tournaments" and "there have been improvements (but not sufficiently)". These are inappropriate, highly nonneutral, ought to be changed or removed. Scineram 14:26, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Fully agree. Kncyu38 17:55, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

• • • • It's probably nonneutral but it's reality : for instance look at the Tennis Magazine (France) ranking and the ATP ranking for 2006 : Baghdatis was only 12th in the ATP ranking while he was 6th, owing to his final in the Australian Open and his semifinal in "the Temple", in the French Magazine because the last one grant the Grand Slam tournaments the importance they deserve contrary to the ATP computer. Nonetheless I've made a change and if you consider that it is still too much nonneutral I let you correct as you want.

Carlo Colussi 10:10, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Answer to 86.144.64.233

You've written that "Roger Federer is expected to become the greatest player to have picked up a raquet" : no one can predict the future. Vines, Hoad, Borg, McEnroe and Sampras were, at their own time, each one expected to be the greatest ever but something always happened that prevented it. Do you know if Federer won't have to suffer from a great tragedy (as Tony Wilding or Maureen Connolly or Monica Seles) or just from a loss of motivation (as Vines or Borg or McEnroe), that will eventually stop his career ? Now we can just state that Federer has been the best player for three years in a row (2004-2006). We can't say right now that Federer is the world number one in 2007 because that year isn't over. Carlo Colussi 11:46, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

French Championships pre-1925

Just wondering what the old books say about the pre-1925 French Championships as far as the winners being compared to no.1? Or is not much said because the event was only open to French Club players? Fyunck(click) 22:48, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

• • • Hello. Indeed very few foreign players entered the French tournament before 1925 and possibly only French Club players as you've written. Before 1925 (since 1920 and until 1959-1960) the greatest tennis amateur event by far was the Davis Cup and the Americans being the best players in the world since 1919, the U.S. Championships was more important, in a sporting view, than Wimbledon. Even in 1925 when Lacoste won Wimbledon and the first international French amateur championships he was considered only as the 4th amateur in the world behind the 3 Americans (Tilden, Johnston and Richards) who didn't cross the Atlantic to play these two European tournaments. But these players overcame Lacoste in the Davis Cup and at Forest Hills. Wimbledon became again the most important tournament (with the U.S. Chps) in 1927 when the best Americans came back to Wimbledon but the EVENT of the year (and of the time) was the Davis Cup. When Cochet lost in the 1st round of Wimbledon in 31, the French were certainly disappointed but their main feeling at the time was the fear that the muskeeter do not recover a good shape for the Davis Cup Challenge Round one month later : to lose Wimbledon didn't really matter but to lose the Davis Cup would have been a national (french) drama. The French (and the Australian) Chps had often weak fields at the time : for instance in 1937 only 2 or 3 players of the amateur Top10 entered Roland Garros (RG). For the 1st RG in 1928 Tilden didn't play and so on ... The Pacific Southwest Championships in Los Angeles (LA) held for the first time in 1927 had almost always the best field of all the tournaments behind Wimbledon and Forest Hills until 1972. Players such as Vines, Budge or Kramer didn't miss the LA tournament whereas Vines and Kramer never played RG amateur and Budge came only once (Budge and Vines played a professional edition of RG in 1939 and Kramer in 1958). Consequently the French and the Australian amateur Chps weren't often top tennis events in the past and particularly before 1925. Carlo Colussi 07:24, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Rankings before 1913

I have added some limited rankings before 1913 but sources are not detailed and sometimes not satisfying. For instance in 1912 N.E Crawley couldn't really choose between Brookes that Crawley thought being the most brilliant stroke makers and Wilding, his hypothetical winner in a theorical Masters Cup.

Carlo Colussi 07:24, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

• I applaud your efforts as these are very difficult (but nevertheless important) years to reconstruct. Indeed there can be little doubt that Brookes was the true World No. 1 in 1907. For 1908 the task is much more difficult, as Brookes made no attempt to defend his Wimbledon title. The only real international test, then, was the Davis Cup. The Australasians won but narrowly, Brookes and Wilding both losing to Wright in singles. (Brookes came closest to victory, however, as he actually won more points than Wright [191 to 168] and led 7-6, 8-7, and 10-9 in the fifth set. See Wright & Ditson's Lawn Tennis Guide 1909.) Wright can scarcely be considered the No. 1, as he lost to Larned in straight sets in the final of the US Championships. So the data is really a jumbled mess. Fortunately there does seem to be some agreement among the eyewitnesses. Wilding was confident that Brookes was the best in the world, and P.A. Vaile maintained in the 1907 and 1915 editions of his Modern Tennis that "Brookes is...without doubt, the most finished and intelligent exponent of the real game of tennis who is now in the game." So I agree that, while the accounts are not wholly satisfying, Brookes should be given the benefit of the doubt as the World No. 1 for 1908.

I have no means of assessing 1909 or 1910. Brookes and Wilding both went undefeated in their 1909 defense of the Davis Cup, and the Australasians went unchallenged in 1910. Wilding won the Australian Championships in 1909 and Wimbledon in 1910 but over fields that did not include Brookes. Since Wilding still considered Brookes the true No. 1 in 1911 (despite Wilding having won his second Wimbledon title), it is probable that he would have named Brookes as the world's best during the interim period as well, despite his playing very few matches. Nevertheless, I do not know of any authoritative sources to confirm this.

Wilding indeed deserves his No. 1 status in 1913, having won one of the biggest of all pre-WWI matches in the Wimbledon final against McLoughlin. The conclusion of 1914, however, may require some revision, as it is not always safe to follow a single observer's rankings (even one as qualified as Myers). Vaile writes: "McLoughlin, on account of his defeat of both Brookes and Wilding [in Davis Cup competition], was hailed as the greatest player in the world. This, of course, is a great mistake." He further notes that "Brookes's performance last year [1914] is, and probably always will be, unique in tennis history. It is, I believe, the greatest feat ever accomplished in a tennis season. To come up from the antipodes, to win the championship of the world, and to lift the Davis Cup--with, of course, some slight assistance--was a very remarkable performance." Vaile also asserts that J.C. Parke had a stronger claim to being the world champion than McLoughlin. I would suggest, then, Brookes as an alternative candidate for No. 1 in that year, perhaps in a tie with McLoughlin. I do not know enough about Parke's accomplishments to properly evaluate Vaile's opinion here.

A final word might be said about the short-lived rivalry between Brookes and H.L. "Little Do" Doherty. There can be little doubt that H.L. was the world champion in 1902-06, a period during which he went undefeated in Davis Cup competition, won five consecutive Wimbledon titles, and became the first foreigner to win a major championship (US, 1903). But there were apparently signs that, at the end of his reign, Brookes had already caught up to and even surpassed him. In The Strokes and Science of Lawn Tennis, Vaile cites three meetings between the two players, the first of which was easily won by Brookes in straight sets. The middle encounter, the only one won by H.L., was their famous Wimbledon final of 1905. Because of the challenge-round format, Brookes had gone through an entire grueling tournament and suffered an injury before he faced a fresh H.L., the latter of whom "really played the greatest game [Vaile] ever saw him put up." The last meeting, then, was a straight-set blowout won by Brookes. Vaile concludes that "if they both meet again at any time under fair conditions, if Brookes is on his game, I cannot see how he is going to lose." A fascinating account, I think, and one which adds some weight to Wilding's famous contention that Brookes was in fact a greater player than H.L. (Even Vaile does not go this far, as in Modern Tennis he calls H.L. "the ablest and most finished practical exponent of the single game that I know.") ΧΑΟΓΝΩΣΙΣ 19:56, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

• • Thank you. Sources of this era are very rare : I've recently bought the Len and Shelley Richardson's book "Anthony Wilding A sporting life" so I've picked up Wilding's opinions but I haven't written mines. If I believe the Richardsons Brookes has never quit Australia between his two Wimbledon titles and so the only true international competition he played for seven years was the Davis Cup. Therefore I little disagree with you for the year 1908 : I don't think Brookes was the best that year because of a) his Davis Cup loss and b) his absence in all the great championships : he didn't defend his Wimbledon title and more important he didn't play the Victorian Championship (which was more important at the time than the Australasian) or the Australasian itself so I think he didn't deserve the #1 spot. So Larned probably deserved that place. As in 1908 I suppose that Wilding thought that Brookes was also the best in 1909 but the two players met once in the Victorian championship in 1909 and Wilding won in five sets (they hadn't met since Brookes's wins in the Victorian final in 1906 (60 64 97 I think) and in the second round of Wimbledon 1907 (3 sets to 2). So idem in 1909 I probably choose Larned. If I believe Richard Yallop in "Royal South Yarra Lawn Tennis Club 100 Years in Australian Tennis" Brookes concentrated mainly on golf in 1910 and 1911 : I have very few data for those years but I haven't found anything in 1910 for Brookes : I don't know what was Wilding's opinion but for me unless there are new information Brookes wasn't a tennis player in 1910 and then of course not the number 1 but I wouldn't be surprised that a witness of the era thought that Brookes was the best. In 1911 it's different because if Brookes didn't play much he won both his singles in the Davis Cup Challenge Round (Larned suffering lost to Heath and didn't play against Brookes) and also captured the Australasian singles title (and I think also the Victorian championship (to check)) so in this case I give the #1 place to Brookes knowing that Larned missed the confrontation in the Davis Cup. In 1912 Brookes once again didn't play any great championship and furthermore he lost to Parke in the Davis Cup so I don't understand why Crawley ranked Brookes #1 (with Gobert who hardly ever won a great competition) though he thought Wilding would beat all the best in a round robin tournament. In 1913 I think there is no doubt, Wilding was the best, but once again Brookes was ranked very high : second, tied with McLoughlin in Myers's listing. I haven't found any competition in 1913 where Brookes was present (he played neither the Victorian championship neither the Australasian championship neither Wimbledon nor the Davis Cup so what great competition did he play ?). So it's still a mystery for me. In 1914 it is also very hard to rank the players : McLoughlin defeated both Australasians but lost to Williams at Newport. Sure Brookes made a great feat and according to him played the best match of his life against Wilding at Wimbledon but Wilding defeated Brookes three times on four occasions : on clay officially twice on the French Riviera and in a challenge match after Wimbledon and if I believe the Richardsons Wilding didn't play his best at Wimbledon. So Wilding was probably as good as Brookes in 1914 and contrary to what Vaile asserted, Brookes didn't win the championship of the world though Wimbledon was labelled like that at the time (it was even officially called like that in 1923) : there was no McLoughlin, no Williams on the British court. In Davis Cup Wilding played as well as Brookes : the New Zealander wasnt just a "slight assistance" as suggested by Vaile (nonetheless it is right that Wilding didn't defeat Parke while Brookes did it but Great Britain didn't play after the 3-0 Australasian lead). And I was going to forget it : Froitzheim had a bad call in the fifth set against Brookes at Wimbledon. It is very possible that Brookes didn't deserve that victory (and the 1914 Wimbledon title) and that Froitzheim should have played the challenge round against Wilding. Therefore I don't agree Vaile's assertion claiming that coming from Down Under, winning Wimbledon (without the great Americans) and defeating Froitzheim, Kreuzer, and Parke in the Davis Cup was "the greatest feat ever accomplished in a tennis season" though it was great. So I suppose that Wilding was as good as Brookes in 1914 (in 1922 there was such an equivalent dilemma : Johnston had beaten Tilden 3 times out of 4, Johnston had better played than Tilden in the Davis Cup, Johnston had known only one great defeat in the US championship final whereas Tilden had lost not only to Johnston but also to Vincent Richards : nevertheless Myers ranked Tilden above Johnston because of his "intelligence on the court" but "Tennis and Golf" an old French magazine placed both Americans number one). So who was the best in 1914 ? Hard to say : McLoughlin, Wilding, Brookes or even Parke or Williams who had beaten McLoughlin in the US Chps ? What's sure is that Brookes was not the undisputed number one that year and if many considered that the Wilding-McLoughlin clash in Wimbledon 1913 was the match of that year then the 1914 Davis Cup confrontation between McLoughlin and Brookes was also THE match of 1914 and the Victorian had lost it. As you've written "it is not always safe to follow a single observer's rankings" including Myers's but sometimes you haven't anything else : for 1914 I've just Myers's of the Top10 and American Lawn Tennis's of the ... Top1. I've tried to put some years before 1913 because the Dohertys, the Renshaws, Larned, Wright, Brookes, Wilding, Parke, Clothier, Gore and others are fully forgotten, being pre-WWI players. But when I read that Tilden was admiring so much Brookes (at 42 years old, Brookes extended Tilden, on December 30 1920, the new #1 in the world, to four sets, 8-10 4-6 6-1 4-6 and at 46 years and 7 months old he defeated Frank Hunter at Wimbledon 1924) I've begun to be interested by that period.

Had Hugh Lawrence Doherty and Norman Everard Brookes met three times in all their career or in just 1905 ? I just knew about the Wimbledon meeting and a challenge match later held and won by Brookes. So perhaps on one hand Brookes was handicapped by his injury at Wimbledon 1905 but on the other hand Doherty hadn't played any match in this tournament (because of the challenge round system) so he wasn't accustomed to hard competition as Brookes was with his five or six previous rounds. Nevertheless Brookes was happy that Doherty (and his brother) retired in the spring 1907 (though I think H.L. Doherty entered the Monte Carlo tournament in 1909 : I'll have to check it in the Sutter's book dedicated to the history of this event) and didn't defend his Wimbledon title.

According to the Richardsons, Wilding and Brookes had met only six times in their entire careers and each one won three matches : Victoria 1909 and twice on the Riviera in 1914 (I'm not sure if it was both at Cannes : Beau Site and Carlton (I haven't the book at hand to check it)) for Wilding; Victoria 1906, Wimbledon 1907 and 1914 for Brookes. If we add the challenge match won by Wilding in summer 1914 (between Wimbledon and the Challenge Round Davis Cup) then the New Zealander led 4-3 the Australian but he was always overshadowed by Brookes in the general opinion. So in my opinion Brookes was probably the number one in 1907 and 1911 (though he didn't play a lot that year) but not from (1905-1906 as Vaile seemed to suggest) 1907 to 1911 (and again in 1914 in Vaile's opinion) as many observers (including Wilding) claimed at the time but in the Wikipedia site we had to be the most neutral possible and not to write our own opinions in the article (happily enough we can do it in the talk page). Circa the Davis challenge round 1911 Wilding was asked who was the better one between Brookes and Larned and he answered without an hesitation "Brookes" but his answer was skewed because he has seldom seen Larned at his best : I don't think he has ever watched the American winning the U.S Championship and furthermore Wilding has always been admiring and grateful to Brookes.

