Talk:Ken Rosewall/Archive 1

Rosewall-Laver

Hello Carlo and Jeffrey, I just saw on the tennis Warehouse Talk Forum under the thread Rosewall-Laver in the Forum Former players, a list of the Rosewall-Laver head-to-head, which seems to be quite solid and complete.For great parts it correspondents with the list here. The poster has especially given quite full details of the 1963 World Series, with dates, places and results. For 1963 he has a 30-12 advantage for Rosewall, overall he has 76-58 for Laver. 1964-1976 is quite the same, except for 1969, where he has a further Laver win in a Dutch pro round robin. Maybe you look yourself on the side. Maybe we can integrate the findings. (German friend 31.12.2007) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.60.163.14 (talk) 12:10, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

I add the link here (german friend 2.1.2008). Poster has added new post here with all results of the 1957 World Series between Rosewall and Gonzales. http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showthread.php?t=167553 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.60.188.217 (talk) 10:16, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

• Hello German friend and Jeffrey. Thank you very much for the information (I have never contributed in the Warehouse Talk Forum and I have no time to do it but I've already seen that Urban (I suppose this is either you German or you Jeffrey) cited me (as the French editor) about the "World number one ..." article). I will correct, in the future days, the head-to-head list in the article. Then I will give the new list to Andrew (I guess that I have his personal e-mail address) because I am not sure he has yet seen the "Ken Rosewall" article on Wikipedia Carlo Colussi (talk) 15:25, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

• Hello again. I've changed the article after having looked at some World Tennis magazines, Tennis de France magazines and Google Archives and of course Andrew's statistics which are wonderful.

1) It is very unlikely that the 1st match won by Laver at the MSG in 1963 took place on March 24 as stated by Andrew because the score (60 63) indicates it was a match of the final phase of the North American Tour. All the matches of the 1st phase were pro sets even the openers at the MSG on February 8. All the matches of the final phase between Ken and Rod were 3-setter. According to Tony Trabert who run that tour the 1st phase ended at El Paso on April 23. So the proposed date of April (and not March) 24 for the opener at the MSG of the final phase by Joe McCauley is very probable.

2) According to the Google Archives, Rosewall led Laver 5-3 in the first phase (round robin affair) and 14-4 in the final phase and moreover the first Laver's win over Ken in the North American tour took place on April 7 what coincides with "the unknown city (probably in Kentucky)" I've mentioned in the article. I nevertheless recognize that the Google Archives are often undecephirable so Andrew's statement that Laver beat Rosewall on April 3 at Cleveland isn't necessarily wrong : this is why I've put it in the article but I've added a question mark. If Andrew's right then Ken-Rod standings in the 1st phase are 5-4. According to McCauley the final standings of the 1st phase were : Rosewall 31-10, Laver 26-16, Buchholz 23-18, Gimeno 21-20, MacKay 12-29 and Ayala 11-30 so each player played 41 matches in the first phase except Laver (42) so they probably met each other about 8 or 9 times so the 5-4 Ken-Rod standings are very probable. On March 4 after Davidson (NC) (I've got all the results between February 8 and March 4) the standings were Rosewall 12-3, Buchholz 8-7, Laver 8-7, MacKay 7-8, Gimeno 6-9 and Ayala 4-11 (with Rosewall-Laver 4-0). Trabert gave other temporary standings (without precising the date) : Rosewall 16-4 (he lost twice to Gimeno and twice to Ayala, the Chilean beating Rosewall both on clay at Charlotte and Houston, but he always defeated Buchholz and Laver until that), Buchholz 12-8, Laver 10-10, Gimeno 9-11 (MacKay and Ayala overall statistics were not given).

The second phase probably started at the MSG (as the first phase) on April 24 (and not on March as explained before) but the score seems odd because it's exactly the same as the other venue at the MSG on May 16 (May 16 according to the Google Archives and May 17 according to Andrew) : this is why I've added a question mark about the score of MSG April 24.

Trabert confirmed that Rosewall beat Laver 14 matches to 4 in the final phase (and Gimeno-Buchholz 11-7) as McCauley had written it in his book.

The Google Archives say that Rosewall squared things with Laver at Los Angeles on April 27 by winning the second duel of the final phase. Those archives seem to state that first Laver's win in the final phase came on April 7 (see my above remark). They also say that Rosewall won for the 3rd straight time over Laver at New Haven (May 12) and that he took a 7-3 lead. So it confirms that Rosewall won at Hershey the previous day and it means that a) Rosewall won the match before Hershey and b) Laver won the match before the match before Hershey (I hope you follow). Therefore before that Laver's win, Rosewall led 4-2 this is why I've mentioned 3 Rosewall's wins between Salt Lake City (after Salt Lake, Laver led 2-1) and the unknown city (just cited above) where Laver won.

The Google Archives also confirm that a) after MSG May 16 (or 17) Laver trailed Rosewall 4-7, b) after Eugene Rosewall led 11-4, c) Seattle was their 16th meeting.

In conclusion I think that a) the round robin statistics (1st phase) are almost (or entirely) complete with Rosewall probably leading 5-4 and b) the final phase statistics are almost sure (but incomplete with unknown cities and scores) with Rosewall winning 14-4. The only real doubt is that I've put a Rosewall's win just after Salt Lake City : I don't know if that match truly occured after Salt Lake or if it took place on April 28 between Los Angeles (April 27) and Salt Lake (April 29).

Finally Trabert wrote that the Cannes pro tournament in 1963 took place at the Palais des Sports on a very fast wood surface : I've precised it in the head-to-head meetings.

All the Trabert informations came from his Pro chronicles written in "Tennis de France" "N°120 Avril 1963" (where he gave the temporary standings of the World Series , "N°124 Août 1963" (he precised he couldn't have written articles for the N° 121 to 123 because he had been very busy as president of the ILPTA; then he gave a) the 14-4 and 11-7 standings of the final phase and, b) reports of the Adler tournament in LA and the US Pro at Forest Hills : in particular he said that he hadn't ever seen Rosewall played as well as in the final of that US Pro 1963 and that in that match Riggs considered Rosewall as good as the best Budge or Kramer and superior to the best Gonzales), "N°125 Août 1963" (Trabert mentioned that the Cannes tournament was played at the Palais des Sports "sur un court de bois très rapide" (a very fast wood surface court). Trabert also wrote that he and Rosewall watched together the semifinal between Laver and Rosewall. Kenny was to play Laver in the final the next day and at one time he joked and said to Trabert something like "May I go to Noordwijk tomorrow ?" It meant that Laver played so well against Gimeno that Rosewall would have had no chance the next day and could have directly gone to the next tournament held at Noordwijk aan Zee (Noordwijk on Sea in English). Trabert and Rosewall were completely amazed by Laver's level that day. And Gimeno too because after three Laver's returns winners, the Spaniard looked at Trabert and Rosewall seeming asking if he had to laugh or cry. Trabert wrote that Laver at his best was like Hoad : unbeatable. And in the final Rosewall lost 6-2 6-3 6-4.

That's all folks !!! Carlo Colussi (talk) 09:36, 4 January 2008 (UTC) P.S. : I will send my remarks to Andrew.

From german friend Urban. Great work, Carlo. Sheds new light on this difficult to reconstruct series. The match at MSG 6-0, 6-3 is mentioned in Laver's first biography' Winning in tennis', coedited with Jack Pollard, edited in 1964 and translated to german in 1969. Sadly, no date is mentioned there. Allison Danzig is cited for the New York Times, who was impressed with Laver's progress as a pro. Laver writes, that he couldn't hold the standard of his serving in the later stages of the US series. Betty Laver gives the stats, that after 15 matches of the first phase Rosewall was 12-3, Laver 8-7, same as Buchholz. All seems to indicate, that Laver began to play better in March and April, before Rosewall finally took over in May in the latter stages of the second phase.(german friend 4.1.2008) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.60.141.204 (talk) 10:35, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

• Hello German urban. Your conclusions are good : as you can see I've transferred today in the Wikipedia site new corrections proposed by Andrew Tas who has answered my mail via our email addresses : he mainly agreed my proposition but suggested few corrections that I've inserted here.

P.S. : in the Laver article I've added the French tables without translating them because it will save me very much time (in the talk page I've given few indications) Carlo Colussi (talk) 13:31, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks german (urban), jeffrey (jeffrey) and carlo for share this info, free and great data, here. I appreciate this a lot. Greeting from argentina. (Q&M) or --Lucio Garcia (talk) 17:43, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Cleanup

You could at least write something in the discussion page, hey "12.218.84.248", to explain your cleanups. First of all : who are you ?

Carlo Colussi 14:46, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

1977 Tokyo Gunze Open

I've never heard of Rosewall's victory at the 1977 Tokyo Gunze Open : could you, mister jeffreyneave, give me your source and the detailed results ? Thank you.

Carlo Colussi 08:06, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

The source is the World of Tennis Yearbook 1978 and the biography of nastase by Richard Evans. Rosewall beat Nastase in 3 sets in the final. There were some other good players in the event including Orantes. [jeffreyneave] 12 Jan 2007

• • • • Thank you very much for the answerCarlo Colussi 16:09, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

1970 Newcombe's record

24 tournaments and a little pro Australian tour January 4-8, where Newcombe ended 2nd behind Roche and ahead of Pilic, Okker and Taylor.

- Victorian-Melbourne (ended on January 18) victory over Roche

- Australian Open-Sydney (ended on January 26) defeat in the quarterfinals against Ralston 19-17 20-18 4-6 6-3

- Philadelphia (ended on February 8) : defeat in the semifinals against Roche 6-0 6-3 6-4

- Corpus Christi (February 20-22) : defeat in the final against Rosewall 6-2 6-0

- London Royal Albert Hall (March 4-7) : defeat in the round of 16 (1st round) against Riessen 3-6 14-12 6-3

- Dunlop Open Sydney (March 16-22) : defeat in the round of 16 (2nd round) against Gimeno

- Dallas (ended on April 26) defeat last 16 against Gimeno

- Atlanta (May 6-10) : defeat in semifinals against Okker 2-6 10-8 6-1

- Las Vegas (probably May 13-17) : lost to Emerson qf

- Tennis Champion Classic (January 31, Detroit beaten by Gonzales 6-4 6-4 6-2, May 21 West Orange, beaten by Rosewall 5-7 7-5 6-1 6-2)

- St Louis (May 27 - June 1) : defeat in the quarterfinals against Rosewall 8-6 7-5

- Casablanca (June 2-7) victory over Gimeno

- Bristol (June 8-13) defeat in the semifinals against Pilic 4-6 14-12 8-6

- Queen's (June 15-20) defeat in the final against Laver 6-4 6-3

- Wimbledon (ended on July 4) : victory over Rosewall

- Newport (UK) (July 6-11) defeat in the final against Rosewall 6-4 6-4

- Hoylake (July 13-18) victory

- Louisville (July 28 - August 2) : defeat in the final against Laver 6-3 6-3

- Boston-US Pro (ended on August 9) : defeat in the round of 32 (1st round) against Graebner 6-2 6-4

- Fort Worth (ended on August 23) : defeat in the semifinals against Emerson 8-6 7-5

- US Open (ended on September 13) : defeat in the semifinals against Rosewall 6-3 6-4 6-3

- Pacific Southwest-Los Angeles (ended on September 27) : defeat in the final against Laver 4-6 6-4 7-6

- Vancouver (ended on October 4) : defeat in the quarterfinals against Gimeno 6-3 6-3

- Midland (October 8-11) : defeat in the final against Taylor 2-6 7-6 6-1

Carlo Colussi 07:57, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Additional information from ITf web site concerning Newcombe's losses in Dallas and Las Vegas [Jeffreyneave] 6 march 2007

• • • • Thanks Carlo Colussi 09:40, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

• • • • he lost to pilic in bristol. He also played in LA in 1970 and Las Vegas 1970. He describes attending both tournamemts in his autobiography. Partying with Gonzales in La and watching him defeat Laver in Vegas. He does not tell us who he lost to. In the gap period I assume he played at Dallas; Tingay does not list qf results but the field looks strong to me.

[jeffreyneave] 24 November 2006

About Rosewall's records

A) I haven't complete data in 1970. My sources are Sutter, World of Tennis '71 (Barrett-Tingay), the ATP and 3 magazines of World Tennis.

With only these sources I couldn't have found that Gimeno beat Rosewall in Fort Worth, that Gonzales defeated Kenny in Las Vegas and that Muscles has overcome Newcombe in Tennis Champions Classic (it seems that in Barrett-Tingay book this match is omitted).

Michel Sutter considers Laver's wins of Tennis Champions Classic as tournament wins (New York Pro July 16, 1970 and New York Pro March 19, 1971). So if I follow his pattern, Rosewall's (not fully detailed) record in 1970 is :

- Philadelphia (ended on February 8) : defeat in the round of 32 against Graebner 63 62)

- Hollywood (Fla) (February 12-14) : victory over Gimeno

- Corpus Christi (February 20-22) : victory over Newcombe

- London Royal Albert Hall (March 4-7) : defeat in the final against Riessen

- Dunlop Open Sydney (March 16-22) : defeat in final against Laver

- Dallas (ended on April 26) : defeat in the semifinals against Emerson

- Atlanta (ended on May 10 or 11) : defeat in the semifinals against Ralston

- Las Vegas (probably May 13-17) : defeat against Roche qf

- St Louis (May 27 - June 1) : defeat in the final against Laver

- Eastbourne (June 15-20) : victory over Hewitt

- Wimbledon (ended on July 4) : defeat in the final against Newcombe

- Newport (GB) (ended on July 11) : victory over Newcombe

- Tennis Champions Classic (March 1 beaten by Emerson, May 21 beat Newcombe (according to you), June 3 beat Stolle and Okker (one day seems short to me), June 5 beat Emerson in the semis of the 4-man tournament and July 16 beaten by Laver in the final) **rosewall won 5-7,7-5, 6-1, 6-2 at West orange ,NJ

- Cincinatti (ended on July 26) : victory over Richey

- Louisville (July 28 - August 2) : defeat in the semifinals against Laver

- Boston-US Pro (ended on August 9) : defeat by Drysdale in the round of 16

- Fort Worth (ended on August 23) : defeat by Gimeno (according to you) (which round ?) ** qf

- (South) Orange (ended on September 1) : defeat in the semifinals against Carmichael

- US Open (ended on September 13) : victory over Roche

- Barcelona (ended on October 25) : defeat in the quarterfinals against Franulovic

- Paris (ended on November 15) : defeat in the quarterfinals against Goven

- London Wembley (November 16-21) : defeat in the semifinals against Richey

- Stockholm (ended on December 1) : defeat in the semifinals against Smith

- Masters Tokyo (ended on December 15) : 3rd place

additional information from ITF web site concerning Rosewall's performance in Las Vegas [jeffreyneave] 6 March 2007

If I count Tennis Champions Classic Rosewall entered 24 tournaments and had 6 victories : is this list complete ? ****yes, I count the TCC as one tourament

B) About 1962 : if Tennis Champions Classic is considered a tournament then Australian TV Series has also to be considered a tournament because the latter was also based on the "King of the hill" game where you are playing until you lost. In this competition with Hoad, Rosewall, Cooper, Anderson, Gimeno, Buchholz, MacKay, Hartwig, Rose, McGregor and Ayala, 13 matches were held and Rosewall was the big winner because he won 10 matches (pro set) in succession before losing the last one against Hoad who then became the last "King of the hill" (according to Tony Trabert in Tennis de France n°108-Avril 1962). Here is my question : Do we have to consider this Australian TV Series and the Tennis Champions Classic as tournaments ? ***Yes I count it as tournament victory, so does McCauley

I have indeed forgotten Stockholm October 8-12

C) Same remark for NTL Paris Pro Chps (4-man tournament) April 19-20, 1968 *** not a four man event , 6 man event. McCauley missed Laver's win over Emerson 1st round.

D) Knowing that I've written in the article Rosewall won 7 tournaments and 78.7% of his matches (70 out of 89) in 1971. and that these statistics were counted by me I have to change the data with your new information about the Denver tournament (ended on April 25) : Do you have the details of his wins/losses in this round-robin tournament ? ***** rosewall stated he was going to finish 2nd behind Drysdale until Drysdale had a suprising loss. Rosewall probably won 6 and lost to Drysdale.

E) About the Trofeo Facis tour in 1964, Rosewall dominated Gimeno, Gonzales and Buchholz in the first part and in the second part came Hoad, Olmedo, Laver, Sedgman and Ayala : Rosewall then just faced Gimeno (that he beat) and Laver against whom he lost twice in two meetings and at the conclusion McCauley says that Rosewall won the tour. It's a little ambiguous ? Don't you think so ? *****I know it is. The real tour is the 4 man one. Laver had no chance to win this tour even though he outperformed Rosewall in the last stage.

F) In February 1959 Sedgman won a New Zealand tour over Rosewall, Trabert and Rose and in October-November 1959 Sedgman won the European Grand Prix tour (18 wins) ahead of Rosewall (17 wins), Hoad (11 wins) and Trabert (8 wins) but in Rowley's book, Rosewall said "... I beat everyone but Trabert and Hoad sort of lost interest, and Sedgman beat Trabert nine times without a loss and so had one more victory than me. My record against Sedgman in the Grand Prix was five wins to four losses".

Thank you for all the answers. ***** notes equal comments by [jeffreyneave] 21 nov 2006

• • • I am not sure about WCT 1971 being a major that year. The Italien open had a better field. All the WCT players, minus Rosewall, entered as did 4 top ITF players Smith, Kodes, Franulovic and Gorman. This tournament was open to all unlike the restricted WCT finals. Smith, Nastase and Kodes were top players by the end of '71. nastase won 11 out of 22 tournaments plus 13 out 0f 14 Davis cup matches; the most consistent player of '71. He won two big tournaments, Richmond and Wembley, which attracted the top WCT players including Rosewall, and was runner at the French and winner of the ITF masters. I would rank him at least 5 in the world. [jeffreyneave]

• Thank you for the answers

From memory I event think that Barcelona (won by Orantes) had a better field than Rome. I also know that Nastase was underrated in many rankings (he beat twice Newcombe that year, in the two tournaments you've cited), in particular in that of Judith Elian who is French and also of Rumanian origin (she had almost underrated his countryman in particular in 1973 when she ranked wrongly Newk ahead of Nastase). Nastase has even proposed at his time his own 1971 rankings as 1) Smith, 2) Newcombe, 3) Kodes. In Davis Cup Nastase beat Franulovic but lost on clay against Smith (as in 1972) which is a bad loss and at Wimbledon and at the US he lost early against second rank players (My 1971 ranking : 1) Smith, 2) Rosewall, 3) Newcombe who almost did nothing except at Wimbledon, it is true that his injury at the US Open in doubles didn't help him, 4) Laver, 5) Kodes, 6) Nastase).

I think WCT Finals were great because there were the climax of a circuit played by 7 of the 10 best players in the world so it was largely better than Roland Garros, the Masters and the Davis Cup, all three with only Smith, Kodes and Nastase. And using your own arguments the WCT Finals were played in best-of-five set matches while Rome wasn't if we except the final (Nastase the title holder was absent in Rome because Tiriac stupidly proposed Nastase to play in Madrid where the latter lost in the final to the former).

You've written that the April 1968 Paris event was a 6-man event but you've only added Emerson as a 1st round loser so was it a 5-man event ?

• • • • Barcelona did not have as a good a field. All the wct players played but only franulovic and to certain extent Orantes of the top ITF entered. None of the big 3 nastase, kodes or Smith played. The italien had a 5 set semi which matches the pro majors like Wembley, only the French pro played 5 sets throughout. I know I like 5 sets (that's what separates the Grand Slam Majors from the rest of the circuit) and have doubts about MSG in '66 because of this. I also prefer Aussie '58 pro to the '58 tournament of Champoions partly because of this. [jeffreyneave] 22 november 2006

• I will later look at Barcelona but though I think Smith was the best player in 1971 he has never been a great one on clay : at a true Roland Garros he never exceeded the round of 16 (he reached the quarters in 71 but there was no great claycourt WCT players (Ashe and Riessen were there but never succeeded on clay). And Smith's victories on clay over Nastase were only in Davis Cup where Nastase was bad, among the best, the Rumanian was one of the worst Davis Cup players (if not he would have won with his country in 71 and/or 72; other example : Nastase lost three times in three meetings against Jauffret in Davis Cup whereas he didn't lose against the French in tournaments). But Nastase beat Smith 3 sets to 1 at Roland Garros 71 showing Smith's real level on clay.

Considering that Smith was an ordinary player on clay we have : in Rome no Nastase and no Rosewall but Kodes present, in Barcelona no Nastase and no Kodes but Rosewall present.

The comparison shows that there was Kodes at Rome and Rosewall at Barcelona : quite the same, isn't it ?

