Talk:World number 1 ranked male tennis players/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

→

Archive 9

Title move with hyphen

The title of the article was recently moved from "World number one male tennis player rankings" to "World number-one male tennis player rankings." Note the hyphen. I'm not sure what is proper English or proper wiki protocol. It could very well be that true proper English in using a compound modifier would give us "World-number-one male tennis player rankings." It's been without the hyphen for quite awhile but the important thing is to get it right so we don't have moves every other day from the hyphen police. :-) Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:32, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

I think you're right. No other comments, so I'll move it to your suggested punctuation.

"tennis-player" too, right? That makes it much easier to read. — kwami (talk) 10:45, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

old discussion

Without hyphens can be found here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:World_number_one_male_tennis_player_rankings

Just a quickie notice/reminder, without getting acquainted with Wikipedia page naming policies.Mrmarble (talk) 22:24, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

This page is full of errors. Why don't you verify your sources before writing? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:3:2480:6E3:A5F0:97AD:97E8:E820 (talk) 01:59, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Tennis Magazine (France)

I don't read French, but what were the 2015 year end rankings per Tennis Magazine of France? Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:17, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Vilas WAS NUMBER ONE IN 1977

Mtin76 (talk) 20:35, 29 September 2016 (UTC) 1977: Vilas was #1 for Tennis Magazine, Michael Sutter and the Grand Prix Tennis Circuit too, who gave 2047 points, against the 1548 pf Gottfried and 1210 of Borg. Was the player who won more points for the ATP (1610) in the year. Vilas also establishes historics Open Era´s records to tournaments wins (17), wins in a row (46) an total wins (134) in a season. International Tennis Hall of Fame says in his website about Vilas in 1977 : "it was widely considered he was the real world No. 1". Vilas must figure a Number one in 1977, at minimun, equal that Borg. And second in 1975 with Connors, Borg and Orantes, when he won the Grand Prix (850) points, was finalist of Roland Garros, and the last 5 weeks of the year Number one no recognized by ATP according a new investigation by journalist Puppo. Revised that, please.

 Not done Tennis Magazine ranked Borg #1 for winning Wimbledon and beating Vilas 3 times out of 3. The ATP awarded Borg player of the year. Vilas' 46 wins in a row was very impressive though. Vilas won the French but the best weren't allowed to play. Fyunck(click) (talk) 07:15, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

- i said equal that Borg at minimun. Vilas was Number one for World Tennis Magazine, have more points that Borg, have more tournaments that Borg. Borg wins 3-0 Vilas, so Sampras Win 4-1 to Agassi in 1999, and the Number One still was Agassi. statistically, Vilas was the most succesfully player of the season, no doubt about it, even when Borg was considerated the best player.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mtin76 (talk • contribs) 02:56, 16 October 2016 (UTC) 

Semi-protected edit request on 20 September 2017

please change Mtin76 (talk) 06:56, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. DRAGON BOOSTER ★ 10:54, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 September 2017

please change Mtin76 (talk) 07:09, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. SparklingPessimist ^{Scream at me!} 15:25, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

Tennis Magazine 2015. This magazine published rankings for 2015 and listed Roger Federer as No. 2, which was a widely held view by many tennis followers since his record in major events was superior to Andy Murray's as was his record versus Murray. Why is Tennis magazine not lited for 2015 and Federer listed as tied for No. 2 with Murray? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Informed analysis (talk • contribs) 01:25, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Do you have the source for that ranking? And for that matter, what were their 2016 rankings? Usually Tennis Magazine France is used as sort of a tiebreak when the ATP differs from the ITF. Fyunck(click) (talk) 02:12, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Actually, on you home talk page someone had given you the list of Tennis Magazine's top 9 for 2015. That is where I saw it. There it says that the magazine was not doing rankings after 2015. I cannot find any Tennis Magazine playing ranking for any year on the internet, even at their French language page. How do you have the actual ranking for all the years up until then? Up until 2007 you list the top 4 or 5 for Tennis Magazine each year but then only the top 1 or 2 thereafter and then in 2012 and 2014 and since you don't even mention any rankings from it at all.

For 2015 you list the top 2 players int he ATP rankings whereas in most other years until then you list the top 3 or 4. For 2-15, when you read the text (Federer as finalist in 3 of the biggest 5 events) it is perplexing that his ranking is not mentioned and all of a sudden Murray is number 2. You may wish to say "Murray accumulated more points than Federer by winning 2 Master's 1000s and playing 3 more events (that is the correct number as the ATP info pretends a player played 8 mandatory 1000s even if they do not) in order to claim the number 2 ranking. It is unfortunate that the ITF does not actually release its voting results, as since it focuses more on the big events (majors, tour finals and Olympics) its vote likely had Federer finishing 2nd. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Informed analysis (talk • contribs) 22:25, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

You are correct, someone did post that on my talk page a couple months back. There was no source, however I have no reason to disbelieve the rankings. As years have gone by, those sources outside of the ITF and ATP have lost more and more clout. The ATP has further clouded it's point winner in the past by also publishing a "player of the year" award. The ITF and ATP can certainly split the No. 1 ranking these days by publishing different winners, but without the ITF saying who was No. 2 in their rankings we would tend to go by the ATP points version. Fyunck(click) (talk) 23:18, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Many recent removals

I noticed many recent removals and restored them. If changes need to be made we can certainly debate the long-standing consensus. Fyunck(click) (talk) 07:30, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

I don't know why as part of your disputes with 2 other users you had to delete all the useful and balanced information I had added for certain years, such as 2015. The info explained why a certain player was ranked 1 or 2 not just the winners of the biggest 5 events. The info I added was similar to info used in some earlier years (such as Nole non-calendar grand slam and excellent won-loss records and down to number 4 for the ATP rankings, especially if the number 3 or 4 guy had won a major event). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Informed analysis (talk • contribs) 06:06, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

I had no dispute with two other users.. It was one user with multiple sockpuppet accounts who was banned. The accounts had added bunches of bogus info that was really hard to fix with any added stuff that overlapped it, so I went back to the last good version. If you want to add your stuff back I don't have a problem with it... I thought you would do a better job of adding it in case I missed something. But I can do it if you wish. Fyunck(click) (talk) 08:05, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

I think I got it re-added. Fyunck(click) (talk) 08:12, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for re-adding. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Informed analysis (talk • contribs) 19:17, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

2017 opinions other than ATP, ITF relevant? Co-No. 1?

Just curious. Years as recently as 2003 tapped into punditry opinion outside of the sport's governing bodies for insight. While both ATP and ITF tapped Nadal as the top player in 2017, Federer was named best athlete by AIPS, "Tennis MVP" by ESPN, Best Male Tennis Player at ESPYs. They split the honor as best according to Sports Illustrated and L'Equip. I believe both are in contention for the Laureus prize. Should these factors weigh into decisions here? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.16.229.127 (talk) 18:45, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

Frankly, I don't disagree with you. You can see that I have amended/added to all the years from 2017 back to 2003 as far as who won what and why the number 1 was rated ahead of the number 2 and him ahead of the number 3. I did not look up whether other votes had a different no 1 and 2 for 2017 or any other year. 2017 seems a particularly unique year give Federer's short schedule but winning 7 of the 12 events he played, so maybe adding these in for 2017 is appropriate. Fyunck is the editor who has overseen this page for a long time and he sort of agreed to my doing edits along what I am doing, but I have not changed any of the 1 and 2 ranking in the main columns. Fyunck - what do you think of this question? I think maybe the appropriate option is to list the other bodies in the main paragraph but leave the no 1 and 2 choice as now listed in the main columns. The fact is the ATP points race has become the arbiter of the number 1 player for the ATP - until some point in time (early 2000s) the ATP actually had a separate voted and in the odd year the vote differed from the point total (1989, 1975, 1977, 1978, 1982) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.244.86.24 (talk) 05:02, 3 January 2018 (UTC) I added this comment (Informed Analysus) but forgot to log in when I did it)

Looking the awards cited aobut, the ESPY award was handed out July 5 - it clearly is not tied to the tennis year and was a vote based only on Federer's comeback Australian win; the ESPN tennis MVP decision is not focused on actual results this year but intangibles; I do think the SI and AIPS awards merit noting. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Informed analysis (talk • contribs) 05:25, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

I didn't write the article. It's good to get the details as you have been adding. But the extra awards don't really weigh into decisions today... it's ITF and ATP champions. In the past the ATP could actually split themselves between ATP points winner and ATP player of the year... but no longer. We look at objective rankings. I don't think those other bodies shave a place in the beginning at all. However at the very end of each section it's possible to put a list of other ranking lists. The trouble is we would need exact sources for those rankings, and they couldn't be arbitrary (meaning the same lists would have to be in each year, not different lists for different years). To be honest I don't think we need them UNLESS a particular season ends with all kinds of lists varying in their choices for No. 1. As is, each section is getting quite long. Fyunck(click) (talk) 07:50, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

Hi again. I understand the need for both objectivity and consistency, and since 1990, there's been little need to doubt the ATP and ITF as fair arbiters of the best player each season. But I also do not believe that they should be the end-all, be-all. As the lede sentence of this very article states, the list regards the "World-number-one male tennis-player rankings is a year-by-year listing of the male tennis players who, at the end of a full year of play, have generally been considered to be the best overall for the entire year." And frankly, if you ask the average tennis aficionado or published pundit, this one's a toss-up. So I don't think that a determination like that can be made solely by those two governing bodies, particularly years as perceptibly "close" as 2017.