In conclusion I thank you very much for all your informations (it's just an era I'm discovering so I have almost no data) : very very interesting. When I have time I will try to find those books :"Wright & Ditson's Lawn Tennis Guide 1909" and the 1907 and 1915 editions of "Modern Tennis" by P.A. Vaile. I invite you to change the article as every Wikipedia user has the right to do it given that you "suggest Brookes as an alternative candidate for No. 1 in 1914 perhaps in a tie with McLoughlin" by citing Vaile's writings : I have never heard of this tennis specialist so you are better relevant than me to cite him in the article. Carlo Colussi 11:54, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

• I've read again the Richardsons' book : in 1914 Wilding defeated Brookes at Cannes Beau Site 64 62 61 and two weeks later always at Cannes but at the Carlton Hotel 62 62 62 (I'm not sure of the second set), both on clay. Then Brookes beat Wilding at Wimbledon 64 64 75 and finally in a practice match reported by Arthur Wallis Myers at the Onwentsia Club in the Lake Forest District bordering Lake Michigan, some 40 km from the centre of Chicago, Wilding won 63 61 over Brookes. Carlo Colussi 06:00, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

• Thanks for the info Carlo. The three H.L. Doherty-Brookes confrontations are the only ones Vaile witnessed, though it is entirely possible that they met each other on other occasions. I regrettably don't have any more data than that. I am curious, regarding your 1912 rankings, why you have Brookes isolated at No. 1 with no runner(s) up. Given what you reported about the source, Crawley seems quite ambiguous in his ranking... is it in fact clear that he ranks Brookes ahead of Gobert as a shotmaker (they seem to be tied)? At the very least, there seems the possibility that he considered Wilding the true No. 1. To responsibly report the ambiguities of the source, perhaps all three players should be tied. Since you have access to the text and I do not, however, I will await your judgment--there may be more detail given by Crawley than what is presented in your write-up. ΧΑΟΓΝΩΣΙΣ 19:56, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

• Hello. Sure Crawley was quite ambiguous if we have to believe the Richardsons' report : I have no more text about Crawley's ranking and you can guess it because I just have the three classes and not the detailed Top10 ranking. I am tempted by your suggestion of tying the three players but it is not very satisfying (finally I will do it but I won't like it).Carlo Colussi 09:30, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

• Thanks to everyone for all the info. I am very interested in this pre-WWI era too, and hope I could be of some help. I have a pretty detailed list of tournament winners and runner-ups for 1877-1917. For instance, this list includes around 90 career singles titles for Wilding. Still, it mentions no victory at all for Brookes between his 1907 and 1914 apart from his Victorian-Australasian double in 1911... In my opinion, arguing that Brookes was the #1 player in 1908 or 1910 is like calling Bjorn Borg the best clay-courter in the world for 1983-1984, being the best living player does not equate with winning the actual tournaments and being accordingly fit. Even in a time when big matches seemed more important a factor for greatness than regularity and tournament wins, his Cup appearances are not enough to call him the #1 player. This way of thinking makes tennis seem like boxing: the champion keeps his 'belt' as long as he can beat his top opponents, but tennis is a tournament sport, you have to win events and to play them, to be considered the best. Geography could be a reason why Brookes did not play Wimbledon every year, but the fact that he didn't play at least his national championship doesn't make him look any better... SgtJohn 11:21, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

• Hello SgtJohn. If you look at my previous comment you will see that I think that Brookes was the #1 only in 1907 and possibly in 1911 (even in 1914 I think Wilding and McLoughlin were superior). I also think that Larned was possibly the best player in 1908-1909 (and afterwards I guess that Larned or Wilding was the best in 1910) but the only opinion of the time I have is Wilding's : this is the only source I know and in Wikipedia we have to be the most neutral (it's hard and at last we can be subjective in the talk pages). Nevertheless I like your comparison with Borg's record in 1983-1984 (but he had lost twice to Leconte on clay, Monte Carlo 83 and Stuttgart 84). I also agree that Brookes's appearances in Davis Cup were not convincing : between 1908 and 1913 the only international events he seemed to have played were the Victorian Championship in 1909 he lost to Wilding in five sets, the Australian and Victorian Chps he won in 1911 and the Davis Cup : in 1908 he was defeated by Beals Wright, in 1909 he was undefeated, in 1910 there was no Cup, in the 1911 edition (held in January 1912) he won his two singles but in 1912 he lost to James Cecil Parke. So we both have the same opinion. But if you have a source saying that Brookes wasn't the best in 1908 or another year don't hesitate to put it in the article. If you have time and courage you can also put your winners and runner-ups in the players articles of Wikipedia. I've done it for Wilding's wins (in the Richardsons' book there are at least 105 titles) : you can eventually correct what I've written in that Wilding's article (I have some doubts about some tournaments).

P.S. : tennis was possibly at the time a bit like boxing when international meetings were rare (because of time, money and geographic problems). This is why Davis created his Cup. I don't clearly remember but I think it's he who created meetings between players of the East Coast and the West Coast of the USA. I suppose the latter ones didn't play the US Chps at Newport (1881-1914) because they had to cross the whole country. It was the same problem for the Australasians : only local players entered the tournament. Knowing that the best players of Down Under were mainly living in Victoria or New South Wales, when the tournament was held at Perth, Brisbane, Adelaide or New Zealand the field was particularly weak.

We have also to remember that all those players were amateurs and in priority had to care of their own business : this possibly explains why Brookes has played so few tennis in those years. Another possible explanation is that almost everyone, including Wilding, considered him the best so he didn't need to prove it : at the time there was almost no annual ranking (Myers published his first one in 1913 and I don't know if there were many other rankings : I guess perhaps American Lawn Tennis) and above all no points ranking as the today ATP ranking : even in 1960 many considered Gonzales as the best though he had played only the first 4 and a half months of the year. In 2007 standards Gonzales would have been only ranked #4 or #5 but in 1960 such players as Rosewall, Hoad and others didn't seem to contradict Gonzales's preeminence. Carlo Colussi 09:30, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

• Personal question : I've found a SgtJohn on the french site (talk page : "Discuter:Records du tennis", revision as of 11:36, 26 January 2007, who explained to a certain SteeveS that Crawford reached 7 consecutive finals of Grand Slam tournaments in 1933-34 without playing any challenge rounds and I have answered in particular that in the Australian and French Championships there had never been challenge rounds. Are you that SgtJohn who signed Jonathan. Carlo Colussi 11:21, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

• Thank you for your answer, Carlo. I'm the same SgtJohn as on the French site... I understand the rules of neutrality for Wikipedia, that's why I think we can discuss these issues here on the talk page but will have a hard time finding objective sources for the pre-WW1 era to put into the actual article. Wilding as a source is dubious because players are of course very subjective, especially when they have personal relationships between them (Wilding probably judged Brookes out of respect for him, just as Laver argued he was not the actual world champion for 1964 though everyone thought so). SgtJohn 07:21, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

• Ah ah alors je vais écrire un peu en français (je suis très limité en anglais). Il est clair que Brookes et sa femme ont très bien accueilli Wilding : dans le livre des Richardson les témoignages de Wilding sont toujours emprunts d'énormément de respect envers Brookes (réciproquement Brookes qui a écrit deux chapîtres dans le livre de sa femme paru vers 1955, a publié son classement des plus grands joueurs de la période 1858-59 à 1953-54 : il a classé Wilding 4ème derrière Tilden, Reggie Doherty et son frère Laurie et a écrit que Wilding était imbattable sur terre battue). Pour 1964 je vais un peu contredire votre affirmation. Avec le recul si on regarde cette année-là il est quasiment sûr que Laver fut le meilleur (j'estime que lui et Rosewall avaient un palmarès quasi-identique : cf. mon estimation plus haut dans cette page de discussion "1) Laver 115.625 points, 2) Rosewall 114.5 points" mais ce qui les départageait c'était leur face-à-face : 12-3 pour Rocket). Jusque là je suis donc d'accord avec vous mais pourtant dans tous les documents d'époque que j'ais, Rosewall était considéré unanimement comme le n°1 et l'argument étant qu'il avait gagné plus de matches que Rocket (il est vrai qu'il fut mené par Gonzales 8 matches à 5 quand Rosewall domina Pancho 11 à 3) : dans World Tennis la plus grande revue (américaine) des années 60, dans Tennis de France, dans Tennis S.A. (revue sud-africaine), dans le classement par points (78 points pour Ken et 70 pour Rod). Récemment je me suis procuré le livre de Betty Laver (une belle-soeur de Rod), "ROD LAVER: The Red-Headed Rocket from Rockhampton (2001)" où elle indique que Rod fut classé n°2 en 1964. La seule année qu'elle conteste un peu fut 1970 où Joe McCauley alors journaliste à World Tennis classa Rod #4 : dans le numéro suivant la majorité du courrier des lecteurs était consacré à ce classement et tous les lecteurs estimaient que Rod était encore #1 en 1970 (je crois que Lance Tingay dans "World of Tennis '71" (l'annuel britannique de l'année 70) a aussi placé Rod n°4 en 70). Comme vous le rappelez de manière latente en 1964 Laver lui-même après Wembley a déclaré que Ken fut le n°1. Peter Rowley dans "Ken Rosewall Twenty Years at the Top" classa aussi Ken n°1 en 64. En fait je n'ai jamais trouvé aucune source sérieuse citant Laver n°1 indiscutable en 1964, absolument aucune, bien que vous, jeffreyneave, german friend et moi-même sommes d'accord pour classer Rod n°1. Je n'ai trouvé que Robert Geist qui a classé Laver n°1 en 1964 mais ex aequo avec Rosewall (c'est pourquoi j'ai choisi Geist comme source car selon moi plus crédible que toutes les autres qui mettaient Rod 2ème). Sachant que Rosewall est mon joueur préféré de tous les temps si je dis qu'il ne fut pas le meilleur en 1964 alors que la quasi-totalité des sources le placent n°1 c'est que je dois sincèrement le penser.

Avez-vous éventuellement regardé les victoires que j'ai listées pour Wilding ?

Si de votre côté vous avez le courage de lister les victoires des champions d'avant la 1ère guerre mondiale dont vous semblez disposer je serais ravi que vous les incorporiez dans les sites de Wikipedia.

En fin d'année 2006, j'ai écrit deux articles "Tennis, male player statistics" et "Records divers depuis les débuts du tennis" qui sont les versions anglaise et française d'un même contenu qui essaie de rappeler certaines perf de vieux ou de récents joueurs. Vu que la plupart des sources sur l'histoire du tennis sont anglaises j'alimente souvent le site anglais de wikipedia mais étant français (et vu que j'ai écrit les deux articles cités auparavant) j'essaie de remettre des statistiques identiques sur le site français (par contre je ne m'encombre pas de la forme : j'avais écrit fin 2006 90% de l'article de "Ken Rosewall" puis je l'ai traduit grossièrement sur le site français. Depuis des internautes ont fait des "edits" et ont changé la forme sur le site anglais mais je n'ai rien fait de nouveau sur le site français). J'essaie donc juste de garder la cohérence stat' sur certains articles dans les deux langues. Dès que je constate une stat changée sur un site je vais la corriger sur l'autre. Par exemple les stats' de Lendl sont passés de 91 titres à 110 puis à 143 : sur les deux sites les stats sont homogènes.

Sorry for the English readers but I will shortly summarize (and strongly edit) my french discussion above : though almost all the original sources (World Tennis, Tennis de France, Tennis S.A., Joe McCauley, Peter Rowley, Laver himself and so on) ranked Laver #2 behind Rosewall in 1964 because Ken won more matches than Rod that year, many wikipedia writers or readers (jeffreyneave, germanfriend, SgtJohn, myself) all agree that Laver was the new king in 1964.

If anyone find an authorative source, other than Wilding himself, saying that Brookes wasn't the number 1 in 1908 (and other years), do not hesitate to cite it in the article. Carlo Colussi 09:19, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

• Bon je vais me permettre une intervention en français également! J'admets mon erreur pour ce qui est de l'année 1964, j'avais un souvenir incorrect de mes lectures... Ceci dit, le fait que Laver ressente le besoin de souligner la supériorité de Rosewall après 12 victoires contre lui en une seule saison est une illustration du respect que les plus jeunes joueurs ressentent souvent pour leurs ainés (enfin jusqu'à l'arrivée de certains Connors ou Agassi...), sentiment qui entraîne forcément de la subjectivité.

Je trouve vos commentaires sur l'année 1970 très intéressants! Je n'aurais jamais imaginé que les lecteurs, le 'grand public' autrement dit, puissent considérer autre chose que les tournois du Grand Chelem comme facteur déterminant pour la place de n°1. Après tout, c'est essentiellement, mise à part une 2ème place au Masters, sur le circuit WCT que Laver avait brillé cette année-là, étrillant Rosewall et Newcombe. Ceci montrerait-il donc qu'au début de l'ère Open, les tournois du Grand Chelem n'avait plus le lustre qu'ils avaient dans les années 60, et qu'ils regagneront à la fin des années 70? Je serais ravi de donner un coup de main en incorporant des listes de victoire pour certains joueurs, il faudra juste que je me familiarise un peu avec la syntaxe Wikipedia, question de mise en page, etc. SgtJohn 10:19, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Slam tournaments at the beginning of the open era

• Thank you, Sgt John, in advance for your future win lists of ancient players.