Carlo Colussi 10:36, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

• • • Smith is not a likely winner of Rome but he adds depth to the field like Franulovic, Gimeno Emerson, Drysdale and Okker. Since he was a contender for the world no.1 in 1971 any field is elevated by his presence. He reached the last 8 in Rome; a solid performance. He is not completely useless on clay. In '71 he won 2 events at Paris and Cincinnati on clay. In '73 he beat Borg and Orantes to win the Swedish open. He also beat Laver on clay to win in Atlanta that year. The Italien open in the 60's and 70's was probably regarded as the most important event after Roland Garros , Wimbledon and Forest Hills. Rex Bellamy of the London Times always went to Rome each year and always gave it ample coverage in his books. The WCT finals could well have done without Drysdale, Riessen and Lutz. Kodes, Nastase and Smith were all potential winners of the event. Kodes had just beaten Laver in Stockholm and taken Ashe to 5 sets in the Final. [jeffreyneave] 23 November 2006

• Well Riessen was always boring Laver and Newcombe : he had many victories over them. Lutz reached the final at Barcelona beating Laver so I think you are severe with these guys. Nevertheless I entirely agree with you that Smith, Kodes and Nastase have become dangerous indoor and could have done well at Houston-Dallas. What I say about the WCT Finals were a very great objective for all the WCT players because that year they couldn't play the Davis Cup and very few came to Paris (among the best just Ashe and Riessen who weren( claycourt players) and some missed the US Open.

Rome and Barcelona were also qualifying tournaments for the WCT Finals and Laver's last goal of his career was to win the WCT Finals and not Rome.

So there are arguments for the WCT Finals but I recognize that the Italian Open was not bad at all and Barcelona too (see below)

Carlo Colussi 08:07, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

• I have looked at the Barcelona and Rome fields :

Good players present at both tournaments : Laver, Okker, Emerson, Newcombe, Gimeno, Drysdale, Taylor, Franulovic, Pilic, Stolle, Ashe, Lutz, Riessen, Cox, Failie, Pasarell, Crealy, Carmichael, Ruffels

Good players absent at both tournaments : Nastase, Richey, Gonzales, Hewitt, Metreveli, Froehling, Parun, Tiriac, Graebner, Barthes, Dibley

So you have ON CLAY on one hand at Rome Kodes, Roche yet injured and Gorman + Smith and Ralston and on the other hand at Barcelona Rosewall and Orantes among the very best on clay. I think then that the two tournaments were quite equivalent.

84.96.87.77 07:34, 24 November 2006 (UTC)Carlo Colussi

• • • • One of the things about Barcelona is that Richard Evans reported that the WCT players came directly from the indoors of cologne to the clay and played very poorly. The fact that there were lots of upsets and final was between Orantes and Lutz suggests this was not a big event for the pros; it was just another stop on the tour leading to Dallas. Lutz never performed on clay and is a freak finalist. Early in the year Newcombe thrashed him 6-3 , 6-0 in Rome and in relatively weak Paris field he lost to proisy in the Ll6 in straight sets. This was Orantes first big international victory. His record before this in '71 included sharing the austrian open with Graebner but no other victories. In '72 he broke into the top 10 following this victory. But in the spring of '71 when rome was played he would not be a top 20 player.
• Your reasoning is wrong : if we suppose that a) the global level of the players present in both tournaments has not changed between May (Rome) and October (Barcelona) (I recognize it is a very fragile assumption) and b) the global level of the players absent hasn't changed too (same assumption) then we have to compare [Kodes, Roche yet injured and Gorman + Smith and Ralston] in May (Rome) to [Rosewall and Orantes]in October (Barcelona). Then we talk about Orantes in October and not in May. This make me think that the two fields were about equal. However I recognize that the Italian in the 50s, 60s and 70s had a greater importance than Barcelona because Rome was the second greatest claycourt tournament in Europe at the time : there was also a good coverage of the tournament and not only by Bellamy. Carlo Colussi 08:10, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Roche, still playing and completing his matches, Ralston, Smith and Gorman combined certainly seem more impressive than Orantes in May. The results In Rome more or less go to form, which suggests that the big names were up for it. Riessen, Drysdale and lutz might have good results in the minor events but they never rose to the occassion in the WCT finals or the Grand slams in '71 or '72. As for Laver, I'm not sure it was his only goal in '71. I suspect after his defeat to rosewall and especially after May '72, it became an obsession. In '71 he entered Paris but withdrew from it, along with the warm up event the BHC, citing fatigue, which I regarded as legitimate because of his Tennis Champions Classic exertions. Others, namely okker, Drysdale, Newcombe and Gimeno had the gall to play the warm-up events and then not play the major event. I suspect the banning after Wimbledon focused Laver's mind on the WCT; he did not enter the US open but played a 4 man TV event the week before. At the start of the '71, he said, obviously being way too optimistic, that his goal was another Grand Slam.

• Yes he wrote it in his book but he wasn't convinced by what he wrote and not motivated by the Slam : he was said to watch with passion the World Heavyweight Boxing Championship between Frazier and Clay just before playing his match against Cox in Australia and then not being concentrated and motivated to play the Briton, a player against whom he usually won but not in that case. And later he neglected his doubles match because he was so eager to return to the US to play the final 4-man tournament of the Tennis Champions Classic at New York. Was he motivated by the Grand Slam in the 70s ? Absolutely not. After 71 he didn't enter again his own Championship (it is true he has become a real Californian) in 72, 73, 74, 75 when he was still a good player. He didn't play nor Wimbledon in 74, 75 neither the US in 74. And about Paris ? You'd just written that he was too tired to play Paris in 71 but he was never tired to play WCT and Classic. I suppose he just wanted to make money after his '69 Slam and then NTL then WCT (and Classic) was his first new goal. If you read his book you will note that from page 300 to 310, relative to the years 1971 and 1972, he kept on talking about WCT, WCT, WCT (and a little Classic) and the two finals he lost to Kenny but there isn't a single word about Rome or any other tournament (if we ewcept a few words about Wimbledon). He also praised the WCT circuit and system and criticized the Grand Prix circuit. But in the first half of the seventies, WCT took a major part of his touring life. Again in his book (in these pages 300 to 310) he considered himself as the number one until 1971 included : Knowing that in 70 and 71 his biggest successes were in the WCT circuit given that his Slam performances were so poor I then suppose he gave much importance to his WCT wins to still think, wrongly, he was the best.

He also wrote in his autobiography that his greatest disappointments have been his losses to Olmedo in 1959 Davis Cup and to Rosewall in 1972 WCT.

And when Rosewall is asked about his greatest triumphs, his WCT successes always stand out (possibly because they were his last ones).

In conclusion I am not convinced at all that in 71 Rome was a greater event than the WCT Finals.

(at Washington all were indeed there except Kodes, Nastase and injured Roche)

Carlo Colussi 08:10, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

• • • • If you are so convinced the WCT finals are so major why did you not consider it for your world rankings in'71. IF rosewall's win was as good as Smith's US open and Rosewall's Australian open , then Rosewall would certainly be no.1 in '71. Smith reaching the final compared to Rosewall's semi at Wimbledon is not going to make up the diffrence. The obvious reason for excluding it is that Smith, nastase and Kodes had no chance to compete. However much importance Laver and Rosewall put on their match at Dallas, other players are competing for the World no.1 and you have to give them all a chance. The fact that the Italian was part of the WCT circuit leading to the finals doesn't matter; so was the Australian. If a 4th major is required, the Italien is the best choice; its open to all (nastase could have played if he wished; but he wanted appearance money so went to the very minor Madrid); its on clay to replace the depleted French; its a respected national championship of much more repute than spain or Washington. Even with a reduced field in '70, nastase's win was regarded as crucial (not just his US indoor win) in gaining him a top 10 place. Santana's win in spain, even though he beat Laver, got him nowhere near the top 10, and instead probably got him in to top 25 just outside the 20.

• • • • I wrote that in 1971 "Elian, Collins and Rex Bellamy ranked Rosewall third after the duet Newcombe/Smith." so I put it because these witnesses considered that Rosewall was below the two others and I tried to be relatively coherent with the "World No. 1 Tennis Player Pre-ATP Rankings" article written mainly by Hayford Peirce. I am not so convinced the WCT finals are so major but YOU are strongly convinced that Rome was MAJOR. Nevertheless here is my opinion about the 1971 events (I copy-paste the extract of my "World No. 1 and 2 Tennis Players Rankings and Gonzales list" discussion) :

In 1971 Wimbledon was the biggest event of all because this was the only competition were all the best players were present.

The second event was Forest Hills but some of the best contract pros were not there (Laver, Rosewall, Gimeno, Emerson, Drysdale, Stolle, Roche...).

The third event was the Australian Open : for once in this tournament there have many great players in particular all the contract pros of the WCT but some of the best independant pros were missing (Smith retained by his military duties, Graebner, Richey, Gonzales all good grass players and future good grass players as Kodes or Nastase (Franulovic was also missing but he has never done anything on grass)). There were as many good players as in the US Open but the latter has an entry of 128 men whereas the Australian Open only admitted 48 players. This is the reason why the Australian is ranked behind the US in my opinion.

After the fourth event was probably the WCT Finals in Houston and Dallas. As I have said just before because 7 of the 10 best players were contract pros, the WCT circuit was thus stronger than the Grand Prix circuit and so the WCT Finals were a big event. In fifth position I would place the Italian Open at Rome, the Berkeley Open, the Barcelona Open and probably the Wembley Open because there were many great players of both organizations.

And then only after I place a) Roland Garros (with very few contract pros : Ashe and Riessen were present but they have never been great on clay because they have never played the quarters in a big Roland Garros (Ashe has reached the quarters in 1970 (then he wasn't yet a contract pro) because all the contract pros were missing) and b) the Davis Cup still absolutely forbidden to contract pros (they have to wait until 1973 to be accepted).

Finally my last ranked big event in 1971 was the Masters which was to the Grand Prix circuit the equivalent of the WCT Finals to the WCT circuit : a 7-man event reserved to the best Grand Prix rankings’ players.

So I have logically placed all the big events without (or with few) contract pros behind a) the events where many of the best contract and independant pros were present and b) the big event with only contract pros (the WCT finals) because globally in 1971 the best contract pros were better than the independant pros.

You can note that I wrote "the fourth event was probably the WCT Finals" and below "In fifth position I would place the Italian Open ...". (at the time I have not considered Washington)

In order to make relatively coherent comparisons with other eras I've tried to choose the 4 biggest events of each year and then it explains why I've selected WCT Finals in 1971 (4th place). As you can see I am not completely sure that WCT finals were the 4th whereas you are fully sure that Rome was the 4th. But I've never said that the WCT Finals were as great as Wimbledon and the US and the Australian so your comment IF rosewall's win was as good as Smith's US open and Rosewall's Australian open , then Rosewall would certainly be no.1 in '71. is wrong. Then if you look at my 1971 comments in the "World No. 1 and 2 Tennis Players Rankings and Gonzales list" discussion (I don't copy-paste any more because it's too long) then you will see that I ranked Rosewall 2nd just behind Smith and just ahead Newcombe. But in the "Ken Rosewall" article I try to be as neutral as possible and you can check it, in particular I've changed some lines following your previous comments and then in Rosewall's 1971 ranking I didn't wrote what I think but what some good journalists thought. If you discover a source saying that Rosewall was n°2 (or n°1) in 1971 I will integrate it (Tommasi has ranked Ken #1 but he seems to be the only one and his rankings are difficult to admit because each win has the same importance : a Round of 32 win at Gstaad counts as much as a final win at Wimbledon)

84.96.87.77 13:46, 1 December 2006 (UTC)Carlo Colussi

• • • • • I was discussing your personal ranking of Smith above Rosewall. You ranked Smith above Rosewall because of his superior performance at Wimbledon. However, by crediting 4 majors a year and granting Rosewall a major along with his Australian to give him 2 for the year, you have to follow the logic through. The WCT is as good as his Australian and gets the same number of points and certainly counts in the rankings total points to put him ahead of Smith. My own system for 1971 uses the 18 event atp points system of today. You have to show consistency over the years. Despite your claims about 1983, there is not a massive difference. Players were not that restricted from 1969 onwards. Only in 1972 was there a ban. WTT affected the French in'74, but did not effect Connors' world ranking (no other WTT players wanted to play.) The '73 boycott affected Wimbledon, but players could have played as Nastase and Taylor did. (nastase did not agree with Pilic's position). I would reduce the points on '73 wimbledon down to a super 9. In '71 there were no bans and Ashe managed to play all 4. My points for '71:

Wimbledon 200; USA 150; Australian 150; Italian 150; French 125; WCT Finals 100; Masters 75; Champions Classic 50 (but 2* due to nature of Laver's win).

Super9s 100 Berkeley, Washington, Stockholm, Wembley, Richmond, Queens.

regular WCT events 50; charlotte 50; German 50; Belgium 50; South African 50; Albert hall 50;

strong ITf events 35 (includes all Riordan events and good Grand prix field with more or less just ITF players.)

weak Grand prix/itf events 25 (split weeks and davis cup absences)

Since there are only 6 super 9s the players get their best 8 results from all the events below that level. I would also allow points for Davis cup. 50 for Nastase for all his 13 minor wins. 35 for Smith for just winning 2 matches. This does mean that ITF players end playing for less points but they are playing in weaker fields. WCT had 7 of the top 10, and in my view 10 of the top 17; hence the 35 to 50 ratio, which still fits with the present atp system. [jeffreyneave] december 1 2006

• • • • I follow my logic through about ranking Rosewall after Smith because I won't credit the Australian and above all the WCT Finals as much as Wimbledon and even the US but I recognize I haven't thought about a precise points system that will perhaps clarify and change my opinion when I think about it later (when ? I don't know) : in my mind the WCT Finals and Rome are close but VERY FAR BEHIND Wimbledon.

I still claim that there is a big difference between the ancient era and the modern era because if no player was really restricted, as you rightly says, from the 1973 US if we except 1974 RG, many players kept on avoiding events because they didn't considered them as important. From 1983 for the first time in tennis history, many of the best players have entered each year in the supposed big events, the grand slam tournaments. In 1983 McEnroe, Wilander and Lendl came in Australia (Connors didn't come) and all the best entered the other Slam tournaments and also no player refused to enter the Masters contrary to the 70's. Since 1995 when Agassi played the Australian for the first time no player avoids any Slam tournament except if he is injured physically or mentally or very tired or if he considers he has no chance at all. From 1983 to the beginning or the mid-90's there have always been the 3 Slam tournaments and below the Australian and a rank below, the Masters. Since the 90's there has always been the 4 biggies and below the Masters (Cup). But before 1983 there was always something wrong.

In your 71 ranking events if we except our Dallas-Rome disagreement I think that a) the US should have more points than the Australian (because of the difference between the fields : 128 to 48 players),

b) the US and the Australian being Slam tournaments should be granted more points than Rome,

c) your Classic should be given much less points (in your system Laver wins as much points as Rosewall in Dallas whereas Laver considered the Classic as an exhibition as he wrote it in his book pages 305-306 : "The crowd in Boston told me something : the Tennis Champions Classic was a mistake ... there were about 2000 customers in a building holding 15,000 ... Regardless of the money involved, the Classic seemed an exhibition. The customers wanted tournaments"),

d) there is always our disagreement about the modern points system with my 4-2-1 ratios to your 2-1.5-1 ratios : if I grant Wimbledon 200 then I grant Berkeley or Queen's only 50 and not 100 as you,

e) I think there is a problem with your Davis Cup system (but at least someone is giving points to Davis Cup performances) because Smith couldn't play more than 2 matches given there was always the Challenge Round so I think it is unfair to give him less points than Nastase. Moreover he has beaten the Rumanian in the Davis Cup.

84.96.87.77 13:57, 4 December 2006 (UTC)Carlo Colussi

Laver's views on world rankings seem to place a very high regard for consistency. He conceded the '64 ranking to rosewall because he slavishly accepted the pro's own system; same points for all eighteen tournaments and therefore majors don't matter. the only edge Rosewall had in'64 was slightly more consistency in the specified tournaments, which can be equated to the WCT points series very closely.

• • • • Again if you look my discussion you will see that Rosewall was only 2nd in '64 in my opinion but the main sources I know are the 1964 pro's system and McCauley's so I use more or less these sources in saying that Laver and Rosewall were in the Top2 (but I repeat in my opinion Rosewall was #2)

84.96.87.77 13:46, 1 December 2006 (UTC)Carlo Colussi

• • • • • I was not commenting on your judgement on '64, I was Commenting on Lavers philosphy. [jeffreyneave} december 1 2006

Laver topped the WCT point series in '71; hence his claim to no.1, even though the WCT series does not count lots of other significant competition. My own view is that you should roughly use the points system of today's ATP tour. It makes for consistency when doing world rankings over the years. Using today's point system, Laver easily wins the 1970 world ranking 1100 points TO 880 for Rosewall.

• • • • I've said before

a) that there is a big difference between "yesterday" (until 1982) and "today" (since 1983) because the real tradition in big events only began in 1983 and was strongly established in the mid-90s so I don't think before 1983 we can apply a simple points system,

b) I do not agree the modern ATP points system because it doesn't correctly grant the big events : I think that in the 2000's, 4-2-1 ratios for respectively Grand Slam tournaments-Masters Cup-Masters Series tournaments would be more accurate than the today 2-1.5-1 ratios you agree.

Just winning a grand slam does not automatically put you above a player who does not win one. Look at Samparas, Johannson and Costa in 2002; none of them made the top 7; Ivanisevic did not make the top 10 when he won Wimbledon ln 2001.

• • • • I entirely agree with you : I have never said that the modern four (or less) winners of a Slam tournament were the four (or less) first players in the world. I am just saying (but perhaps I haven't clearly stated it) that a n°1 could only be chosen among the four (or less) winners. In 2001 only Agassi, Kuerten and Hewitt could compete in my opinion for the first place and in 2002 the only one who could be chosen was Hewitt. Let's say that if my 4-2-1 ratios were applied the probability that the #1 be a Slam tournament winner would be great. But these ratios would let a consistent player in the Slam tournaments to be the #1 even if he hadn't win one of those.

84.96.87.77 13:46, 1 December 2006 (UTC)Carlo Colussi

Conversly, most people (McCauley I think ranks Rosewall 1st becqause he always emphasises the majors), including you seem to rank Gonzales no1 in 1960 for his consistency and his 14-3 edge over Rosewall, even though Rosewall won both majors that year.

• • • • Here again I've chosen a source : McCauley's (in his 1960 account he always seems to think that Gonzales was the best but I recognize that at the beginning of his 1961 account he seems to give the edge to Rosewall in 1960). And in the "Ken Rosewall" article I've written "1960 | Top2 | Kramer ranked Gonzales first, Robert Roy (L'Équipe) chose Rosewall as the top dog and Robert Geist co-ranked the two players equal." So I don't give a strong opinion. It is sure that in 2006 standards Rosewall would be the 1960 #1 player by far but in 1960 standards I'm not sure (I don't think Rosewall considered he was the best and Hoad clearly said in March 1961, at Coubertin, that for him Gonzales was the best by far (and that sometimes he, Sedgman and Rosewall could beat Pancho but that day in day out Gonzales was the best). So in 1960 my opinion is not sure at all but the problem is always the same : to find sources (which are in my present knowledge in favor of the American).

84.96.87.77 13:46, 1 December 2006 (UTC)Carlo Colussi

• • • • • I was commenting on your own opinion about 1960; you choose Gonzales because of hoad's comment and his consistency. Hoad always had a very high opinion of Gonzales; he choose him as the best he ever played. I'm not sure that though is a considered judgement of the 1960 World rankings. The logic that a player, with no majors, can be ranked higher

than a major winner, means he can be ranked no1 as well as no 2.; there is no automatic bar. You add the points up in the finish and stick to the result. I have no problems ranking Laver no1 in 1970. If he can be ranked ahead of roche because of his superb performance outside the majors, despite Roche's superior performances at USA and wimbledon, he can also be ranked ahead of Newcombe and rosewall. Rankings are not just based on 2 majors for a year. Rosewall picked up 340 points for his performances in the majors and laver only 60, but when the total performances across super9s, slams , and 5 best others are counted laver is comfortably ahead. Rosewall's total of 880 is very close to Nadal's for this year and their performances look very similar. Laver won 13 events and won loads of matches against top 12 players (he beat everyone at least twice). Federer won 12 and won loads of matches against the top players. Federer ended up with more than 1600 due to the quality of his wins, but Laver's 1100 is a fair reward for winning just as often. Lavers consistency certainly matches Gonzales in 1960 and he did it on all surfaces.

