Talk:World number 1 ranked male tennis players/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Certainly getting old with all the back and forth edits

{{User:ClueBot III/ArchiveNow}} Boy it gets old seeing the same thing and same set of years being edited and re-edited. I'm about to ask administration to lock the page for a month where only they can edit it upon request. If that doesn't work I'll ask for two months. I'll bet I could cut in half every section from 1945 to 1990 and editors would still know who won what. I really don't want to see any more back and forth edits from the late 40s to the early 60s. Work on 1900 to 1930 if you want to add something to the men's article. Really work on the ladies article at World number 1 ranked female tennis players which is bare compared to the guys. Fyunck(click) (talk) 21:31, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

Fyunck, Tennishistory and myself have added new information and found many contemporary rankings which were unknown before, and this has changed our perception of annual rankings. This means that previous factual errors have been eliminated, which can only be a good thing, we should be grateful for this new information. The annual information we now have for the late 1950's years are no longer than the accounts for 1975 or 1977, just take a look. We have trimmed 1959 into line with the other years, and 1960 is now longer than 1959. I would ask editors to please do not remove the Gonzales statement on 1955 without discussion. Tennishistory claims that Gonzales' own statement which I referred to was contradicted by himself...please show that statement, otherwise the comment by Gonzales should be reinstated.Tennisedu (talk) 05:22, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

Fyunck, just looking at the amount of information, I think that we have done enough work on it for quite some time. I support the idea of a freeze for a while. The tennis years from about 1946 to 1980 probably represent the most active and interesting tennis era. Many of the greatest players peaked in that period, so it is no wonder that the years yield the most material.Tennisedu (talk) 06:14, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

I would welcome a freeze on that time period but I would vehemently disagree that 46 to 80 is the most active or the most interesting. A lot depends on the time period one lives in, but I always found the 1920s and 1930s had some of the greatest players ever to walk the earth. And that's mens and womens tennis. Each era has it's charms, misunderstood players, controversies, etc and reading about the 1920s, and having watched the 1980s and 90s, they are every bit as fascinating as any other decade. The only thing a bit disappointing is that a sport like baseball can be looked at as similar from decade to decade and generation to generation. Wood bats and wound leather balls, grass fields and dirt pitching mounds. Very minor changes. Tennis courts and rules and equipment make comparing years from the past impossible... it has changed so much. Even tournaments and their importance have changed. But's all still great. Fyunck(click) (talk) 10:38, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

I agree to the page lock fyunck. Whilst I have added rankings to this page, I have finished that now. Tennisedu did make some worthwhile contributions to this page, but he has run out of anything useful to say on this page and is not adding anything of value now. I think the page has reduced in size already, though its important all rankings are listed. Tennisedu, if you are looking to continue editing pre-open era old tennis greats, I suggest the Bill Tilden page. A lot could be added to that. Both tennisedu and fyunck seem to have strong views on best eras. I research all eras and dont have strong allegiances, though I do feel the era to come (without Federer, Nadal & Djokovic) will probably be the least interesting era since WW1. Tennishistory1877 (talk) 11:21, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

I would freeze further information, although if there are corrections needed to existing information which is found to be in factual error, that should be allowed. Your reference to Gonzales contradicting himself in "Man with a Racket" needs clarification, because while Gonzales did refer to 1957 and, I believe 1958, in that book as "national pro championship", he makes it clear that there was no national pro tournament in 1955. Kramer's disagreement with this view came in a 1979 book, and we know that Kramer could change his views over the years. Tennishistory, where do you see the Gonzales self-contradiction?Tennisedu (talk) 18:30, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

I see that Wolbo has emptied 1947 due to lack of sources. That is a major edit. The same problem exists for 1957. Are we going to empty 1957 also, to be consistent?Tennisedu (talk) 18:38, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

I see that Fyunck has reverted the 1947 and 1957 changes by referencing brief comments about "pro champion" in newspapers. Simply referring to a player as a "pro champion" does not constitute a RANKING of players, and was never intended by the newspaper authors to represent a ranking of players. In many years on this page, the titled "world champion", a term which is sometimes used to apply to two or more different pro players in the same year, is not the deciding factor for the world rankings. I know that Fyunck would like to stretch the boundaries of what constitutes a "ranking", but casual references to "the champion" do not meet the requirement. Fyunck, where do you see a term "World No. 1" in your cited sources? I do not see any numerical ranking in your sources. As you recall, we have had this discussion before above.Tennisedu (talk) 19:29, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

As has been said over and over, those are the best we have for a murky time period. All the Kramer rankings were very subjective at the time since it was his tour. And guess what... the point standings by the ATP in the 1970s and 80s was never intended to be a year end ranking either. There are lots of things that aren't intended. We have plenty of newspapers that wrote about players being in the top spot in the world before the Open Era and we have to show flexibility in that era. "Looking for the exact term "world No. 1" is really juvenile in this conversation and I'll bet many years don't have that exact terminology. Newsprint considered certain players as the best in certain periods of time and we could change the entire section heading to represent that. The Hall of Fame by absolute subtraction states that Gonzales was No 1 in 1957, since we know it can't be 1953. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:52, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