In 1970 the first event was without any doubt Wimbledon with all the great players, none missing. The second one was the U.S. Open at Forest Hills with still noone absent. Then in disorder the Philadelphia Open, the US Pro (Boston), Sydney Dunlop Open in march (not to be confused with the Australian Open in the very same site), Pacific Southwest Open of Los Angeles, Wembley Pro and possibly the Masters (the first one in tennis history, at Tokyo). I haven't yet a clear opinion between all these events. About the latter I'm not even sure that the first Masters was so important because it was new and the NTL-WCT players first had to play their own circuit (for instance Emerson in 1970 finished #3 in the NTL-WCT pro circuit whereas he ended only #20 in the first tennis history Grand Prix circuit. Knowing that the 6 Masters' players were selected from the Grand Prix ranking, Emerson didn't enter the Masters. Out of those 6 players only 2 were contract pros, Rosewall and Laver). The two other Slam tournaments were "rubbish" : NTL's boss, George McCall (Laver, Gimeno, Rosewall, Gonzales, Stolle and Emerson were McCall's boys), as a pro promoter, asked a guarantee to the officials of the Australian Open held in january : the latter ones refused and then McCall ordered his players not to enter the Australian (prize money was ridiculous in 1970 so NTL was right but the Australian officials were too right because the 1969 edition has been a great disaster in financial terms). Two months later, in march, the Dunlop Open tournament which was held exactly in the same site as the slam tournament attracted both the best players who'd entered the Australian Open (independent pros such as Ashe the winner and WCT pros such as Newcombe, Roche, Taylor ...) and the NTL players who were barred from the Australian Slam by their own boss. The NTL players dominated all the others and Laver (NTL) defeated Rosewall (NTL) in the final in a match considered as the best one on grass in the 70s with the Borg-Gerulaitis semifinal in Wimbledon 1977. So at the time the Dunlop Open was considered as the "true" Australian Open (you can see the results in itftennis.com). In 1971 a second Dunlop Open tournament was still held in March and was one of the 20 WCT tournaments of the year (if we exclude the WCT Finals in Houston-Dallas in november 1971, the WCT equivalent of the Grand Prix Masters which took place a few days later) : all the WCT (which had absorbed the NTL organization a year ago) players came as some independent pros in that second edition of the Dunlop tournament which was this time the official, the true Australian Open. Now have a look at Roland Garros 1970 : the 24 WCT players (NTL was just absorbed by WCT) didn't came, in particular both finalists of the two previous editions, Rosewall and Laver. So in 1970 the greatest events were Wimbledon, Forest Hills and the other tournaments cited above but certainly not the Australian and the French. From the beginning of the open here are the slam tournaments which didn't deserve at all the "Grand Slam label" : Australian Open 1970, 1972-1982; Roland Garros 1970-1972, 1977 (of the top10 were missing five players that year : Connors, Borg, Orantes, Gerulaitis and Stockton); Wimbledon 1972-1973; (the only US Open with a slightly depleted field was the 1971 one won by Smith (Laver, Rosewall, Gimeno and some other WCT players were absent) but because all the events of that year had weak fields, except Wimbledon, the U.S. Open was the 2nd event of 71 (and the Australian the 3rd)). To come back to Roland Garros even in the years 1974-1976 dominated by Borg and Panatta, many great claycourt players were missing : in 1974 when Borg had his first win, Newcombe, Rosewall, Connors, Laver were absent. In 1975 the same players didn't came (I recognize they were all but Connors less good because older). In 1976 Connors (who had at the time the Indian sign on Borg) and Nastase (who had beaten previously twice in a row Borg, at the Masters, december 75, and the WCT Avis Challenge Cup, may 1976, in Hawaii) weren't there too. If you want more details about Slam tournaments between 1968-1982 you can look at Talk:Ken Rosewall (and possibly at Talk:Rod Laver and even here above in this talk) where jeffreyneave and I have some disagreements (in particular I give more importance to the slam tournaments than him) but very constructive ones and he had almost fully convinced me with his arguments. He thinks that Laver was number one not only in 1970 but also in 1971 (each time he chooses Rosewall as runner-up).

The reactions of the readers of World Tennis weren't so amazing because of Joe McCauley's behaviour. I'm not very sure of the year but I think it was circa 1964. At the end of that year Ned Potter had ranked the Top10 of the amateur players in World Tennis. He'd done this job for years or even decades (I wouldn't swear but I think he'd published his first rankings in American Lawn Tennis "the ancestor" of World Tennis). To argue his ranking he offered some statistical data. A Briton answered to Potter and said Potter's ranking was laughable because Potter's statistics were uncomplete. The Briton wrote all the statistics missing in Potter's report and proposed his own ranking contradicting Potter's (and after reading all these informations I was impressed and World Tennis too I suppose). The Briton was a certain ... Joe McCauley. Then next year (1965 if I'm not wrong) McCauley, instead of Potter, published his amateur ranking in World Tennis. But something was strange because though McCauley showed his numerous statistics each year he seemed to concentrate mainly on Wimbledon results (and eventually the U.S. Open) to make his annual rankings. This is why he chose Newcombe in 1970 and in 1971 though respectively Rosewall and Smith had better records than Newk those years in the great events. In 1970 Rosewall a) had beaten Newcombe 5 times out of 6, b) had a better global win-loss record, c) had won more tournaments, d) had been better in the NTL-WCT ranking and in the Grand Prix ranking, etc ... but McCauley ranked Newcombe above because the latter had won Wimbledon. I was convinced that Rosewall was the #1 in 1970 but later when jeffreyneave and germanfriend argued with me I have a little changed my mind : I think that Laver was at least the co-No.1 in 1970 if not the only No.1 though he miserably failed at Wimbledon and Forest Hills because Rocket was as dominating as ever in all the other events : he has won something like 13 tournaments in 1970 whereas his runner-ups as Rosewall had only won 6 tournaments. His win/loss record against Rosewall-Newcombe was 8-0. Among the six tennis events I've ranked equally in 3rd position in 1970 after Wimbledon and Forest Hills (the Philadelphia Open, the US Pro (Boston), Sydney Dunlop Open in march, Pacific Southwest Open of Los Angeles, Wembley Pro and possibly the Masters) Laver had won 4 events (Roche 1 and Smith 1) whereas Rosewall and Newcombe had won none of them. But I still consider that Rosewall was better than Newcombe that year so in 1970 for me (on September 12, 2007) : 1) Laver (or Laver-Rosewall), 2) Rosewall (or nobody) and 3) Newcombe. I will be hard but if we except Wimbledon, Newcombe has done almost nothing in 1970 and 1971. Lance Tingay, a Briton too, was also a great admirer of his national Wimbledon and then his rankings were similar enough to McCauley's. Newcombe himself in his 2002 autobiography wrote that Laver was the #1 in 1970 (in this same book he agreed the Martini Rosso ranking which placed him co-No.1 with Smith in 1971). In the book edited for the century of the Australian Open (I don't remember the exact title), Newcombe said that he considered that he had reached for the first time the Top4 in 1970.

Finally I will give you a very personal (not sure and rigid) list of the greatest events of each year from 1950 to 2007 according to me : When it is possible I’ve chosen the 4 greatest competitions in order to compare with the Grand Slam tournaments of today which are now truly the greatest tennis events (it wasn’t the case in the past as I’ve written it just before). Sometimes I don't indicate any ranking (for instance the year 1970 is problematic and the preopen years are even more difficult : how to compare amateur and professional players and among the latter ones how to "weight" a pro tour and a pro tournament, for instance Kramer defeated Gonzales 96-27 in their pro tour but Gonzales beat Kramer at the Philadelphia Inquirer tournament during a short break of their tour : what's the most important ?) because I have some trouble to make a decision.

From a sporting point of view I think the greatest tennis competitions have been the pro ones since 1948 when the best player was probably systematically a pro player (I recognize that jeffreyneave convinced me that it is very hard, not to say impossible, to determine who was the best in 1952 between the pro Gonzales and the amateur Sedgman).

Here is at last my personal list of the 4 biggest events (in disorder when no ranking is indicated) year by year from 1950 to 2007 (changed on Thursday September 27, 2007 after your remarks) :

1950 : 1) the Kramer-Gonzales pro tour, the US Pro (Cleveland), Philadelphia Pro, 4) perhaps Paris Pro indoors or the beginning of the Kramer-Segura pro tour (ended in 1951) or even Wembley Pro

1951 : the U.S. Pro (held that year at Forest Hills, the usual site of the amateur championships), Philadelphia Pro, the main part of the Kramer-Segura pro tour, 4) Wembley Pro (or the German Pro in Berlin)

1952 : 1) Wembley Pro, 2) the U.S. Pro (Cleveland-Lakewood) and Philadelphia Pro, 4) Berlin Pro-Rot Weiss Tennis Club

1953 : 1) Wembley Pro, 2) the Kramer-Sedgman pro tour, 3) probably the Paris Pro tournament, the New York Pro Indoors, the Caracas and Lyon (and perhaps Geneva) pro tournaments (very difficult to know what were the greatest events that year : the tournaments cited here are the only ones where three of the four best players were present each time)

1954 : 1) the US Pro (Cleveland), 2) the Australian Pro, 3) the Gonzales-Segura-Sedgman-Budge (and Earn) pro tour, 4) the Australian Gonzales-Sedgman-Segura-McGregor pro tour or the US Pro Hardcourt (Los Angeles) or the Far East Segura-Gonzales-Sedgman-Kramer pro tour

1955 : 1) the US Pro (Cleveland), 2) the Australian Gonzales-Sedgman-Segura-Ayre pro tour, 3) the US Pro Hardcourt (Los Angeles), 4) perhaps Scarborough Pro (or even the several pro matches in Rome with Gonzales-Sedgman-Segura-McGregor in June)

1956 : 1) Wembley Pro, 2) the first Pro Tournament of Champions at Los Angeles (not held at Forest Hills that year), 3) the US Pro (Cleveland) and the French Pro (Roland Garros)

1957 : 1) the Pro Tournament of Champions (Forest Hills), 2) the Masters Round Robin Pro in Los Angeles, 3) the Australian Pro (Sydney), 4) the U.S. Pro (Cleveland) (5) Wembley Pro).

1958 : 1) the Pro Tournament of Champions (Forest Hills), 2) Wembley Pro, 3) the French Pro (Roland Garros), 4) Masters Round Robin Pro in Los Angeles or Melbourne Pro or the Australian Pro (Sydney, there were only 3 Australian Pro in tennis history, 1954-1957-1958)

1959 : 1) the Pro Tournament of Champions (Forest Hills), 2) [New South Wales Pro-Sydney (the February edition), Victoria Pro-Melbourne, South Australia Pro-Adelaide, Western Australia Pro-Perth, Masters Round Robin Pro-Los Angeles] with all the best players and perhaps tied with Wembley Pro and the French Pro because the two last had a (small) tradition but Gonzales, then probably the best player in the world, was missing both tournaments due to his legitimate dispute with Kramer now mainly a pro tennis promoter

1960 : 1) the Gonzales-Rosewall-Segura-Olmedo pro tour, 2) Wembley Pro, 3) the French Pro (Roland Garros), far behind 4) the Australian Pro Indoor in Melbourne in May (not to confuse with the Victorian Pro in Melbourne in January) or Santa Barbara Pro (or perhaps the Masters Round Robin Pro in Los Angeles or San Francisco Pro ?)

1961 : 1) Wembley Pro, 2) the French Pro (Roland Garros), far behind 3) Vienna Pro and the Scandinavian Pro-Copenhagen

1962 : 1) Wembley Pro, 2) the French Pro (Roland Garros), far behind 3) Geneva Pro and Milan Pro (and perhaps the Kramer Cup ?)

1963 : 1) Wembley Pro, 2) the French Pro (Coubertin), enough far behind 3) the U.S. Pro-Forest Hills, 4) Kitzbühel Pro and Cannes Pro

1964 : 1) Wembley Pro, 2) the French Pro (Coubertin), 3) the US Pro (without Sedgman, present in the two big European tournaments), far behind 4) the US Pro Indoor-White Plains ( 5) Masters Round Robin Pro-Los Angeles and St Louis Pro, 6) College Park Pro)

1965 : 1) Wembley Pro (without Gonzales), 2) the US Pro (without Gimeno) and the French Pro (Coubertin) (without Gonzales), far behind 4) the US Pro Indoor-New York City (without Hoad) or the Victorian Pro-Melbourne (without Gimeno) or the New South Wales Pro-Sydney (without Gimeno)

1966 : 1) New York City-Madison Square Garden Pro, 2) the US Pro, 3) Wembley Pro and the French Pro (Coubertin) (5) Pro Clay Court Championship-Barcelona and possibly Forest Hills Pro)

1967 : 1) Wimbledon Pro (possibly the most important pro tournament in the pre-open era though with a reduced field of 8 players), 2) the US Pro (the strongest field of the year), 3) Wembley Pro and the French Pro (Coubertin), ( 5) Los Angeles Pro, 6) New York City-Madison Square Garden Pro and Berkeley Pro).

In the open era until 1982 included the hierarchy was almost as unstable as in the pre-open era :

1968 : 1) Wimbledon Open, 2) the U.S. Open, 3) Roland Garros Open (many players couldn’t come because of the events of May 1968 and Dave Dixon, boss of WCT prevented his players to enter the tournament : among the best claycourt players absent were Newcombe, Roche, Okker and Santana) and the Pacific Southwest Open in Los Angeles (all the best were there) (5) US Pro, French Pro, Wembley Pro and possibly the Queen's)

1969 : 1) Wimbledon Open, 2) the U.S. Open, 3) Roland Garros Open, 4) the Australian Open (5) the Pacific Southwest Open in Los Angeles or the Howard Hughes Open at Las Vegas or the Philadelphia Open or perhaps the South African Open or the German Open or the Italian Open)

1970 : 1) Wimbledon Open, 2) the U.S. Open, far behind 3) Philadelphia Open, 4) Dunlop Open Sydney (5) the Masters (the first one in tennis history, at Tokyo), the US Pro (Boston), Pacific Southwest Open of Los Angeles and Wembley Pro. I haven't yet a clear opinion between all these events).

1971 : 1) Wimbledon Open, 2) the U.S. Open, 3) the Australian Open, 4) the WCT Finals-Houston&Dallas or the Italian Open (Rome) here is our major disagreement between jeffreyneave and me : he thinks that Rome is above the WCT Finals that year, I originally thought the contrary but after his arguments I changed a little my thinking and placed both tournaments equal)

1972 : 1) the U.S. Open and far behind 2) the Pacific Southwest Open in Los Angeles (the 2nd best field of all the events after the U.S. Open because both WCT and independent professionals could (and would) enter) - the WCT Finals-Dallas, 4) the Stockholm Open (3rd field of the year) and perhaps the Davis Cup. Recall : no pro player under contract (WCT) could enter the Davis Cup, Wimbledon and Roland Garros because they were banned from the traditional circuit from January through summer (the first « open » tournaments in 1972 were Merion and Orange just before the U.S. Open) : during Wimbledon, Newcombe, a WCT player in 1972, won the St. Louis WCT tournament, not at all a Grand Prix tournament (the Grand Prix circuit was the traditional one) as wrongly indicated in the ATP Website and then commented the Wimbledon final on TV whereas he was the titlist.