While we're on the subject, you can look at a year as recent as 2013. I can't really quantify or qualify this, but I don't think anyone, anywhere truly regards Novak as co-No. 1. If you went to press opinion outside ATP and ITF, I'm sure this would bear out. But because of the decision of the ITF, which as far as I can tell must have been based on some kind of points accrual for ITF events (since Nadal skipped Australia), they're listed here as having been equals. 173.16.229.127 (talk) 19:58, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

Yes, but we are just reporting. In this day and age those are the only two authorities on year end rankings, so it's what we go with. And yes, the ITF heavily uses the four majors in determining it's champion (along with Davis Cup/Fed Cup) If you skip one you are punished for doing so, as with Nadal in 13 and Federer in 17. Fyunck(click) (talk) 21:29, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

Also, per consensus at Tennis Project. Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:11, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Hi again, I'm going to revisit after Federer has now won both the Laureus World Sportsman of the Year and splits with Nadal for L'Equipe's Champion of Champions for 2017. I totally respect the numbers game played by ITF and ATP and the subsequent consistency approach with how this list validates No. 1 and 2, but I truly believe there are enough credible dissenting opinions of Nadal's sole ownership of best player as to not jointly award them it. 173.16.231.195 (talk) 23:11, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

Ranking for 1998

For 1998, the articles all of a sudden lists Tennis Magazine (US) instead of Tennis Magazine (France). Does anyone know why this occurred? Does anyone know the actual rankings from Tennis Magazine France that year? Tennis Magazine (US) strangely listed Patrick Rafter as No. 1. I guess they were persuaded by his 4-tournament North American hard court win streak (Canada, Cinci, Long Island (International series, equivalent to a 250 now) and the US Open) and beating Sampras twice in that span (I think the only times they played that year). The fields at Canada and Cinci were strong (Rios, Moya, Corretja did skip Canada). Howevr, Rafter did not make any other quarter-finals at the Slams and was absent from the Masters Cup and so his ATP pts were only No. 4. He did win 2 other titles for 6 on the year versus 4 for Sampras but Sampras was superior in most ways. Sampras was 61-17; Rafter 60-21 and Sampras made SFs at US Open and Masters Cup. I cannot see any reason why we should keep the Tennis Mag (US) reference here and if we do, I would add detail to explain why they might have made the choice. Informed Analsys

U.S. Pro Tennis Championships in Chestnut Hill/Boston

This event is listed in the table most years from the early 1970s until the end of the 1980s. However, up until 1977 it was one of the "big 9" top level Grand Prix tennis events (same as today's Master's 1000s) but from 1978 on it appears to have dropped it significance and no longer warrants being mentioned. After 1977 it is essentially equivalent to a Masters 250 event. I propose to take out its mention from 1978 to the end of the 1980s. In the late 1980s, the Key Biscayne event (and its earlier locations elsewhere in Florida) is mentioned as a significant event (even though it had the same point value as the other "Master's level events) but was considered to be the "fifth slam" so I will leave its specific mention from 1985 onward until it is no longer mentioned in the current text.

Sounds reasonable to me. Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:07, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

1977 - 1974 - 1975 - 1989

Let's see if we can agree on certain things.

I have inserted my thoughts on this in italics below; Informed Analysis 1- The original article showed Vilas and Borg matched in 1977, such as the Spanish and French version of the same article in wikipedia today.

2- The article prior to my edition in reference to the year 1977 is not complete. Obvious the rankings of publications and personalities such as Agence France Presse, Eugene L. Scott, Livre D'or du Tennis, Tennis de France or Christian Quidet, all favorable to Vilas, instead says that "a minority" chose Vilas. The link attached only provides evidence on two of these. It is fully agreed that the ATP Point system is not a main arbiter of who was ranked #1 and 2. The vote of the ATP members gets the most weight by far, except in 1976 when virtually everyone disagreed with it. I need to see evidence of 4 others important journalists before I change my opinion.

3- John Barrett and Bud Collins on more than one occasion declared that Vilas deserved to be No. 1 of 1977. The Bud Collins History of Tennis he says 'even though World Tennis declared Vilas No. 1, most other authorities disagreed and bestowed the mythical honour on Borg.....as he had the best winning percentage...and was 3-0 vs. Vilas.' As well, Borg's victories against Vilas were dominating, the only one going an extra set being 6-0 in the 4th at Nice 4- Vilas was the tennis player who won more tournaments, games and points in the year. this is not that relevant - we are reporting what the expert opinion was at the time. Also, playing more and losing a lot more (many times to lowly ranked players and at one point 7 events in a row) is not always considered to mean you are better than someone else who plays less and loses less. Borg had a better winning percentage

5- Yes, Vilas participated in many 1-star tournaments, however he was also the tennis player who won more 5-4 stars tournaments (Roland Garros, Us Open, Washington, Tehran, South Africa, Louiville, Columbus).

6 - As historical revisionist investigations, we do not find a single ranking or note that names Borg as the best of 1977, all named Vilas. Examples

TB Ranking by thetennisbase.com: https://thetennisbase.com/blog/vilas-one-on-the-court-two-in-the-desks/

histoiredutennis.com: "The year of Vilas": http://www.histoiredutennis.com/annees-70-3/Vilas-1977.html

Prestige Ranking by Plos Magazine: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0017249

Scientific research of the Financial Times. For 1977, Vilas 5.73 against 5.72 to Borg and 5.48 to Connors: https://ig.ft.com/sites/novak-djokovic-the-best-tennis-season-ever/ These do not report the expert opinion at the time. Plus, in reviewing these, I find they use some assumptions that do not reflect what real tennis commentators use as the basis for their decisions of who was best. This Financial Times study rates all tournaments as the same importance, when in fact even the 'Grand Slams' of 1977 are not considered equal and were not considered equal at the time. The Australian final that Vilas lost had no other Top 10 players aside from him - why did he lose? The French was missing 4 of the top 7 players, including Borg. Wimbledon was the most prestiguous event and Vilas lost in the 3rd round there. Borg beat 3 top 10 players to win that. On the year, Borg had 15 top 10 wins whereas Vilas had 13 despite Vilas playing almost twice as many matches - Vilas played tournaments with less top ranked players.

7- The Grand Prix Ciruit is not taken as definitive form, but it should be taken into account as a parameter, since in 1977 it was the biggest circuit by far (82 or 83 tournaments against 20 WTC). Just as in 1964 the US Pro Tour is named (19 tournaments), it is fair to name the Grand Prix in specific seasons like 1974, 1975, 1977 (Vilas), 1983 (Wilander) or 1989 (Lendl). In case of the 1971-77 period, the Grand Prix was the reference of the ITF, for being his official circuit. After 1977, ITF made the award of Player of The Year, that by the way, neither take into consideration the whole season, but the big tournaments and the Davis Cup, but still count for this article. Point rankings were not the arbiter of wno was no. 1 and 2 at that time. If one point system was being considered, the ATP point ranking that considers all tournaments is the one that would be considered. This articles has never, since its start, as far as I can tell, considered just the Grand Prix points numbers apart from the ATP point rankings.

8- Vilas should be considered Co-2 with Newcombe in 1974 since, in addition to winning the Grand Prix and the Masters, he was chosen in that position by notable rankings such as World Tennis (who's not named in the article before my edition) and Bud Collins that year. In The Bud Collins History of Tennis he mentions Vilas 4th so I am not even sure if the reference to Collins rating him second is accurate. I don't see how a player who did not make the quarter-finals of a slam that year can be the number 2 for the year.

9- Vilas must be considered C0-2 in 1975 (along with Borg, Connors and Orantes) because it was No. 2 of the ATP ranking and No. 1 of the Grand Prix. You quote World Tennis for 1974 but for this year, they did not rate him in the top 4. As discussed, points are not the arbiter of the rankings and the Grand Prix is less important than the ATP points, and certainly than the ATP Vote. I just cannot support/agree to these without more evidence of experts rating Vilas as higher

10- In 1989, the subjectives Award of the ITF and Tennis Magazine rankings are named, and the ATP Ranking and, again, the Grand Prix are ignored. Lendl won 10 titles against 5 of Becker, who won 2 Grand Slam. Both are considered No. 1 that year — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mtin76 (talk • contribs) 16:24, 4 February 2018 (UTC) At the end of the US Open, I have it on video tape, Ivan Lendl motioned with his hands and fingers clearly into the camera that Becker had won 2 slams and that meant Becker was number 1 for the year. The members of the ATP voted Becker as the Player of the Year. That is the most important factor.

Don't put the cart before the horse. First you convince, then we change. Remember also that the ATP rankings could be wacky back then and the ATP's own player of the year would be used to contradict their points rankings. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:38, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

In looking over your arguments, you will never convince me personally that Vilas and Borg were equal in 1977. Borg beat him 3x out of 3 and Borg couldn't enter the French because of WTT commitments, plus Wimbledon at the time was more important that the other three events combined. But my opinion means zip here. Vilas did win the US Open and the French, and there are a minority of sources that do consider him as No. 1 that year. I'll leave it for other to weigh the sources and facts on that one.