Fyunck, any RANKING uses numerical descriptions, that is what a ranking is. We DO have many rankings in this era, there is no need to squeeze a casual reference to "the champion" into some kind of a ranking, that is not what was intended and it does not do the job needed here. A ranking is a SERIES of players. We do have a numerical ranking showing Gonzales at No. 1 for 1953, it is right here on the page under the 1953 section. The concepts of "world champion" and "world No. 1" were well-defined and very different in the contemporary literature, as we have shown on this page.Tennisedu (talk) 19:59, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

No they don't and they haven't in many cases. The ATP used "player of the year" to convey the best tennis player, and magazines have don the same. You are really getting nickpicky with this. And I guess we should put Gonzales as No 1 for 1953 as well? But we don't because of conflicting writers telling us otherwise. And those terms were not always different and not well defined. You know that but your hatred and love of certain players and your fixation on a 15 year period shows you are not the one to make unbiased decisions. I see no flexibility at all from you when it comes to the pros and our meager sources. We could remove all pro information from these charts and use only amateur rankings. But we are using magazines words and newspapers words and Tennis Hall of Fame words to build these charts as best we can. Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:06, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

We have found many rankings for the 1950's, often more than one ranking list per year, so it was a well-developed concept at that time. The concept of "world champion" was also well-defined, as the winner of the world tours, although there was not always a world tour per year. But they had no concept of "Player of the Year", which is only a recent idea. We should not force anachronistic concepts onto these records, it takes us well away from what they were actually talking about.Tennisedu (talk) 20:23, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

Recent? The term is 45 years old. Just more recent than the 1950s. And World Champion was not well defined back then. Newspapers and magazines would use interchangeable terms in describing players. It was not etched in stone for the pro players and you know it. Who contemporary tennis writers and historians felt was the best player in the world might be very different than what Jack Kramer thought. We use the best sources we can. Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:59, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

Tennisedu, Gonzales in Man with a racket (after your quote) says the number of national pro titles he had won which is consistent with 1955 being the national pro title. Kramer (in his autobiography) says specifically 1955 Cleveland was US Pro. There are also newspaper articles. Man with a racket does not have the best standard of copy-editing. No point in going round and round the same arguments, there is nothing new in this talk thread that hasn't been said before. We have a good article now, slimmed down to top 2 players and as well sourced as is possible (I am the first to admit the pro tour rankings are not ideal but they are the best we have). Just lock the page and move on. Tennishistory1877 (talk) 20:29, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

Agreed. Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:59, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

Strongly disagree. The article is in a much better shape, or I should say less worse shape, than one or two years ago but it still has severe issues which have not or only partially been addressed. There has been an OR tag on it for four years so how anyone can say it is a good encyclopedic article is beyond me.--Wolbo (talk) 22:54, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

Well if you have thought that this article has severe issues for many years Wolbo, why have not resolved these severe issues? Certainly the years that tennisedu and I have been doing 1930s-1960s seem to me to be as accurate as they can be now. I am not a fan of rankings, preferring instead results of major tournaments (though we may have disagreements on what is termed a major).

What more can editors do to a page like this? We list the ranking sources, we list rankings that are as accurate as they can be. The pre-open era pro rankings are problematic, we know that, but we list all that we can find and we draw the most sensible conclusions we can. Short of completely removing the page, I don't think there is much else we can do. Tennishistory1877 (talk) 00:10, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

I removed the original research tag as it should have happened over a year ago. Often tags don't get removed because of oversight and editor Wolbo was the one who put that tag on the article. Pretty much all the research has been sourced. Fyunck(click) (talk) 01:24, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

The 30s-60s rankings listed are accurate and sourced. I haven't checked every result, but generally speaking the results are mainly correct now (there are still one or two tour result tallies that are wrong). I have prevented tennisedu's bias from entering the article. Though mostly this article is not my own work I have added a few rankings sources and results to it. Tennishistory1877 (talk) 10:12, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

Agreed, it looks pretty correct and per consensus sourcing. We can always use more sources but most tennis articles here could. Fyunck(click) (talk) 22:07, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