• • • • For 1960 I had only McCauley's and Hoad's comments but I have included Geist's comment and since I have changed 1960 rankings in the "World No. 1 Tennis Player Pre-ATP Rankings" article written by Peirce (but I have not yet changed the Rosewall article I've written). About the 70 ranking if I applied my 4-2-1 ratios Laver would be perhaps behind Rosewall or Newcombe but I recognize it's not sure. But there are always the problem of neutrality because many journalists put Newcombe or Rosewall ahead of Laver in 1970. Nevertheless I think I would change the ranking proposed by Peirce in the "World No. 1 Tennis Player Pre-ATP Rankings" article because the Martini-Rosso award was given to Rosewall and the WCT panel chose Laver and Geist co-ranked the three Australians equal : I think the last option summarizes well enough the situation.

After reading your answer I've found another disagreement : you've written "Rosewall picked up 340 points" so you apply strictly the current ATP system (200 points for the winner and 140 for the runner-up). Not only I disagree their winners points because I think the ATP underrates the big events but I think it also overrates the losers. I think it would be fairer to equally split points at each decreasing round : if the winner has 1 point then the finalist should have 1/2 point and each semifinalist 1/4 point and each quarterfinalist 1/8 point and so on. Each finalist is supposed to be the best player of his half of the field, each semifinalist is supposed to be the best player of his quarter of the field and so on ... If the field density is uniformly distributed then I think that my split is relatively good. Then if I combine that split with my ratios Rosewall should be granted in the British and US Slams : 400/2 + 400 = 600 points ( a) if a Super9 grants 100 points then in my system a Slam deserves 400, and Slam final only deserves 400/2 and not 400*(140/200)) and then Laver should be given 400/16 + 400/16 i.e. 50 points. Finally perhaps this difference of 550 points in the 2 Slam tournaments would slightly give the edge to Rosewall in my system (I haven't calculated it and I won't do before long because I haven't time now) while in yours Laver is the first.

84.96.87.77 13:57, 4 December 2006 (UTC)Carlo Colussi

On laver, you wrote that he praised WCT in the second edition of his book. He also criticised the Grand Prix; what were his reasons for attacking the Grand Prix ? [jeffreyneave] 1 december 2006

I haven't the book at hand so I will note later what Laver wrote about the Grand Prix system (if you have Laver's book it's written in the pages 300-310 something like that : he doesn't understand the GP point system while the WCT point system is very simple with each tournament giving the same amount except the Finals giving more).

Laver p 301-302 : "The trouble with the Grand Prix was its unwieldiness and inequities. There were too many tournaments and the value of points varied from tournament to tournament, often incomprehensibly. It was chaotically operated, and clearly it was being used by the anti-Hunt ILTF as a means of trying to drive WCT out of business ... I can't keep up with the maneuvering." 84.96.87.77 08:12, 5 December 2006 (UTC)Carlo Colussi

• • • • • • Your alterations to the atp points system obviously make a diffrence. The 4 to 1 ratio favours Rosweall, but 1/2 ratio for finalists hurts him because he only won 6 times compared to Laver's 13. The points would be 1072 for Laver and 1028 for Rosewall.The fact that Laver still wins on your system, says to me how good laver's performance actually was. Your 1/2 ratio for finalists has never been used in any points system be it the pro's 59/64 rankings, Grand Prix 1970's, WCt 71-73, or today's ATP system. Your 4 ratio I feel is too simplistic a way to do rankings. Its convenient because you can nearly aways just look at the slams to do the rankings. Howvever, the atp system use to do 1.5 and only when peace broke out in 1996 between the ITF and ATP, has the 2 ratio been used. The players themselves have obviously never been interested in 4 and The ITF themseves have been prepared to live with 2; their World champion has always been the same as the ATP's since 1996. Concentrating on the slams might make rankings very easy, but its not fair to other events. Consistency and head to heads ( or additional points for wins over top 5 or top 15 players), count as well as the majors in a sophisticated and accurate system.

On 1971, the champions classic would have only had 50 points if laver had won it with the same performance he did in 1970 ( 4 wins, 1 loss, and lots of other winners). Okker won only 35 points for being runner-up. He is winning best of 5 sets against just the best WCT players. Such wins are surley equal to winning 5 best of 3 set matches against A field of all 32 wct players which also gets 50 points. The fact that he won 13 means he deserves at least twice the reward of winning 5. In 1970, as our German friend has written, the matches received a lot of attention. The Gonzales/laver match at MSG attracted a record crowd as did the Rosewall/Emerson for the west coast. In 1971 laver's winning streak and the creation of dallas probably killed interset off, which is why I would downgrade it from its 1970 status. However, Laver's 13 wins are far superior in technical terms than Rosewall's 3 in dallas, although of course you have to compromise a bit because of Rosewall's and Laver's own view's on Dallas's importance. I still feel the Players would be trying very hard in these matches(laver obviously preferred winning these matches to winning matches at the Aussie open). 10,000 winner take all is a lot of money for one match in 1971; it equals winning a whole regular WCT event. [jeffreyneave] 5 dec 2006

• • • • I know that splitting points in each successive rounds has never been done but if the field density is uniformly distributed (a strong assumption, I recognize) this is the fairer points (and prize) system. As you say in the pro circuit it was 7 (winner), 4 (runner-up), 3 (3rd), 2 (4rd) and 1 (quaterfinalist) and in the ATP Race system (200, 140, ...).

I do not think at all that the 4-2-1 ratios are a too simplistic way to do rankings but I think that this is as sophisticated and accurate than the 2 - 1.5 - 1 system. What is simplistic and not sophisticated and not accurate is not calculate the points and that's what I recognize I haven't yet done but that's all I concede. When I have time I will do it and then perhaps I won't be far from your 1072-1028 results.

As far as I remember is that the biggest events at the end of the 70's and at the beginning of the 80's were the Grand Slam tournaments (except the Australian), the Masters, and eventually the Davis Cup and the WCT Finals and the US Pro Indoor : almost all the other tournaments had little importance. As a French, Monte Carlo or Paris Bercy have been pleasant tournaments but the real incentive was (and still is) Roland Garros. If you ask anybody Roland Garros winners are more or less know whereas MonteCarlo or Paris-Bercy winners who have never capture Roland title are unknown. In France the only true account of tournaments are those of the Grand Slam and that of the Masters Cup : if I want to know the Cincinnati winner I have to look at a Website or to buy L'Équipe. Perhaps in other countries it's different, I don't know. And almost all the tennis witnesses who published rankings since the open era had always placed at the first place a Slam tournament winner except perhaps the WCT panel who ranked Laver n°1 in 1970 but all the other ranked either Newcombe or Rosewall n°1 that year. In 1976 Connors was very relieved when he won the US Open because everyone said that he hadn't won a very biggie for two years and almost everyone, except Tommasi, ranked Ashe n°1 in 1975 and not Connors who hadn't won any Slam tournament in 1975. And before the Open the n°1 amateur was always a Davis Cup winner (Cochet in 1931) or a Slam amateur tournament winner. And even now there is no comparison between the Masters Series tournament of Paris and Roland Garros (from the France point of view). The first time in tennis history that the Slam tournaments importance has been diminished was when the ATP ranking has been created : remember that Emerson who has played no Slam tournaments in 1973 was ranked #12 by the ATP at the end of the year. Had he done the same thing in 1965 he wouldn't have been noticed in any Top20 ranking. It is right that neither the ITF or the players have shown interest in 4-2-1 ratios but the only tennis dreams of one of the very best players are to win a Slam tournament and not Cincinnati (Roddick has won it that year but he really will smile again when he win another Slam tournament).

So I repeat : given that all the numbers 1 amateur or the numbers 1 "open" has always won (except perhaps in 1970) at least either the Davis Cup or a Slam tournament, it is strange to say that Laver was n°1 in 1970 when we know that not only he didn't win a Slam tournament but he reached neither a final neither a semifinal nor a quarterfinal but only a round of 16.

However I again recognize I haven't done any detailed points ranking for 1970 : the great reason was that I hadn't (and still haven't) all the data (remember my Rosewall's record when I've trusted the World Tennis statistics). Then I will see (but not before long because I have other things to do) who was the number 1 in my system (and I won't brush Laver away if this is he the first one).

All this to say that in the "World No. 1 Tennis Player Pre-ATP Rankings" article I have changed the number 1 players because I've written : "Then with no player really dominating the circuit, different arguable opinions can be given to designate the World Champion : The panel of experts for the 'Martini and Rosso' Cup, ranked Rosewall number 1 in the world narrowly over Laver; Judith Elian from L'Équipe placed Rosewall first ahead Newcombe, Roche and Laver; Lance Tingay, Joe McCauley and Bud Collins each ranked Newcombe ahead Rosewall; the panel of journalists which made the WCT draw for 1971 ranked Laver #1, Rosewall #2, Newcombe #3; and Robert Geist co-ranked Rosewall, Laver and Newcombe #1, summarizing all the opinions."

I have well liked your explanations about the Classic events and the fact that you recognize the downgrading between 1970 and 1971 which seems to corroborate Laver's assertion in his book.

I come back about our Rome disagreement :

the only ranking which placed Laver number 1 in 1970 that I know is the "WCT panel ranking" and I watched it again yesterday and I noticed that Nastase was only ranked #13 (and worse ... Kodes was ranked #22, I've forgotten to watch Smith's ranking) : I then suppose that these journalists didn't give a damn for Rome (and Roland Garros) in 1970 with its (their) depleted field(s).

I also read what Bud Collins wrote about the 1975 year in the "Official USTA Tennis Yearbook 1976" page 50 :

A more realistic and up-to-date Slam would be WCT, Wimbledon, U.S. Open and the Masters .... So in 1975 not only Rome but even Roland Garros were less important than WCT or the Masters in Bud Collins's opinion.

For the moment the only valuable arguments in favour of Rome you have proposed are the Rex Bellamy cover and some (but I repeat not all) Nastase's rankings in 1970. From my side, favouring WCT, there are Rosewall's and Laver's opinions and the WCT Panel ranking and Bud Collins' opinion (but I recognize it wasn't his 1971 account but 1975 account where he listed what he called the Big Seven in 1975 : the US Pro Indoor (Philadelphia), the WCT Finals, the French Open, Wimbledon, the U.S. Pro at Boston, Forest Hills and the Masters).

I've finished : now I'm returning to the English and French "Ken Rosewall" articles.

80.70.42.194 13:01, 7 December 2006 (UTC)Carlo

• • • • • On the italian open, in the years 69,70,71,72,73,74,75 the Italien open was always reviewed In the world of tennis yearbooks (tingay) as separate event with an indvidual report from a journalist; no other event but the 3 main Grand slams matched that (the WCT. circuit was reviewd every year, including comment on Dallas matches, when it started in 1971) Nastase was ranked by Tingay, collins and McCauley in the top 10 in 1970. Laver named 15 events in 1970 as important. The 4 slams and 11 super9s. He included the opens of Italy , germany and south africa despite their weaker fields than the other events, who were chosen on strength of their fields; he did not include the newly instigated masters. Tradition counted and in 1969 The fields of Italy and south Africa had been very strong. In 1967 Bellamy had done World rankings based on 7 events (the 4 slams and these 3 other opens.) with each being weighted according to strength of their field. Emerson with 3 wins actually out pointed Newcombe, although he was not quite compared to go through with the logic and name Emerson as no1. He hedged and named Newcombe as the world best fast court player and Emerson as the best hard court player. In 1966 McCauley ranked Stolle number 1 based on his US and german wins above Santana who won Wimbledon but not much else.In 1975, Ramirez was only 13 on ATP computer, but in every ranking I have seen (collins, tingay, world tennis and fink),as Italian champ he is ranked in the top 10, usually at 7.

• • • • OK this is your second good argument for Rome. I just have the World of Tennis 70, 71, 73, 75, 77 respectively for the years 69, 70, 72 and 74 and 76 and this is right that there have always been a separate report for the Italian. In his book Laver not only included the German, the Italian and the South African but he even considered that anyone of them could replace the Australian Open as a Grand Slam tournament. In the 50's and in the 60's these three ones with the four Slam tournaments were considered by some as the major championships and I've read several times that a Swedish magazine took into account only the seven events to make a points ranking (so Bellamy did the same). About the German it is said that if the Forest Hills officials had known that Stolle had won the German in 66, he would have been seeded in the US Chps. I know that Laver omitted the Masters (I even write it on the book) nevertheless for instance Rosewall never entered the Italian and I think (I won't check) that as an amateur he never entered the German and the South African (he played the last one in the open era).

Carlo Colussi 07:54, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

On Collins comments in 1975, He obviously has a soft spot for Boston and the wCt circuit. The WCT crcuit, including Philadephia, only attracted 5 top 10 players in 1975 (ashe, borg , laver, tanner and ramirez). The Italian attracted 5 also but was stronger overall (Borg, Ramirez, Orantes , Vilas and Nastase). Stockholm had the best field outside the US and Wimbledon. It had 6 of the top 10 but 5 of them were top 6 players(Connors, Ashe, Borg, Vilas, Nastase and Tanner). Boston and Tuscon would be also super 9 fields in 1975, but no other would. This would be the pattern from 1973 onwards. Too many weeks where the circuit was giving employment to 96 players and weakening fields. In 1970 there were lot more weeks where only 48 or just 64 players could play; there was also less money about (the grand prix only covered a few events in 1970) so only one big event a week, which led to strong fields. This was true for 1969. THe WCT and ITF players were playing the same events in terms of significant prize money. The peace deal of 1972, led to greatly expanded Grand prix from 1973 onwards for the rest of the 70s. More and more events but weaker fields most weeks of the year.

As for 1971 world rankings. On my orginal points system shown above the results were : 1. Laver 2. Rosewall 3. Smith 4. Ashe 5. Newcombe 6. Nastase.

I adjusted it a little to give more weight to the US open. The US still had 150 points relative to Wimbledon's 200, But I reduced the Aussie from 150 to 125, Italy from 150 to 125, and French 125 to 100 and left the others alone. Super 9s still receive 100 points. This produced a ranking of: 1. Laver 2. Rosewall 3. Smith 4. Newcombe 5. Ashe 6. Nastase

Ashe does rather well on this system because he entered all the big events and nearly always performed well every time, despite his lack of victories. [jeffreyneave] 7 dec 2006

84.96.87.77 13:57, 4 December 2006 (UTC)Carlo Colussi

In 1971, my ranking is very close between Laver and Rosewall; I'm not sure whose no1. Laver is in with a shout because he produced more good performances in strong fields than anybody else. I would equate the Itallian win as equal to the Australian (150 points; only Wimbledon would have 200 points).The WCT finals would equal only a super 9 (100 points). Laver's amazing 13 best of 5 wins in the champions tennis classic I would equate to least 2 normal strong field wins ie 2* 50 = 100 points.Rosewall had his chance in this series, but lost both his matches to laver and Ashe. Starting from these assumptions, its easy to see why Laver has a fair chance of matching rosewall when one looks at the rest of their performances in '71.

• • • • "I've just said above that I don't think before 1983 we can apply a simple points system. In 1971 there were relatively separate circuits so it isn't appropriate to do so : for instance you apply 100 points to the WCT Finals which were "forbidden" to the independents as Smith, Kodes or Nastase so I would know if in your system, knowing that all the players could not enter all the events, every player had the opportunity to earn as much points as the other : I will choose an example to explain what I think because my English is so poor that I can't be clear.

Suppose you had in 71 only the Australian, the Classic, Rome, Roland, Wimbledon, the US, the WCT Finals and the Masters.

If I have understood you, you seem to consider that a) Wimbledon was a real Slam (200 points), b) that the Australian (150), Rome (150), the US(150) were the equivalent of the modern Masters Cup, c) the Classic (100) and I suppose Roland (100) and the Masters (100) were the equivalent of a Masters tournament.

Then some WCT player could garner to the maximum 150 (Aus) + 100 (Classic) + 150 (Rome) + 100 (Roland : the WCT players coudl enter though many didn't come) + 200 (Wimbl) + 150 (US : almost the same remark as Roland) + 100 (WCT Finals) + 0 (Masters : mostly WCT players couldn't qualify though Rosewall and Newcombe were invited but refused) points = 950 points.

The "Grand Prix" players could ONLY garner to the maximum 150 + 0 + 150 + 100 + 200 + 150 + 0 + 100 = 850 points.

I am not clear but I think this rough example give you an idea of what I think : a simple points system is unfair. In my "scholar" example a "Grand Prix" player was disadvantaged. A points system has to be fair

So I am eager to see your 1971 points system and I would even more eager to see a 1972 system when WCT players could only play two Slams while the "Grand Prix" players had the opportunity to play the four.

• • • • About your Rome-Dallas ratio of 150-100 I do not agree at all because if Smith-Kodes-Nastase couldn't play Dallas, Rosewall-Nastase didn't play Rome and then in my mind Dallas and Rome are about the same : I've just ranked Dallas just above Rome whereas you put a huge difference between them. What makes you act so strongly is probably the fact that being #4 in my ranking I put Dallas in the very big event (in order to make the equivalent of the 4 first big ones that the modern Slams are today) while Rome wasn't (because "only" #5).

The goal of whole that was to estimate the number of Slam tournaments Rosewall would have won if open tennis had existed and if there had been 4 big events each year in order to compare with modern players. If I thought like you I would credit for example Gonzales in 1955 with only 1 great because the only major was the US Pro (there was no Wembley, no French, no Forest Hills and so on) : Gonzales has fully dominated the circuit that year and then to give him only 1 great would be very unfair compared to the four greats a modern player can win. So it's justice to try to find 4 big events each year to make the best possible (or rather the least bad) comparisons between periods.

84.96.87.77 13:46, 1 December 2006 (UTC)Carlo Colussi

Your probably right about Laver chasing the money in the '70s. After his '69 slam he said he had no real ambitions left and Tennis was just a way of earning a living from then on. Since He easily topped the money list in '70 and '71, he might well have viewed that as enough to be ranked no1.

84.96.87.77 13:46, 1 December 2006 (UTC)Knowing that the WCT and Classic matches gave much more money than the ITF matches, even those of Wimbledon, the ITF players were disadvantaged and then of course Smith has earned less money than Laver but it doesn't mean that Smith was less good than Laver : then I hope that Laver hadn't view as that.

84.96.87.77 13:46, 1 December 2006 (UTC)Carlo Colussi

[jeffreyneave] 29 november 2006

I am confident that rome was more important than Barcelona, I must admit that Washington had the better field. Its 64 man draw included all the top WCT field plus the top ITF players Smith, Franulovic, Graebner and Richey. Richey and Graebner are worth more than just Gorman. Smith, proving his competence on clay, beat Franulovic before losing to Rosewall. Neither Graebner or Richey distinguished themselves losing early on to respectively Taylor and Gimeno.

[jeffreyneave] 23 November 2006

I will correct the article about Rosewall's 1970 record and later I will look at Newcombe's 1970 record (numbers of tournaments played and won) to make valuable comparisons and eventually I will request your assistance because my 1970 sources are still uncomplete.Carlo Colussi 08:02, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Carlo Colussi 08:42, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Jeffreyneave, if You have additions or corrections to the Laver list or article, please put them in. On the Tennis Champions Classic. It was highly publiced in the time, even in Germany one could read the scores. And in 'Tennis'magazines of the time, the event is broadly accounted. In World of Tennis it ranks as the first under the pro events of 1970. Even in the French Tennis History by Christian Quidet, Paris 1984, it is broadly reported. The supposed quote of Laver i cannnot find in Education of a Tennis Player, maybe it is in a later or (French)edition.(german friend)

• The quote of Laver is not supposed but written "black on white", it isn't a French edition (I have not translated it) : it's the 1973 revised edition (the first one, I haven't, was in 1971) where in particular Laver said that he defeated at the beginning of 1973 for the 18th (I'm not completely sure) time in a row Arthur Ashe since their first meeting in the 1959 US at Forest Hills)

Carlo Colussi 10:36, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Wimbledon Pros before 1968

To the german friend

Firstly I would say that I don't trust much some of Maskell's accounts in 'From where I sit' :

- page 138 he wrote about the Olympia tournament in London and particularly about his meeting against Cochet where he had match point : he dated this tournament in January 1938 whereas it took place in Spring (March-April) 1939.

- page 268 he wrote about Rosewall leading Olmedo 6-0 6-0 3-0 at Wembley in 1959 but it was in 1960.

This said I will extract another of his writings where there is ambiguity :

- page 58 he said : "... in 1930 it (the British Professional Championships) was played on grass again at Wimbledon with the singles final on number two court (the only professional tournament ever held on the sacred turf of th All England Lawn Tennis and Croquet Club, prior to the BBC2 event in 1967...) and in 1931 we went to Captain Rogers' hard courts at Sydenham ... our umpire ... Suzanne Lenglen ...".