No.2's are even more subjective though I see no reason to change what we have now. 1989 looks to be Becker all the way from the sources I see. Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:50, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

I need a few hours to think about this and look things up before I can weigh in. Mtin76#top - it just seems like you are at least slightly biased in favour of vilas in 2 or more years, whereas I am just being totally objective without any bias in all my revisions etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Informed analysis (talk • contribs) 22:52, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

The thing is, we aren't supposed to do original research. We simply state the facts as we find them in sources. Where we get subjective, as always happens with tennis rankings, is what to view as the best sources to use. These days it's easy... there's the ATP/WTA champion and the ITF champion... that's it. But in the time period we are talking about we had the suspect ATP points, the ATP choice for best of the year, the ITF, Tennis Magazine (France), and perhaps a historian or two. It's tough. Fyunck(click) (talk) 01:20, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

I apologize if I bother you that I have edited the publication. I did it because I was allowed, and in all cases I added sources that were eliminated. I do not dispute that Borg is the best player of that era, but to this day it is clear that Vilas did the best season. Is infair choose the N° 1 is for h2h clashes, or for not having played this or that tournament for choosing WTT.

Strictly speaking, Vilas won more tournaments, more games, more ATP points and had better ATP average than Borg.

In addition of Michell Sutter, World Tennis, France Presse, Livre D'or du Tennis 1977 (Collin-Ficot-Dominguez) or Eugene L. Scott, i leave you, again, some "minority" of other sources that consider Vilas the best of 1977, compared to presigious journalists who voted having only seen 4 or 5 Vilas tournaments in that year, since Vilas won 21 tournaments all around the world (16 for the ATP, includeed 2 Grand Slam, 1 Grand Slam final, and many 4 stars tournaments at the time like Washington, Teheran, Louisville, Columbus and South Africa).

• The Tennis Hall of Fame official website:

"He concluded the 1977 season 21-2 in major competition and peaked at No.2 in the world rankings behind Connors, though it was widely considered to have been the real World No.1"

https://www.tennisfame.com/hall-of-famers/inductees/guillermo-vilas/

• Thetennisbase.com - TB Ranking (this site contains the most complete historical database of tennis, even more than the ATP itself)

"With any system of points, even introducing restrictions on number of valid ranking tournaments, the Argentinean would have been number one in the world. Of course, TB ranking gives him the global leadership, with wide lead over Connors, who, in turn, narrowly beats Bjorn Borg. "

https://thetennisbase.com/blog/vilas-one-on-the-court-two-in-the-desks/

• Histoiredutennis.com (site used as a review source more than once for this Wikipedia article)

chapter 62 "The Vilas Year": "For Vilas, it is finally the consecration: three grand slam finals including two victories, 16 tournaments won in the year and an impressive series of 57 consecutive victories on clay in 9 different tournaments ... 1977 is for the argentinian its great year and at the end of the season, many specialists will not hesitate to rank it No. 1 worldwide. A deserved position, but which owes much to the semi-retirement of Borg, retained by the Intercity and virtually Absent of the whole season on clay. "

(in french) http://www.histoiredutennis.com/annees-70-3/Vilas-1977.html

• Scientific research of the "Plos One" Magazine.

http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/figure?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0017249.t002

• "Financial Times" scientific research.

For the year 1977, counting the entire season, Vilas scored 5.73 agains 5.72 for Borg and 5.43 to Connors.

https://ig.ft.com/sites/novak-djokovic-the-best-tennis-season-ever/

• Finally, The "World Tennis" and "France Presse" rankings were broadcasted in newspapers around the world; An example, Brazil, with a title of note that resembles what I want to leave expensive: THERE WAS NO CLEAR N ° 1.

https://news.google.com/newspapers?id=2pQmAAAAIBAJ&sjid=xBEEAAAAIBAJ&hl=en&pg=1140%2C3053428

To make clear my position on 1977: It is neither fair nor objective to place Borg alone as No. 1, because there was no real consensus even to this day, beyond that some renowned journalists have chosen it (with archaic evaluation methods, which are far from those used today to choose a No. 1). Borg was the best tennis player, Vilas was the best season performer. Objectively they must be both recognized, with Connors (No. 1 of the Ranking) just one step behind.

ABOUT 1974: I'm not biased this season either. Newcombe is placed as No. 2 but it's said that only Bud Collins chooses Vilas as No. 2, and is omitted that also the prestigious World Tennis places him in this position. So we have two important sources endorsing my edition:

"... Also active in that ranking was Guillermo Vilas, who first appeared in 1974, in SECOND PLACE behind Jimmy Connors. Then he was 6th in 1975 (Arthur Ashe, No. 1); 4th in 1976 (Connors) and cataloged as the No. 1 in 1977 " By Eduardo Puppo, renowned Argentine journalist, about the World Tennis rankings.

In Spanish: http://tenniscom.com/1tenisretro/tenisretrohistoria5.htm

ABOUT 1975: Vilas was No. 2 in the ATP average ranking, and had more total ATP points (893) in the year than the mentioned No. 2 ranked in the article: Borg (728), Connors (769) and Orantes (887). It was only surpassed by Ashe (905). Neither am I being tendentious, especially considering that they put 3 players as No. 2 ...

I’m not biased, I have done many editions and creations of articles in wikipedia in both English and Spanish, I am a registered journalist, historian and I try to be as objective as possible.

After all, the article as it stands, seems to be biased against Vilas, one of the three strongers tennis players of the period 1974-78, that only appears in the year 1977, and in second place ...

ABOUT 1972: I added the source of "World Tennis" cover choosing Stan Smith as N ° 1, which has also been eliminated.

ABOUT 1978: I added the source of "World Tennis" cover choosing Borg as N ° 1, which has also been eliminated.

ABOUT 1989: Lendl was the N ° 1 of the ATP Ranking and the tennis player who won the most titles (10) in the season, double that Becker, who was chosen by ITF in an evaluation that only takes into account the big tournaments and the Davis Cup, as stated in its regulations.

I'm not saying that Vilas should be above Borg in 1977, nor that Lendl should be above Becker in 1989. But it is not really objective to put only one as No. 1 in those particular years. because there was not a clear N ° 1. Simply that.

Take your time. I have no trouble. I'm sure we can reach an agreement about my editions and sources that were not included in the publication.

Greetings. Mtin76 (talk) 03:40, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

Hello Mtin76 My user name is Informed Analysis - I am the one who inserted italicized comments right after your comments number 1 to 10. I did not sign my comments so you got the impression they were from Fyunck. You have simply restated most of your same points again directly above. You do not seem to have read the things that I said which, in my opinion (and probably Fyunck's), more or less refute your arguments. Please read then again. To repeat, the practice for this page has been (for about 8 years, I believe) to accept what was originally entered by the original 1 or 2 authors in terms of what tennis journalists said but if you have formal rankings by reputable tennis journalists or commentators AT THAT TIME you need to provide actual evidence of those rankings (an article from a publication or book). The no. 1 and 2 rankings for each year up until the early 90s are based on a majority view of experts in the field AT THE TIME (at the end of the tennis year) NOT the point rankings (either ATP or Grand Prix) or analysis done in the years since then. It was agreed back then that the point systems did not weigh the most important events, with the most top ranked players in attendance (Wimbledeon always being the highest (but not in 73), and US Open second), high enough. That is why the members of the ATP voted Borg the player of the year a few times instead of Connors, and instead of Vilas in 1977. And Becker in 1989 - there is no rationale to keep arguing that Lendl should be tied with Becker in 1989 when Lendl himself said it was Becker. Informed analysis (talk) 05:00, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

Informed Analysis: Well, to begin with, I left a specific source on the complete ranking of "Agence France Presse" of 1977, the oldest news agency in the world, a ranking that is taken into account for newspapers, and that is not named in Article. I show you, once again ...

https://news.google.com/newspapers?id=2pQmAAAAIBAJ&sjid=xBEEAAAAIBAJ&hl=en&pg=1140%2C3053428

I also showed how Vilas is cataloged as the "Real N°1" of 1977 for the Tennis Hall of Fame, do not you think that a renowned estate?

Second, there is other information that can not be found on the web because it is private content. And I must clarify that the creators of the original article had put Borg and Vilas as C0. No. 1 in 1977, just as the Spanish and French articles continue today.

https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joueurs_de_tennis_num%C3%A9ros_1_mondiaux

https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Listado_de_tenistas_masculinos_n%C3%BAmero_uno_del_mundo

So, Someone changed it.

Third, I gave clear arguments about the years 1974 and 75. Even name specific omissions (World Tennis in 1974 naming Vilas as No. 2). And I also clarified that in 1989 the ATP ranking does not appear as a parameter, which must be corrected.

Did you really read my note in detail?

So far I honestly do not see that you have refuted anything, refuted that Vilas won more Grand Slams than Borg in 1977? Did you refute that Vilas won more tournaments than Borg in 1977? Did you refute that Vilas won more ATP pioints than Borg in 1977? Did you refute that Vilas had more ATP average than Borg in 1977? you only rely on what certain journalists voted based mostly on personal confrontations, without recognizing that until now there is parity in terms of the opinion on who was the best tennis player of 1977, even today is more favorable to Vilas in all rankings and research that I have shown. Basing a seasonal analysis on what 3 or 4 journalists have written and obviate everything else, has no real meaning.

Dont try convice you for nothing, i just try to be objetive. People who choose Borg was for being better player, people who choose Vilas was for having better season. All things are TRUE. And both are chosen as N°1 by different estates. So, How do you measure a real No. 1, for how do you play or what did you win in the year? for how many support each method against other? or for the method itself?

Wikipedia is a free site, where it should be taken as seriously as possible. Assigning the role of commissar of detachment is not advisable. By actidudes like this, Wikipedia is criticized by arbitrary in many times. I'll let Funck answer whatever he wants and then see what action to take. Regards Mtin76 (talk) 14:45, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

I let another source. "The Concise History of Tennis" by Karoly Mazak (used many times as argue in this article) Co-ranked Borg and Vilas as World N°1 in 1977.