1973 : 1) the U.S. Open 2) Roland Garros Open and far behind 3) the Masters, 4) the Italian Open-Rome and the WCT Finals-Dallas ( 6) the first Davis Cup Open to all professionals and in particular the WCT players (I think , but I can be wrong, that if the Challenge Round system had been abandoned in the 50s and not in 1972 and if the Davis Cup had been open since 1968 (and eventually before) and not since 1973 it would possibly have still been the greatest tennis event today)

1974 : 1) Wimbledon Open, 2) the U.S. Open, far behind 3) Roland Garros Open, 4) the WCT Finals-Dallas (5) the Masters or the US Pro indoor-Philadelphia)

1975 : 1) Wimbledon Open, 2) the U.S. Open, far behind 3) Roland Garros Open, 4) the Masters ( 5) the WCT Finals-Dallas)

1976 : 1) Wimbledon Open, 2) the U.S. Open, far behind 3) Roland Garros Open, far behind 4) the U.S. Pro Indoor-Philadelphia (and perhaps the WCT Finals-Dallas)

1977 : 1) Wimbledon Open, 2) the U.S. Open, far behind 3) the Masters, 4) Roland Garros Open ( 5) perhaps the U.S. Pro Indoor-Philadelphia and the WCT Finals-Dallas)

1978 : 1) Wimbledon Open, 2) the U.S. Open, far behind 3) Roland Garros Open, 4) the U.S. Pro Indoor-Philadelphia

1979 : 1) Wimbledon Open, 2) the U.S. Open, 3) Roland Garros Open, and far behind 4) the Masters (5) the WCT Finals-Dallas)

1980 : 1) Wimbledon Open, 2) the U.S. Open, 3) Roland Garros Open, and far behind 4) the Masters

1981 : 1) Wimbledon Open, 2) the U.S. Open, 3) Roland Garros Open, and far behind 4) the Masters (5) the Davis Cup)

1982 : 1) Wimbledon Open, 2) the U.S. Open and Roland Garros Open, and far behind 4) the Masters (5) the Davis Cup)

1983-1985 : 1) Wimbledon Open, 2) the U.S. Open and Roland Garros Open, and enough far behind 4) the Australian Open ( 5) the Masters) (in 1983 a sort of miracle occurred when a) McEnroe and Lendl decided to play the Australian Open and b) Sweden had to play the Davis Cup final at Kooyong against Australia : then Wilander decided to play the Australian Slam tournament as a training for the Davis Cup, c) Pat Cash, Australian, became a good player. All these conditions plus the moving of the Australian Open site from Kooyong to Flinders Park (now Melbourne Park) in 1988 helped the depleted Slam tournament to find its strength back : between 1983 and 1994 among the great players only Connors and Agassi didn’t came once while the others came regularly (in 2007 all the ATP rankings Top20 players competed)

1986 : 1) Wimbledon Open, 2) the U.S. Open and Roland Garros Open, and enough far behind 4) the Masters : the Australian Open was not held in 1986 and had been delayed for one month (from December 1986 to January 1987)

1987-2007 : 1) Wimbledon Open, 2) the U.S. Open and Roland Garros Open, 4) the Australian Open ( 5) the Masters).

This is why I credit such players as Gonzales, Rosewall and Laver with many great wins. More precisely I think that Gonzales has probably won between 19 and 24 major events equivalent to the modern grand slam tournaments of today (i.e. among the 4 greatest events of a given year). My lack of precision is due to the true difficulty to pick up the greatest competitions before the open era and even before 1983. Rosewall's amount varies between 20 and 21, Laver's between 18 and 20.

If we just look at the open era records in major tennis events, the leaders in number of wins, in my revised vision of tennis history, are Sampras with 14 major tournaments, Borg with 13 major events (he has won 11 Slam tournaments with all or almost all the best players (in some Slam tournaments some great players were missing : for instance Connors, Newcombe, Rosewall and Laver didn’t play Roland Garros 1974), he also captured 2 Masters (the 1979 and 1980 editions held each time in January the following year), this tournament being at the time the 4th tennis event so Borg has won at least 13 events equivalent to the Slam tournaments of today), Federer 12 (in 2007), Lendl with 11 major events (his Masters 1981, 1982 and 1986 were in the same case as Borg’s Masters 1979 and 1980 (in 1986 the Australian Open was not held) but the Masters 1985 (held in January 1986) and 1987 were not one of the 4 greatest events because the Australian Open deserved then its Slam label so I don’t include these two Masters as major events), Connors with 10 major tournaments (I include his Masters 1977 win and I exclude his Australian Open 1974, I think his US Pro indoor-Philadelphia wins in 1976 and 1978 shall be included too), Agassi with 8, McEnroe & Wilander each with 7.

A little remark about the indoor Philadelphia tournament : in the 70s if you look at every tennis magazine of the time, this event was considered as the first (chronologically) great tournament of the year (and not the Australian Open).

Waow. I don't go further because I'm whacked.

Carlo Colussi 13:31, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

• • • • • Hello. Interesting to see your 4 best list for each year. When you name more than four events like 1959 are you counting them in players 'totals.

Generally I agree with your choices. However, I still feel you overate the New york Tournament of Champions in the 1950's. Having all the best players for 3 years in a row does not necessarily make a great tournament. Geneva had all the best players for 4 years at the same venue between 1961-64 and is not regarded as a great event in your list or mine.

my disagreements by year :

1957 I would drop LA and keep the 3 traditional slams.

1958 (1) Wembley (2) French (3) Aussie pro and New York . The Aussie is best of 5 for the last 2 rounds and is only missing my no6 Segura. No 5 setters at New York. You can also see why I rate Sedgman no1. from this list.

1959. A really tough year. (1) Wembley, French, New york. (4) Us pro because its a traditional event and had the 2 best players Hoad and Gonzales playing in the final. These factors overcome the superior fields of the Aussie events.

1961. (1) Wembley (2) french (3) Geneva and Kramer cup

1965. (4) I would chosse one of the Aussie events where Hoad was fit and playing well against Laver and gonzales

1966 (1) Wembley (2) US pro (3) French (4) Madison Square Garden . I dismiss one set VASS matches as near worthless. No Forest Hills. Gonzales's participation should not determine the status of a tournament in the 1960's given that he was only prepared to play half a year. Its purely pot luck which part of the year he dedcide to play. Australia got lucky in 1965 and 1967;. Europe in 1964; and in 1966 in did not play regular tour events because of his appearence money dispute with the other players.

1967 (1) Wimbledon (2) equal US, British, French pro. I don't see why you regard the US as stronger because Hoad played the the French and british along with other top 7 players (laver, rosewall. Gimeno, stolle, Ralston ,bucholz and Barthes).

1969 (4) Aussie open on its own

1970 (1) Wimbledon (2) Us open (3) Philadelphia (4) Dunlop Sydney . For the last two the field had to include the top 3. Philadelphia had as good field as Wimbledon. Sydney is close with the US pro but Sydney played best 0f 5 all the way and only Richey of my top 15 did not enter. (Roche was injured).

1971 (3) Aussie open and Italian open

1972 (1) US open (2) PSW (3) equal Wimbledon and WCT finals. I dismiss Stockholm because none of the top 4 WCT players entered and Wimbledon and WCT are best of 5 set prestige events

1973 (1) Us open (2) French (3) Masters and Italian open

1974 (4) WCT Finals because only Rosewall and Connors did not play the circuit. Connors,Smith, Laver and Rosewall were not interested in the Masters

1978 (4) US pro indoor A tough choice but only Vilas I think stayed away. The masters HAd Borg, Vilas And Gerulaitis uninterested. Connors did not play the Davis cup and Ashe and gerulaitis played the semis but could not be bothered with final

1979 (4) WCT finals because of its 5 set formula and because the top 4 in the world contested the semis.

Obviously many of these are close calls and very debatable.

Jeffreyneave 13 september 2007(—Preceding unsigned comment added by Jeffreyneave (talk • contribs) 16:20, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

• • • • about 1964 I found some extra matches. The foursome of Laver ,Rosewall, Gonzales and Olmedo

played an extra date in july at Scarborough accoring to the London Times. You will be pleased to know, as fan of Gonzales' performances in 1964, that Gonzales beat Laver 6-2, 6-3,. Rosewall beat Olmedo in straight sets . These additional results make Laver's win loss record 67-20 and Rosewall's 66-26. Laver has still won more matches in 1964. Rosewall, I think, was accorded the no1. spot because he won the pro's own points race. None of the tennis publications of the time would have the detailed results that we now have for 1964, particularly Laver's 12-3 head to head edge over Rosewall. I'm still not sure about McCauley rating Rosewall no1 in 1964. Just as in 1961 (and 1960) the title heading suggested Gonzales was no1, but reading of the text suggests Rosewall was no1 in 1961. I think in the title he is being neutral and expressing the pro tour's own view of who is no1. Kramer organised the 1961 World series and his view was that the winner of that series was World Champion. Kramer always put the main tour event first and touraments second (see his rankings for 1959 where Sedgman won the 2nd most important tour of the year in Europe over Rosewall, Hoad and trabert, and was ranked 2nd with Hoad only 4th because he finished a lame 3rd on this tour). In 1961 Kramer was in charge and his views represented the tour's view. If you look at the chapter on 1964, despite the title, its all about Laver; with Laver very close to Rosewall at the start of the year; and when comparing their records highlighting Laver's 12-3 edge. On laver's victory at Wembley, clearly the big match of the year according to McCauley, he prefaces Laver's comments with term "rather modestly", which suggest he disagrees with Laver. The final paragraph is about Hoad discussing Laver and confirming Laver's edge over Rosewall by the end of '64, even if he was having a few problems with Gonzales.

jeffrey neave 15 sept 2007 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jeffreyneave (talk • contribs) 18:50, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

I just found out that the french www.ina.fr website features a documentary about the pro players in the 60s. Laver was sure very touchy about this n°1 topic: in this documentary, shot in august 1965, he says he's not sure whether he's ready to be called n°1 over Ken!! Jonathan —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.41.164.171 (talk) 23:36, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Hello, from german friend,17.9.2007. I haven't read this page for some time, but see new interesting material. This reconstruction of top 4 tournaments each year is fascinating, but of course debatable. I for my part probably would include the amateur Wimbledon with the 3 pro majors, to give the amateur circuit, which was not that bad, some credit. I will have a closer look and then make some remarks. On the 1964 question: Laver was and is always very modest about his position. And his remarks came after the Wembley final (not at years end), when it was still a very close race between him and Rosewall. But after that, on the South African circuit, Laver dominated and clinched the top spot in my view. One last remark: On tennis week online on September 14. 2007,, Raymond Lee has written a lenghty article about stats of the greatest players, which quite confirms most of the findings here in these articles. And he seems to include new material of Robert Geist, whom he cites. He recognizes titles, which are not on the ATP or ITF list. He gives Laver 188 titles,Tilden 161, Lendl 143, Rosewall 130, Connors 121, Gonzales 81. The link is on the Laver article and the male tennis players statistics discussion side (German friend 17.9.2007).. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.60.159.113 (talk) 18:49, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

• Of course my players' totals aren't precise because some years I couldn't choose the biggest 4 events : this is why Gonzales's total, for instance, varies from 19 to 24 according to the fact that I include or not an event as a big4 or not : but when I name more than four events like in 1959 I'm not counting more than 4 tournaments a year (though my method is not very clean). In the case of 1959 I recognize I haven't solve the problem : I've just stated that Gonzales would have won at least 1 big event, that Rosewall's total was near from 0 and that Laver's was equal to 0. Here are my original detailed lists of big tournaments won by those three players before your remarks to give you an indication :

More precisely Gonzales has probably won between 19 and 24 major events : he had won 1 or 2 of these events in 1950 (Philadelphia Pro and perhaps we can take into account his Wembley Pro win), 1 in 1951 (Wembley Pro), 2 in 1952 (Wembley Pro, Philadelphia Pro), 0 in 1953, 2 or 3 in 1954 (the US Pro (Cleveland), the Gonzales-Segura-Sedgman-Budge (and Earn) pro tour and (perhaps we can include) the Australian Gonzales-Sedgman-Segura-McGregor pro tour), 2 or 3 in 1955 (the US Pro (Cleveland), the US Pro Hardcourt (Los Angeles), and perhaps Scarborough Pro), 3 in 1956 (Wembley Pro, the first Pro Tournament of Champions at Los Angeles (not held at Forest Hills that year), the US Pro (Cleveland)), 2 or 3 in 1957 (the Pro Tournament of Champions (Forest Hills), the Masters Round Robin Pro in Los Angeles and perhaps the U.S. Pro (Cleveland)), 1 in 1958 (the Pro Tournament of Champions (Forest Hills)), 1 in 1959 (New South Wales Pro-Sydney (the February edition), 1 in 1960 (the Gonzales-Rosewall-Segura-Olmedo pro tour), 2 in 1961 (Vienna Pro, the Scandinavian Pro-Copenhagen), 0 in 1962, 0 in 1963, 1 in 1964 (the US Pro Indoor-White Plains) and 0 or 1 in 1965 (I can’t really select the 4th event of that year between the US Pro indoor-New York City (which has perhaps my preference, won by Laver), the Victorian Pro-Melbourne (won by Laver) and the New South Wales Pro-Sydney (won by Gonzales).

Rosewall has won something like 20 or 21 (if I include or not the WCT Finals 1971) major tournaments equivalent to the modern Slam tournaments : - Wembley Pro 1957, 1960, 1961, 1962, 1963 ; - New York City-Madison Square Garden Pro 1966 (the biggest prize money to date) ; - French Pro 1958, 1960, 1961, 1962, 1963, 1964, 1965, 1966 ; - French Open 1968 ; - U.S. Pro 1963, 1965 ; - U.S. Open 1970 ; - Australian Open 1971 ; - WCT Finals 1971, 1972 (Don’t appear in this list above neither his Grand Slam amateur successes (the Australian Amateur Championships in 1953 and 1955, the French Amateur in 1953 and the U.S. Amateur in 1956) neither his 1972 Australian Open victory (only two players, Newk and Kenny, among the Top20 entered that Slam tournament) nor his 1968 Wembley Pro and 1971 U.S. Pro crowns (these last tournaments are omitted given that since 1968, with open tennis at last arrived, the greatest tournaments weren’t any more the traditional pro events as Wembley Pro or the US Pro or the French Pro but (more or less) the Grand Slam Open tournaments and/or the WCT Finals and the Masters).

Laver has won probably between 18 and 20 of these great events : 1 in 1963 among Kitzbühel Pro and Cannes Pro that Laver both won, 2 in 1964 (Wembley Pro and US Pro), 2 (or 1 in the worse case) in 1965 (Wembley Pro sure and perhaps the US Pro indoor or the Victorian Pro), 2 in 1966 (US Pro and Wembley Pro), 4 in 1967 (US Pro, Wimbledon Pro, Wembley Pro and French Pro), 2 in 1968 (Wimbledon Open and the Pacific Southwest Open in LA), 4 in 1969 (the four Slam tournaments), 2 in 1970 (Philadelphia Open, Dunlop Sydney Open), in 1971 0 or 1 (if I include or not the Italian Open).