If I believe Maskell then Barrett has right (cf. p 138 of his Wimbledon book, score 6-1,6-0,6-2).

But the problem is that I have seen in the "The Lawn Tennis Association's Annual Handbook 1932" relative to the year 1931, page 7, PROFESSIONAL CHAMPIONSHIP OF GREAT BRITAIN. The Championship was played on the grass courts of the All-England Club during the week July 13th-18th (1931), the holder, D. Maskell, retaining his title, defeating T.C Jeffery in the final 8-6 3-6 6-0 6-3. Unfortunately I haven't the 1931 edition relative to the year 1930. If this handbook is right then Maskell's assertion that there was no Wimbledon, between 1931 and 1966 included, is wrong. Knowing I don't trust much "the voice of Wimbledon" as he was called I guess until the contrary is proven that there was probably two British Pro played at Wimbledon with Maskell defeating each time Jeffery in July 1930 and in July 1931. If this handbook is certain then Ray Bowers was also right (Bowers didn't write anything about the British Pro in his 1930 account).

It is true that Maskell's memories have perhaps to be believed given that he was the main actor of these events but there is an important uncertainty.

Carlo Colussi 12:39, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

The old guy seems to have had a good memory or a phantastic imagination, haha. He wrote on behalf of the Cochet-match, that he had cancelled his winter holiday in Engelberg to attain the event at Olympia. If it was April 1939, it would have been a very late winter holiday. The Barrett book was edited by the All England Club, i assume, Alan Little has checked the dates.But either way, Maskell seems to have won the event on Court Nr.2. Adrian Quist refers to the Laver-Rosewall match at Sydney 1970, in the 'Encylopedia of (Lawn) Tennis' by Max Robertson in the article Australian tennis. No, he doesn't mention the von Cramm-Budge match. But i read about it in german books by Roderich Menzel (who wrote a lot of books) and others. some believe, it could have been the turning point in the "rivalry". But von Cramm lost at the Australian Champs early 1938, and later 38 was put into jail by the Gestapo.(german friend)

• Here is the text written by Ray Bowers about the Olympia (March 22-April 4) and McCauley has about the same date :

OLYMPIA

Six leading European pros joined Americans Tilden and Stoefen in a round-robin tournament arranged by Tilden, held on fast boards in London, March 22-April 4. Each night of the Olympia International Tennis Tournament and Carnival brought three matches and usually some good tennis. Attendance was only fair--several thousands each date. The main outcome was to reaffirm the superiority in Europe of Hans Nusslein. Hanne defeated all seven opponents, losing just one set along the way, to Robert Ramillon on opening night.

Some of the best matches involved Lester Rollo Stoefen. Rollo's improvement as a pro had been obscured by his many tour losses to Vines and then injuries. But now at Olympia, Stoefen began with a fine victory over Henri Cochet. Henri led early, but Rollo saved two set points with aces and eventually aced out the set at 86. After that, amid Stoefen's sharp volleying, Cochet "never had a look-in," wrote the Daily Telegraph reporter. Next, Stoefen proved "much too severe" for Ramillon, where the American's serve allowed him to take net "with impunity." The special correspondent for the Times wrote that Stoefen's policy was "consistently to try to knock the cover off the ball."

In their meeting on March 30, Nusslein handled Stoefen's strongest serves quite well, while Rollo produced serve-returns of excellent depth and pace. But in either situation, Hanne was usually able to bring about long rallies, where Rollo's ground strokes tended to break down. It was Nusslein, 75 64.

Nusslein thus led in the final standings, with W-L record 7-0. Stoefen and Cochet were both 5-2, with Stoefen in second place because of better W-L record in sets. Tilden and Ramillon were both 4-3, with the official edge to Bill by sets and games although Robert won their head-to-head match-up. The other three--Dan Maskell, Jan Kozeluh, and G. Palmieri--failed to defeat any of the top five, though Maskell, who was recovering from shoulder trouble, held a match-point against Cochet. The doubles competition was double-round-robin among four pairs. Tilden-Stoefen won all six of their matches, all in straight sets. Nusslein-Maskell were second at 4-2, Cochet-Ramillon third at 2-4.

Nusslein's stated prize for winning the singles was 350 pounds sterling. Writers extolled Hanne's "artistry and perfection in his orthodox stroke play." One wrote that Nusslein was among the world's pro leaders, "if he could only get on the same court with them." That eventuality would happen soon.

Carlo Colussi 08:46, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

About the supposed major ones between 1957 and 1967

I’ve read again the 1957-1967 part of McCauley’s book, those relative to the Rosewall’s pro career. It is very clear in Joe’s opinion that the U.S. Pro, the French Pro and Wembley Pro were not the only major tournaments. In particular some U.S. Pros with weak fields didn’t deserve the label ‘major pro tournament’. In reality when he was held during this period the Tournament of Champions was the biggest tournament in America if not in the world. First organized in Los Angeles in 1956 then at Forest Hills since 1957, McCauley always granted this tournament as a major one. Here are some of his comments all along the 1957-1967 part :

page 76 for the 1957 Forest Hills edition : The field for this event contained the 6 top players in the world and was the strongest ever assembled … , Riggs, a spectator, described it as … « the toughest tournament in the history of tennis. »

page 84 for the 1958 edition : Arguably the toughest event event in tennis, the Tournament of Champions Round Robin , was against staged … Forest Hills …

page 93 for the 1959 edition : It siginified the end of an era. The great Gonzales who had dominated pro tennis for 4 years was decisively beaten 6-1 5-7 6-2 6-1 by a young man who barely breathed hard in the entire match. It was Hoad’s Rubicon – the zenith of his career.

page 111 : As in 1960n there was to be no Forest Hills Pro tournament this year (1961) so the greatest emphasis was placed once more on the Paris and Wembley events.

All this to say that McCauley considered Forest Hills Pro as the greatest U.S. tournament of the time (and not the U.S. Pro). The U.S. Pro had never the best field from 1953 to 1962 if we except 1954 : in 1953 were missing the touring pros (Kramer, Segura, Sedgman,…) and from 1955 to 1959 there were good editions but not superb because the best, not touring in the US at the time, didn’t enter the tournament : in 1955-1956-1957 Sedgman was absent (not touring in the US), in 1958-1959 Sedgman and Rosewall were not there (not touring too), Trabert was also absent in 1959 (…not touring). Finally from 1960 to 1962 the US (or World) Pro was a very ordinary tournament. Consequently I have much more respect for any victory of Gonzales at Forest Hills than in any edition of the US Pro.

McCauley wrote page 100 about the 1960 edition of the U.S. Pro Despite lacking his its usual star-studded entry list, promoter Jack March still called his Cleveland tournament the World Pro Champs - a rather ludicrous claim since, of the entry of 6, only 3 could claim to be regular competitors . Page 118 about the 1962 edition A very moderate field of only 6 players assembled for the Pepsi Cola Champs in Cleveland.

About the Paris and London events McCauley often referred to them as the Big or Major European tournaments : page 86 for the 1958 editions or page 102 for the 1960 editions. Burt even when the U.S. Pro field was depleted, McCauley never called them the Big or Major World tournaments perhaps I guess because he possibly considered that some US or Australian tournaments were in the same league as these two events : Forest Hills or even the Melbourne (Kooyong) or Sydney (White City), the two latter being described as the climax of the (Australian) tour page 82 or page 98 (the Big Melbourne Round Robin tournament).

For the 1957-1967 period, McCauley wrote about the 3 major pro champs only in 1963 (page 106) and in 1964 (pages 127-128) and for the years 1965 to 1967 he didn’t really confirmed (just an allusion page 106 about Laver capturing the three ones in 1967). He noticed some slightly weak fields, page 95, about 1959 Paris possibly due to Pancho (Gonzales)’s absence, attendances in Paris were only moderate and page 135 about 1966 Wembley Unfortunately the quality of the draw was the poorest for many years … This prompted the Empire Pool officials to say that they would cancel next year’s tournament unless « new blood » was introduced or the Pros agreed to a smaller entry on a Round Robin basis.

This make me think that the 1966 Wembley tournament was not as important as ones believe. Though McCauley wrote absolutely nothing about the Madison Square Garden (MSG) and the Forest Hills tournament in his 1966 account it is extremely probable that these American tournaments were at least as great as Wembley (and Longwood and Paris).

I note that the US « World Tennis » Magazine devoted 6 pages (20 to 25) with numerous photos to the 1966 MSG tournament (May edition) whereas only 1 (page 35) accounted the 1966 Wembley tournament (December edition). In his book « The Game » page 261 Kramer wrote Along with Madison Square Garden, I had promoted the richest tournament ever – 25,000 ... in 1966. Richard Evans in his 1966 « World Tennis » article recalled that and also wrote : the public responded by turning up in droves – 35,981 over four nights with more than thirteen thousand, one of the biggest tennis crowds ever, to see Gonzalez play Rosewall in the semifinals and page 23 under the photo at the top is written Watching the matches … Dick Savitt … Andres Gimeno, Lew Hoad … Buchholz. All the greats in tennis, present and past, were watching at the Garden – Frank Froehling, Arthur Ashe, Gussie Moran, Billy Talbert, Frank Shields and many others in this magnificently successful tournament. On the other hand Linda Timms, who covered Wembley, wrote at the beginning of his second paragraph : Between the top three competitors, Laver, Hoad and Ken Rosewall, and the remaining seven, there was a sad discrepancy in standard …. Then I suppose that « World Tennis » granted a much bigger importance in 1966 to the MSG tournament than to the Wembley tournament (it is true there is a biais because Wembley isn’t a US tournament but nevertheless there was no match between the two accounts). I haven’t the 1967 « World Tennis » magazine relative to MSG but I suppose this tournament was also a great one that year.

I do not have either the « World Tennis » edition relative to the 1966 Forest Hills tournament but I have some notes in Peter Rowley’s book « Ken Rosewall Twenty Years at the Top ». To explain his 1966 ranking, Rowley chose three tournaments, Forest Hills (and not the U.S. Pro), Wembley and the French Pro : page 115 he wrote : Laver was now No.1, Rosewall remained No.2. A big tournament at Forest Hills in June resulted in Rosewall narrowly losing to the « Rocket » … In September 1966 Laver crushed Rosewall in the finals of Wembley 6-2, 6-2, 6-3, but Rosewall … beating Laver in the final … in the Stade Pierre de Coubertin . This illustrates once more the importance of the Forest Hills event when it wasn’t the site of the U.S. Pro.

In the results section of McCauley’s book I have looked at the fields of the five tournaments and I’ve noted that :

the Forest Hills tournament had the best field of all : Laver, Rosewall, Gonzales, Gimeno, Buchholz, Hoad, Barthès, Anderson, Davies, Ayala, Olmedo, Segura and MacKay

the Madison Square Garden had the second best field : exactly the same as Forest Hills with just MacKay missing.

the U.S. Pro had the third best field (with Wembley) with almost the same players as in the two previous tournaments (MacKay present, Sam Giammalva replacing Olmedo) but with Gonzales missing (I recall that this one beat twice Gimeno in their two 1966 meetings : at the MSG and at Forest Hills).

Wembley Pro had a comparable field to the U.S Pro’s with just European players (Haillet, Nielsen, Roger Becker, Molinari) replacing the American ones (MacKay, Segura, Ayala, Olmedo or Giammalva).

The French Pro field was the same as Wembley’s but without Hoad (and Becker and Nielsen).

To summarize I would say that all the best entered Forest Hills and MSG, that all but Gonzales played the U.S. Pro and Wembley and that all but Gonzales and Hoad entered the French Pro. Moreover given the « World Tennis » and Rowley accounts I don’t think I am wrong in saying that in 1966 Forest Hills and MSG were at least as important (if not more) as the US Pro, Wembley Pro and the French Pro.

In the end I’m coming back to McCauley. He wrote almost 2 pages in his book for the 1967 Wimbledon Pro tournament : he hadn’t done it for any other tournament except ... Forest Hills Pro 1957 (2 pages and a few lines) then I suppose he also considered this Wimbledon Pro tournament as a great one.

In conclusion for the 1957-1967 period I would say that :

a) each time a Forest Hills Pro tournament was held it was one of the major ones and possibly the first one,

b) the MSG tournament was probably also a major one in 1966 and in 1967,

c) Wimbledon Pro was also a major one in 1967,

d) the US Pro was not a major one from 1960 to 1962 and that the 1957-1959 and 1963 editions (in 1963 Gimeno and Sedgman were replaced by the two Panchos then far from their prime) weren’t at the top.

Carlo Colussi 10:36, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

One can certainly make an exegetical study on what McCauley wrote and what he thought. But it is also clear, that he gives at the end of the book a list of the 3 majors, which he calls explicitely as majors. As i said before, the Wembley London pro (the name existed since 1951) was referred by the pros as the most important over the years. The US pro was the oldest, but had a slump in the late 50s and early 60s. It was revived in 1964 with its shifting to Longwood, and became the nucleus and, as Bud Collins put it, "the climactic event" of the new 80ooo$ US circuit. The Forest Hills event in the late 50s was important. Therefor my choice for Hoad as possible Nr. 1 or 2 in 1959. The reference in the book of Jenny Hoad, that Hoad had lead a tournamnet series at the end of the year, correspondents with a McCauley quote of World Tennis or Mal Anderson for the 1959 ranking. In the middle 60s the Forest Hills and Newport events were quite interesting for the pros, played as Round robins and often under the VASS system. Another important event was the US indoor pro, played at White Plains or since 65 at the Old Armoury hall in New York. It was later succeeded by the very successful Philadelphia US pro indoor. The Wimbledon pro in 1967 was the most important pro event in all the 60s. It drew good crowds and a high TV rating, with the BBC making their color debut for sports events. It paved the way for the open Wimbledon the next year. Besides: There was a small (more local) pro event at Wimbledon in the 30s, which was won by Dan Maskell (german friend).

• Hello : if we look at the whole story of pro tennis it is sure that the 3 ones stand out because they lasted (the US Pro from 1927 to 1999 if we except 1944). This is the reason why McCauley listed them pages 256 to 258. People would be lost if he had listed the truly great events year by year : he would have put for example the Championship Roll of Beaulieu/Cannes from 1923 to 1928 and/or Southport in the second half of the thirties which is considered by Bowers as a greater tournament than the U.S. Pro in 1935, 1936, 1937 and 1939. If McCauley had done thus, people would have been lost with frequent changes : it wouldn't have been "clean" but confused. Nevertheless it would have been more accurate.

It is sure that the US Pro came back strongly in the mid-60's : in 1967 it had the best field of all the tournaments with Los Angeles (there were the same players but Giammalva replacing H. Stewart at the U.S. Pro), Gonzales being the only great missing in these two tournaments.

About 1959 : I think I've read the Anderson supposed claim in Rowley's book : the Australian would have said that in Kramer's points ranking Hoad was number one but Kramer's rankings for 1959 were : 1) Gonzales, 2) Sedgman, 3) Rosewall, 4) Hoad, 5) Trabert (I do not approve Kramer). So where is the truth ?

It seems that the 1967 pro edition of Wimbledon had a greater success than the 1967 amateur one and it was probably the greatest event of the 60s because it is the first pro success of Laver I've ever heard (before his US or Wembley Pro triumphs).

About the pro Wimbledon of the 30's there is a small ambiguity about the year : I've read somewhere (Collins's "Total Tennis" ???) it was held in 1930 but Ray Bowers wrote in his 1931 account : "Two other pro tournaments stayed alive. The Southern Pro, held at Palm Beach Tennis Club in March, went to Paul Heston. The Pro Championships of Great Britain were held in July at Wimbledon. Dan Maskell won the event for the fourth time in five years. Neither Vincent Richards, who won the Southern in 1930, nor any of the touring pros competed in either event. That means that probably only domestic players entered Wimbledon Pro in 1931.

84.96.87.77 09:36, 17 November 2006 (UTC)Carlo Colussi

Hello. In the Book: 100 Wimbledon Championships. A celebration. by John Barrett, 1986, p.138, there is a reference to the first local Wimbledon pro tourney as the British Professional Champs in July 1930. Dan Maskell beat Tom Jefferey 6-1,6-0,6-2 on Court Nr.2. I think, Barrett was a close associate of Maskell, so it seems to be true. I also think, that McCauleys accounts of the 36 and 38 Wembleys could be trustful, because he follows the scores of Lance Tingay in Tennis. Facts and Figures. In all tennis encyclopedias i know, by Max Robertson, Collins, Hylatt, Sean Gallery and others, they are always referring to the Wembley and US pro champs as the most prominent pro events. That venues like Forest Hills, Newport and Longwood were attractive for the outcast pros, is quite clear, because they were for so long the shrines of US club tennis. MSG had a strong pro tradition since before WW II and the famous blizzard match of Riggs-Kramer. It was transported into the early open era with big tournaments staged there in 68, 69 (one open, one pro event),70 and 71. Through the scores of McCauley we now have a closer look at some dubious years and can explore some myths. It seems that in tournament play, Gonzales wasn't as dominant as often said in the later 50s, getting much pressure by a strong cast of Sedgman, Hoad and Rosewall. And the stature of Kramer seems to be slightly minor, than others and he himself have constructed over the years.He was dominant on his own terms, in the long 100 matches series on fast indoor courts, but not in tournament play. I think, his big stature in the minds of his comtemporaries may be fundated in his great Wimbledon win in 1947, when he was amateur (german friend).

• Yes you are right : this is Barrett who wrote about the 1930 victory (I will look at my Barret's book later) opposed to the 1931 account of Bowers.

About Wembley 1936 here is what Ray Bowers has written : There would be no 1936 indoor pro tournament at either Wembley or Paris, although contrary information is wrongly given in other books. Tilden in late July tried to change the minds of the Wembley promoters, who believed that without Vines the tournament would lose money. Writer Clifford Webb, who described these discussions in London Daily Herald, himself disagreed with the promoters, arguing that Nusslein "is the most entertaining thing in tennis." Bill telephoned Elly in California and Vines promised to reconsider his plans, but the event was lost. Thus Vines and Nusslein never faced each other during the year.

and about 1938 :

There would be no international tournament at Wembley in 1938 nor at Scheveningen, and no Bonnardel Cup team competition.

About Kramer : in his book (I haven't at hand) he listed the probable winners of Wimbledon and Forest Hills had they been open tournaments before 1968. And of course between 1947 and 1953 Kramer's name is very frequent. Moreover elsewhere in his book he also claimed that in 1955 he was still the World Champion since he had been undefeated in the previous world tour : he wrote it about a possible World tour with Trabert (in the end Gonzales replaced Kramer). In a 1955 World Tennis Magazine I have also read Kramer's claim that after a good physical training he would be again the best and Frank Kovacs too agreed. But Kramer has very little played between 1954 and 1956 : therefore he can absolutely not claim any World crown during this period. If you look carefully at my World No. 1 and 2 Tennis Players Rankings and Gonzales list discussion, you will see that in 1950, 1951, 1953 his first place is very debatable and that in 1952 he was the third pro player after Gonzales and Segura and that amateur Sedgman probably deserved a higher ranking than Kramer's.

I've also written somewhere that according to McCauley, in the 60's Gonzales hasn't won a major one with best-of-five set matches all along the event (however he has won some tournaments with a best-of-five set final in that decade : the Copenhagen final (October 2, 1961), the Vienna final (October 20, 1961), the US Pro Indoor-White Plains final (May 31, 1964), the Howard Hughes Las Vegas final in May 1969 (I do not remember if the 1969 Pacific Southwest final was in best-of-five sets). I hope I haven't forgotten any other best-of-5 set finals. Finally in the 70's he beat Laver 3 sets to 1 in the 1970 Las Vegas final).

Carlo Colussi 14:46, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Hello again.As to the debate on majors, my main objection in the Rosewall article is that you regard the La masters as a major in '64. McCauley quite clearly states, as you have noted, that there were only three majors in '63 and '64.