I Share a capture of my Kindle Version on twitter.

https://twitter.com/MartinCQ5/status/960546321781477376

regards. Mtin76 (talk) 16:14, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

I will say that it is not even remotely clear that Vilas had the best season. It all depends on what one thinks are the parameters of a "best season." That historians will never agree on. The Tennis Base has a wealth of information, but the author and I have disagreed on topics, specifically his arbitrary ranking of tournaments. And unlike before, he now charges heavily for the site, and a lot of betting agencies will pay those big bucks. The majority of sources have had Borg at No. 1 in 1977. Some sources have Vilas. That is why this article sits as it does today. The points system sucked back then, and it's not perfect even today. 1977 was a fantastic tennis season. We had Vilas with his great win streak, Borg with his .920 winning percentage, and Connors with his WCT and Masters championships plus the ATP points race. Vilas won the US Open and a depleted French Open. Connors won the two year end championships and was runner up at Wimbledon and US. Borg took Wimbledon and beat Vilas all three times they played. Borg beat Connors 2-1.

I'm not saying that arguments can't be made for all three players positioning in the rankings, but this is the most common one based on sources (especially at the time and not Monday-morning-quarterbacking). One other thing is that the importance of Wimbledon cannot be understated. Wimbledon was almost mythical in its importance and was the unwritten tennis championship. Writers and fans alike probably looked at Wimbledon as worth more than the 3 other titles combined. I remember that time period well and it was probably one of the factors that pushed Borg higher in the minds of authorities and his peers. While I'm of the mindset that Borg was No. 1, if more editors than not feel there is enough sourcing to co-rank Borg and Vilas, I certainly wouldn't stand in the way. Bear in mind that fans of Connors may well want a three-way ranking as there are sources for him as well, as he did win the official ATP points race. This will always be tough because while today we have only the ITF and ATP champions (which usually agree), back then we had many more important subjective authorities on who should be No. 1. Fyunck(click) (talk) 22:58, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

Hello guys - I've prepared and entered my completed unbiased but more detailed summary of 1977 with the same exact sort of approach I used for 73 to 76 and 1999 to 2017. As the ATP circuit added 5 and 6 star events plus had established 4 star events it is untenable to refer to top tier events in this year as I did for all other years. The way to compensate for this and to address the issue of players playing 1 star events is to look at to p 10 wins _ I am pretty sure my numbers are accurate (may be off by 1 in some cases). The US Pro Indoor had the best field after 3 slams and Masters so is mentioned. I note that using total ATP points, Brian Gottfield would be the World Number 2 player. If we were to get some type of reproductive evidence of other experts rating either Borg or Vilas #1 those can still be added.Informed analysis (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 01:05, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

Gottfried is totally irrelevant in this discussion. it is known that in the total sum of the season, he also had more points than Borg, it is not necessary any detailed summary. But Gottfried was not even close to the No. 1 consideration. He did not have great achievements in the Grand Slam tournaments. Vilas yes. Better results even than Borg and Connors. Best season? if you won more big titles, more total titles, more games and more points (in this case much more points), you had better season. That is today and it was always. Then you can discuss why. Saying that you should not take into account the achievements of the year is nothing short of ridiculous. Almost as much as saying that one should be considered a No. 1 solo because he had one or two more specialists in favor having so many of them. Vilas was chosen No. 1 by World Tennis (Someone should say that World Tennis published the ranking annually since 1953 and was the most media-prestigious of that time ...), France Presse, Michel Sutter and the Livre D'or du Tennis 77 as minimum (not to mention the Grand Prix, official circuit by ITF at the time, and the numerous rankings and investigations carried out and published in this discussion after 1977 that give the Argentinean an advantage). Enough to refute that the No. 1 of Borg is widespread. There was no clear World No. 1 in 1977. And that should be reflected in this article. Otherwise, it loses credibility. Regards Mtin76 (talk) 05:15, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

If only that were true. Vilas also piles it on with nothing events... like twice as many tournaments to get where he did. He was crushed by Borg when they played. He did not win more big titles than Borg and the French was a shell of itself. Stop making it seem like Vilas had an untouchable season because he didn't. It was a great season but most historians disagree with your opinion. The most prestigious ranking was the ATP and they contradicted their own point scheme because they knew it sucked (and they later changed it). They then anointed Borg as player of the year. His winning percentage was untouchable. Vilas won 16 events, and in how many did he face a top 10 player??? Six! The rest he barely faced top 20 players. They were tiny little events. Borg had to face top 10 players in 10 out of 11 tiles. And Vilas couldn't win any tournaments on grass. 1977 was not 2018 as far as how locked in the quality of tournaments were so you can't judge them by today's standards.

I have said that there are some sources that agree with you, but your insisting it's so black and white with Vilas season being best is making your point weaker, because editors will think you are blind to the fact that most historians think the seasons of Borg, Vilas and Connors were close... with Borg coming out on top. Fyunck(click) (talk) 06:05, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

Hello - I know Gottfried is irrelevant. You are so focused on the point numbers that I just wanted to point out that if you went stricty by them, we would be putting Borg down at number 4 or something for the year and putting Gottfriend in a number 2 instead, which is ridiculous. So for Vilas we go by the total points but for other players like Gottfried we do not?? I do not understand why you keep arguing the same points that myself and Fyunck have responded to. Maybe you should create an article entitled "Modern Day Computer Analysis of Great Tennis Seasons" - that is not what this article has even done since its inception in 2006. I also do not see how the studies you attached before have taken into account that Borg and Connors played far more top 10 players per event than Vilas did. Fyunck - do you think my top 10 win numbers for 1977 are pretty much correct? Obviously, I was going based on the year-end rankings mostly but for early in the year I used the 1976 year-end rankings (with some assumption of how much they might have fallen or risen).

Look Mtin76- I have gone way back in the old versions of the articles when it was first written - it appears the ranking by Collins of Vilas as number 2 for 1974 is indeed correct despite the fact in his History of Tennis book Collins only brings him up 4th, but I guess his strong performance at the Masters (without Connors) swayed him. I think I saw and opened an attachment of yours (amongst the huge volumes of stuff you have provided I cannot now find it) which was the official World Tennis top 10 for 1974 that also showed him #2. If you can re-attach that so I can see it, I will agree that Vilas can be put as shared #2 for 1974, even though it seems out of wack to me because he did not make the QFs of a Slam. Maybe Fyunck will comment (after seeing that) if he agrees with that. There is no way I support adding Vilas to the #2s for 1975 as not one of the tennis authorities for that year even listed him in their top 4, including World Tennis. Informed analysis (talk) 06:19, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

Fyunck(click): Let's see ... first of all, and with all due respect, the one that has to stop minimizing Vilas's achievements is you, I do not need to disqualify the Borg's year (I could do it, since it's not Vilas's fault that Borg played when he wanted to). I can show you several sources that cite the season of Vilas 77 as one of the best in history. I do not know how many of you could show me about Borg 77. You talk about historians as if Lance Tingay or the ATP Prize were God, and it was not like that either. Tingay chose Borg because beats Vilas (not destroy), not because had best season, and he said it himself. He also chose No. 2 Rosewall in 1974, who did not win a single tournament that year. Historians can be wrong ...

About the ATP Ranking or the ATP award, it wasnt the most prestigous in 1977, at all. It was official for ATP,(not for ITF) of course, and had his relevance, but it was only 4 years old, its method was very obsolet and thats wy they changed with the passing of the years. World Tennis Magazine was more reputated by far. His ranking was published for newspappers all over the world, which reflects its real media relevance:

English sources publishing the World Tennis ranking:

https://twitter.com/MartinCQ5/status/960762572973727744

https://twitter.com/MartinCQ5/status/960762648332816385

Spain source publishing the World Tennis ranking:

https://twitter.com/MartinCQ5/status/960762766582800385

Brazilian source publishing the World Tennis ranking:

https://news.google.com/newspapers?id=2pQmAAAAIBAJ&sjid=xBEEAAAAIBAJ&hl=es&pg=1140%2C3053428

(Note the headlines such as "The controversy is still standing", or "The Masters did not decide who is the Best", which clearly reflects that there was no consensus on the best in the world.)

If you show me just two sources in different languages where the ATP award 77 has been published in a newspaper or sports magazine, we can continue discussing whether it was more relevant in the media than "World Tennis".

Despite this, ATP award in this time cant agree whitout same ranking. the choice of Borg in 1976 was nonsense, and that of 1977 quite controversial.

About other sources: Bud Collins can choose Borg, but then said repetidly times that Vilas was N°1 in 1977.

Collins saying in camera that Vilas was N°1:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qCHmR9aDscA

Collins saying Vilas was the world's best in 1977: "Although the world's best in 1977, Willie is a touch annoyed at the No. 2 ranking behind Connors, whom he beat in the US Open title bout" Bud Collins Article "Willy Old Campaigner"

http://www.theage.com.au/news/austr...mpaigner/2008/01/26/1201157740949.html?page=3

In any case, historians can write one thing one day and change the other.

Editors? sadly, onle are three persons speaking here (including myself) This is a simple subjetive article, I can show you tennis forums whit more debate. Black or white? that is to say one or the other, i am saying both. I am manifesting that here there is a conflict such that a single player can not be chosen without being unfair whit the other, like on others seasons. I am respecting more the opinion of some experts than you the achievements in the field of Vilas or the opinion of experts in favor of Vilas, which, I repeat, are enough to think that there is no consensus in just a single Number One.