My totals are gonna change after your disagreements or remarks if I agree some of them.

Thank you for your remarks that I will quietly read later. One thing we all agree is that Laver was the best in 1964 though almost all the original sources contradict what we think.

About your Scarborough event in July 1964 wasn't there any final between Gonzales and Rosewall ? Were it just tour matches and not tournament matches ? Thank you for the answer

Carlo Colussi 11:51, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

• • • • Hello carlos. Scarborough was not a touranment. It was part of a sort of round robin tour between the 4. The other matches were played at Nottingham and Dublin. Our German friend suggested giving the amateurs one major a year. However, in this period most of the ameteurs failed in their first year on the pro circuit. The only two years I can see worth considering are 1952 and 1955 when the pro circuit is very weak- no main tour, no french pro and only one wembley. The other reason is that Sedgman performed rather well in 1953; he ran Kramer close in the big tour (he seems to have played him even when he was not injured with a bad shoulder); won the biggest single event of the year at Wembley over Gonzales; beat both Gonzales and segura at the semi-major in Paris. This suggests to me that he was worth one major in 1952 at Wimbledon and was an arguable world no1 for the 1952 and 1953. In 1956 Trabert won the French pro beating Sedgman and gonzales. On this basis I would regard him as the world's best clay court player in '56 and '55. He won at Roland garross in '55 and '56. Rosewall was in the field for '55 event. As a consequence his french amateur in'55 is worth replacing the rather desperate search for 4 good pro events that year. Do you know who won the Sedgman-Gonzales -Segura-Ayre tour at the beginning of 1955 ? Its not clear in McCauley.

jeffreyneave 18 sepember 2007 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.144.206.29 (talk) 19:25, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

• Hello jeffreyneave. I haven't seen carefully the years were you disagree (I don't know when I do it) but I just will say that I have argued before about Forest Hills Pro in the 50's with McCauley always saying this was the greatest pro tournament (he didn't make any remark about Geneva which is nevertheless once or twice in my list). In particular I have the World Tennis where Riggs commented about Forest Hills pro in 1959 and when he said (as McCauley recalled it decades later in his book) that this event was the all time greatest tennis competition to date. I answer you quickly for the last remarks : Trabert was a very good claycourt player and I sort of agree your last comments. Just a remark : Rosewall didn't enter Roland in 55 (the Australian team was sent directly to Great Britain to play Wimbledon and then to prepare the Challenge Round in August in Forest Hills). Besides in 56 Rosewall didn't came too at Roland. So Kenny just came thrice at Roland amateur (52-53-54). The only great amateur Roland Garros from 1946 to 1956 was the 1954 edition were all the best amateurs without exception were present. In 1955 there were at least 4 great amateurs missing : Rosewall, Hoad, Drobny and Hartwig. So german friend and you are not wrong in saying that some years the amateurs were not bad and in the 1952-1955 years (in 1952 Sedgman on fast courts, Drobny on slow courts or Trabert on slow courts in 1955) and in particular in 1955 there were as you say few pro events and Sedgman almost didn't play (appendicitis surgery and boredom), but I wouldn't pick the 1955 Roland amateur as one of of the big4 (Wimbledon or Forest Hills would be better choice). Concerning the Down Under tours at the end of 1954 and the beginning of 1955 I have no more information. I am now almost sure there was no Australian tour at the end of 1953 (McCauley suggested it in his book but was possibly wrong) because in Tennis de France there are saying that just after the Geneva-Lyon tournaments Sedgman was supposed to flow to Australia to rest and to train his national team for the Challenge Round). In November-December 1954 the Australian tour was effectively held and the only information I've caught from Tennis de France and World Tennis was that Ayre, who had just turned pro, replaced McGregor in January 1955. Later (but when ?) I will answer about our disagreements for the big4. A last remark : I have noticed you've written several times "Carlos" which is spanish whereas "Carlo" is italian (my father was an Italian). Thank you for correcting. Carlo Colussi 07:59, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Hello, from German friend. Yes, Jeffrey and Carlo, i know the problems with the amateur tournaments all too well. My (provisory and more hypothetical) consideration,to include the Wimbledon champs in the 4 top tournaments pre 68, is mainly projected to the late 40 and early 50s, when the pro game wasn't in the best state, with Kramer concentrating on the head-to head tours, and no consistent tournament circuit was played. I was influenced a bit by some comments of Jaroslav Drobny in exceepts of his book, referring to the Wimbledon champs of 1949. He says that this champs had the best Wimbledon field for years, and the quarters included Geoff Brown-Gonzales, Schroeder-Sedgman, Drobny-Sturgess (?) and Falkenburg-McGregor or something (i must look it up, but anyway). The very first round, drawn by top amateur Gardnar Mulloy himself brought him against the top US amateur Schroeder. I think, that was a very deep field and comparable to all, what Kramer had to do against aging Budge and Riggs. So for at least some years, the Wimbledon or US champs had a comparable status to the best pro tourneys. Jeffrey referred to 1952 and 54. I think (its a bit a sacrileg regarding Kramer), only with the pro arrival of Sedgman and Trabert to pro tour got real steam (McCauley writes this in some paragraphs). It was another thing in the late 50s: with practically all great players being pro, the pro tour clearly overshadowed the amateur scene. In 1962 i am not so sure: I think three really great pros, Rosewall, Gimeno, and a sometimes inconsistent Hoad (Gonzales not playing at all) stood against an equal number of top amateurs, Laver, Emerson and Santana. The next group of pros Olmedo (who as pro never found the form of 1959), Buchholtz, MacKay,Segura, aging Trabert and Sedgman on one side, and people like Fraser, Stolle, Osuna,McKinley, Krishnan on the other amateur side, were quite comparable. Its only a thought, i am certainly not 'ideological' on this subject, but myself quite torn on this matter. (german friend 19.9.2007). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.60.186.202 (talk) 12:27, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

• • • • • hello carlo. You are right about Rosewall not playing 1955. I thought he lost twice to Davidson, but he only lost once in 1954. I still think by winning Roland Garros in 1954, 1955 and 1956 as a pro, Trabert has proved himself the best clay court player in the world. 1955 is so thin in the pros that there is an opening for 1955 french, even if its field was not as strong as in 1954. Trabert is not going to win a fast court event on grass against Gonzales, but on clay he proved superior and there is definitely room for a clay/slow court event each year as one of the big 4. Choosing Wimbledon '55 where Gonzales would have been an almost certain winner if he could of entered is pointless.As to New York, I thought Riggs referred to the 1957 one as the toughest/greatest event of all-time because of its best of 5 set round-robin format. 1959 is no tougher than the other Aussie events at the start of 1959, even though I would include it in my top 4 for the year because McCauley raved over Hoad's play.

As to 1962, Laver domninated Santana and emerson by winning his 6 great titles. In 1963 for 6 months laver was outclassed by Rosewall. Even after Laver improved in the 2nd half of the year, Rosewall still managed a pro Grand slam. On that basis Rosewall would have been strong contender for A grand Slam in 1962 against all players. He completely dominated the other pros in 1962, well above Gimeno and hoad. Hoad was able to thrash Laver 8-0 at the start of 1963, but made no impact whatsoever on Rosewall in '62 and '63.

jeffreyneave 19 september 2007 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.144.206.29 (talk) 18:36, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

• Hello germanfriend and jeffreyneave. I insist but I have the World Tennis of 1959 when Riggs made the report of Forest Hills Pro himself in the magazine. I suppose Forest Hills Pro was well considered because it was played in the town and the stadium of the US Slam. I also guess that the French Pro had some tradition because it was mainly in the same town and stadium as the French Slam (if the French Pro had been held in Beaulieu/Cannes as in the 20s I'm not sure it would have been considered as one of the pro big3). And finally Wembley was played not far from Wimbledon. To come bach to FH Pro 59, McCauley considered it as the summit of Hoad's career. I agree that the Australian events had comparable fields in 1959 but Kooyong or White City had never been on the same level as Wimbledon and Forest Hills (and even Roland Garros) in the traditional circuit so perhaps for this reason it was the same in the pro circuit. So in conclusion I think you underrate Forest Hills Pro. When Peter Rowley made his book on Rosewall he thought that Forest Hills Pro in 66 (with the VASS system you dislike) was the event which decided for the #1 spot that year and Rowley didn't evoke the US Pro (played at Brookline) : Rosewall seemed very sad to have lost FH Pro 66. I have also the World Tennis reporting FH Pro in 66 and it was well covered. In 49 Gonzales lost in the round of 16 (not the quarters) against Geoffrey Brown (who according to some of the witnesses of the era had the best serve of all, better than Falkenburg's or Gonzales's or Kramer's) : nevertheless german friend you're right : the 1949 edition was a great one. I think in 62 Gimeno was more erratic than Hoad, the Australian reached the final of Wembley, the greatest event of the year and besides among the eight greatest tournaments in 1962, seven were won by Rosewall and the one left, Zurich, was captured by Hoad over Segura. And Segura was at least as good as Gimeno, the Spaniard being only #4 in my pro ranking. Jeffreyneave you've written " I still think by winning Roland Garros in 1954, 1955 and 1956 as a pro, Trabert has proved himself the best clay court player in the world.there is definitely room for a clay/slow court event each year as one of the big 4." : I'm not far from being convinced. But in 54 Trabert has been crushed in the US Clay by Bartzen who almost didn't play outside the US (no money or possibility ?). About a clay court event in the big4 : why not but possibly not all the years, we had to think about it. About the US Pro in 67 I've looked at the field yesterday and I maintain what I've said : I'll give you detailed explanations when I will answer you for our global 1950-2006 best4 disagreements (I have been convinced by some of your arguments but not all, for instance all the Forest Hills Pro, US Pro67 as explained before but also Wimbledon 72 and other ones). Carlo Colussi 07:06, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Good morning, I am now also convinced that choosing a clay-court event each year is necessary, even if it doesn't seem like one of the 4 greatest tournaments. Otherwise it's unfair to compare Sampras's or Federer's Grand Slam tally with Gonzales's or Laver's "big 4" wins. In many years in the 50s or the late 60s (when French Pro was at Coubertin), there was no claycourt events in your lists, therefore Gonzales, or Laver, had 4 big opportunities on their preferred surface (fast indoors), though Sampras or Federer had only 3 for instance. Of course choosing these events is a hard task. For example it seems really hard to find a good pro clay event in 1967 (there is a US Hard Court Pro, but I guess it did not mean clay, as it did in the UK...). The first years of the Open Era are also hard, as there were not a single clay event from 1970 to 1972 with Laver, Rosewall, Smith, and Nastase...so you have to choose between very depleted Roland Garros or Rome, and small WCT tournaments... SgtJohn —Preceding signed but undated comment was added at 10:20, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

• Hello SgtJohn. It's a valuable argument but the opposite too because each era adopted its surfaces. In the 30s-40s-50s the most important amateur events were the Davis Cup (first by far), the US and Wimbledon and possibly the PSW in LA so mainly grass for the Cup, only grass for the two Slams and hard for LA. Kramer said that the greatest goals of his amateur days was winning the Cup and the two Slams. For instance grass has always been used for the Davis Cup until 1913 when a meeting took place in Germany and was held on clay. On the contrary in the mid-70s you've got 2 Slams on clay and some observers (World Tennis, Sutter, Christian Quidet for example) ranked Vilas #1 in 77 whereas he couldn't have been ranked as high if the US had been played on hard (at Flushing Vilas only reached the semifinals once). In 1967 the US Pro hardcourt was played on hard (it seems that "hardcourt" means "claycourt" in the "Commonwealth countries" (UK, Australia, ...) but not in the US). In 1966 the greatest pro event on clay was the Barcelona tournament won by Gimeno over Rosewall and Laver. In 1967 I don't know. About Coubertin, though it was played indoors on wood (faster than the painted one of Wembley) so a very fast surface, it has been won 4 times out of 5 by a claycourt player (Rosewall). In the 1970-1972 period the greatest fields of clay events were Washington, Rome and Barcelona 1971 (with Nastase missing each time; at Rome Rosewall didn't came because he was injured and Nastase though titlist played instead a tournament in Madrid where he lost in the final to Tiriac, the latter having convinced Nastase to play this event and not to defend his Italian crown : you can see that for that year jeffreyneave placed Rome #3 tied with the Australian and I ranked Rome #4 tied with the WCT Finals). As ever if I do not entirely agree your (jeffreyneave, german friend, SgtJohn) arguments I'm not indifferent to them because I partly take them into account. I then will think about it.

P.S. : I've read again both magazines Tennis de France Décembre 1953 and Janvier 1954. The pro tournament at Paris on November 21-22, 1953, wasn't a French Pro as McCauley suggested (he wasn't sure himself in his book) and wasn't more important than the Geneva or Lyon tournaments which followed (for me Paris was very slightly more important just because Budge was slightly better than Cawthorn, the latter replacing Budge in Geneva and Lyon). So Paris wasn't even a SEMI-major in 1953, it was about on the same level as the two other tournaments cited (I'm not even sure that Geneva was a tournament : it was played for two days but Tennis de France only gave the first day results) and the three tournaments played by Kramer-Sedgman-Segura-McGregor in the first half of the year during breaks of their tour (New York indoor, Boston indoor and Caracas) Carlo Colussi 11:07, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

• • • • hello. Rowely's book does not single out Forest Hills as the no1 decider in '66 or as a great tournament. Its the only tournament he reported results for in '66, but is used just as an example of Laver's rise to no1. Rosewall was disappointed but not crestfallen. Rowely's knowlegde of the detailed results, unlike McCauley, is sketchy, which is why he can vaguley claim Rosewall was undisputed no1 1959-65. A look at the results for '59 and '65 quickly reveals Rosewall's claims are very thin. Rowely obviously never asked rosewall detailed qusetions about each year's results to come up with Rosewall's own view of his world ranking.