• I've looked at it again and here is my new ranking in 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, 7) College Park Pro) then I agree with you and I'll change this part. Carlo Colussi 09:28, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

The La tourament despite its strong field can be ignored in both years. In 1963 its called The Adler pro and a knockout tournament . The Geneva tournament had the strongest possible field betwween '61 and '64, even Gonzales played in his active years in '61 and '64. This event has more history in the 60's than LA when the '64 event was played. But neither you or I going to propose it as a major, even in '61 and '62 as a replacement for the weak US pro. Like many pro events Geneva's superiority was short Lived. It was not played in '65 and in '66 was a minor event. The tourament Champions only lasted 3 years as well in New york. Its hard to count it as a major with such a short life. In 56 (played in LA) and '57 I would probably given it equal status with the 3 majors because It was the only one with all the top players. Otherwise, I would only rank it equally with the Aussie round-robin in'58, below the 4 maors ( see my earlier references to the Aussie pro because of its 5 set matches) In '58 the 3 majors were all strong enough to hold their status. The whims of one player, usually Gonzales should not determine a major's fate. Thus in '59 the majors would retain their status, dispite the fact that 8 other touraments had all the 6 top pros. These 8 are equal in my opinion , including LA and New york .Having all the best players does not make you a major in a year, paricularly when there are lots of others as in '59, 63 and '64. With a strong tourament circut as in '59 and '64 (and to an extent '63), lots of events are going to have all the best. In that case these events become super 9 as they are today. This is especially so in '63 (Gimeno was probably injured for the US and they did have Gonzales)

• I don't know if Gimeno was injured but I know that the promoters in NY had proposed guarantees to Gonzales in order to come back from his retirement : it seems he was the only one (for Segura I don't know) who earned money given that there was no prize money due to the weak attendances. So Gonzales and probably the other Pancho, both previously retired, being invited, took the places of others in this 8-man tournament : those of Sedgman and Gimeno ? Carlo Colussi 09:28, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

and '64, when the 3 majors had all the best players. Returning specifically to LA, it has and up and down history like all pro events. In '56 it looked great. But in '57 kramer downgraded its name to the Masters rather than touramet of champions. The name the masters suggest it should be treated as like the masters of today in its best years - not as a major. In 1960 it lost its round robin identity to be a knockout. In 61 and 62 it was not played. In '63 lost its masters name. 64 was a good year for its field, but that was the case for many others as well; It also played one set tennis in the early stages (no way can that be a major) and only three sets for semis and finals. Majors should definitely always play 5 set finals and preferably 5 set semis. Thats the case for the slams and the 3 majors(the us pro would lose its status betwen 60 and '62. In '65 Hoad did not play; in '66 it bacame a team event for one year, suggesting that this event has no history or permenance; in '67 Gonzales did not play. No source makes any mention of the '64 LA event as a major. Neither, Rowlely or Geist even mention the win. Geist's count of 23 majors for Rosewall over his career clearly eliminates the LA event as a major. His count covers Rosewall's 8 grand slams and 15 wins from the 3 major pros. This total makes Rosewall the most successful major player of all-time.

• a) I wouldn't say that Rosewall was the most successful player of all time because Rowley or Geist's counts favour Kenny. Before him there were less major tournaments and more world tours. From 1936 to 1938 Vines has played no tournaments nevetheless he was one of the best if not the best of that period. In the mid-20s Tilden and the other Americans had first Davis Cup in mind and secondly their Nationals so it made only one major tournament. So we can't truly compare the different era and say Rosewall is the most successful major player of all-time.

b) In the article I haven't counted the Australian 53 and 55, the French 53 and the US 56 in the amateur period and the Australian 72 in the Open era while I've added the WCT Finals of 71 and 72 (and eventually the MSG 66) for the reasons I've explained in the article and in the discussions : thus I think that 20 (or 21) is more accurate than 23. I've made this total in considering 4 big events each year to have comparable data. For instance you can see my new 1964 choice I've listed a few paragraphs above (I haven't explained it but I can give you my arguments later if you will) following your remarks and then my re-reading of McCauley's accounts. But as we know the choice of these 4 big events is very debatable as our discussions has proved it : there are still disagreements between us.84.96.87.77 11:00, 20 November 2006 (UTC)Carlo Colussi

This should be emphasised as far better than Samparas' 14 and the target that Federer has to reach. McCaulay, the major available source for 1964 and 1963, clearly states there were only 3 majors in those years and LA was definitely not one of them. Wikipedia seems to require sources not personal opinions. You should remove the '64 reference to LA unless you can find another published source. See above Carlo Colussi 09:28, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

As for Gonzales in '66, it should be noted that he was in dispute with the other pros who ran the circuit. he wanted appearance money; the rules of the association said you had to sign up to no appearance money. Thus Gonzales was either barred or unwilling to play the regular tour. The only event he played were special events like BBC2 and LA team event . MSG and forest hills were probably financially so attractive that he played without any up front money. The case went to court, according to laver, and gonzales won. This probably expains his full return in '67. I'm not sure how to treat '66. Gonzales not playing at any of the three majors does not really affect their status given the nature of the dispute. I would certainly dismiss Forest Hills as a major given its use of the horrible one set VASS. MSG did not play 5 sets so I would also dismiss it. As for the comment at wembley of the poor field, this is not specifically an attack on this field but the state of pro tennis in '66. No significant player had turned pro since laver in '63. The game had been very strong in '61 but age had caught with the tour by '66. Many had retired or should have like Segura, who was bought back in desperation to play a full circut in '66. Only Laver, Rosewall and Gimeno of the active ones were top players in '66. The rest would probably have struggled to be ranked in an open top ten; hoad's performance was awful in '66; he did not reach the final of any event and ordinary Barthes had a head to head edge; he was gone as a player just as Laver was in '76.

In '67 I would agree that Wimbledon should count as a major. It was the only event to have all the best players and it payed a best of 5 set final. This tourament seem to have been the only tourament in the '60s Gonzales made a special effort to play. When he came back in '64 he was only prepared to play 1/2 the number events compared to the rest. he liked to play in one long streach and be able to take more or less 6 months uninterrupted rest. In '67 he took his break a bit earlier than usual and thus missed LA. He then returned play a warm-up event (Fort Worth) and then played the one big event. Otherwise, I don't think he cared. Europe got lucky in '64. Australia in '65 and '67. Therefore his participation in 1960's should not affect the status of an event. Its pot luck if he played the majors or not. Hoad missed the French in '66 due to injury, not lack of interest.

As to McCauley's view on the forest hills event, calling it the strongest or toughest, which it certainly was in '57, does not necessarily make it a major. He only ever uses those terms for the accepted 3 as is clear from his highlighted results. I would accept the status in '57 ( 5 set round -robin is great) but in '58 its no tougher than melbourne. In '59 its no tougher than some of the aussie events which played 5 set semis and and had all the best. The discrepancy concerning Hoad's topping the rankings can be explained. That was based on the fourteen events which were fully fledged touraments. Hoad beat Gonzalews 53 to 52 points; but he played all fourteen and Gonzales only played 11. As for Kramer he as usual ignored tournaments and based his rankins on the tours. Hence SEDGMAN's finishing 2nd and Hoad 4th due to the 4 man European tour results.

Moving on to your expanded piece On Rosewall. This is superb in depth coverage. There are a few poinits of fact I would like to help you with.

In terms of the 1968 player defintions; this only lasted for one year. Every body was a professional from 1969 onwards. Ashe and the other USTA players, who had been an amateurs in 68, made it quit clear to the USTA, they were pros, desired prize money and not expenses at events; they'd boycott expenses only events. From then on players were either contract pros(WCT and NTL) or independent pros playing under the auspicies of the ITF. All significant events had prize money. In '69 contract pros were barred from some events in the US restricted to ITF players. However, only Ashe,who won only two small events compare to Smith and Richey's large haul, figured on the final money list with the top pros becasue he was runnerup at the 2 big open events at MSG and LAS VEGAs and reached the semis at USA open And Wimbledon.

• Is there anything to change in the article about it ? 84.96.87.77 11:00, 20 November 2006 (UTC)Carlo Colussi

The Grand prix started in may '70 with BHc and finished late November in stockholm.

• I've completely forgotten to check it in the Barrett-Tingay's book I haven't at hand right now but I think Bournemouth even began in late April (I will look at it precisely and also the end of Stockholm) 84.96.87.77 11:00, 20 November 2006 (UTC)Carlo Colussi

In the the discussion of other major events in '70, you restrict to Philadelphia ,Boston and Sydney. I would add in terms of field PSW and wembley

Philadephia was so strong than it was better than Forest Hills, which missed Kodes, Nastase and Franulovic.

• But these three ones weren't good on grass in 70 (first Kodes's exploit on grass at FH71 and Nastase's at W and FH72) and then weren't missing much FH in 1970. Good point for PSW and Wembley that I will add 84.96.87.77 11:00, 20 November 2006 (UTC)Carlo Colussi

On this basis you might argue that it should join the big two as a third major: it had five sets for the last two rounds.

Top 20 Players missing  from these 1970 events: 

Philadephia  : only gonzales

• I remember when I first see the Philadelphia field I was very impressed and I noted that indeed only Gonzales ... and Drysdale were absent. For the tournaments below I don't remember if Drysdale entered or not.

Carlo Colussi 09:16, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

SYdney :  Roche , Kodes, Franulovic and probably Richey
Boston  Nastase and Gonzales
PSW  :  Rosewall Nastase, Franulovic
Wembley  Necombe( on holiday for last months), Roche (injured for last part of season)

Newcombe was semi-finalist at Phil and runner -up at PSW
Rosewall was runner-up at Dunlop and semi-finalist at Wembley, which makes them even.

Rosewall played 24 events at least in 1970. The ones you probably missed if you are using Tingay's World of Tennis yearbook are Philadelphia (lost to grabener), Las Vegas (to Gonzales), Boston ( to drysdale) and fort Worth (lost to Gimeno). If these are not the ones I can give you the full List.

• In this case I've trusted World Tennis but I should have checked it : I will do it and then eventually change the article. 84.96.87.77 11:00, 20 November 2006 (UTC)Carlo Colussi

Rosewall beat Newcombe 5-1 in 1970. The fifth win came may 21 in Champions Tennis Classic. ( early losers all got a second chance) in 4 sets.

• You've learnt me something because in Barrett-Tingay's book (I still haven't at hand) I haven't seen any Rosewall-Newcombe match (I'm short-sighted) in Tennis Champions Classic. Do you have the site and the score ?84.96.87.77 11:00, 20 November 2006 (UTC)Carlo Colussi

You should drop the Grand prix finshing positions. It Only covered 2nd half of the year. Even then it covered too few events. The Italien and german Champs were excluded because they paid appearance money, even though ITF events. Nastase, who everyone ranked in top 10 because of his exploits at these events, finished only 12th but won rome and was runner-up in Hamburg. Newcombe so little cared for the grand prix and masters that he turned down his place in Tokyo (richey was injured).

• Nastase was also the US indoor winner at Salisbury in 1970 (one of two occasions where Laver was beaten by El Shafei in 1970). Kodes replaced Newcombe at Tokyo. I don't think to drop GP positions : it's interesting to see for instance that Emerson finished 20th at the GP and 3rd (in total prize money) in pro events. 84.96.87.77 11:00, 20 November 2006 (UTC)Carlo Colussi

For the 1971 rankings Tingay ranked Rosewall 4th. Tommasi 1st, and the Martini-rosi awawrd was given jointly to Necombe and Smith.

• Tingay has always underrated Rosewall (except in 1974) and Nastase : in 1970 he ranked Rosewall after Newk and in 1973 he ranked Nastase only third when the Rumanian was the best by far. And if I believe Rowley, in 1972 Tingay not ranked Rosewall in his Top10 of all-time greats. So even though Tingay is considered as the greatest expert from the 50s to 70s I don't trust much his judgments.

The problem with Tommasi is that he counts every match the same : a victory in a Bournemouth first round is equal to a victory in Wimbledon final. But eventually I can add your comment. 84.96.87.77 11:00, 20 November 2006 (UTC)Carlo Colussi.

On the tourament win list Geist has 124. You have counted all the small 4 man events. That means Laver' list needs expanding for the 64-66 period. do you know what geist's attitude is to four man events ?. Does he count them or not ?

• I have no idea : is Geist's list recent, because I haven't seen it ?

I will look carefully at your new titles below but my first remark is that if I add them it will make 120 (= 116 + 4) and not Geist's 124. What are the missing tournaments ? 84.96.87.77 11:00, 20 November 2006 (UTC)Carlo Colussi

In 1962 10 wins. Stockholm and Aussie TV event.

In 1968 5 wins. Paris indoor May

In 1971 8 wins. Denver 8 man round-robin April 25. (poor field- only drysdale counts)

Rosewal beat Laver in 3 straight sets '76 Avis (thrashed him bad)

Rosewall lost 2 '59 tours to sedgman, second one was important.

In '64 tour In italy played mainly against Buchholz, Gonzales and Gimeno

• I haven't precised the players because there is something that disturbs me : McCauley wrote that Rosewall won the Facis Trophy (Trofeo Facis) pro tour : indeed he defeated Buchholz, Gonzales and Gimeno but Laver played the second part of the tour and defeated I think (I haven't the book at hand) twice Rosewall in two meetings. So I am a little evasive.

THe 1964 win edge against Gonzales was mainly generated because he got to play him for an extended period on European clay for the first time. Gonzales was thrashed In Italy. he lost all 6 to Rosewall and all 3 to Gimeno. Buchholz only won one match against the 2. This was revenge for both players who had suffrerd at Gonzales' hand in indoor tours. Laver in contrast did not play Gonzales on Euro-clay. He played him mainly indoors. He had an edge in outdoor meetings (3-2) and won both his most important best of 5 set, major clahes with Gonzales.

• However I think that it is remarkable that Gonzales had the edge over Laver in 1964 (8-5 in counting all the minor confrontations) because Gonzales a) was 10 years older than Laver and b) has been retired 20 months (from October 25, 1961 to June 27, 1963). 84.96.87.77 11:00, 20 November 2006 (UTC)Carlo Colussi.

[jeffreyneave] 17 november. 2006

Hello, again, german friend writing. I agree with Jeffreyneave and would be thankful, if You could make an input on the basis of Your data material in the Laver-article as well, rearding additional titles etc. Tingay, who compiled the World of Tennis yearbooks gives indeed mostly the last eight of tournaments. I am a bit reluctant, to include all four-men events, maybe one should classify it, in a separate list within each year.

• Sutter for example, didn't list the less than 8-man tournaments (with some exceptions as for instance the 62 US Pro or the Pepsi Grand Slam tournaments) but how do you compare a victory in a 4-man event with Sedgman, Rosewall, Laver and Hoad and another one with 64 players but none of the Top20 ? Personally I am very reluctant to include "beach" tennis tournaments as some won by Drobny or even Laver in their amateur days and I largely prefer to include 4-man tournaments as Perth and Melbourne beginning 1964 : in the first one Laver began his reign and in the second one Rosewall showed he could still defeat the best one. Nothing prevents to indicate that a tournament is a 4-man event (as I've written each time in the article). Moreover there were also 4-man tournaments because simultaneously some other leading pros could play tours.

For 1964, it needs a lot of acrobatics, to deny Laver his due status as Nr.1. His quote, by the way, was made after Wembley, and before the late season, which he in McCauleys words "dominated' in South Africa with 3 additional title wins. And these internal pro points rankings are to be weighted very carefully, as the example of Hoads points lead in 1959 shows.

• I am nearly (about 95%) sure that Laver was the number one in 1964 but I haven't seen any official source claiming it. Carlo Colussi 13:33, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

In between the pro majors, one can discuss the matter, whether Wembley and US pro were more important than Paris, as it is written in 'Total tennis' and in all other encyclopedias i know. In my personal view, Paris was hampered by the fact, that it changed from clay to indoor, and was played mostly a week before Wembley, which in all pro accounts was the real biggie. In Hoads account of his first pro year 1957, he writes extensively about Wembley and cites Paris only with one sentence.

• I guess it's normal that Hoad made about his 1957 account only one sentence of the Paris event because there was no French Pro that year (in fact there has been only one edition in 1956 (if we exclude the 1953 ambiguous one) between 1940 and 1957) but when we look at the respective fields of the US Pro and the French Pro between 1958 and even 1963 there is no match, the French Pro had the best one by far. Moreover clay was the surface where Hoad was less at ease.

Carlo Colussi 13:33, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

I think that the pro majors however, remained important events in 68-70, at least as sort of Super Nine events. The 68 French pro at RG had indeed a better field than the open RG.As the most prominent events in 1968 i would name Wimbledon, USO, RG Open,LA SWP O, US pro, French pro and Wembley Kramer.

• Perhaps you could add the 8-man event at MSG Pro at the end of the year with the 4 best of each pro group.

Carlo Colussi 13:33, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

• And I've forgotten the Queen'sCarlo Colussi 10:00, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree with jeffreyneave about his weighting of the 1970 events. And the Classic series as a round robin was far more important than the Masters at Tokyo, where the contract pros played merely, to get the bonus money out of the dubious Grand Prix series.

• I remembered that Laver had written that the Classic Series were almost a succession of exhibitions and I've checked it in his autobiography pages 305-306 : "The crowd in Boston told me something : the Tennis Champions Classic was a mistake ... there were about 2000 customers in a building holding 15,000 ... Regardless of the money involved, the Classic seemed an exhibition. The customers wanted tournaments".

This is another argument that makes me think that the Masters was greater than the Classic.

84.96.87.77 09:24, 22 November 2006 (UTC)Carlo Colussi

• Yes but in the Tennis Classic Champions series you've got only contract pro players whereas in the Masters every player could qualify and in the end you've got on one hand Smith, Ashe, Franulovic and Kodes and on the other hand the best contract pros, Rosewall and Laver. So the Masters field was largely better than the Classic's.

The 1970 Sydney match between Laver and Rosewall was regarded as the best ever played in Australia by Adrian Quist and others. Lately i saw clips out of it: It was a bit like the Borg-Gerulaitis Wim classic of 1977. Both players extremely fast, used every inch on the grass court, mixed denfensive skills with great attacking play. (german friend).

• This tournament was considered at the time as the true (but not official) Australian Open.

Quist, being part of the triangular meeting between Germany-USA-Australia in January 1938 a few days before the Australian Chps (won by Budge), has probably watched the von Cramm-Budge classic at Kooyong won by the German. Has Quist made any reference about this match when he has accounted about the Laver-Rosewall match ?

It appears that Rosewall's father, watching the match on TV, fainted. Carlo Colussi 13:33, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Kramer-Segura in 1950

Hello jeffreyneave and german friend : you have not fully change my mind about the three ones nevertheless your arguments begin to infiltrate my spirit.

I need not anymore the WCT Statistics because I've found in my books the WCT-75 Media Guide with all the rankings from 1971 to 1974 (Rosewall was indeed 3rd with 74 points in 1971).

On the other hand I'm always very interested by the details of a) the 14 to 3 (or 15 to 4) series between Gonzales and Rosewall in 1960 and b) the 8 Gonzales's defeats still in 1960.

I've said in World No. 1 and 2 Tennis Players Rankings and Gonzales list for the year 1950 that if someone gives me a little argument proving that Segura was the best I will not be a tough opponent. Segura was clearly the best in tournaments (US Pro and Paris) and Kramer was clearly the best on tours in 1950 : that year he finished the Gonzales tour (begun on October 25 1949) and he began the Segura tour on October 28 (finished in March 1951). I haven't the "strictly 1950" results but just the overall records. Nevertheless according to World Tennis at mid-November 1950, Kramer was leading Segura 10-4 in their tour after 2 weeks and a half : I suppose that on December 31 the Kramer ratio was still better (he ended up at 64-28 or at 58-27 in March 1951). So, as you, I can't really choose between the two players to designate the number 1 and I am really frustrated. I can accept that players are co-ranked below the 1st place but I never like that two players are co-ranked #1. What is superior, Segura's victories in tournaments or Kramer's clear dominations in the 1950 part of the Gonzales tour and in the 1950 part of the Segura tour ? I have to wait for a convincing answer.

Carlo Colussi 09:28, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your reponse to my comments. I am very impressed by your promptness and the length of your reply.

• Don't be impressed : these days I've had time but in a few days I will answer very slowly and rarely because I won't have much time anymore.

80.70.42.194 14:41, 10 November 2006 (UTC)Carlo Colussi

I will only answer a few of your ideas just now. There was a misunderstanding in 1973. I agree that Nastase was no.1. Newcombe only earned one slam. His aussie title with its depleted field only counted probably as a super 9. My argument of 2 majors securing no.1 is a little more suspect in 1977. Vilas won 2 slams and was voted no1 by World Tennis. Most voters went for Borg because of his continued Head to head dominance over Vilas (75-80). I tend to agree because I regard head to heads as important. However, vilas' french win only had 5 of the top 10; its probably only a semi major in '77 like the Masters. If Orantes had played, who had beaten Vilas on clay in 75-76, it probably would still count as a major.