Lets do something: NAME ME A SINGLE N°2 IN THE WHOLE ARTICLE WHIT 4 DINSTICTIONS AS N°1 AND I LEAVE THE DISCUSSION. Mtin76 (talk) 08:23, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

Informed analysis, About 1974: Vilas won the Masters whotout Connors, ok. But He beats Newcombe, Borg and Nastase in the same tournament!!! Vilas N°2 for World Tennis and Bud Collins. Newcombe N°2 sources?

"... Also active in that ranking was Guillermo Vilas, who first appeared in 1974, in SECOND PLACE behind Jimmy Connors. Then he was 6th in 1975 (Arthur Ashe, No. 1); 4th in 1976 (Connors) and cataloged as the No. 1 in 1977 " By Eduardo Puppo, renowned Argentine journalist, about the World Tennis rankings.

In Spanish:http://tenniscom.com/1tenisretro/tenisretrohistoria5.htm

There is difficult find sources about World Tennis due his magazine doesnt exist anymore. But Eduardo Puppo is a eminence in the world. He made the study about all the lost data of the 1973-78 period. He had books awarded by ATP. He cant lie.

... Mtin76 (talk) 07:38, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

by the way, im not focused in points, but the difference in this aspect is so big that cant be ignored. Vilas 1610, Borg 906, Connors 897 ... HUGE difference. and it is not a defect to have played 28 tournaments around the world throughout the year. It is a virtue. Mtin76 (talk) 08:16, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

To be honest, all three players have some claim to the throne in 1977. While Borg has the most accolades, Vilas and Connors also have their own sources as No. 1. Perhaps what we should do, with all three so tight in the actual sources, is to co-rank all three equally... Borg/Connors/Vilas, and let the summary speak for itself. Not my first choice mind you, but there is evidence for all three of them (and sourcing is primo here). Those number 2 items in other years is much more doubtful (especially 1975). But if you throw Vilas in there, then Connors also has the official ATP No. 1 ranking that year. It could be alphabetical Borg/Connors/Vilas, or perhaps by most sources Borg/Vilas/Connors. I'm willing to be the first to blink. I'd also like to hear from a couple other established editors before changing a longstanding year-end No 1. On another note... please use the proper wikipedia indenting here. I have to keep correcting the threads so they are readable for others. Fyunck(click) (talk) 09:42, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

Note - the only problem with doing it this way would be the cloud it would put on 1976... a year that Borg could be co-ranked with Connors. Connors had the most accolades that year end in the press, but Borg won Wimbledon and the Year-end championships, and was a finalist at the US Open and QF at the French Open. Connors won the US Open, and was a QF at Wimbledon... that's it for the Big 4 events. World Tennis had Borg No. 1 and he was the ATP player of the year champ. Connors was the ATP points champion. Fyunck(click) (talk) 10:11, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

In reference to Mtin76 statement that "it is a virtue to play so many tournaments" - players in the mid 70s were playing to the conditions of the day. The point system the ATP used was average points per tournament not total points. As well, the whole tennis world valued the biggest tournaments the most - especially Wimbledon (considered the unofficial World Championship) and then the US Open. The WCT finals (for those who played WCT) was highly valued after the Rosewall-Laver marathon a few years earlier and the Masters came to the fore (I guess that might be why Collins rated Vilas No. 2 for 1974). The French was not considered as important - why else did Connors not play it for his peak 5 years and Borg just skip to play Team Tennis plus a bit later McEnroe skipped it often. Its not because Connors could not play on clay because he won the US Open on clay in 1976 and many other clay events. Also, big events of just a few top players were popular then, such as WCT Challenge events, the Tournament of Champions and the Pepsi Grand Slam. Connors and Borg did not think they needed to play 31 tournaments as they were winning or making the finals at the events that mattered, not playing themselves to death (what did Vilas do after 1977?) trying to get a huge total number of points. By reanalyzing things today people are not reflecting what was thought back then. The ATP members and experts back then voted or expressed their rankings based on what was valued at the time. If Borg and Connors and McEnroe knew that the number of Grand Slams won over their career would become so important they would have played the Australian and the French more back then.

I am a Connors fan - it would be nice if he was co-ranked as No. 1 for 1977 but I am being unbiased here as that is the responsible thing to do. Unless hard evidence is found that 4 other authorities ranked Vilas as #1 for 1977 back in early 1978 I do not agree with changing Borg's current sole number 1 placement in the article.Informed analysis (talk) 15:39, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

Also, the importance of winning Wimbledon (Borg) cannot be overstated. Ken Rosewall and Ivan Lendl purposely kipped the French Open and the clay court season a couple of times each just so they could practice on grass more and focus on winning Wimbledon, which they never won. Winning it in 1975 is the only reason Ashe was VOTED number 1 in 1975.Informed analysis (talk) 15:58, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

Well thats not true. Winning Wimbledon 75 could be the reason that the ATP awarded Ashe, since ATP always chose the winner of the English Open what is quite controversial. But Ashe is clear N ° 1 in addition to winning Wimbledon, as Borg in 1977, it is also for having won more titles than anyone (8 among them also the WTC Finals) and having obtained more ATP Points than anyone, in both cases as Vilas in 1977.

The heading of this article says: "World-number-one male tennis-player rankings is a year-by-year listing of the male tennis players who, at the end of a full year of play, have GENERALLY been considered to be the best overall for the entire year" I do not see that Borg has been generally considered as No. 1 since 4 or more sources (not 1, not 2 like in ohter years) mention Vilas, who, as if that were not enough, was the most winning tennis player of the global season. It is not about having 2 or more sources, if you have a sufficient number to show that the case is not generally agreed. Borg N°1 is not generally agreed.

By the way, Barret was the editor of World of Tennis by ITF in 1977, a book that I own in my library and there is not a word from him about No. 1. Some source? Mtin76 (talk) 16:13, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

John Barret: "Guillermo clearly deserved to be number one when winning Roland Garros and the US Open in 1977"

In Spanish:

http://www.ambito.com/699999-exigen-a-la-atp-que-reconozca-a-vilas-como-n-1-de-1977. Mtin76 (talk) 17:13, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

I am doing an extensive review of this matter including re-reading TennisWarehouse stuff and expect to post my opinions/information later tonight.Informed analysis (talk) 19:12, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

Based on extensively reviewing many pages at Tennis Warehouse (where Mtin76 is very active and forceful) and Men's Tennis Forums (where he is also active) including accessing several links to newspapers and seeing other people refer to certain rankings plus visiting a reference library to see Bud Collins Tennis Encyoclopedia, the following would summarize journalist rankings:

The official ATP Point System based on average points earned per event had Connors #1, Vilas #2, Borg #3 and Geruliatus #4. If total points was used Vilas would be #1 and Brian Gottfried #2. In early 1978, Tennis Magazine (France), Tennis Magazine (U.S.), Lance Tingay of the London Daily Telegraph, Rino Tommasi of Rome's Tennis Club magazine, Joe McCauley of Tennis Australia, Judith Elian of L’Equipe (Paris), and Barry Lorge of Washington Post all ranked Borg #1 with Vilas #2 (except Tommasi placed Connors #2 and Vilas #3). Bud Collins ranked Borg #1 from 1978 until at least 1997 after which he changed his mind to Vilas but he continued to write "most tennis authorities chose Borg." In 1978, World Tennis, Michael Sutter, France Presse, Tennis de France and and Eugene L. Scott’s book Gros Plans Sur le Tennis ranked Vilas #1. The ATP itself awarded Borg "Player of The Year". In 1994’s Le Livre d’ordeu Tennis Christian Collis and Bernard Ficot rate Vilas #1. In 2013, John Barrett chose Vilas as #1 and the Tennis Hall of Fame exhibit refers to Vilas as the real #1. In 1978, Vitas Gerulaitus and Rod Laver are quoted as saying Borg was #1 for 1977.

In summary, in 1978, 7 rank Borg #1 PLUS the members of the ATP voted Borg player of the year which should be given extra weight. All these sources are viewable or have 2 or more people referrring to them. 5 rank Vilas #1 but the evidence for the Tennis de France and Michael Sutter rankings is non-existent as far as I can find and the statement in the book Gros Plans Sur le Tennis says "surely most experts will rank Vilas #1". I recall seeing the Tennis Hall of Fame statement when I was there.

Mtn76 - can you not provide better evidence of Tennis de France and Michael Sutter?