VASS is one set tennis and nobody counts WTT results inj player's career results. Such a sytem is totally at odds with major's being based on 5 sets, which has always been format for slams except for some silly experiments in the 1970s which were quickly dropped. The ST louis hard court event of 67 is likely to be played on a slow surface. A look at the results of each year 64-67 show Gimeno always did very well and Laver never won it; a sure sign we are not playing on cement like the "PSW". Riggs is a braggert and a brash American. I am not sure I would trust his judgement. However, I did accept on my list the '59 version of New York. I too rated it above the Aussie events partly because they were not played at White City and Kooyong. The Sydney event was played at the the Marks Oval on an imported flywood surface because of an dispute with the Aussie LTA ; hence Gonzales's win; the grass court events were won by Rosewall and Hoad(2 wins).

jeffreyneave 20 september 2007 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.85.28.67 (talk) 18:14, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

• Hello. OK for your Rowley's argument. But I think you can't compare VASS Pro with WTT because in the latter a player could replace another one in course of a set (I don't remember exactly but I think Roche for instance was replaced but I can't swear it (it was possibly other players)) so WTT was (is) really a farce and besides WTT was (is) a (mixed) team competition while VASS as almost always been used in (pro) tournaments so you can't compare any WTT match with Forest Hills Pro 66 nevertheless perhaps I will downgrade the latter (and in general one pro set tournaments). About 59 Rowley thought that Rosewall was #1 because he said the Australian led in head-to-head matches against the other greats and in particular 5-2 against Gonzales (he said that Rosewall had told him that Kramer had lost the records) (in McCauley's book we just can say that Rosewall led 3-2 against Pancho in 59). We both disagree Rowley's judgment about this : according to McCauley's records, Gonzales or Hoad was the best in 59 (but perhaps many results miss in McCauley's book, in particular before the 60s). Carlo Colussi 06:43, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

• • • • • hello. You are right that you could replace a player, but it only happened very rarely in WTT. The VASS experiment was at its height in 1966 with 4 tournaments (San Rafeal, Newport Casino, Binghampton and Forest Hills). In 1967 the only one to survive was Van Allen's own event at Newport. Binghampton reverted to 3 sets; the other two dropped off the circuit. In otherwors VASS was a flop and so was Forest Hills. As McCauley reveals pro tennis was losing its popularity around 1966-67; it needed all the help it could get. VASS was a disaster. McCaulely specifically refers to VASS as cause of the fall and like me regards the system as dreadful. He also disparages one set tennis, regarding the 1963 World Series as devalued because of its use in the round robin stages; major events are not one setters. By 1968 VASS had gone. Laver and co did not play it. WCT experimented with different scoring systems (not VASS) in early '68 but neither the players or the fans liked it and they were quickly dropped.

About 1959, I agree that Rosewall probably beat Gonzales 5-2 ( the other results are probably one night stands). The source to me seems to be Kramer's publicity office, which Rosewall confirmed. However, by reading the last paragraph on '59, where Hoad's win in the 14 series is introduced, its quite clear that Rowley has no detailed knowledge of tournament results; he thinks rosewall finished behind Gonzales because he did not play the American tour; in fact Rosewall played more of the 14 (12 to 11) than Gonzales. He then concludes that since our(his) knowledge of the detailed results is so sketchy, that we shold concentrate on the 3 traditional majors for world rankings. Unfortunately for Rosewall, he did not even reach final of Paris or Wembley.

jeffreyneave 21 september 2007 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jeffreyneave (talk • contribs) 17:54, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

• Thank you for your last answer very clear : I will answer later for our disagreements between 1957 and 1979. Carlo Colussi 06:53, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

• Hi Jeffreyneave,

You mentioned in your previous post that you have created world rankings, placing Sedgman 1st in 1958. Could you share those rankings (at least the Top 4) for other years as well with us, possibly with comments as I have done between 1877 and 1923. My goal would be to arrive to a common, acceptable ranking year by year before 1968 (or even after that). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Karoly Mazak (talk • contribs) 13:33, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

• Thank you for this major contribution. I have been trying to piece together a sense of the standings in this era for some time, but this has completely blown me away. I am curious about 1914. As you may have noticed, I cited a text by P.A. Vaile, who claimed that Parke had a stronger claim to the "Champion of the World" title than McLoughlin in that year. I thought this was strange but, as it comes from a contemporary source, I incorporated his testimony into the main article. Since I don't have the same sources as you to cross reference, I ask you - do you think there is any merit behind Vaile's observation? He also paradoxically calls Brookes's 1914 campaign the greatest season in the history of tennis; how one can have the greatest season ever and yet not be the No. 1 player for the year escapes me. In any event, thank you again for this treasure trove of insight! ΧΑΟΓΝΩΣΙΣ 04:53, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

• There is some merit is Vaile's observation of placing Parke near the top, but definitely not in 1914. Parke's first major success came in Nov 1912 when he beat Brookes 8-6 6-3 5-7 6-2 in the Davis Cup final. Then in Jun 1913 he beat Wilding 6-2 7-5 6-8 2-6 7-5 at the Northern England Championships, lost at Wimbledon to McLoughlin 6-4 7-5 6-4, but beat the American in Davis Cup 8-10 7-5 6-4 1-6 7-5 in Jul 1913 (where he also beat Williams). So in Jul 1913 he could claim a victory over probably the 3 best players in the world, but his loss at Wimbledon makes him only the 3rd for me in 1913, behind Wilding and McLoughlin.

But in 1914 he had no outstanding result, he lost to Froitzheim 5-7 6-2 9-7 6-2 at Wimbledon and to Brookes 6-2 4-6 6-3 1-6 7-5 in Davis Cup in Jul. As for Brookes in 1914, he indeed lost to Wilding twice at the Riviera and only narrowly beat Froitzheim at Wimbledon, but after that easily overcame Wilding. At Davis Cup he had a close match with Parke, lost to McLoughlin in a 17-15 6-3 6-3 where the first set was reported to be one of the best ever, and beat Williams as well. In this year these four players (McLoughlin, Brookes, Wilding, Williams) were nearly equal, there is not a clear-cut No 1, because McLoughlin lost the US final to Williams (nevertheless, the USLTA ranked McLoughlin 1st, the first time that not the champion led their list). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Karoly Mazak (talk • contribs) 13:48, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

• Thank you very much for all your modifications in the article and for your talk here : I am eager to read it. Very interesting ! I will also change the french version of the article called "Joueurs de tennis numéros 1 mondiaux". One question : I do not master English so what means the eminent "handicapper" Simond ? Was he a great player in handicap tennis events (as opposed to open events of the time) ? Thank you for the answer. Carlo Colussi 06:56, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

• Eminent "handicapper" means that he was in charge in tournaments to decide in what category a player should be classed, the degree of handicap the player had to overcome. So he was not a great player, just an expert who categorized the players. Karoly Mazak.

• • • • • • hello karoly

This is a response to your request for world rankings. It is not strictly true that I have created world rankings.I have opinions, particularly where I feel there is room for doubt in some years. 1958 is such a year. Gonzales was named as world champion at the time because he won the world series beating Hoad. Looking at tournament results involving Sedgman and Rosewall, it became clear to me that Gonzales's dominance was not at all clear cut. Of the 10 tournaments he won 2 as did Rosewall and Sedgman. Of these, I regarded Wembley as the most important. The other ones I gave major status to are the the French, Aussie pro and Forest hills. The traditional US pro was eliminated because only 4 of the top 6 played. The Aussie pro had the top 5 and at least the last 2 rounds were played over 5 sets like Wembley (its also chosen because its a traditional slam). I choose Forest Hills with its 3 set matches, because it had the top 6 and more tradition than L.A. since it was the site of the US Championships. None these latter 3 events existed for more than 3 years in the 50's in their 1958 format; so they don't have permenant status.

A look at the results showed that Sedgman won 2 majors, including the most important Wembley. Gonzales won once (forest Hills);Rosewall once at the french. In terms of head to head results Sedgman beat Gonzales 4-2 (including the 2 most important best of 5 setters at the Aussie and wembley events). I have excluded one setters. I don't count them as real tennis to compare with Championship matches.

Gonzales finishes ahead of Rosewall primarily because of his 4-0 head to head advantage. Across the 10, there is not much between them with each winning one major and one minor. Gonzales was runner-up at the minor Stockholm; Rosewall runner-up at the major Forest hills. Gonzales rebalances this with his advantage at 2 events; he finished ahead of Rosewall at the Melbourne round robin and beat him in the 3rd place play-off at Wembley.

Hoad finishes 4th due to his runner-up at major Paris, win at minor Melbourne and runner-up in minor US pro. He also had a 3-2 edge over Gonzales in tournaments and 2-1 edge over Sedgman. He only played 7 events due to injury; so his average performance is counted.

Trabert finished 5th. He was runner-up at Wembley and Aussie majors; won minor at stockholm ; and runner-up at minor Vienna and eastbourne.. He entered all 10 events. His average performance is very close to Hoad's. However, he performed poorly against Sedgman (1-4) and Gonzales (1-3).

I can produce rankings for other years, particulatrly disputed ones. Some years like 54-57 , where Gonzales is undisputed no1 from all sources, are not particularly worth discussing as the Wkipedia page reflects this. The other is that Wkipedia does not allow personal opinoions of contributors on its main page. Only tennis journalists who have their opinions published in other publications count for world rankings. You can see Carlo's rankings in the discussions on Gonzales on this page.

jeffreyneave 28 September 2007

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Jeffreyneave (talk • contribs) 14:32, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

• • • • • hello carlo. Concerning St Louis 64-67, I was not arguing that it was played on clay, but that it was played on a relatively slow surface in contrast to nearly all the other pro events in the US during this period; that Gimeno could consistently out perform Laver just did not happen at any other tournament. The british hard courts at Bournemouth was not played on red clay, but Rosewall's famous '68 victory is regarded as a clay court win. The 75-77 Us open is regarded as clay. It was actually played on Har-tru a pea green coloured surface. I have never seen red clay in so called clay court events in the US; its always a green coloured surface. How did you know the exact surface for the US clay court and cincinatti events in 1955 ? All I know is that these are slow court events played in same area of the country as St Louis.

jeffreyneave 29 september 2007

Hello, Jeffrey, Carlo and others. This clay question is indeed difficult to answer. We had this discussion on the Rosewall-discussion-side. I think, most of the summer European pro events were on clay, except Cannes, which was played indoors. In the US, there were some clay events, before most of the events turned to clay in the mid 70s, including Houston River Oaks (was even on red clay), Miami, Hollywood (Florida), where Emerson beat Rosewall in 1968, Louisville (probably green clay), Indianapolis. After the French pro changed to Coubertin stadium in 1963 and before it changed back to RG in 1968, there were simply no real important clay events for the pros. One of the most notable events was Barcelona in 1966, where Gimeno beat Laver in a great 5 set final, which Gimeno described as his best win ever. St.Louis was sponsored by Volkswagen, became part of the US circuit cince 1964, and was Butch Buchholtz's home event. I think it was played on real hard (cement) courts. Barretts Yearbooks don't differenciate between hard and clay court events, they call both hard court events. The British Hard Court at Bournemouth however was a real clay court event (going by the pictures and film clips i saw from Rosewall, Laver and later Nastase). The bad weather in spring often made the court very slow.(german friend 30.9.2007). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.60.152.64 (talk) 10:55, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

• Hello Germanfriend and Jeffrey.

Thank you for your answers. I've seen the 1955 Cincinnati surface on the World Tennis magazine report of the time (about september but I'm not absolutely certain). Have a good day Carlo Colussi 09:38, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Hello , I saw a coloured photo of Bournemouth for 1972 and its red clay court event.

jeffreyneave 1 oct 2007

Hello again, Jeffrey and Carlo and others. Speaking of clay court events. On the webside: www.histoiredutennis.com, are new videos advertisized, which contain rare film material from the French champs 1950-1978, and also from Kramer pro events, played in France in the pre open era, with material of Sedgman, Hoad, Rosewall, Laver, Gonzales, Gimeno and others.I also recently bought on the internet new relased videos (quite cheap) of 1969-1970, from Wimbledon (in color) and Sydney Dunlop open (black and white) with exciting matches of Laver vs. Ashe, Newcombe, Rosewall and Newcombe vs. Rosewall. See for example the webside: tennisdvds.net. The standard of play is excellent, regarding the wooden rackets. Astonishing for me, revisiting some of those matches after all these years, was the high percentage of clean winners.(German friend 1.10.2007) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.60.164.89 (talk) 19:11, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Tennis before 1919

Hello Karoly Mazak.

Thank you for your answer about the handicapper. I've found that George M Simond indeed ran some tournaments as the Monte Carlo one (and he also played it because one year he reached the semifinal (I don't remember but I think in 1905 probably beaten by H.L. Doherty).

I see that jeffreyneave had answered you about some official rankings that he, germanfriend, others and myself disagreed but we have to be the most neutral possible in Wikipedia. This article has been initiated by Hayford Peirce and he began in 1913 because of Myers' rankings. Peirce began with the amateur rankings and then added some pro rankings because he was warned about some good sources as McCauley's book and Ray Bowers's Website. In particular when I saw this page for the first time Peirce had ranked Gonzales and Laver in the first two places in 1961 when all the records of the time showed that Rosewall was probably the #1 that year so I've written to Peirce the paragraph "World No. 1 and 2 Tennis Players Rankings and Gonzales list" to explain my disagreements and finally I've edited this article a lot. Since jeffreyneave and germanfriend have (often rightfully) criticized some of my corrections and when I was convinced I've changed some of them : for instance both of them think that Laver was the best in 1970. My own ranking was 1 Rosewall, 2 Newcombe, 3 Laver, 4 Roche but jeffreyneave has made a ranking similar to the ATP one and it ended as 1 Laver 1100 pts and 2 Rosewall 880 pts. I told him that I didn't agree the ATP estimations so I've proposed him other weights and jeffreyneave estimated a new 1970 ranking : 1 Laver 1072 pts and 2 Rosewall 1028 pts. I haven't checked his estimation but if he is right I would admit that Laver was the best. Nevertheless the majority of tennis specialists ranked Newcombe #1 that year so we have to write it in the article.

When I've seen that Tilden said that Brookes was the greatest brain in tennis I began to be interested in tennis before WWI. So I've recently began to search some data and the first one I've found is "Anthony Wilding A Sporting Life" by Len and Shelley Richardson. The first thing I've done was to list Wilding's wins in the wikipedia article "Anthony Wilding" and then to list some rankings before 1913. In this book Wilding would have said that Brookes was the best of his own era and in particular in 1908 and 1911 so this is why I've added this source in the article though it seems that Brookes wasn't the best, above all in 1908. It also seems that N.E. Crawley published his own ranking in 1912 but in the Richardsons's book it isn't detailed : I then guess that tennis specialists had published world rankings before Myers's.