In 1976, I would regard the French as a slam/major. I would count the masters, WCT and possibly the Italien as semi-majors. Today if you win all 5 matches at the Masters you earn 150 points. Thats half way between a super 9 (100) and a slam (200). I feel that's the ratio to use over the years for such events. By 1976 the Masters and WCT had some consistent tradition. Philadelphia varies from year to year. In 1975 connors, nastase, orantes, Vilas, rosewall and Newcombe who were all top 10 players at 74-75 year turning were all missing. I don't think Nastase was banned. He wanted to play but his WTT contract prevented him from playing. In '77 he signed a different contract and played both the French and WTT. Connors was banned in '74 by Chatrier, the french tennis chief. The reasoning that they didn't want players just playing the French and not supporting the rest of the clay court circut. I think this was stupid because WTT players like Connors, Newcombe, rosewall and Okker were never going to play a full circut like orantes and vilas. Connors and Goolagong sued. However, Commercial union failed to enforce their rules that everyone playing the Grand Prix can play every event. Consequently, Connors refused to play the Masters while Commercial union were the sponsors. He relented in '77 went Colgate took over. Connor's grudges and Nastase chasing easy WTT money do not devalue the French in my view. One or two players can not determine the status of a tournament. As for the WCT in '76, Nastase played only 6 of the 8 events, but he still deserved to qualify for the finals as he won more matches than Lutz or stockton who did qualify. WCT gave far too many points for losing in the first round.

In 1958, Gonzales wins in one set to 8 matches are nearly meaningless and should be discounted. His win at the 3rd place Wembley match doesn't carry much weight either. Sedgmann won the 2 best of 5 set matches and that's what majors are about. The fact that the Aussie pro had 5 sets like Wembley from the semis onwards gives it more status than New york and LA.

• I've just reread McCauley's book : year 1958, p 84 : Arguably the toughest event in tennis, the Tournament of Champions Round Robin, was again staged on the soft grasscourts of the West Side Club, Forest Hills, New York. Just to say that that McCauley considered once more that Forest Hills Pro was the greatest event, this time in 1958.

Carlo Colussi 15:19, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

I know it was played only 3 times but Forest Hills was discontinued after only 3 years as a Champions event. LA was only played in the interesting top 6/7 round robin format from 56 to 59 ; in 1960 it looks like a regular knockout given the length of the event.

Your 18 to 20 point example does not seem that relevant. In determining no1 for a year its the relative weight between events, head to head weighting and the impotance placed on consistency that matters. The total number of points available is minor ; comparisons between years is not the objective. What is also important is the consistency of the weightings over time. Today's ATP rankings are a good starting point and their slam/major, minor major masters, super 9 and minor event divisions should be the basis for a consistent ranking system over the years. Your idea of a 4 to 1 ratio currently for slams against super 9s seems way too much, especially when you are talking of only 1.5 to 2 for earlier years like 1958 and 1964.

• Hello : we have effectively a different philosophy because you are trying to apply a long-term treatment (so your ratios are quite the same yeach year) whereas I'm trying to compare honour rolls between different generations. My nowadays ratio of 4 to 1 is based on the fact that a simple Masters Series (or the equivalent) winner is not remembered so a Masters Series is a good tournament but not a very great. The example I have in head is Safin winning in Bercy and Madrid in succession in the fall of 2004 and then two months later winning the Australian : Safin is known because of the Australian and not for having won Bercy+Madrid so I can't accept that 2 Masters Series = 1 Slam then I prefer a Slam weight superior to 2 (I propose 4 but it can be different : I just say that 2 is "too light"). Knowing that from 1983 absolutely nothing prevent a player to play any Slam he wants the Big Four are really the BIG ONES. Before 1983 there was always something more or less valid to prevent a player to enter an event so I think that before 1983. Then weights of these period could be modulated each year and then do not exceed (or even reached ?) 2 : tradition wasn't as strong as now. In 2006 all the best players played the Slams tournament (if Moya doesn't play Wimbledon is because his play and his confidence are low on grass but not because he is forbidden or he doesn't consider that event; Nadal was absent of the Australian only due to his injury; many were absent of the the Masters Cup for the same reason). You also say that the 1,5 to 2 ratio of the Masters Cup-Slam is good but for me today the Masters Cup just deserve half the points of a Slam. Always in my philosophy of comparison when you compare modern players one always says that Federer will pass Sampras when the Swiss will have won 15 Slam tournaments and all the Masters Cup wins of each one are almost always forgotten. This is why in modern times (since the modern ATP circuit was created in 1990 (?)) the ratios I prefer are 1-2-4 (Super 9 or Masters Series - Masters Cup - Grand Slam tournaments). For me the problem is to have a certain logic between the evaluation of a player for a given year (his annual ranking) and the evaluation of this same player's whole career. If we accord a great importance for the Masters Cup (3/4 of a Slam in your evaluation) to rank the players for a given year then we have to grant the same importance for the Masters Cups for a whole career. If it was really the case in people's opinions Lendl, with all (5) his Masters Cup and WCT Finals, would be considered a greater player than McEnroe, Connors, Agassi or even Borg and this isn't absolutely the case. Idem for Sampras : no one would dare comparing Borg to Sampras if Masters Cups would be given in people's opinions as much importance as in the ATP rankings. In conclusion our own philosophies are different nevertheless I suppose we are not hermetically closed : for instance it is very probable that from now I will give less credit to San Rafael in the mid-60s.

80.70.42.194 14:04, 10 November 2006 (UTC)Carlo Colussi

On 1950, you have a good point which I missed. If you count Segura's losses to Kramer in December '50, then Kramer would deserve to be the no1. My partial obection is that this is regarded as a 1951 tour. The aussie open when Connors played in 74 and 75 finished with the final played on jan 1st; the rest of the tournament was played in December. It was still regarded as part of the following season. Another example, when the Masters was played in New york, it was played in the 2nd or 3rd week of January. It was always regared as part of the previous season for rankings purposes. Hence Borg's 3-0 edge in '77 over Vilas. The vast majority of the tour was played in '51; it belongs to the '51 season, when I agree Kramer was no1. Kramer can't have 2 separate tours in '51; the Gonzles tour belongs to '50 despite starting in '49. The reason I raised Segura was that in 3 consective seasons he won the most important event (US Pro) and they were all outdoors. He never won it at the lightning quick indoors in Cleveland. I know that kramer and Gonzales were better Indoor players than Segura. But too much pro tennis was played indoors. The open and amateur eras are dominated by outdoor tennis; all 4 slams are outdoors. Segura's results show that on clay I think he is a better player and on cement, as in LA., he is very competative. His results on UK and New york grass are not not as good as Gonzales, although he won in '51 in new york. He also played well at the Aussie grass in '57 beating the fast court specialists Sedgman and Gonzales. Aussie grass plays a bit slower, hence Rosewall's wins in Queensland over the years.

• When I told you that the Segura tour was crossing the two years I had in mind all the examples you've given nevertheless. Almost all the Australians since Kooyong has been the definitive grass site have been held during Christmas holidays for obvious reasons in order to attract big crowds. The Masters in New York have been held in January just because of TV competition : in December other sports and festivities would have killed the Masters but all the players but Borg considered the Masters of January n+1 as the conclusion of year n+1.

the Gonzales and Segura tours were played for more than two months before the supposed year of the tour (in Segura tour there were almost as much days in 1950 than in 1951) so I think it is hard to just consider them as respectively a strictly 1950 tour for Gonzales and a strictly 1951 tour for Segura.

Kramer explained in his book why tours were crossing years and why they were indoors : a) by crossing years, the taxes were split between the two years, b) indoors because winter because not summer because the amateur Federations owned the great outdoors stadiums and didn't want at all that their events, played in summer, outdoors, suffered from any competition coming for pro tennis. Do you imagine in the 50's a great pro competition, held from the end of June to the beginning of July, just beside...the Wimbledon stadium ? Not possible. So the pro players were obliged to play indoors.

80.70.42.194 14:04, 10 November 2006 (UTC)Carlo Colussi

The 1960 results between Gonzales and rosewall. I don't have the precise dates, but the tour started at the end of january in USA , Europe in March and Australia in April. Its all indoor tennis, except possibly the southern venues in the states.

Gonz bt Rose San Francisco (1st match)

"    "   "   LA
"    "   "   Princeton
 "   "   "   Washington
 "   "   "   White plains , NY
 "   "   "   Seattle
 "   "   "    Philadelphia
 "   "   "    Dallas
 "   "   "    Orange New Jersey
Rose "  Gonz  Richmond
Rose "   "    Greensboro
Rose "   "     Palm beach

The rest of the aussie wins are in McCauley.

[ Jeffreneave 10 november '06]

• Thank you very much (at start I thought it was Mervyn Rose so I didn't understand 80.70.42.194 14:04, 10 November 2006 (UTC)Carlo Colussi

1965-1973

I have changed comments until 1964 but I have written anything about the 1965-1973 period : I will do it later 80.70.42.194 12:13, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

How can you justify naming the Los Angeles masters as a major tournament. Its no different than the other 14 events contributing to the 18 tournament ranking. The three majors are the US pro , Wembley and French Pro. These tournaments have a long tradition and coincide with the Grand slam touraments of the open and amateur eras. The Los Angeles field is no stronger than either Maryland, White plains New York, St Louis, Cannes, Geneva or two or three others all of which have the top 6 players in world in them (Laver, Rosewall, Gonzales, Gimeno, Hoad and Buchholz, the only players with a decent, consistent set of results in 1964) . This tournament was not even payed in 61, 62 . Geneva has more recent history as at least it was played in the immediate years before 1964. Just because this event was very important once in 1957, when it was one of only two tournaments to have the 6 best players, does not make it important in 1964. Its format of playing one set to 10 in the round robin stages does not help its status. Touraments which Play best of three throughout with a best of five final like White Plains are deserving of more respect. In the 1960s the LA is just another USA tournament attracting a strong field. In MacCauley's book, from which this information is sourced, this tournament is not highlighted at all as a major in the 1960s. [jeffreyneave]

• Hello I don't fully agree what you wrote because even though Los Angeles (originally organized by Kramer) wasn't played every year it always attracted the best pros when it was held. Nevertheless before reading your comment I had the intention to completely change this part of the article so I have erased it before rewriting. I agree that the US Pro Indoor 1964 deserved at least as much attention but this is not a Rosewall's victory but a Gonzales's one (so eventually to introduce in the Gonzales's article).

Where I don't agree is the status of the three supposed major ones because for simple reasons of money or of politics some of these tournaments could, some years, have very depleted fields : in the case of Rosewall he couldn't do easily the trip to the US from 1958 to 1962, because of financial matters, so he didn't enter the tournament five years in a row (he entered the 1957 edition because he had his tour with Gonzales in the US) and the same can be said of Sedgman or Hoad when they weren't chosen for a US tour : crossing the Pacific or the Atlantic wasn't at all as easy as now. More generally and from memory I remember that the US Pro 1936 or the US Pro 1962 have almost none of the best players (in the last case almost every Australian or European tournament in 1962 had a better field). Kramer and Segura seemed not to have played Wembley in 1950. Vines, Perry and Nusslein didn't play Roland Garros in 1936 and so on... In the Open era you could say the same thing for the Australian Open from 1972 to 1982 (the last year none of the ten best entered) or for Roland Garros 1970-1972 and so on. In the open era the four Grand Slam tournaments had really been the four major ones since 1983 but before there had always a Slam tournament with a weak field. So I think each year we have to look carefully what was the more important events and not to affirm that Wembley, the US Pro and the French Pro were systematically the major ones. Nevertheless your "LA 1964" argument is not bad and perhaps prove that I haven't made the best choice (I have not looked carefully as I should have) but the "philosophy" is there. So my original intention of rewriting this part is reinforced by your good "LA 1964" argument. Finally I just wished to say that even though McCauley is a good source we haven't to accept a) all his affirmations (for instance Ray Bowers is certain that there was no 1936 and 1938 Wembley editions whereas McCauley listed some results (in particular the finals) and b) all his judgments. If you can read the accounts of the 1966 Madison Square Garden tournament and the 1966 Wembley tournament by World Tennis you will see that the US magazine clearly a) explained that the British tournament had that year a depleted field and b) made a much larger report on the US tournament (it is true that perhaps the US magazine was also inclined to prefer the US tournaments to the foreign tournaments for obvious reasons). To continue I would say that probably Forest Hills Pro 1966 also deserves much more credit than Wembley 1966 (and the French Pro 1966).

Carlo Colussi 08:05, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Hello, the German friend again. I have written most of the Laver article, using much of the same sources (McCauley, Sutter, World of Tennis yearbooks, biographies, old Tennis Magazines and World Tennis), so i know quite a bit about the difficulties of the materia, and the vacuum in most reference books and websides (ATP webside).Overall it seems to me quite correct, with good feeling for the chaotic situation of the early 'open' era for instance, sometimes maybe a bit too long.For the years 64-67, the choice of 'important' tournaments seems sometimes a bit arbitrary, as Jeffreyneave pointed out. Why is San Rafael sometimes important, sometimes not. In the Alan Trengove book 'The art of tennis' from 1963, the best pros like Gonzales, Rosewall, Sedgman or Hoad all give essays. And all are referring to the Wembley London pro as the most important tournament, because it was played under LTA rules and was the shop window of pro tennis, with all the great connoiseurs and writers of the day on hand. Since 1964 the US pro now at Boston, Chestnut Hill, became important again and the nucleus of the pro game in the US. Bud Collins wrote much about the reinvention by a Boston banker, Ed Hickey. The whole US circuit was formed around Boston. For 1965 my read of McCauley was, that in the first half year, the real rivalry was between Laver and Gonzales, with Laver winning 8 titles en suite in Australia and in the US, including the important US pro indoor at the Old Armatory New York, which saw another good match between the two in 1967. Rosewall came back strong in the middle of the year, but overall Laver finished on top. In 1966 Laver won 10 (not 9) important titles, Rosewall 7 (not 8).The little bias towards Rosewall i appreciate (better no result of the LA South West Pacific or the Wembley indoor clashes between Laver and Kenny in 1968), because Kenny is indeed a bit underrated by tennis historians (except Geist and Rowley of course). For 1970 the discussion is reasonable, with no clearcut Nr.1. Newcombe indeed in his book of 2003 writes that Laver was still Nr 1, "thwarfing" his prize money, and beating him head to head. Tingay in 'World of Tennis' had Newcombe, Rosewall, Laver in this row.I recall, that a panel of experts for the 'Martini and Rosso' Cup, however, had Rosewall at Nr.1, narrowly over Laver, while another panel, which made the WCT draw for 1971, ranked Laver Nr.1. I personally would put more emphasis on the Tennis Champions Classics, because it had by far the most money up to that time. But overall it is a good, solid article, maybe try to shorten it a bit, to make it more a biographical account for an enzyclopedia. And put some material into another article about the history of professional tennis.

Thank you for your response to my comments on 1964/LA. The point about the three majors is that they have a tradition about them and aura associated with them which has obviously meant a lot since Budge's slam in 1938. I agree that when these events have weak fields they should be discounted. For instance in 1961 and 1962 the US Pro was very weak. (Gonzales's '61 win does not count and leaves Rosewall with the only two majors, enhancing his claim to be no1). Since the 1950's, when Wembley and Paris restarted in earnest they had grown in reputation. In 1963, Buchholz was asked about Cleveland's importance (which grandiously went by the title of World Professional Championships, but was nothing of the sort) he replied "oh, but its not the same as Wembley or Paris". My view is that if these 3 events have strong fields (they don't have to have every one - say 4 or 5 of the top 6; just as today injuries can effect the entry eg. Nadal missed this year's Aussie Open but it was still a major). Other touraments have to build up a tradition. The Philadelphia event in 69, 70, 76 had fantastic fields but it did not equate to a major. Similarly Gonzales' wins in '69 at Las vegas and PSW did not count as majors despite their strength. If they did he would have been a top 5 player. World Tennis did not even rank him among the top 10 because of his poor showing at the slams. Such touraments are the same as the super 9s of today. Madrid had a great field this year but it was not a slam. They are worth 1/2 a major now and I think that's the appropriate ratio to use when comparing events in the past, which had very strong fields, with majors. Thus in 1964 calculations, events outside the 3 majors (McCauley explicitly refers to them as the 3 majors in '64) which had all the top 6 would have half the points of a major. Other events would probably based on their ratio of top 6 players .eg Cleveland would have 2/3 the points of White Plains or LA.

As to your comments on the US pro in '58 and '59,when Rosewall and Sedgman did not play, I would still regard them as major in those years; the fields were still strong with Gonzales , Hoad, Trabert and Segura playing. Sedgman and Rosewall had no problem crossing the ocean to play at LA and New York. Its their fault and they should suffer in the rankings. With the same logic Gonzales should suffer to a certain extant for avoiding Paris and London in '59 and '60, at which all the other players played. Thus in 1960 I think Rosewall should be co-ranked with Gonzales. He won the two majors and four others. He is only co-ranked because of Gonzales's head to head domination in the 1960 world series. Gonzales lost only 8 times in this series . I have traced 6 of these (3 to Olmedo; 3 to Rosewall).I have traced a 14 to 3 advantage for Gonzales against Rosewall. Since this was a 57 match four man round-robin(19 matches against each opponent) I suspect Gonzales won 15-4 because in an interview in Rowley he said he lost only 4 times to Rosewall in 1960. At the start of the 1961 chapter, McCauley writes that Rosewall was "now arguably no1". This means that he thinks Rosewall should be ranked 1 for 1960 but is not enirley sure; meaning he'd accept a co-ranking with Gonzales. This does not mean I agree slavishly with McCauley. In 1950 I do not regared Segura's no1 ranking as stupid as he implies. Segura won the most important tournament (US PRO), beating Kramer in the sf, and beat him in the ordinary Paris event in the final. Kramer may have crushed Gonzales in the 1950 tour, but he came up short against Segura. A co-ranking might be appropriate given the fine show of consistency shown by Kramer on the tour. Again McCauley's 1970 world ranking in World Tennis with Laver only 4 is highly doubtful. In Betty Laver's book there is a discussion of the 1970 rankings and Laver clearly disgrees with no.4, believing he probably deserved no1. He had the equivalent of 5 super 9 wins; Rosewall and Newcombe did not win any; their significant wins being respectively only Wimbledon and the US open. He also won all 8 of his matches against them.

In 1958 you write that the round-robins in New York and LA were the most important . Given my earlier arguments these are super 9 equivlants. The majors all had strong fields in 1958 and thus justified their status. Paris had all of the top 6; Wembley had 5(Hoad withdrew injured); US pro had 4. I would also count the Aussie Pro as a major given it had 5 of the top 6 and its best of 5 set format from the semis onwards. The Australian round-robin with Hoad 1st and Sedgman 2nd had all the top 6, but it is not a major although I would rank this as a "super 9" event equal to New York and LA. In fact there are 10 important events in '58 , the others, not disussed so far, being Stockholm (5 of the 6), Vienna(5) and Eastbourne(4). Given that Sedgmann won 2 of the 4 majors (Aussie and Wembley), beating Gonzales in best of 5 sets in both cases, I would rank him no1. In proper tourament play he had a 4 to 2 edge on Gonzales. Today if a player won 2 of the 4 majors and had a head to head edge on his main rival(Gonzales), who only won 2 touraments (the major US pro and super 9 new york), then I certain he'd given the no1 spot. No player in the open era has not been number 1 with 2 majors (In '73 Newcombe's Aussie does not count as a major given only 2 of the top 10 entered; it would probably count as a super 9 as it did in the '73 Grand prix). I know some of this discussion is not directly related to Rosewall and probably fits more into the discussion of the World no1 page and Gonzeleas's entry. Howver, I hope it illustrates my philosphy on what counts as a major/slam event in the discussion of world rankings. [jeffreyneave]

• Hello

You've written In 1966 Laver won 10 (not 9) important titles, Rosewall 7 (not 8) sure McCauley said 10 and 7 but I have counted them again and I have still for Laver 9 ordinary tournaments (Brisbane, Melbourne, perhaps Perth, Forest Hills RR, perhaps Binghamton, US Pro, Wembley, Johannesburg (Ellis Park) and perhaps Cape Town and 6 small tournaments (Nancy, Cannes, Oporto, Milan, Abidjan and Dakar). For Rosewall 8 (Adelaide, Sydney, MSG, San Rafael, Newport, French Pro, Benoni and Johannesburg RR) and 1 small (Casablanca). Don't you agree ?

Just a comment : in the WCT panel ranking the 32 best players in 1970, Rosewall was second ahead Newcombe.

About the importance of the pro tournaments is where I most disagree with you but I don't think you are fully wrong. In the modern era it is different because since 1983 there is no doubt, the Big Four are undoubtable. If Nadal hasn't gone to the Australian is only because he was injured so in January 2006 he wasn't strong enough to beat Federer and others and so Federer was the best in January and the Australian Open was surely a big one although Nadal wasn't there. The modern circuit is very clear. And so Madrid is just a Masters Series tournament and not better even though all the players were there. i've given the example of Henman winner of a Masters Series tournament (Paris-Bercy 2003) but not a Grand Slam tournament winner : who will remember him in some years (except foolish persons as you and me) ? Safin will be much more famous not because he has captured Madrid and Paris-Bercy in 2004 but because he has the US and the Australian Open under his belt. I give again the example of Nastase and Okker. About same gifts but Nastase has won very big ones while Okker didn't and now the Rumanian is still famous, not because of his antics but because of his wins, while Okker is forgotten (except by you and me and other mad persons who look at tennis history). Finally I have also said that nowadays I disagree the ATP rankings and that for me the Grand Slam tournaments should be granted perhaps about four times more points than an ordinary Masters Series tournament (I have explained it for the year 1975 of World No. 1 and 2 Tennis Players Rankings and Gonzales list) and not twice.