What do you think Fyunck?Informed analysis (talk) 04:21, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

I would say one other thing... which would actually be in Connors defense. In every chart or record book you will find that lists all the year-end No. 1s, you will not see an explanation, you will not see an asterisk... all you will see is the name Jimmy Connors. Yeah the sources at the time mostly said Borg and as years have gone by, and Vilas and his biographer have sued the ATP and complained often, his name gets more attention. That's fine and dandy. But the almanacs and encyclopedias all say Connors... including Bud Collins book and ESPN. It's not easy to dismiss that fact even though historians and the press disagree. The thing is we only have this one editor upset about the ranking as it now stands and he's been vocal about it for a year and a half. No one else seems to want it changed, or at least they haven't spoken up about it. Fyunck(click) (talk) 05:01, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

fyunck, apologies if it bothers you that i want to provide data that had not yet been provided. I do it in many places and I will continue doing it. This same article started with Connors as No. 1 in the beginning, then had Vilas and Borg comparing No. 1, then only Borg. Several people have changed it, you can look at the records. If I had not been "upset", nobody here would know that France Presse or Tennis de France named Vilas N ° 1, for example. It is not my intention to disturb anyone.Mtin76 (talk) 05:16, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

Adding the data is fine, but how relevant it is... is another story. Vilas' case is the minority view, even if plentiful. It has certainly got two of us talking about it but not convincing us he was the best player that season. I was (and still am) hoping for a few more eyes on the topic to see if others agree with your arguments. Fyunck(click) (talk) 05:26, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

Informed Analysis, Michel Sutter in the books Vanquieurs (1991) and Les Millieurs du Tennis - 50 champions (1979). Tennis de France in its 300th edition (25 years) if I remember correctly. On the other hand, Livre D'or du Tennis has several editions per year, for example the 1978 edition, which named Borg as the best of that year (another source to being into account for 1978,In addition to the World Tennis that erased me). And the one from 1977 that chose Vilas as the best of that year. Nor should we forget that "Livre D'or ..." is signed by two historians, Bernard Ficot and Christian Collin. And do not forget that in World Tennis voted a dome of journalists with Gladys Hedman, Steve Flink, Neil Amdur and Michael Finley in the lead. Also had Christian Quidet in La fabuleuse histoire du Tennis (1984). Also had Fillipo Radichi in the "Tennis Prestige" Ranking published in Plos One. Also had TeTennisBase in your TB ranking, as already mentioned. Also had hungarian specialist Karoly Mazak in "The Concise History of Tennis", as already mentioned, who co-ranked Vilas and Borg as N°1, in a Solomonic decision that I still believe is the most fair.

Anyway ... we can keep looking for more, I have no problem. We would continue by colect sources, just like we did in Warehouse (and you saw it), even forgetting about the most important thing (what they did on the court) and perhaps it would be 15-13, or 18-14, to say a number, just like we did in Warehouse (and you saw it). And the reality would be the same, as it became clear to me in the Warehouse forums: There is no clear N ° 1' Regards.Mtin76 (talk) 06:08, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

Hello Mtin76 - thank you for the above information. However, unfortunately, myself and the other active tennis editors (who are on the tennis project page and I will likely put a message there to get their attention) are not all going to go out and buy each of the books that you list above. You need to try to provide some type of link to the key pages of the books that make statements about their 1977 rankings. As well, the purpose of the page is to record what tennis experts/journalists active in 1977 decided at the end of the 1977 tennis year (early 1978) not 10 or 20 years later. It should be shown that these book's authors did rankings each year not just at one time in 1984 and 2005 going backwards in time. That is why the Concise History does not really does not apply. Tennisbase has done statistical analysis in recent years which does not reflect the conditions and beliefs of the players (who played to the ranking system in place) and the journalists in 1977. The Tennis Prestige Rankings rankings also appear to have been done in the last 10 or 15 years, not yearly back in the 70s and we cannot see what their criteria or methods is/was. The fact their method selects Borg in 1974 and Nadal in 2007 shows they are using methodology that is not compatible at all with most tennis authorities as those were runaway years for Connors and Federer. So please try to provide actual documents about what certain experts decided in 1978 including the Michael Sutter ranking. Neither him nor any other of the ones you are citing were cited in any other years for this article.Informed analysis (talk) 19:30, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

Hello Informed Analysis. According your criteria:

1977 – the panel of ATP Award chose Borg. Rino Tomassi chose Borg. Lance Tingay chose Borg. Tennis Magazine (France) chose Borg. Barry Lorgue chose Borg. Ok. Joe McAuley chose Borg? (no source, in 1971 or 72 he take a rest and stopping made rankings), John Barret Chose Borg? (No source, in 2012 chose Vilas). Bud Collins chose Borg in 1997 (Collins Encyclopedia). Then Collins himself chose Vilas in many articles and interviews. Judith Elian chose Borg (source of the ranking?).

Gladys Heldman, Steve Flink, Neil Amdur and the panel of World Tennis agreed on named Vilas. The panel of France Presse vote Vilas. We had more than two, three or four specialist here who agreed Vilas was N°1. Bernard Ficot and Christian Collin in Livre D’or du Tennis chose Vilas. Gene Scott Named Vilas.

Tennis de France chose Vilas? Not invented by me. It is named by various users in Warehouse. If you ask sources about this, aso you must provide the sources about Joe McCauley and Bud Collins (any ranking published before 1997). Barret must be deleted.

Since Vilas had a lot of specialist in World Tennis, France Presse and Livre D’or du Tennis, they are anough to refute that Borg was generally considered as N°1. Tingay (one person), Tennis Magazine, ATP, Barry Lorgue (one peson) and and Rino Tomassi (one person) are strong sources. The others, not.

Then, again according you criteria (more sources had a N°1, rankings ho didnt count entire year like Grand Prix doesnt count, new sources didnt count):

1964: a Point system of 19 tounraments who missed almost other then are named (the Grand Prix had +80 tournaments, and didnt count???) in favour to Rosewall. MCauley named Rosewall N°1, Geist Co-Named Rosewall and Laver (in which year?). The article shows Laver and Rosewall both as N°1, even Rosewall had the edge on sources, Laver had better success in all year, but just. Its no clear N°1. Fact.

1970 – WTC ranks (WTC can be named and not Grand Prix by ITF???) Laver #1, rosewall #2, Necombe #3. Robert Geist ranked Laver, Rosewall and Newcombe, all three as N°1 (in what year?). The article shows the three as N°1.

1971 – Lance Tingay ranked Newccombe. Bud Collins ranked Newcombe. The Martini-Rossi award ranked Smith and Necombe. Illie Nastase (????) ranked Smith. Judith Elian co-ranked Smith and Necombe. Most sources for Newcombe. Smith not receive any award in solitarie, but the Nastase (?????) vote. Both are N°1 in this article.

2012 – ATP ranking was Nadal #1, Djokovic #2. ITF (wich not take into account all entire year but majors and Davis Cup – so, again, the Grand Prix by ITF???) chose Djokovic, Tennis Magazine ranked NAdal #1 and Djokovic #2. This article shows BOTH as N°1, even when Nadal had more sources and ITF didn’t count the entire year.

If WTC, Us Pro Circuit and ITF (none of them counts the entire year) are taken into account, the Grand Prix (official circuit by ITF) must be, as reference. if it was not done before, and the others are, it's a mistake.

Vilas was #1 of Grand Prix. Gottfried #2, Borg #3. Casually, the same thing happens in the summ of ATP Points. Vilas #1, Gottfried #2, Borg #3. Fact.

Finally, according the original article criteria (World-number-one male tennis-player rankings is a year-by-year listing of the male tennis players who, at the end of a full year of play, have generally been considered to be the best overall for the entire year):

If in 1964, 1971 and 2012 there is a co-ranked N°1, even with some with more sources in favor than others. In all cases it is shown that No. 1 wasnt generalized. In 1977 Exactly the same thing happens. at least Three media sources that I provide shows this in their headlines:

“Whos Number 1? Let's draws straws” Boca Ratón Newss, 18 january 1978.

https://news.google.com/newspapers?id=JetYAAAAIBAJ&sjid=mowDAAAAIBAJ&hl=es&pg=5022%2C3134964

“Who is the best tennis player 1977? The controversy still stands.” El Mundo Deportivo, Barcelona, Spain, 12 january 1978.

https://twitter.com/MartinCQ5/status/960762766582800385

"Masters didnt decide who is the first tennis player in the world." Jornal do Brasil, Río de Janeiro, 11 january 1978.

https://news.google.com/newspapers?id=2pQmAAAAIBAJ&sjid=xBEEAAAAIBAJ&hl=es&pg=1140%2C3053428

Only the members of World Tennis and France Presse are enough for refute the consensus of Borg N°1.

others two Wikipedia users are already supported my edition, as you know because you send a private message to one asking him to stop editing. I didnt have to make any message to get their attention. At this point, the stubbornness in seeing reality is not understood, denying sources contributed, maintaining sources without sustenance (Barret, Collins ...) using arguments in 1977 that were not used in other years.

About 1974: I show you already a note for Argentine journalist Eduardo Puppo mentioning the World Tennis Magazine rankings, who names Vilas N°2.

About 1975: Vilas was N°2 of ATP Ranking and also the #2 in the sum of ATP points. And was the #1 of the Grand Prix by FIT. Enough.

About 1989: Used the 2012 criteria, Becker and Lendl had to be co-ranked N°1. Lendl even had more distinctions to Novak (N°1 ATP Ranking, N°1 Grand Prix) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mtin76 (talk • contribs) 23:00, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

just out of respect, I'll wait a reasonable time for you or someone to modify the article in a sensible way, obviously placing both Borg and Vilas (if any want Connors too i dont care, iven when i think he is below the others two) in the first place. However, I will take whatever measures are necessary. Greetings.