I don't know why your paragraph entitled "Top 4 rankings between 1877 and 1923" has disappeared because it was so interesting (wonderful) and I had some questions (and remarks) :

- you seem to give as much importance to the Irish Chps as Wimbledon in the first years of tennis competition when you compare W. Renshaw to Woodhouse in 1880 or Lawford to Richardson in 1881 or Lawford and J.E. Renshaw in 1887. Could you give me more details ?

- Northern Champ = Manchester ?

- Southern Champ = Eastbourne ?

- London Championships = Queen's ?

- sometimes you've written "Covered Court and Irish" but I suppose I must read "Britsih Covered Court Championship and Irish Championship" ? I guess there has never been an Irish Covered Court Championship. Do you confirm ?

- Some details :

who W. Renshaw defeated at the 1880 Irish ?

do you have more records about J.J. Cairnes who defeated Sears 46 62 61 63 ?

Grinstead overcame Browne 57 46 75 64 61 at Wimbledon 1881. Where Grinstead beat another time Ernest de S.H. Browne ?

you've written that Dwight and Sears were outclassed at several events : have you any information (I just know that at Wimbledon Sears defaulted and James Dwight lost in the round of "14+1" (14 players in the second round plus the holder waiting for the all comers' champion)

you cite "Outing" as a source : what was it exactly and could you give some of its Top10 or Top8(in 1885, 1886, 1892, 1896 (in particular Larned's place)...) ?

could you list some of the titles won by Ernest Lewis in 1888 and in 1889 ?

who Campbell beat among the second class British players ?

in 1894 you're talking about an international match opposing Pim (Ireland) and Baddeley (Great Britain) : do you confirm that match opposed the two nations (belonging to the same country : United Kingdom) ? I'm a little lost.

could you give some details about Pim and Mahony wins over Hovey in 1895 ?

Idem for the Mahony-Pim match in America ?

you've written that Eaves challenged Mahony at the Irish : I then conclude that there was a Challenge Round (CR) in Fitzwilliam as in Wimbledon. Could you give the years when the CR was adopted in the Irish Chps ?

Longwood Bowl = Longwood C.C. at Brookline outside Boston ? Is there any difference between Longwood Bowl and Boston ?

in 1899 you rank for the first time an American (Whitman) in your Top4 though Paret thought that Whitman was a second class player the year before : had Whitman dramatically progressed in one year ? Has he met any British player in 1899 and if yes what were the results ?

you suggest that Brookes was probably among the best in 1904 : what ranking do you propose for him ?

in 1910 you are saying that Brookes only played interstate matches where he lost to Parker : which one ? Ernie (Aus) the runner-up of the 1909 Australasian Chp or Harry the New-Zealander runner-up of the 1907 Australasian Chp ? And who did Brookes defeat in those team matches ? Did he play pennant competition for the Royal South Yarra Lawn Tennis Club ? Finally which ranking do you give him ?

in 1911 it seems that Larned didn't lost stunningly to Heath but that the American suffered from rhumatism.

you've written "Andre Gobert" but his surname is "André" (the pronunciation between "e" and "é" is very different in French)

your 1913 ranking is not clear because you rank Brookes 5th behind Parke but you've ranked Parke 3th (and Williams 4th)

Other question about 1913 : who did Brookes beat in the Victorian before defaulting in the final ?

I disagree with your 1914 and 1922 rankings.

In 1914 I would place Wilding above Brookes. Sure Brookes made a great feat and according to him played the best match of his life against Wilding at Wimbledon but Wilding defeated Brookes three times on four occasions : Cannes Beau Site 64 62 61 and two weeks later always at Cannes but at the Carlton Hotel 62 62 62 (I'm not sure of the second set), both on clay. Then Brookes beat Wilding at Wimbledon 64 64 75 and finally in a practice match reported by Arthur Wallis Myers at the Onwentsia Club in the Lake Forest District bordering Lake Michigan, some 40 km from the centre of Chicago, Wilding won 63 61 over Brookes. Wilding's wins were more decisive than Brookes's only win. Besides Wilding showed he was a better claycourt player than Brookes (in 6 tournaments at Monte Carlo, Wilding won 5 times : 1909, 1911-1914 (he lost to H.L. Doherty in the 1906 semifinals but defeated for instance Max Decugis or Décugis (even in french his name is not sure) three times in a row : 1911 final and 1912-1913 semis)). I then suppose that Wilding's defeat at Wimbledon was possibly an accident and above all I can conclude that Wilding had a best all-round game than Brookes's because the New Zealander was more effective on clay. Besides remember that Brookes was favoured by a dubious call against Froitzheim at Wimbledon.

In 1922 I have three official rankings that I will note in the article. According to "Tennis and Golf" (16 Janvier 1923 : January 16, 1923) in 1922 Johnston would have only lost one match, the U.S. Nationals final where he extended Tilden to five sets whereas the same Tilden would have lost once to Vincent Richards and three times to Johnston. In Davis Cup Johnston has been more dominant than Tilden. So I think that Johnston could claim at least the co-No 1 spot if not better in 1922. Besides in the two sources I've found (Capt. Hart and New York Times) Richards is ranked ahead Patterson.

could you cite the players you would have ranked in your Top4 had they been able to play during the war years (1915, 1916, 1917 and 1918) ?

in 1919 you have ranked Johnston ahead Patterson : I sort of agree but in the same time I'm not fully convinced because what Johnston would have done at Wimbledon (or better : in Australia) against Patterson. Johnston has dominated the Australian at home so it was an advantage : Johnston has not played in Patterson's home.

Could you give more details about the 1919 international match ?

In conclusion I would say :

a) thank you very much for all your original intervention

b) thank you in advance for your answers

c) could you check Wilding's titles I've put in the "Anthony Wilding" article ?

d) finally you could write an article about tennis competitions before WWI just in detailing your original paragraph, "Top 4 rankings between 1877 and 1923" but without proposing your own rankings in order to respect "neutrality" : for instance you wouldn't write that James Ernest Renshaw was better than Lawford in 1887 but you could detail your original sentence "Lawford beat Ernest Renshaw at Wimbledon and lost to him in Dublin, but Renshaw’s win at the Irish was more decisive" with some new informations about the rounds and the scores. Of course if you have any "official" ranking you can put it.

Carlo Colussi 13:00, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Top4 rankings 1877-1923 (repost)

Here I reinsert my original post, that somehow disappeared a few days ago.

The first unofficial world rankings for men were compiled by Wallis Myers in 1913. To do justice to many great players before that date, I have ranked the Top4 men from 1880 to help anyone interested in tennis history in assessing how the players stood in relation to each other. I have given much thought and time to collect as many results as possible and used as many contemporary sources (British and American tennis journals, official US rankings) as possible. I have given weight to performances in important tournaments and team competitions. In the world war years I left out spots for players that in my opinion could have been ranked there but were not able to play because of the war. Here is the first part of my rankings from 1877 to 1923. Feel free to comment. I have not edited this into the article with the exception of a few years when I had an official source.

1877 1 Spencer Gore BRI-G Wimbledon is the only tournament in this year. Gore had two four-set matches but these were not close either.

1878 1 Frank Hadow BRI-G Hadow won all of his matches at Wimbledon in 3 sets.

1879 1 John Hartley BRI-G 2 Vere ‘St. Leger’ Goold BRI-I The Irish Championships is launched and the winner, Goold comes to Wimbledon, but loses to Hartley.

1880 1 John Hartley BRI-G 2 Willie Renshaw BRI-G 3 Herbert Lawford BRI-G 4 Otway Woodhouse BRI-G Hartley wins the only match he plays, against Lawford in the Wimbledon final. Willie is the Irish Champ beating top players, but he loses early at Wimbledon to Woodhouse.

1881 1 Willie Renshaw BRI-G 2 Herbert Lawford BRI-G 3 Richard Richardson BRI-G 4 Otway Woodhouse BRI-G I follow the first British rankings published by R. Osborn (he ranked the Top7 British players), as reported by Tingay in his encyclopedia. After Irish and Wimbledon champ Willie he could not decide between the next two players. Lawford overcomes Richardson at the final of the Irish Champ, and loses to him for the 2nd place play-off at Wimbledon. He placed Woodhouse 4th. J. Cairnes from Ireland (semi-finalist in the 1879 Irish Championships) beats US Champ Sears indicating that American players do not yet belong to the best in the world.

1882 1 Willie Renshaw BRI-G 2 Ernest Renshaw BRI-G 3 Richard Richardson BRI-G 4 Ernest de S. H. Browne BRI-I Irish and Wimbledon champ Willie Renshaw is clearly the best. Ernest Renshaw is beaten by Richardson at the Northern Champ, but gets his revenge at Wimbledon. Ernest had a tough match against Browne at Wimbledon. Browne beats Lawford at the Irish Champ.

1883 1 Willie Renshaw BRI-G 2 Ernest Renshaw BRI-G 3 Herbert Lawford BRI-G 4 Ernest de S. H. Browne BRI-I Willie has won the only singles match he played at Wimbledon. Ernest has his toughest match against Herbert Lawford both at Wimbledon and at the Irish Champ. Browne won Bath and took Lawford to 5 sets in Dublin, but lost to Hartley at the Northern.

1884 1 Willie Renshaw BRI-G 2 Herbert Lawford BRI-G 3 Charles Grinstead BRI-G 4 Ernest de S. H. Browne BRI-I Willie has won the only singles match he played at Wimbledon. Lawford had his toughest match against Grinstead. Grinstead twice beats Browne in close matches. Browne beats Stewart at Wimbledon, avenging his loss at the Northern. Dick Sears and James Dwight were outclassed at several events showing that the best American players are not yet in the same class with the British.

1885 1 Willie Renshaw BRI-G 2 Herbert Lawford BRI-G 3 Ernest Renshaw BRI-G 4 Ernest de S. H. Browne BRI-I Willie has won the only singles match he played at Wimbledon. Lawford had his toughest matches against Ernest Renshaw both at Wimbledon and Dublin. Ernest de S. H. Browne twice played close matches against Ernest Renshaw. Although Dwight is the Northern Champ, according to a later article in Outing he was only ranked 10th (according to Potter’s book 8th) in the British list.

1886 1 Willie Renshaw BRI-G 2 Herbert Lawford BRI-G 3 Ernest Lewis BRI-G 4 Willoughby Hamilton BRI-I Willie has won the only singles match he played at Wimbledon. Lawford is the Irish champ and the challenger of Willie at Wimbledon. Ernest Lewis has won some tournaments and had a close match with Lawford at Wimbledon. Willoughby Hamilton has played two close matches with Lawford. Dwight once again played in England but according to a later article in Outing he was not ranked among the Top10 British players.

1887 1 Ernest Renshaw BRI-G 2 Herbert Lawford BRI-G 3 Willoughby Hamilton BRI-I 4 Harry Grove BRI-G Lawford beat Ernest Renshaw at Wimbledon and lost to him in Dublin, but Renshaw’s win at the Irish was more decisive. Neither of them has shown as good a form as Willie last year who is sadly absent because of injury. Hamilton is the Irish finalist, taking a set from Ernest. Grove is the Northern champ, taking a set from Lawford at Wimbledon.

1888 1 Ernest Renshaw BRI-G 2 Willoughby Hamilton BRI-I 3 Ernest Lewis BRI-G 4 Willie Renshaw BRI-G Ernest Renshaw produces his best form ever. Hamilton (Northern champ) beats Lewis in Dublin. Lewis has won many titles and has a close match with Hamilton in Dublin. Willie is beaten by Hamilton at Wimbledon.

1889 1 Willoughby Hamilton BRI-I 2 Willie Renshaw BRI-G 3 Harry Barlow BRI-G 4 Ernest Lewis BRI-G Hamilton has beaten Willie (once again Wimbledon champion) at the Irish and won the Northern as well. Barlow beats Hamilton and nearly overcomes Willie at Wimbledon. Lewis has two important titles (one of them against Barlow) and is beaten only by Hamilton at Wimbledon and Willie at the Irish. George Kerr, an Irish professional player beats in three of four matches Tom Pettitt, the leading professional in America. However, I cannot rank either of them.

1890 1 Ernest Lewis BRI-G 2 Willoughby Hamilton BRI-I 3 Joshua Pim BRI-I 4 Harry Barlow BRI-G Lewis is the Covered Court and Irish champ but falls to Barlow at Wimbledon. Hamilton wins Wimbledon, but loses to Lewis in Dublin and Pim in Liverpool. Pim beats Hamilton at the Northern and extends Lewis in Dublin. Hamilton has his toughest match against Barlow (7-5 in the fifth) at Wimbledon where Barlow beats Lewis. George Kerr once again beats Tom Pettitt three matches to zero. However, I cannot rank either of them.

1891 1 Ernest Lewis BRI-G 2 Wilfred Baddeley BRI-G 3 Joshua Pim BRI-I 4 Harry Barlow BRI-G Lewis is the Irish and Covered Court champion, but does not play Wimbledon. Baddeley is the Wimbledon champ in the absence of Irish Champ Lewis. Both of them have beaten Pim, although Pim also beat Baddeley at the Northern Champ. Pim narrowly overcomes Barlow (7-5 in the fifth) at Wimbledon who takes revenge at the London Championships and wins several other titles.

1892 1 Ernest Renshaw BRI-G 2 Wilfred Baddeley BRI-G 3 Joshua Pim BRI-I 4 Ernest Lewis BRI-G Ernest Renshaw wins the Irish Championships in fine form but does not play Wimbledon. Baddeley once again overcomes Pim at Wimbledon, but is beaten by Stoker at the Irish. Pim is nearly beaten by Lewis at Wimbledon (two weeks later Lewis beats him in the London Champs). US champ Campbell is beaten easily at Wimbledon and can only beat second class British players (according to a later Outing article he is not in the British Top 10). 1893 1 Joshua Pim BRI-I 2 Harold Mahony BRI-I 3 Wilfred Baddeley BRI-G 4 Ernest Renshaw BRI-G Pim wins Wimbledon, the Irish and Northern titles as well (noone has won all the three titles in the same year yet). Only Mahony (Covered champ) carries him to 5 sets in the London Champs. Pim defeats twice Baddeley (South of England champ). Ernest Renshaw carries Mahony to 5 sets at Wimbledon.

1894 1 Joshua Pim BRI-I 2 Wilfred Baddeley BRI-G 3 Tom Chaytor BRI-I 4 Ernest Lewis BRI-G Pim defends his Wimbledon and Irish titles. Wilfred Baddeley has easy victories at Wimbledon and wins the Northern Champ beating Pim and also beats him at the international match. Tom Chaytor nearly beats Pim at the Irish. Lewis beats Mahony at Wimbledon and the international match. Wrenn (official US1) overcomes Goodbody, but he is not among the best Irish players.