But before the different circuits weren't stable at all and there were few tradition especially in the pro circuit. Even Wembley was not held every year and was based on invitations (if I believe Budge in his 'World Tennis' comment about the 1953 edition. There were many occasions when a player couldn't play a given tournament (forbidden as a pro, no money to make the trip, forbidden by his federation, and so on). Sure Rosewall and Sedgman could pay their trip to the US but if I believe Rowley, they could have lost money in the end just for one isolated tournament in several months. Gonzales in his turn has more opportunities Down Under or in Europe because usually there were more tournaments each year. For instance in 1958 his tour with Hoad began Down Under and there was also two tournaments in Melbourne and in Sydney where Sedgman and Rosewall played. Then, if I belive McCauley, there was absolutely no tournaments until the US Pro in May 1-5. Then the next tournament was Bakersfield on June 2. Nevertheless Rosewall played a small US tour beginning on May 26. So between February 4 (end of Sydney) and May 26 there was only the US pro on May 1-5. I understand that Rosewall didn't want to go to the US pro and then stay 3 weeks in the US before his small tour on May 26. This is why I think we couldn't apply each time your ratio of two to one between great tournaments and major ones : then I'm not sure that the U.S. pro 1958 deserves a "double weighting" (nevertheless I have done the same as you for 1964 (see my comments in World No. 1 and 2 Tennis Players Rankings and Gonzales list where I have written For the 3 biggest events (I could also have included the Masters Round Robin in Los Angeles and even the US Pro indoor in White Plains in the biggest events) I just multiplied the points by two).

For 1958 in particular I don't think the Aussie is more a major one than NY or LA (there had been only 3 editions of the Australian Pro 1954, 1957, 1958). Finally I would tend to consider all these tournaments on the same plan, perhaps I would give a slight edge (between 1.2 or 1.5 but I don't think 2) for the three ones. Nevertheless when I have time I will see more precisely 1958 and perhaps change my own 1958 ranking which is now : 1) Gonzales, 2) Sedgman, 3) Rosewall, 4) Hoad) (still see my comments) to see if I agree with you.

1958 Sedgman wins over Gonzales : Melbourne, Sydney, Los Angeles, Wembley 1958 Gonzales wins over Sedgman : Bakersfield (4-man tournament), Palo Alto (4-man tournament), Forest Hills, Roland Garros (third place).

In McCauley's book Sedgman led indeed 4-2 in "at-least-8-man" tournaments but if we include the two small tournaments of Bakersfield and Palo Alto the results are 4-4. Moreover you've also written that Today if a player won 2 of the 4 majors and had a head to head edge on his main rival(Gonzales), who only won 2 touraments (the major US pro and super 9 new york), then I certain he'd given the no1 spot . If players A and B had won each 2 majors and B has beaten A more often, B doesn't automatically deserve the number 1 spot. For instance if A has reached the 2 finals of the other majors and B has lost as early as in the round of 16 of the two other majors, I think there is no doubt that A is the best even though he has lost 10 times out of 15 against B.

Finally I will say that Nastase was undoubtedly the best player in the world in 1973 far far ahead of Newcombe. I haven't all my statistics at hand but if you want one day I will show you. In the 1973 Australian only 2 of the top10 and in fact only 2 of the top20 came. This wasn't even an equivalent of the Super9, it was just a very ordinary tournament.

Now I will return to my article (I have begun 1972 where I am not sure to evoke Rosewall's victory at the Australian because this tournament was as ordinary as the 1973 edition : only 2 of the top20 entered and always the same : Muscles and Newk who shared the two tournaments).

I've forgotten your affirmation I personally would put more emphasis on the Tennis Champions Classics ... but these matches were reserved only to contract pros and players as Ashe, Smith, Nastase or Kodes couldn't compete.

You've also written that Similarly Gonzales' wins in '69 at Las vegas and PSW did not count as majors despite their strength. If they did he would have been a top 5 player. World Tennis did not even rank him among the top 10 because of his poor showing at the slams. World Tennis ranking was McCauley's but if I well remember Collins ranked Pancho #6 who hasn't made big showings in the Slams but has reached each time the round of 16 (he didn't come at Roland). For once 1969 is a good year because nearly all the best competed in Roland, Wimbledon and Forest Hills and as I've said the 1969 edition of the Australian has been a good one and perhaps deserved this time (with 1971) the label 'Grand Slam tournament' though Laver considered at the time that the South African, the Italian or the German were greater but these ones which was considered in the 50's and in the 60's by many as majors had also often weak fields. So in 1969 the hierarchy is relatively clear with Wimbledon, the US Open and Roland in this order then the Australian and then several tournaments, in disorder, as Las Vegas, the PSW, the Italian, the German, the Italian and perhaps others.

In conclusion we have some disagreements but they are not strong at all : the main difference between us is my weighting of the great pro tournaments before 1983 which is not as important as yours. Consequently I will look again at 1958 and 1960 and perhaps but not surely change my mind a little (Was Sedgman better than Gonzales in 1958 and was Kenny the equal of Pancho in 1960 ?). For 1970 now I can't grant Laver the number 1 spot because after having won the Grand Slam in 1969 his showings in the Grand Slam were so poor in 1970. McCauley ranked him 4 but Tingay placed him at the 3rd place and for once I agree Tingay, see my comments (I don't agree Tingay (and McCauley) for the two first places because I think Kenny was superior to Newk in 1970). Someone (Rowley ?) said that after his 1969 Grand Slam Laver mentally cracked a little and I think the same because Rod never won in the biggest events with best of 5 set matches in the 70's : quarters and round of 16 (and second round) at Wimbledon 70, 71 (77); 4th rounds at the US Open (70, 72, 75) and even 3rd round in 73; WCT Finals : finalist in 71, finalist in 72, semi-finalist (against Smith) and 4th (defeated by Rosewall who then has beaten Laver 3 times in 3 editions) in 73, quarterfinalist in 74 and semifinalist in 75 (I don't know if there was a 3rd place match). And even in the 1970 Masters (in best of three set matches) he let the title to Smith. For me is biggest success in the 70's was his victories against Kodes, Hrebec, Smith and Gorman in the 1973 Davis Cup.

I do not trust Gonzales's own statistics : in 'Man with a racquet' his scores in the 1957 US Pro are different to those of 'World Tennis' (that McCauley has also reproduced in his book). In Rowley's book Gonzales was supposed to have said that he has beaten Rosewall 29-4 in the 1960 Gonzales-Rosewall-Segura-Olmedo tour but it is impossible if we believe McCauley because Rosewall's record is 32-25 : in one case (Gonzales via Rowley) Rosewall has lost 29 times to Gonzales and in another case (McCauley) Rosewall has lost 25 times but against Gonzales Segura and Olmedo joined together. Always in Rowley's book, Gonzales would have said that Rosewall has only two tournaments in 1961 but he has won 3 (Roland, Wembley and Sydney).

You have written I have traced 6 of these (3 to Olmedo; 3 to Rosewall).I have traced a 13 to 3 advantage for Gonzales against Rosewall. Since this was a 57 match four man round-robin(19 matches against each opponent) I suspect Gonzales won 15-4 because in an interview in Rowley he said he lost only 4 times to Rosewall in 1960.

Could I ask you a favour ? I would be VERY interested by the details of the 13 to 3 advantage for Gonzales against Rosewall and the 6 Gonzales's defeats you have traced : when available I would like to know scores, places, surfaces, dates... (the only statistics I have are those uncomplete of McCauley).

Thank you

Carlo Colussi 10:28, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Obviously McCauley had a different concept of important tournaments in 1966 than you. P.134, he writes christall clear: Of the 20 main events, contested by the troupe, Laver won 10, Rosewall 7, with the remaining 3 being captured by Gimeno. Probably he counted Oporto as important, and not Benoni, which was obviously played only on one set.Maybe it was a small one played within a day.I wasn't there.Also the challenge match at Ellis Park in 1964, seemed to have been hastily arranged, because of the crowd success of the tournament, which Laver had won.I would give the tournament more importance than this 'desert' for the public. In 1971 Rosewall finished indeed third on the WCT points race of 20 tournaments, behind Laver and Okker.I have the exact dates of the 1971, 1972, and 1973 WCT standings, and can give them later (german friend).

• Yes yes I remember clearly the McCauley phrase and at the same page I have written the tournaments to be sure. "My concept of important tournaments in 1966" isn't mine but his : the "less or at least 8-man tournaments" but because McCauley has not found all the results and then all the players entering there are some cases doubtful. That's all. We could suppose for example p 191 there are only the semifinals and the final of the British Pro at Eastbourne Aug 1946. Because he has written at the first line of the tournament results S for Semifinals we can guess that there were earlier rounds. Later in the "Dunlop Almanack 1947" written by Pat Hughes (I suppose Fred Perry's partner in Davis Cup) I have actually noted that there were much more than 4 players in this domestic tournament. So a) when the first line of the results doesn't begin with 1 for 1st round we can guess, most of the time, that there are previous rounds and b) otherwise this is the 1st round but there are some uncertainties : for example p 199 for the 1952 Slazenger Scarborough tournament he wrote 1 F. Sedgman d C. Ferez 6-0 6-0 6-0 but it wasn't the first tour but probably the 3rd because for instance in the second round Contet defeated Brechbuhl and Lawrence defeated Petit and then both lost in the 3rd round that McCauley considered the 1st one.

For example he also said p130 (I am taking the book) that Laver beat Rosewall 12 times out of 17 in 1965 but in my article I wrote 13 out of 18 (I've remade the count from his own results) and page 138 he wrote that Gimeno beat Rosewall 7 times out of 12 in 1967 but I've again counted and I've found 7 all (I've even listed all the matches in the article). There are other errors or differences (with Ray Bowers for example before 1942) : for instance McCauley has repeated the MSG Opening of the 1954 tour (pages 200 and 202) and has just listed the results of the first night but he has forgotten the second night at MSG, probably January 4 (Sedgman d. Segura 64 46 75, Gonzales d. Budge 63 36 64, Kramer-Segura d. Sedgman-Budge 36 63 61, Kramer coming back of his retirement but just in doubles (he played his first singles in September 1954)) that I have found in World Tennis. In several Tennis de France magazines I have found all the results of the 1961 winter grand prix tour : Trabert 17 wins - 0 losses, Davies 13-4, Nielsen 3-14, Haillet 2-15 (with it is true a contradiction in two Haillet-Nielsen matches and with the tied match cited by McCauley) where McCauley (p 220) only recorded Trabert 10-0 (with one tie) Davies 9-1 (1 tie) Haillet 1-10 and Nielsen 1-10 probably because he hadn't the Africa results.

I will stop there the examples but don't misunderstand me : I don't blame McCauley, who has done a superb job, for his little mistakes.

You've also said that The Philadelphia event in 69, 70, 76 had fantastic fields but it did not equate to a major. For 1969 I agree (see my comment a few lines above). In 1970 I have said that there were 2 majors (Wimbledon and US Open) and far behind I rank the Masters and in fourth place, relatively equal (now I have not yet a clear opinion), Philadelphia, the US Pro outside Boston or the Dunlop Sydney Open in March because the Australian (Sydney too but in January) had no NTL players at all and Roland had absolutely no contract pros. So Philadelphia, Boston and Sydney (the Dunlop not the Slam) in 1970 deserve a good place. In 76 for me Philadelphia is well behind Wimbledon and the US Open without any doubt. After all the doubts are allowed. Roland Garros was played without Nastase and Connors who were two major claycourt players at the time (the first one was forbidden because of Chatrier's ban of the WTT players and the second one didn't came because of his stubborn character). These two players played just a few WCT tournaments in 1976 so couldn't qualify for the WCT Finals but they played Philadelphia (nevertheless Nastase won the WCT Avis Challenge Cup, defeating Borg in the semis and Ashe in the final, both in 5 sets and Connors won this Philadelphia WCT event we are discussing about) so Dallas was also slightly depleted as Roland Garros and finally Borg didn't bother to qualify for the Masters and prefered to play Nastase in very remunerating challenge matches in October. And even Nastase didn't make many efforts to qualify. Admittedly he had been fired of the official circuit three weeks after LA because of his Forest Hills bad behaviour and then played against Borg but when he returned to the official circuit he neglected Hong-Kong (he threw the 4th set against Rosewall) and Wembley (he could have beaten Fibak). So [WTT+3 weeks out+no concentration in the last tournaments] made Nastase unable to play the Masters. And finally Connors always in conflict with everyone but Nastase, too didn't play the Masters though he was in the Top8. So how rank Philadelphia, Roland, Dallas and Houston (Masters) ? I am not sure but I don't think I give the edge to Roland and perhaps (still not sure) I place Phil' ahead of the WCT Finals and the Masters in 1976.

Because of my bad English my explanations below are a little confused. I hope you will understand and excuse me for the following writings :

What I haven't clearly explained is that, in the future (it will take years), I will try to make detailed rankings, year by year with one main rule : giving each year the same importance.

In other sports there are great events some years and not other years and the frequency of these events could change. For example in judo at the beginning there were no World Championships then there were held at 4 years of interval and then at 2 years of interval. David Douillet has had the great chance to fight in the recent period with World Championships at 2 years of interval so many consider him as the greatest judoka of all time just because he has won more Championships than Geesink, Ruska or Yamashita but these ones had to wait 4 years before to have an opportunity to win a World crown. So it is unfair to judge these ancient judokas on this criteria but this is what is wrongly done.

In tennis there is more justice because each year you have almost the same events. Nevertheless even in tennis each year had not been equivalent. In 1972 the contract pros could just play 2 Grand Slam tournaments and not 4 whereas Federer, Nadal and co. can always play the 4 tournaments. So why not strengthen the importance of some 1972 tournaments by considering them temporarily as major ones or in all case much more important than usual ? To come back to 1976 there were 2 real Grand Slam tournaments (Wimbledon, the US) and a slightly depleted one Roland but the Australian was nothing at all. Can't we really blame the players for avoiding the Australian at the time ? Suppose Federer, born 30 years ago but as strong as now : he wouldn't have won 3 Grand Slams tournaments as in 2006 because in 1976 he probably wouldn't have played the Australian (and maybe also not the French : more debatable) then he would have won only 2 Grand Slam tournaments. In conclusion a Federer born 30 years ago wouldn't have 9 major crowns under his belt and wouldn't be considered, wrongly, as strong as the Federer of nowadays just because of "political or social" context. I can tell the same thing in reverse for Borg or Connors. Born 30 years later, with the same capacities of course they probably would have 13 or 14 for Borg and 9 or 10-11 big crowns for Connors because they would probably have regularly played the Australian and Connors wouldn't have been of the French in 2004 (30 years after 1974) and perhaps would have entered the 2005-2008 editions (30 years after 1975-1978). So to give justice to every player of all the generations I want to consider each year as important as any other else. If some years there were only 3 or 2 or 1 or even 0 major events I think it is quite correct to give more weight to other events in order to have the equivalent of 4 majors. Newcombe or Ashe or Laver could have won a Grand Slam tournament in 1972 if they hadn't been forbidden in two but now people say oh these players haven't won anything in 1972 so they weren't good which is false. If you consider that there were only 3 majors in 1967 and 4 majors in 1969 then Laver has won only 3 biggies in 1967 whereas he has won 4 in 1969. However he was probably at least as strong in 1967 as in 1969 so why not consider that there was a 4th biggie in 1967 or give more weight to other tournaments.

I should have given you immediately the following simple example :

Let's suppose that in a given year n there are 4 biggies and 12 other tournaments. Let's give 1 point for each ordinary tournament and 2 points for each biggie. Suppose a very strong player winning all the tournaments. He then accumulates 20 points (4*2+12).

Then let's suppose that in year n+2 there are still the same tournaments but two of the supposed biggies have no good player and then can be considered as ordinary ones : therefore there are 2 big ones and 14 ordinary ones. If we still grant 2 points for the biggies and 1 for the ordinary ones, a player (as strong as the player of year n) winning all the tournaments will have only 18 points (2*2+14).

Some will consider, wrongly, that the player of the year n+2 is less good than the player of the year n.

Then the year n+2 has to be credited of 20 points to make good comparisons with the 20 points of the year n and then you have to give much weight to some tournaments of the year n+2 (or you can credit n with 18 points to compare with the 18 points of n+2) : in 2006 there are 4 biggies and in 1976 there was only 2 biggies so some 1976 tournaments have to be given more weight (Why not Philadelphia ? and/or Dallas ? and/or Roland ? and/or others ?)

In conclusion for the years before 1983, in an ideal case we have to give the same amount of points for each year and then to give much points for some events and less to others depending on the year. Then we can honestly compare

---

I will correct in the article the 2nd-3rd place in the 1971 WCT.

I'm eager to know the WCT rankings and your 1960 tour results.

Carlo Colussi 14:56, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

I find Jeffreyneaves arguments quite interesting, and quite on the point. One can put a lot of examples from other sports and other years, but that cannot refute the concrete arguments. I will certainly further go with McCauley's count for 1966, its his sources, and his clear evaluation.I think, he could count to ten. The Binghampton round robin touranment is besides corroborated by Allison Danzig, who wrote short but insightful accounts of the pro tennis years in the year end annuals of 'Enclycopedia Britannica'. So you see, that there was research for pro tennis long before McCauley's book. To be cited is for example the article of Bud Collins about pro tennis history in the 'Encyclopedia of Tennis' by Max Robertson, London 1972 (german friend).

rankings and stats

Nice stats now for Rosewall's long career. The rankings are now slightly different from the World Nr. 1 article, for the years 60, 61, 64, (and 70) and more differenciated. Its good, to read the reservation, that they are subjective and not always firm like a castle.The head to head with Laver correspondents to the greatest part with my findings, recurring of course to McCauley and Sutter and the other sources. Bud Collins wrote me, that the latest count by Geist was something like 75-66 for Laver, with 22-9 in open era.Now it seems 23-9 in open era.Ther is a slight double in 1964 (twice the same Melbourne final). Interesting may be some additions regarding the surface. Kitzbühl in 1963 was almost certainly a clay court event, while Cannes was played in a Stade indoor. Was Rome in 1963 certainly on clay? The US pro in 1969 was played for the first time on a hard court, as it is told in Laver's autobiography.Louisville in 1970 could have been a clay court, too. It seems to underline my thesis, that the rookie pros needed half a year to adjust. The bulk of Rosewall_s victories comes from Jan-June 1963. After that, the hth is quite even in 1963, and since 64 Laver began to dominate. Its not reserved for Laver, of course. Gonzales, Rosewall himself, Hoad all made the same experience in the first 6 months. I don't believe, that the former amateurs improved that much in the course of 6 months in overall tenis ability. They improved, okay, but more they adjusted to the different format and playing conditions.I still think, that the pro amateur gap seems wider than it was, going by these early results, which favor the older pros.(german friend)

• Hello.

In fact I've written the article too quickly because I haven't checked it yet (I will do). I've corrected the Melbourne fault and also the 1964 French Pro winner (I've placed wrongly the score in Laver's cell whereas Rosewall was the true winner.

I don't think the rankings are really different but sometimes I am more precise and other times I am less : for 1960 I've written "Top2", it's just larger than World Nr. 1 article ranking "2"; for 61 I've written "1" whereas Peirce has ranked Gonzales and Rosewall equally but in his comment he wrote that Rosewall has a good claim to be No.1; for 64 I've written "Top2" which is of course larger than "1" but not in contradiction and for 70 the World Nr. 1 article claims "2" whereas I've introduced an interval of width “1” : "2±1" i.e. "from 1 to 3".

I will replace my 85-100 count according to Geist (in his 1999 book about Rosewall) by his latest one.

For the surfaces I've prefered not to write anything when I was not sure : now I remember that the US Pro was played on UniTurf (Hard or Carpet ?) from 1969 to 1973 (then clay). McCauley has written that Cannes 63 was indoor but hasn't precised if it was on hard or on carpet ? Rome 63 was on clay according to Rowley (and probably at the Foro Italico : I will check it).