(On the other hand, stop editing my comments, I do not do it, read and then answer below)

Mtin76 (talk) 22:25, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

As a side note - The two editors you mentioned that supported your position were blatant sockpuppets, banned from Wikipedia. blocked and blocked. They deserved the warning to stop editing. As for the article, I made an example for 1977... it could be done this way if editors concur. Fyunck(click) (talk) 22:57, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

Not my first choice, but like i said, iven this is more fair to put only Borg. Have to fixed the inside. About Barret, McCauley, Livre D'or Du Tennis, Eugene Scott, Barry Lorge, at least. USTA ranking had to be named to suport Connors. Grand Prix had to be named, or at least it must be named that Vilas was champion of shuch circuit. Vilas open era record of 130 wins in a year also had to named. Regards Mtin76 (talk) 23:41, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

Mtn 76 - why do you keep typing reems and reems of wordage. Why can you not keep things short and to the point? Did not read my proposed summary from last night? I already took Barrett out of the list. How am I supposed to know MacCauley stopped doing rankings in 1972 - he has been listed in other years for 8 years on this site - why did you not point this out before? I'm doing my best to do an unbiased job here (you are obviously biased). Why do you start talking about olther years when we are discussing 1977? You are totally obsessed and frustrating. Now, some of the journalists rankings you are questioning were specifically in all the documents and links at Tennis warehouse that another person gave you in October. I said I reviewed them last night - go back there an find them again yourself. If editors on the main tennis project page come over here and read this stuff (your endless arguing) they will just think you are crazy. And stop insisting that a subsidiary cicruit (Grand Prix) should be listed - the overall ATP numbers cover all the events for the year! It has never been done in this article before. Please relax for a day or so.Informed analysis (talk) 01:13, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

Also - I already agreed that Vilas could be added as a No. 2 for 1974. For 1975, none of the 6 or 7 experts rated Vilas higher than 5. All of them have the other 3 number 2 candidates interchangeably 2 or 3 or 4. Please leave it alone. And for 1989, the ATP members AND the ITF and World Tennis and Bud Collins all picked Becker at No. 1! Please leave that alone.Informed analysis (talk) 01:27, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

I'm being totally partial here. Or do you see me saying that Vilas must be above Borg? My point is that Borg's No. 1 is not generally consensual, is that partial? How will I not talk about other years if it use rankings that were not from that year and co-ranked players without hte same sources? How will I not name the Grand Prix (even if it's a reference) if it use Tours and awards that do not count all year? where did they show McCauley on Warehouse? where they showed Bud Collins that was not for 1997 on warehouse? I'm pretty calm, dont worry. Otherwise I would have already edited the article 100 times and I didnt do it. In fact tomorrow I'm going on vacation. That's why I said, I'll wait a prudential time. You did not read me?

btw, probably most of the editors of Tennis Project would end up getting along with me, even you could invite me. Regards

Mtin76 (talk) 01:42, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

and Barret is still on the list. bye Mtin76 (talk) 01:55, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

Yes, in the summary/list I prepared and sent last night it says "Barrett supported Vilas as #1 in 2013" Please read. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Informed analysis (talk • contribs) 02:06, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

i mean the wikipedia list. Your list seems more accurated. Mtin76 (talk) 16:06, 9 February 2018 (UTC)152.169.62.253 (talk) 14:38, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

I really don't see what you are trying to achieve here. I don't see any encyclopedic value of this article at all. You can continue to discuss this endlessly, but you're never going to find the unanimous number one because this is an entirely subjective manner. This sort of article is the exact reason why policies like WP:SYNTH and WP:VERIFY were ever written. Instead of having articles like these, were wikipedia editors make there own synthesis of was the best player in a given year, we should limit ourselves to articles which actually list players who actually held an official no 1 world ranking on an official world ranking. Those have encyclopedic value, this article hasn't.Tvx1 00:38, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

I 100% disagree with this. Of course there is no unanimous No. 1, but there is almost always a consensus number one and you can find them in print. And there are 2 or 3 subjective sources that are used in books and magazines for their listing of No. 1s all throughout tennis history. And even your "official no 1 world ranking" isn't so official when it is officially ignored by the same agency that gave it out. The rankings given here match historical rankings 99% of the time, but there are a few like 1977 where the consensus is shaky by tennis authorities. That's where we have a sticking point... just a couple out of 141 years. It's why I suggested that we just list all when tennis authorities can't agree to any reasonable degree. Fyunck(click) (talk) 01:20, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

Tvx1 - I don't understand your statement that this article has no encyclopedic value at all. Did you read the explanatory text at the start of the article? Do you know tennis history? There were no official point rankings until 1973 and then, because those were based on a point system that undervalued the truly most important events, the body controlling that ranking system 4 times in a row and then again in 82 and 89 named a different player as the top player. This article has listed the top ranked players by a few different tennis journalists/experts in the years up until 1990 or so. Should there be a separate article for each tennis journalist stating their yearly top player rankings? When I found this article 3 or 4 years ago I thought it was priceless and it would continue to be as such if some editors didn't come up with the names of books or journalists that no one else has ever heard of just to support their personal view for 1 year. Informed analysis (talk) 02:39, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

Because it's in breach of policy right from the start. It's some wikipedians synthesis of who some journalists subjectively considered the best player of the year in question.Tvx1 18:18, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

Men's ranking authorities

Men's Number 1 Players for various years - does anyone know where complete yearly rankings by any tennis authorities (aside from ATP and ITF) can actually be found on the internet? I cannot find any. This link for female players got many lists inserted into it right up until the 1980s, but there is no men's article like this. See: netlibrary.net/articles/world_number_one_female_tennis_player_rankings

In particular, does any one have a reliable ranking of the top 5 or so players by a tennis expert NOT already listed for 1974 in this men's article? It needs to be decided whether Borg and/or Vilas should or should not be listed alongside John Newcombe as No. 2 for that year. Frankly, for that year there should almost be no number 2 player as no one really achieved much throughout the entire year at all aside from Connors that year. Bud Collins actually had no no. 1 for 1990 and listed 3 players at no. 2 for that year.Informed analysis (talk) 23:23, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

You do realize I hope, that the link you supplied for the women uses Wikipedia as its source? Fyunck(click) (talk) 23:51, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Well, you must think I'm quite an idiot! :) Obviously, I have not looked at the women's page on wikipedia for a long, long time. So going in and finding out when John Barrett's rankings were added up until the 1990, I see "Tennis Expert" inserted them (for ladies). I wonder why that person did not insert (or have them) for the men. Heck, mtn was claiming Barrett stopped doing rankings in 1971 or 72 meaning his 77 Borg ranking was incorrect. I just wish there was an easy way to get some more rankings. A couple of the respected books aren't in my public library system (Toronto) - only Bud Collins' is.Informed analysis (talk) 01:35, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, it's tough to find some of those old books. There is no question that first, Myers, and later, Tingay, were the pinnacle of rankings for many years. Fyunck(click) (talk) 01:47, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

Well, what do you think should happen for 74 no. 2? Mtn had argued Vilas should be co no. 2 and I said last week I did not object. The ATP ave point system has Newcombe at No. 2 as does "Tennis" (US) but then one expert each picks Borg and Vilas, and Vilas has the most total points if the Master's win was included. Tinguay picking Rosewall just because he beat Newcombe at US and Wimbledon seems a bit out there. Informed analysis (talk) 01:54, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

The more pertinent question would be why do we list the no. 2's at all? There is no mention of no. 2 ranked players in the article title and the article title defines the scope of the article.--Wolbo (talk) 02:21, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

I totally disagree with removing the number 2 ranked player column. Its been there 8 or 10 years and I think it is very useful. Informed analysis (talk) 03:02, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

It is never useful, in an encyclopedic sense, to list information that falls outside the scope of an article as defined by its title. If an article is titled 'List of apples' it should not list any pears, ergo if an article is titled 'World number 1 ranked male tennis players' it should not list no. 2 ranked players (or no.3, no. 4 etc). That it has done so for many years highlights the deficiency of this artcle but is not a valid reason to keep it so.--Wolbo (talk) 03:35, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

I'm not sure what standard encyclopedias do in this case... I'd have to look around. I find it useful myself, and when I look at other wikipedia articles I find List of Presidents of the United States that also lists vice presidents. I see List of NBA champions that also shows the second place finisher. List of Super Bowl champions also shows the losing non-champions. List of French Open men's singles champions also shows the 2nd place finishers. List of men's World Curling champions shows 2nds and thirds. There is certainly precedent to allow the table to list the 2nd choice even though the article title does not encompass it. Fyunck(click) (talk) 09:32, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

Just to clarify: I never said that Barret stopped to made rankings in 1972, but McCauley. its said on tennis forums Mtin76 (talk) 22:02, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

On the other hand, in the new edition of 1977, he says that Tingay places Connors No. 2, and actually places Vilas just behind Borg: "for the world ranking of 1976 it was a fine point if Bjorn Borg and Jimmy Connors should be classified as the number one player of the year For 1977 it was an even finer point if the top should go to Borg or Guillermo Vilas ". Source of World of Tennis Book by ITF.

https://twitter.com/MartinCQ5/status/964988643734622208

the one that placed Connors as No. 2 in his statistic average ranking of 1977 was Rino Tomassi. Mtin76 (talk) 22:25, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

Comment Whilst we are discussing different sources for these rankings you do realize that players ranked No 1 per the sources given here for 1877 to 1913 have been removed from the all the players articles in question when the book source has been used and been cited and the edit summary given "rankings didn't start till 1913" so whats the point of this article then.--Navops47 (talk) 08:17, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

It looks like only "some" of the rankings have been removed. Not sure why. Just add them back and we can keep an eye on it in case it happens again. Goodness, there has to be some flexibility with ancient tennis history, plus most can be confirmed by the Tennis Hall of Fame rankings. Fyunck(click) (talk) 10:07, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Wolbo - I am no sure what you are getting at with your request for certain citations in 1977. The rankings of all those for Borg except for Borge, Elian and Laver have all been there for 8 or 10 years - I found their original entry (and Borge and Elian are listed in other years with no citation). I've seen the article where their ranking for 1977 is mentioned (plus saw Laver's quote). World Tennis and Sutter has also been there for 8 or 10 years. The reference to total points is not speculative - its is clearly available in the 1977 Grand Prix/ATP article. Informed analysis (talk) 18:08, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

I even sent a message to the person who originally added all the Barrett and Elian rankings asking where they can be found and he did not respond. Plus see the requests I made above in talk. Informed analysis (talk) 18:15, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

The general rule is that if you have a statement in an article that could "reasonably" be challenged, it should have a source. And that source must be from outside Wikipedia. There are poor sources, good sources, and great sources, and if possible we should always strive for the latter. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:41, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Fyunk - Let's let wolbo respond to what I have asked. You have not addressed what he has challenged and my question about it, because you do not know what he is thinking.Informed analysis (talk) 20:02, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Perhaps you should enlighten all of us since this is a public talk page. In fact, here is what was changed/removed (from the 1977 section) by Wolbo so that anyone can comment:

"If total points was used Vilas would be No. 1." –They never used total points so this is simply fluff and shouldn't be in an encyclopedia.