1895 1 Joshua Pim BRI-I 2 Wilfred Baddeley BRI-G 3 Wilberforce Eaves BRI-A 4 Harold Mahony BRI-I Pim (the Irish champ demolishing Eaves) and Mahony are absent from Wimbledon. They play in America and are dominant over Fred Hovey (who goes on to become the US champ this year), Clarence Hobart (who manages to beat Pim) and Bill Larned. It once again indicates that American players are not yet among the best. Baddeley wins Wimbledon from a weaker field narrowly beating Eaves, and also wins the Northern tournament. Eaves is the challenger at the Irish beating Mahony and the finalist at Wimbledon. Mahony nearly beats Pim in America.

1896 1 Wilfred Baddeley BRI-G 2 Harold Mahony BRI-I 3 Wilberforce Eaves BRI-A 4 Bob Wrenn USA Baddeley is first, despite his loss to Mahony at Wimbledon. Mahony was beaten by Baddeley at the Irish and the Northern. Eaves is the Wimbledon finalist. Larned (US2) is the first American player to be ranked in the Top8 British players. However, Wrenn (US1) must precede him who has won both the Longwood Bowl and the US Champ.

1897 1 Reggie Doherty BRI-G 2 Bob Wrenn USA 3 Wilberforce Eaves BRI-A 4 Wilfred Baddeley BRI-G There is very little difference between the Top 5 players. Doherty is No 1 although he was beaten by Eaves at the Covered and the Irish, by Baddeley (at the Northern) and by Mahony at the international match, however he has beaten all of them at Wimbledon. Wrenn beats Eaves at the US but loses to Larned in Boston. Eaves is the Irish and Covered champ. Wilfred Baddeley is the Northern Champ (beating Reggie) and nearly beats Eaves at the Irish. Larned defeated Wrenn in Boston.

1898 1 Reggie Doherty BRI-G 2 Harold Mahony BRI-I 3 Laurie Doherty BRI-G 4 Wilberforce Eaves BRI-A Reggie Doherty is No 1, although he loses to Mahony at the Irish. Laurie (Northern champ) beats Mahony at Wimbledon, the London Champ and in Bad Homburg. Eaves is the Covered champ beating Laurie and also gives a tough battle to Mahony at the Irish. Whitman is US1 (winning also Boston), but first-class players Wrenn and Larned are absent from the US tournaments (they are soldiers fighting in Cuba), and US expert Paret thought in an Outing article that he still belonged only to the second class (Ware beat him at the Canadian Champ). Professionals Thomas Burke and George Kerr cannot be ranked yet.

1899 1 Reggie Doherty BRI-G 2 Mal Whitman USA 3 Arthur Gore BRI-G 4 Sidney Smith BRI-G Reggie wins both Wimbledon and the Irish and has an unbeaten season. Whitman has won both Boston and the US and other tournaments, beating also Larned. Gore plays well at Wimbledon beating Mahony and Smith, but has defeats at the beginning of the season. Northern champ Smith has beaten both Eaves and Mahony twice.

1900 1 Reggie Doherty BRI-G 2 Mal Whitman USA 3 Sidney Smith BRI-G 4 Arthur Gore BRI-G Reggie wins both Wimbledon and the Irish. Whitman wins both in Boston and Newport and beats Gore in Davis Cup. Smith is the Wimbledon challenger and the Northern champ. Gore loses to Whitman at Davis Cup, also early at the US Champ, but three times beats Laurie. Davis is US2, beating Whitman in Boston earlier in the summer, but losing early at the US Championships. Professionals Thomas Burke and George Kerr cannot be ranked yet.

1901 1 Reggie Doherty BRI-G 2 Arthur Gore BRI-G 3 Bill Larned USA 4 Laurie Doherty BRI-G Although Reggie (still Irish champ) loses his Wimbledon title he was in poor health so he remains No 1. Gore beat Reggie at Wimbledon, but lost to Laurie at the Covered. American champ Larned won Boston as well, both in the absence of Whitman. Laurie beat Gore at the Covered Champ and Smith at the Irish, but lost early at Wimbledon to Hillyard who nearly overcame Gore as well.

1902 1 Laurie Doherty BRI-G 2 Bill Larned USA 3 Reggie Doherty BRI-G 4 Mal Whitman USA Laurie has won all of his matches. US champ Larned was 1-1 with Reggie, but lost to Clothier in Boston. Reggie beat Larned and Whitman as well, but did not play singles anymore in England. Whitman is US2 and lost to Reggie at the US Champ.

1903 1 Laurie Doherty BRI-G 2 Bill Larned USA 3 Reggie Doherty BRI-G 4 Frank Riseley BRI-G Laurie is undisputed No. 1. Larned nearly beats Laurie at Davis Cup and also wins in Boston. Reggie wins a Davis Cup match, and beats Riseley in Monte Carlo. Riseley is the Wimbledon challenger. Professional Thomas Burke cannot be ranked yet.

1904 1 Laurie Doherty BRI-G 2 Sidney Smith BRI-G 3 Frank Riseley BRI-G 4 Holcombe Ward USA Laurie has only one loss at the end of the season. Smith (Northern and Eastbourne champ) overcomes Riseley at the Northern. Riseley is the challenger at Wimbledon. Ward is US1, but loses to Larned in Boston. Brookes is once again champion of Victoria, and based on his play in England in 1905, he could be included.

1905 1 Laurie Doherty BRI-G 2 Beals Wright USA 3 Norman Brookes AUS 4 Sidney Smith BRI-G Doherty loses only a 2-setter to Brookes. Wright twice beats Wimbledon challenger Brookes, but loses to Gore at Wimbledon. Brookes beats Smith twice and loses once to him. Smith beats Ward at Wimbledon.

1906 1 Laurie Doherty BRI-G 2 Norman Brookes AUS 3 Frank Riseley BRI-G 4 Bill Clothier USA Laurie is unbeaten in the season. Brookes has won the Victorian Championships against Wilding but has not played outside Australia. Riseley (Northern champ) is the challenger, but last year he was clearly beaten by Brookes. Clothier is US1, but loses in Boston and Mountain Station.

1907 1 Norman Brookes AUS 2 Bill Larned USA 3 Beals Wright USA 4 Arthur Gore BRI-G Brookes is clearly No. 1, he has not lost a match. Larned is the US and Boston champ in weak fields. Beals Wright beat Wilding in Davis Cup, lost to him at Wimbledon, but the Cup match was more important. Gore beat Wilding in Davis Cup, but lost to him in Beckenham.

1908 1 Bill Larned USA 2 Arthur Gore BRI-G 3 Beals Wright USA 4 Norman Brookes AUS Larned wins the US, Boston and his Davis Cup matches. Gore wins several titles (also Wimbledon from a weaker field), and loses only once to Ritchie in Surbiton. Wright is US2, beats both Brookes and Wilding, but loses to Ritchie in Davis Cup. Brookes has lost to Wright in the Davis Cup and could only narrowly beat Alexander.

1909 1 Bill Larned USA 2 Tony Wilding NZL 3 Norman Brookes AUS 4 Arthur Gore BRI-G Larned is once again US and Boston champ. Wilding has not played in Britain but defeated Brookes in Melbourne and recorded a victory against the 7th ranked American, and based on his form next year in Britain, he deserves to be ranked near the top. Brookes barely lost to Wilding and recorded a victory against the 6th ranked American. Gore is the Wimbledon champ, but is clearly beaten by Ritchie at the Covered.

1910 1 Bill Larned USA 2 Tony Wilding NZL 3 Tom Bundy USA 4 Beals Wright USA Without Davis Cup matches the men are more difficult to rank than ever. Larned is once again US and Boston champ (he was named the best player of the world next April by a Britsh expert, A. Crawley). Wilding wins Wimbledon but Wright nearly beats him in the all-comers’ final. Bundy is US2. Wright is US3, nearly beating Wilding. Brookes plays only interstate matches and loses once to Parker.

1911 1 Tony Wilding NZL 2 Norman Brookes AUS 3 Bill Larned USA 4 Rod Heath AUS Wilding has barely defended his Wimbledon title and had some defeats in the early part of the season. Brookes has won in Davis Cup and won the Australasian Championships (also beating Heath), but has not met Wilding who won their last encounter. Larned (US and Boston champ) lost stunningly to Heath.

1912 1 Tony Wilding NZL 2 Maurice McLoughlin USA 3 Jim Cecil Parke BRI-I 4 Andre Gobert FRA Wilding has defended his Wimbledon crown, but lost on wood to Gobert and Dixon. McLoughlin is US1 in the absence of Bill Larned and is undefeated during the season. Parke beat Brookes and Heath in the Davis Cup, but lost to Gobert at Wimbledon. Gobert beat Wilding at the Covered Courts, was 1-0 against Parke (at Wimbledon), 1-1 against Gore (lost at Wimbledon but won in Davis Cup), 1-1 against Dixon (won at the Olympics but lost in Davis Cup), 1-1 against Decugis (won at Wimbledon, lost at the French Closed). Brookes lost to Parke, but beat Dixon in Davis Cup.

1913 1 Tony Wilding NZL 2 Maurice McLoughlin USA 3 Jim Cecil Parke BRI-I 4 Dick Williams USA Wilding is clearly 1st. Although Myers co-ranked Brookes with McLoughlin, it was probably on reputation. Brookes once again only played in Australia and gave a walkover in the final of the Victorian Championships. So I place him 5th, behind Parke (beat McLoughlin and Williams in Davis Cup) and Williams (beat Dixon in Davis Cup).

1914 1 Maurice McLoughlin USA 2 Norman Brookes AUS 3 Tony Wilding NZL 4 Dick Williams USA Myers ranked McLouglin 1st, probably based on his 2 victories in Davis Cup. Myers co-ranked Brookes and Wilding. I choose Brookes over Wilding because he beat him in the Wimbledon final. I place Williams 4th above Froitzheim, as he beat McLoughlin at the US.

1915 2 Bill Johnston USA 3 Dick Williams USA 4 Maurice McLoughlin USA No complete rankings are possible because of WWI. Wilding died in the war, Brookes does not play, Froitzheim is in captivity. The best American Johnston doesn’t deserve the No1 spot, as he loses to McLoughlin and Niles and has several other defeats. So I leave out the top spot and place the best Americans (the USA is not at war) in the remaining places in the Top4. Williams loses to McLoughlin and Johnston. McLoughlin loses to Behr, Williams, Johnston.

1916 2 Dick Williams USA 3 Bill Johnston USA No complete rankings are possible because of WWI. The USA is still not at war and a full season is played there. Williams doesn’t deserve the top spot as he twice loses to Griffin. Johnston loses to Kumagae and Williams. I leave out the fourth spot (Church is US3, followed closely by Murray).

1917 3 Lindley Murray USA 4 Dick Williams USA No complete rankings are possible because of WWI. The USA enters the war (there are no USLTA rankings), there is only a Patriotic tournament where holder Williams loses in the semis to veteran Niles, though the match is played in rain. I place US Champ Murray 3rd who beats an off-form Johnston in July in a Red Cross exhibition match. I place Williams 4th, who played well in the spring before entering the millitary and lost his semi at the US Champs in steady rain. Although Johnston is still a Pacific Coast Champ, he is outside the Top4.

1918 3 Lindley Murray USA 4 Bill Tilden USA No complete rankings are possible because of WWI. I Murray who defended his title at No 3 ahead of Tilden (US2) who won the US Clay as based on his 1919 from he was might have been better than Williams (neither Johnston nor Williams competed at Forest Hills). Tilden also beat Murray in Southampton is August.

1919 1 Bill Johnston USA 2 Gerald Patterson AUS 3 Bill Tilden USA 4 Andre Gobert FRA Myers co-ranked Johnston and Patterson. In my opinion Johnston is the No.1 as he beat Patterson at the US Championships. I also rank Tilden ahead of Gobert as he beat Johnston in Newport and Patterson at the international match. Gobert was probably ranked high because he beat Patterson in a team match and won the World Covered Court Champs (but he lost an important DC match to Kingscote).

1920 1 Bill Tilden USA 2 Bill Johnston USA 3 Jim Cecil Parke BRI-I 4 Algie Kingscote BRI-G After Tilden Myers ranked Johnston. I place Parke above Kingscote as he beat Johnston in Wimbledon (the American got his revenge in DC).

1921 1 Bill Tilden USA 2 Bill Johnston USA 3 Vinnie Richards USA 4 Zenzo Shimidzu JPN I concur with the rankings of Myers.

1922 1 Bill Tilden USA 2 Bill Johnston USA 3 Vinnie Richards USA 4 Gerald Patterson AUS I concur with the rankings of Myers, but place Richards ahead of Patterson, as Richards beat Anderson confortably, while Patterson lost to him in Australia.

1923 1 Bill Tilden USA 2 Bill Johnston USA 3 James Anderson AUS 4 Dick Williams USA I concur with the rankings of Myers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Karoly Mazak (talk • contribs) 00:08, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Diverse topics

Hello jeffrey : the Atlanta US Clay court Chps in 1955 was reported in the September 1955 edition of World Tennis with Frank Kovacs on cover, page 36 (I precise it because I don't know if my magazine is the "original US edition" or the "imported UK edition" : the month depends on the origin of the magazine : when the US original was published on a month "n" the UK edition was published a month later, "n+1"). It would seem that the volume and the number of a magazine identifies it without doubt but the number of the magazine I own has too been modified so I precise the cover which correctly identifies a WT magazine.

Hello German friend : thank you for your last informations about DVDs and other videos. Carlo Colussi 07:08, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

From German friend. Hallo to all. I came across some other interesting video edits on the internet, thanks to a poster of tennis warehouse forums. These videos come from the French webside www.ina.fr. And they show parts (up to 20 minutes) of some memoral Roland Garros matches of 1961 (Sanatana-Laver, Pietrangeli-Lundquist), 1962 (Laver-Emerson) and 1969 (Okker-Newcombe, Laver-Okker, Laver-Rosewall). On the ina webside is also a compilation of a film of Christian Quidet (ca 20 minutes) about the Cannes pro event in 1965, with some very interesting background material and interviews of the old pro tour. Clips and interviews are shown of Laver, Rosewall, Gimeno, Segura, Haillet, Sedgman, Davies, Buchholtz and others. It is interesting, that the events played in September at Cannes and Aix-Le-Bains, were to great parts held at indoor arenas on linoleum, it seems.I will try to add links. german friend. 7.11.2007. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.60.159.231 (talk) 16:40, 7 November 2007 (UTC)