• I've made a mistake : Rowley seemed not to have written that Rome 63 was on clay so I erased it in the article 80.70.42.194 08:53, 16 November 2006 (UTC)Carlo Colussi

I completely agree with the about 6-month (or a year) adaptation of the best new rookies : just look Hoad's comment page 129 of McCauley's book (I did not understand ... four months of pro tennis under his belt.). What essentially made the difference between the best pros and the best amateurs was the many new rookies who didn't work as hard as (or were less gifted) the best pros : Stolle, Ralston, MacKay, Buchholz, Olmedo, Rose, Anderson, Cooper, Hartwig, McGregor, Pails and so on to name just a few between 1967 and 1947. Nevertheless on his well known Australasian grasscourts Laver lost 19 out 21 matches against the Whiz Kids. Finally if I take Hoad's example (Tennis de France 1957) his great problem when he turned pro was tennis percentage he didn't know how to play : against the best amateurs he could play anyhow whereas in the pros Rosewall, Segura and even Kramer in the first three months could beat Hoadie on demand. Nevertheless I agree that there were many best-of-three set matches played indoor : the pros played many tours in winter (because the amateur traditional circuit couldn't bear any competition from the pros during summer) then the pros had to play indoors and quickly if they wanted to play 2 singles and 1 doubles each night.

Last remark : since it is the first time there is a global detailed Rosewall-Laver record, if you have new information don't be afraid to put it. For instance I haven't the "World Tennis" probably giving the last 4 or 5 matches results of the first phase of the 1963 US tour : if you have it you could complete the article without any problem. And if you know how to change the columns widths do it without any reservation. Other example, I have read the 1976 WCT Avis Challenge Cup score somewhere but I don't remember where so if you have it write it.

Carlo Colussi 15:18, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Ken or Kenneth?

The article says his name is Ken Roberts Rosewall. The German source, however, always refers to him as Kenneth. Since "Ken" is almost always the diminunative or nickname of "Kenneth", this seems reasonable. But is it actually the case? There really are (Americans, at least) who are named "Bob" at birth, not "Robert". In Rosewall's case, do we know if he is Ken or Kenneth? Hayford Peirce 16:05, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

His name is Kenneth. Im his Grandson Anson Rosewall son of Ken's son Glenn if whoever updates this page needs anymore information I would be happy to help I guess. I never realised that he was like this well respected or had made so many acheivements lol. If you want any further details email me ansonr@bigpond.net.au or myspace.com/ansyboy maybs i can even send some autographs 2 whoever keeps this stuff 2gether its generous of you.

Regards Anson

• Hello Anson. Your grandfather is my favourite tennis player of all time because the main reason is that he had been so much underrated : he reached his apogee during his eleven years (1957-1967) away from the traditional circuit (As a man I can't judge him because I don't know him intimately but just publicly so I won't ask you any autograph (the only persons I truly love are those who share my privacy) but I repeat as a tennis player I deeply respect your grandfather). This is why I've researched all his titles from the different sources I own and then I mainly wrote this article at the end of 2006. Since there have been some edits because I haven't been neutral enough as Wikipedia rightly demands it (in the French version that I've roughly translated some months ago nobody has yet edit the original paragraph where I tempted to give Rosewall's estimated annual rankings combining pro and amateur players. I've called it "Classements (professionnels et amateurs ensemble) annuels de Rosewall (estimations pas toujours très précises du fait de l'absence de classement officiel avant 1973)" : this could be translated as "Rosewall's annual rankings (pro and amateur players together) (estimations not very precise because of the absence of official rankings before 1973)"). If a Wikipedia writer cut this french paragraph which I recognize is non neutral (but argued) I won't undo that sort of correction). Nevertheless if your grandfather (or you) considers there are errors in that article don't hesitate to make the right changements. Carlo Colussi 12:37, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Hello

His full name is Kenneth Robert Rosewall but he is usually called Ken Rosewall. Carlo Colussi 07:46, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Rosewall vs. Sedgman

Sedgman was the best-looking, most classical player I've ever seen, and very nearly the best who ever lived. Although not quite, of course. What was his record against Rosewall? In the 1995 interview with the New York Times Gonzales said: "With the exception of me and Frank Sedgman, he [Rosewall] could handle everybody else..." Certainly Sedgman probably beat Rosewall most of the time in the late 50s, but by how much, and what about the 60s? Hayford Peirce 03:33, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

• Hello mister Peirce.

I don't know how Sedgman precisely handled Rosewall. But you could look at McCauley's book. From memory I would say that Sedgman defeated Rosewall in the Australian at Sydney, at Forest Hills, probably at LA in 1957. The first Rosewall's victory over Sedgman seems to be the Australian tour at the very end of 1957. And I suppose that in 1958 and in 1959 Sedgman often defeated Kenny but from 1960 it is sure that Rosewall had the edge 80.70.42.194 11:06, 20 November 2006 (UTC)Carlo Colussi

Rosewall on clay

It could be a interesting debate, regarding his domination at the Paris event, which until 1962 was played on clay. I don't hink, that Laver beat Rosewall 69 at Paris for the first time on clay. The Kitzbühl event in August 63 was as far as i know a clay event, like Norwiijk. Kitzbühl never had an indoor facility.It was maybe a bit faster than usual clay, due to the height of Kitzbühl.In 1964 i can trace two matches Laver-Rosewall on clay, at Knokke and Montreux in the summer, both won by Laver. Its often hard to tell for the US tour, what is clay or hard court. Hard court in Britain * and in Australia (and I suppose in the whole Commonwealth) Carlo Colussi 08:57, 27 November 2006 (UTC) means clay, but in the US it means cement. So St.Louis hardcourt for instance, was obviously cement.Clay court tournaments in the US were possibly Miami, St. Juan and some tournaments in Florida or California.In 1966 the main clay court event was probably Barcelona, won on his home ground by Gimeno over Laver. I saw pictures in a Spanish newspaper once, with Gimeno telling, that it was his prominent win. In all weighting of clay events, it is to say, that they often were played middle in the pro indoor season, without real preparation. Bournemouth 68 was played a week after a Wembley indoor event. Barcelona in 71 late in the year, middle in the indoor season, which hampered the WCT players. Rosewall-Laver on clay was a bit depending on the weather. In Bournemouth and Paris 68 it was raining, and cold, in Paris 69 it was very hot, and the court was playing faster. Laver won on red clay at Houston 72, while Rosewall won 71 on green clay at Washington. I believe, that Lousville in 1970, won by Laver was also on clay. The last match in 76 was won by Rosewall on clay at Houston.(german friend)

I have no knowledge of the the European venues you mention : Norwiick,Montreaux and Knokke. Are you sure of your information on these being clay-court venues? Some of the results look a little suprising if theses venues are clay. At Montreaux Buchholz beating Gimeno and Olmedo beating Ayla are upsets; the fast court specialists winning. In Italy Buchholz looked useless against Gimeno and rosewall; In july Ayla looked useful beating Hoad and Laver to win a 4 man event obvioulsy on clay. Laver absolutely thrashed Rosewall in Montreaux and Knokke, which is also a suprise. The fact That Gonzales won Knooke, given his useless performance in Italy, and Rosweall lost a set to Olmedo is also a suprise. The '63 results for Norwiick where Buchholz reached the final, admitley with an easy draw given Rosewall's defeat and Hoad's withdrawal, is also a suprise; Anderson's, another fast court player, win over Rosewall was another Huge suprise if this is clay. The 1964 results with Gimeno beating Rosewall in the final is the sort of result one would expect on clay. Of course, the other result might just be a string of upsets; they do happen. [jeffreyneave] 28 November 2006.

• Thank you for the answer (the ATP indicates "Hard" for Louisville) Carlo Colussi 08:57, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Hello. I know, that the ATP calls it hard court. But on the Vilas side on the ATP webside for 1977, they call many tournaments hard court, which were obviously clay or har tru.I have an old program from the WCT event 1971 at Cologne, which i attended. And as far i recall it, they had an event at Lousville in 71, which was called as clay event. I will look for it. (german friend).

• You are probably right for Vilas because if his clay record of 53 victories (it doesn't take into account the 4 matches won at the Rye tournament) has to be believed then we can guess that Washington, Louisville, South Orange, Columbus were held on clay in 1977. Since their last big change in the site they have added the Pepsi Grand Slam in July 1977 but if my memory is good it was played in January or February 1977 (many dates are wrong in the ATP Website). I suppose because the Pepsi Grand Slam in 1976 was truly played in July 80.70.42.194 13:15, 27 November 2006 (UTC)Carlo Colussi

Hello, it's quite difficult to reconstruct the surfaces for the pro tours. But it's a strong probability, that the events played in the summer in Central Europe were played on clay court facilities, especially on the beach sides as Noordwijk or Knokke. Like Schweveningen these Dutch or Belgian towns had long clay court traditions. In Germany, Austria and Switzerland clay was the universally used surface, too. The French beach-sides events like Biarritz, Nice or Marseille were most probably played on clay , too. The exception was Cannes, which was played in an indoor Palais du sport.I read something about it in the Histoire du Tennis by Christian Quidet. In the 60s there were no hardcourts in Central Europe, and grass court tennis was "reinvented" in Halle, Germany, or in Holland just recently. I assume, that the pros in Europe during the summer predominantly played in clubs, which had clay court facilities.(german friend)29 Nov.

Louisville 1970 was indeed on clay, as is stated on the ITF webside. They have drawsheets of quite many 1970 tournaments, more than at the ATP webside, and give a better account of Rosewalls activity in 1970. You have to give in 1.1.1970 to 31.12.1970 (german friend 21.2.2007).

Thank you. When the surface is not indicated there is written "TBC" : what do you think it means ? Carlo Colussi 12:43, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

• GENEVA GOLD TROPHY

Hello, I took part to the discussion about clay on the other discussion page (World n°1 tennis players). I now have read this discussion above which gives great indications. Just another question: if I follow what you say here, the august Geneva Gold Trophy tournament is supposed to be on clay then, isn't it? As it always had great fields in the year 1961-1964, it would be interesting to confirm it...It could easily be the prominent clay tournament for the years 1963 and 1964, when the French became fast indoors... Jonathan

• For the moment I can't confirm anything about that Carlo Colussi 14:46, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Banished and not absent

Hello mr. PaddyBriggs.

Rosewall chose to become a professional in 1957 : from this moment he wasn't allowed to play any great amateur event. Until 1968 no pro player could play the traditional circuit so all the pro players were banished from the great amateur competitions. Carlo Colussi 08:33, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Citations needed

I've corrected a little the article because citations were asked :

Below some extracts of the article and in italic my explanations At the time Hoad considered Gonzales the best and Rosewall didn't consider himself as the pro king but others thought that Rosewall's successes in the biggest tournaments made him the number one in the world. Robert Geist who ranks them equal proposes a good compromise between the diverse opinions. [citation needed] :

In L’Équipe in March 1961 when the pros played two nights at Stade Pierre de Coubertin Hoad declared that Gonzales was still the best. I have never heard Rosewall claiming he was the best. Robert Roy of L’Équipe ranked Rosewall first. Robert Geist in his book, DER GRÖSSTE MEISTER: Die denkwürdige Karriere des australischen Tennisspielers Kenneth Robert Rosewall, ranked both Gonzales and Rosewall first.

Robert Roy of L'Équipe, Kléber Haedens and Philippe Chatrier of Tennis de France, Michel Sutter (who has published "Vainqueurs 1946-1991 Winners"), Christian Boussus (1931 Roland Garros amateur finalist), Peter Rowley, Robert Geist, Tony Trabert, John Newcombe, Rod Laver and also the New York Times and World Tennis magazine considered Rosewall as the new #1 in the world.[citation needed] :

For instance Robert Roy’s 1961 ranking was as follows : Rosewall No. 1 (2) Gonzales, 3) Hoad, 4) Trabert, 5) Segura, 6) Gimeno, 7) Cooper, 8) MacKay, 9) Olmedo, 10) Buchholz, 11) Laver, 12) Anderson, 13) Emerson, 14) Pietrangeli, 15) Santana, 16) Ayala, 17) Krishnan, 18) Sangster, 19) Lundquist, 20) McKinley, 21) Darmon, ... 23) Neale Fraser). See "World number one male tennis player rankings" article

McCauley traced 6 Rosewall's defeats in the whole year but Trabert (in Tennis de France) wrote that in an Australian TV series in February Rosewall won 10 matches consecutively but lost the last one (to Hoad) so Rosewall lost at least 7 matches in 1962.[citation needed] :

Joe McCauley in The History of Professional Tennis listed all the results he could find and in 1962 he found 6 Rosewall's defeats and Trabert in Tennis de France wrote that Rosewall lost to Hoad in February, a defeat not listed by McCauley

in fact Laver and Rosewall are then respectively five times winner and five times finalist of the tournament)[citation needed] :

No citation is needed because it is a fact : Laver and Rosewall were respectively four times winner and four times finalist of the amateur and open Wimbledon tournaments. Knowing that Laver beat Rosewall in the 1967 final of the pro edition of the tournament (a few weeks after the traditional amateur tournament and one year before the first open Wimbledon) we can claim that they are respectively five times winner and five times finalist of Wimbledon

Joe McCauley or Lance Tingay, ranked Newcombe first because he won the most prestigious tournament, Wimbledon with Rosewall second in both rankings, Laver respectively third and fourt and Roche respectively fourth and third.[citation needed] :

Joe McCauley in World Tennis ranked the players as written above and Lance Tingay published his annual ranking in The Daily Telegraph as usual.

Robert Geist's latest estimation of the Rosewall-Laver meetings is 66-75. [citation needed] :

http://www.budcollinstennis.com/notes-main.html : "We don't know how many times we played," says Laver, the "Rockhampton Rocket," whose greatness was saluted in the naming of the Australian Open's principal ballroom in Melbourne, Rod Laver Arena. "Nobody was counting." It wasn't like the celebrated 16 year rivalry of Chris Evert and Martina Navratilova, closely monitored, often televised, led by Martina, 43-37. But somebody has counted. Somebody has done it years later following the far-flung movements of Laver and Rosewall, as though shadowing secret agents by haunting libraries and digging through aging newspapers. That somebody was meticulous Austrian tennis historian Robert Geist. He will soon publish his research, hailing Laver the victor, narrowly, 75-66. He tracked down results in such outposts as Nairobi, Kenya; Harare, Zimbabwe; East London, South Africa; Knokke le Zoute, Belgium; Lake Tahoe, Nevada; Perth, Australia, places where Evert and Navratilova would never have ventured.

Carlo Colussi 10:59, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

From German friend. All citations are true and trustful.Some editors here are more papal than the pope.They should regard, that some of the sources are in physical books by real experts, not on online articles by some unknown journalists. If i see all the crap in the Federer article, which reads like a fanbase and with all kinds of insignifcant records, it seems kind of weird, that here is still a clean up tag. They are citing Roddick as expert there. Maybe some crical editors should better have a look there. One thing on the Geist count of the Laver-Rosewall rivalry: I think, the count in open era is 23-9 to Laver, not 22-9, as given by Bud Collins in the cited article.So Geist should correct the overall count to 76-66. But as you, Carlo Coloussi showed, this is still incomplete. Besides i wrote to Bud Collins on this article, to thank him, and he answered me kindly. He wrote me, that Geist's count for Laver's titles tally is now 185 (german friend 18.8.2007).

• • • Hello German friend. You've written that Collins said that Geist was about to publish a book on Laver and Rosewall. Do you have any new information ? In particular do you have the 4 missing tournaments for Laver ( = 185 - 181) and the 9 or 8 missing confrontations between the two Australians in the Rosewall article (76 or 75 - 66 in Geist's count minus 72-61 in the Rosewall article) ? Carlo Colussi 07:11, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

No, i have no new information.Nor i have seen some information on a Gesit book. A short while ago i saw an advertisement of a new book by Joel Drucker about the Nr. 1s in tennis.But this book also isn't edited yet. (german friend 22.8.2007). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 84.62.89.47 (talk) 15:47, August 21, 2007 (UTC)

• Thank you Carlo Colussi 10:50, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Career Prize

I've erased (Open era) in "$1,600,300 (Open era)" because it includes all the prize money won by Ken Rosewall since 1957 when he turned pro and not only his open era earnings (since 1968). Let's remember that before 1957 has an amateur he "worked" for a tennis racket company and that from 1957 to 1967 he won something like $50,000 a year (a good amount at the time but now Federer had just won 2,400,000 by winning the US Open series and the US Open itself) (in 1957 Rosewall received something like $65,000 as a guarantee but prize money in tournaments were very low at the time : even in 1964 (just 4 years before the open era) the biggest pro tournaments could only offer $3,000 to the winner. Carlo Colussi 11:36, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject class rating

This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as start, and the rating on other projects was brought up to start class. BetacommandBot 11:02, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Hoad and Rosewall with Davis Cup 1953.jpg

Image:Hoad and Rosewall with Davis Cup 1953.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 22:51, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Edit ?

Tennis expert :

for instance why have you changed that :

Tennis.com the official site of Tennis Magazine : Greatest Shots in Tennis History The Backhand: Ken Rosewall http://www.cap.tennis.com/features/greatestshots/greatestshots.aspx?id=108756

into :

Greatest Shots in Tennis History, The Backhand: Ken Rosewall

?

What was wrong with "Tennis.com the official site of Tennis Magazine" ? You say that Wikipedia needs the most references possible so why erase "Tennis.com the official site of Tennis Magazine". Once again I don't understand your edit. Carlo Colussi (talk) 06:36, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Because the format of your citation was not in accordance with Wikipedia guidelines. A web citation needs the URL first within brackets followed by the title of the article, not the title of the website. This has nothing to do with needing the "most references possible." This is entirely about the format of a citation. Tennis expert (talk) 06:41, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

• • • • • 1958 EUROPEAN TOUR

I traced 3 4-man events at Stockholm (15 oct) , Barcelona(29 Oct) and Madrid. The other dates played by the pros seem to be exhibitions/one night stans including Vienna. Trabert was the most successful player beating Gonzales in the Stockholm final and Segura in the Barcelona final; besides being runner-up in Madrid.

Jeffreyneave 18 may 2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.86.157.90 (talk) 19:50, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

• • • Hello Jeffrey,

Here are results gracefully given to me by Andrew :

September 29 Brighton Rosewall d. Segura 63 62 Gonzales d. Trabert 63 57 75

---

Hoad withdrew from the London Indoor and was replaced by Gonzales and Kramer. THOPT has the troupe playing in Roubaix on the same date. I suspect that the French tour was abandoned or the dates changed as on October 25 they played in Rome instead of Grenoble.

---

October 7 Brussels Segura d. Trabert 63 64 Rosewall d. Kramer 75 46 61

Gonzales/ Segura d. Rosewall/ Trabert 64 61

October 8 Brussels Trabert d. Kramer 63 62 Rosewall d. Trabert 46 61 63

Gonzales/ Segura d. Rosewall/ Trabert 64 61

October 14 Stockholm Trabert d. Rosewall 62 62 Gonzales d. Segura 810 64 61

October 15 Stockholm Trabert d. Gonzales 64 62 Rosewall d. Segura 46 86 63

Gonzales/ Rosewall d. Segura/ Trabert 97 86

---

The Stockholm pro stop was claimed (by THOPT and the NYT) to be a tournament with Trabert defeating Gonzales in the final, but it has the same structure as most of the two day events on the tour where the two winners of the first day play each other on the second day. If this is a "tournament", which I think is not, then Scheveningen, Geneva, Hamburg/ Berlin, Barcelona and Madrid should be classified as tournaments. Madrid was classified in the NYT as a tournament too.

---

October 17 Helsingborg SWE Gonzales d. Rosewall 86 1210 Segura d. Trabert 64 86

October 21 Vienna Trabert d. Gonzales 36 63 64 Rosewall d. Segura 64 57 61

Trabert/ Rosewall d. Gonzales/ Segura 62 62

October 22 Vienna Segura d. Trabert 46 64 64 Rosewall d. Gonzales 62 911 63

Trabert/ Rosewall d. Gonzales/ Segura 63 61

October 25 Rome Rosewall d. Segura 75 62 Gonzales d. Trabert 46 64 64

October 30 Barcelona Segura d. Gonzales 75 62 Trabert d. Rosewall 64 62

October 31 Barcelona Trabert d. Segura 1614 75 Rosewall d. Gonzales 63 06 62

November 1 Madrid Trabert d. Gonzales 75 75 Rosewall d. Segura 61 86

November 2 Madrid Rosewall d. Trabert 63 26 108 Gonzales d. Segura 64 64

This may have been the end of the European tour.

---

Far East Tour

November 24 Madras India Segura d. Trabert 63 75 Sedgman d. Rosewall 64 64

The four played through India and Ceylon but this is the only match found.

Carlo Colussi (talk) 11:16, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Carlo, the 3 tournaments were the only dates where the 2 winners of the 1st day met in the final the next date; the other dates winners do not meet the next date; and the NY times explicitly referred to these 3 as tournaments.

jeffreyneave 19 june 2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.84.210.2 (talk) 16:10, 19 June 2008 (UTC)