"Tennis Magazine (France), Tennis Magazine (U.S.), Lance Tingay of London Daily Telegraph, Rino Tommasi of Tennis Club Magazine (Rome), Bud Collins, John Barrett of London Financial Times, Judith Elian of L'Equipe (Paris), Barry Lorge of Washington Post and Rod Laver rated Borg No. 1." –Wolbo wants a source for these claims, which is not unreasonable. If the sources are full lists for many years it could simply be footnoted at the section bottom as opposed to linking it each and every time.

"World Tennis; France Presse, Tennis de France, and Le Livre d'or du Tennis by Michael Collin and Bernard Ficot, and Michael Sutter ranked Vilas No. 1." –Same as above.

"Almost all sources had Connors No. 3 except Tomassi had him No. 2. The ATP itself awarded Borg "Player of The Year". In 1984, Christian Quidet in La fabuleuse historie du Tennis ranked Vilas No. 1." –Same as above.

"By the 2010s Collins and Barrett were quoted as saying Vilas deserved No. 1." –This should be sourced.

"and the International Tennis Hall of Fame inscription for Vilas stated "it was generally considered Vilas was the real No. 1 for 1977". Fillipo Radichi of PLOS One Magazine rated Borg's and Vilas's seasons equal and in 2016 John Burn-Murdoch of the Financial Times rated Vilas ahead of Borg, but based it on the 1977 ATP points allocation for various tournaments, which was widely agreed to be inaccurate, that being the reason why various magazines' and experts' rankings were, and are, given precedence. In 2017 Karoly Mazak co-ranked both Borg and Vilas No. 1 capturing the evolving opinion. Sourcing for all of this." – This section was left intact.

When a set of rankings is put up as a statement it should be sourced. All sections should be done this way, but especially for highly contentious, likely challenged sections. Do I know what Wolbo was thinking... no. But I know what I was thinking. Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:34, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Fyunk - all I am going to say is that throughout the article there are sources that have been in their for 8 or 10 years, and there has never been a need to reference each one. Elian and Borge are cited elsewhere without any reference. Your last comment seems to say that Borg being the ATP player of the year needs sourcing and that Karoly Mazak's ranking, cited dozens of times elsewhere needs a reference. It would be useful if you think a little and be reasonable in what you demand. You know very well, that Mtn wanted massive changes and that I resisted them and read through all kinds of documents before devising this reasonable end point. Virtually all of those documents are in the talk page - go take a look at them. Informed analysis (talk) 20:52, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

What I am 'getting at' is verifiability, a core content requirement of all wiki articles and one of the main weaknesses of this article. It means, as Fyunck(click) basically describes, that all statements in an article which can reasonably be challenged must be supported by a reliable source, in the form of specific inline citations. This allows the reader to verify that claims and statements made in an article are correct and accurate by checking the source (e.g. website, book, magazine). Your last sentence "I even sent a message to the person who originally added all the Barrett and Elian rankings asking where they can be found..." perfectly demonstrates the need for proper citations (also called references). Content that is not properly sourced can be tagged by any editor or even deleted. An article without sufficient reliable sourcing is simply not encyclopedic. This article does have a generic list of sources but almost completely lacks inline citations (the fact that it has done so for a long period does not make it right). I am particularly interested in the reliable sources used to support the no. 1 ranked players for the period 1946 to 1967. If you want examples of properly sourced articles take a look at the only two featured articles that the tennis project has: Milos Raonic and 1877 Wimbledon Championship.--Wolbo (talk) 21:22, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Fyunuk and Wolbo - if you wants citations added you go to the talk page and find them and insert them - most of them are there.Informed analysis (talk) 20:56, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

In fact, I wash my hands of this 1977 mess - you guys do whatever you want with it. I'm done.Informed analysis (talk) 21:03, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Washing your hands is sad to hear, as i generally like what you are attempting to do. You are correct, most have been there 8 or 10 years. But it's not that there was never a need to source them properly... there was always a need, it just hadn't been done. Since you are taking the time to re-write things it would be best that with the re-write also came correct sourcing. You don't have to do it for the old stuff, others can take on that task. But any new material should come with a source. You do have a point though. We are not supposed to simply put in a "source needed" statement. If one is readily available (like on the talk page in the current conversations) then add that rather than saying "source needed." Wolbo (or I) could use those just as easily as you can and the onus shouldn't just be on you. But Karoly Mazak rankings are another matter entirely. That is a self-published work that we try to avoid. If there is absolutely 100% nothing else we do use it, just like we use Rollo's statements at "Tennis Forums". But if anything else can be found then they should not even be mentioned. Mazak should not be in the 1977 section imho. This goes unless the author of the self-published work has been mentioned in other reliable sources (like newspapers, books, or magazines) as a verified expert in the field. Fyunck(click) (talk) 21:20, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Vilas '77 wins

Hello Fyunck. checking the tennisbase database, which is much wider than that of the same ATP, I found:

Vilas won a total of 22 tournaments (16 for ATP, record for ATP titles in one year) in 1977. SHARE YOU: https://twitter.com/MartinCQ5/status/966520610745716738

Vilas has a record of 151-14 win / loss in 1977. SHARE YOU: https://twitter.com/MartinCQ5/status/966524608542380032

Borg won a total of 13 tournaments (11 for ATP) in 1977. SHARE YOU: https://twitter.com/MartinCQ5/status/966526613855834112

Therefore, the 22 titles of Vilas in 1977 reach the record of Laver in 1967 that you had mentioned previously in the edit article. RegardsMtin76 (talk) 04:34, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

If that's the source you're using, six of those events were exhibition events... some with only 2 players... so they wouldn't count. The Tennis Base is very suspect in it's tournament class ratings, so maybe some weren't exhibitions... but if that's your source those 6 wouldn't count. Fyunck(click) (talk) 04:54, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

Bud Collins History of Tennis says Borg had 13 titles out of 21 with 81-7 and Vilas had 17 titles out of 32 with a 145-14 record. As Fyunk says, the other 4 Vilas titles Mtn talks about were exhibitions some with 2 players - those do not count. The 17 titles for Vilas includes Rye and and 13 for Borg includes 2 significant titles for Borg not listed on ATP site. Collin's numbers are the ones that should be used.Informed analysis (talk) 05:19, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

I can acept to quite the one tournament to 2 players (Aux en Providence International against Ilie Nastase. the other 21 tournaments, if Tennisbase is not enough, i even found two important sources that name them the same as the 13 vicories of Borg (two of them also in exhos) and the 8 for Connors:

"Let's look at the numbers. Though Connors won eight of the 21 tournaments he entered, his match record for the year was only 70-11, not as good as Borg's (13 victories in 20 tournaments, 78-8 in matches) and Vilas', who played just about every waking minute in compiling his 139-14 match record and 21 wins in 34 tournaments." (Sports Illustrated, January 16, 1978)

https://www.si.com/vault/1978/01/16/822302/and-it-was-still-three-for-one-although-jimmy-connors-won-the-colgate-grand-prix-he-failed-to-settle-the-vexing-question-of-whos-no-1--he-borg-or-vilas#

"To give the No. 1 to Vilas, "World Tennis" is based on the 21 tournaments won by the Argentine " (El Mundo Deportivo of Barcelona Spain, January 16, 1978)

https://twitter.com/MartinCQ5/status/960762766582800385

Mtin76 (talk) 05:48, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

Anyway, Vilas has the record of more ATP tournaments in a season with 16, at least.Mtin76 (talk) 05:52, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

Inconsistent spelling of "World number 1"

This article contains a confusing amount of different spelling styles for the words "World number 1". The title says "World number 1". The first words of the article are "World-number-one". Further down we have first five occurrences of "world No. 1", followed by "world number 1". Then "world No. 1" again. After that "the World's No.1" (okay, this one is a quote). And finally, the table headers in the "Records" section say "World Number One". Are some of these objectively false, and can we bring the rest into line? DEnigma (talk) 15:27, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

Obviously the title can be spelled out in full. Standard English shortened notation would be "world No. 1." That should be standard throughout all tennis articles and I correct it when I find it. Usually all you see is No. 1 without the word world attached. Quotes are a different matter and are usually done as you find the quote (although quotes can be misspelled by the quote-taker, so i would tend to make sure the words match rather than the spelling). Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:21, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

I fixed the ones I could find. There were also a few #1 notations which we do not use. Many people have edited this article through the years, each with their own style. Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:34, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for that. It wasn't my intention to make someone else do it, just to gather input, but I appreciate it. I guess next time I have to be more bold and just do it ;) DEnigma (talk) 06:52, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

→

Archive 9

Sources