I think that we have found MANY new rankings for these years, really only two years without a pro ranking list (1947, 1957), and even those two years may yet yield a ranking list if we look further. We have ranking lists from every year, sometimes several ranking lists for some years, so that justifies using something more than the commercial title of "pro champ" in the discussion. The pro tour champs did not always get the contemporary No. 1 rankings. This much is clear. I think that Wolbo is referring to our own final choices in the left column as the "original research" part of the equation, and those choices as they currently stand certainly represent original research and original conclusions. But what is the alternative? Should we leave the information sections on the right hand column by themselves without resolving the question of the article, and just leave the left hand column blank, to be determined by the reader? Then there is no original research at issue, the problem is resolved. The years which have only one major contemporary ranking list, or an official ranking list, could be cited on the left column as the official ranking. Perhaps that is the ultimate solution to this paradox? The title of the article is "No. 1 world RANKED tennis players", so perhaps we should do what the article says, and look at the actual RANKINGS which we have, as relevant answers to the question. We don't have to agree with those contemporary rankings, but they do answer the question of who was ranked. The header clearly states, "at the end of each calendar year" for the rankings, so that clearly rules out retrospective rankings from later decades or later centuries.Tennisedu (talk) 05:10, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

The title of the fourth column is read as "Sources of Ranking and Tournament result summary". In my opinion it should read as " Source(s), Players performance, Rankings. The paragraph should start with sources only like

ATP, ITF, TENNIS MAGAZINE rather than ATP YEAR END RANKING, ITF, TENNIS MAGAZINE. Anyway after players performance explanation, Rankings: mentioned......Sources of Ranking should be ATP rather than ATP Year-end ranking. Anyway, rankings are indicated in the paragraph...Just suggestion. Krmohan (talk) 17:03, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

Connors only 3 Years at #1, wrong, please correct it.

{{User:ClueBot III/ArchiveNow}} Let's face it, ATP computer rankings gave him #1 for the period 1974-1978 so those 5 seasons should be listed, like it or not. Even if he isn't supposed to be fully credited for all those years, at least it makes him shared #1. You can't simply "choose" to ignore computer rankings.

We know his best or "real" number 1 seasons were 1974, 1976 and 1982. But in 1982, he wasn't computer #1 so it's not really totally undisputed either based on facts.

Imo, he is supposed to be credited with 6 year end #1: 1974, 1975, 1976, 1977, 1978 and 1982 and only two of those are fully undisputed, 1974 and 1976 so those should be in bold.

That approach would be consistent with how others players are treated (e.g. Rosewall, 3 undisputed and 3 shared, 6 in total) and it's the proper way to go.

Actually, the ATP computer rankings were never intended to show year-end number one. They were only to be used for seeding purposes. The ATP player of the year award was for the best player of the year. That changed by the 1990s. This article takes in all facets of rankings, not just the ATP. If you want to see number one rankings for just the ATP we have an article for that too. It's at List of ATP number 1 ranked singles tennis players. Hope that helps. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:54, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

I appreciate your reply but I feel such approach is not consistent enough.

With mere 3 years at #1 we/you/article basically describe an all-time great like Connors as if he was a transitional champion. He wasn't.

When you do a name by name comparison, Rosewall (3+3) vs Connors (3) vs Hewitt (2) it just doesn't feel right. OTOH if Rosewall is 3+3 why can't Connors be 2+4? Nothing would he distorted, you'd still have the truth in those data and you could see he wasn't the undisputed #1 in all 6 years. But he had claims in 6 years, can't deny that either.

I'm aware of the faults of computer #1 rankings, there's always a chance "they don't get it right" even nowadays when the ATP rankings are fine tuned. It was especially the case in the early years of ATP that the guy with #1 wasn't necessarily seen as the best.

But if he held the rankings at some point, and the rankings are used nowadays, we have to take it into consideration.

I don't advocate for computer rankings to be the sole criteria, but I think it's very reasonable (for modern era) to use all three criteria:

1) computer rankings 2) ATP Player of the year 3) ITF world champion

The season should be written in bold when a player holds all three. Holding at least one, is a shared year.

So I would definitely have Connors as 2+4.

Anyway, what I'm really trying to say, the article seems kinda too generous in bestowing shared years for some players, thus promoting them at the expense of the players that are judged very strictly and denied many shared years.

Rosewall Vs Connors best example.

PS This is another issue but I would consider Djokovic having 5+2 record perhaps instead of 6+1? It's perhaps wrong to give full credit for a partial season? Owning 1942 or 2020 is not the same as owning 2019 or 1930. Imo even if they're not shared, I think those interrupted seasons, without all 4 GS being played out, should not be in bold.

You still won't take anything away from Djokovic, but 5+2 describes his case much better than 6+1. Just make a rule in this page that interrupted and disrupted seasons are never in bold. Doesn't that make more sense?

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.137.4.89 (talk) 11:43, 4 March 2021 (UTC) 

I endorse the views of the unregistered id. Those players who ended the of year number 1 in the point rankings should be listed in the number 1 position, alongside the ATP player of the year and ITF world champion. Tennishistory1877 (talk) 09:34, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

It is not really convincing. One Source....Two No.1s. ATP knows who is the player of the year and when to merge the decision of ranking with PoY. It is we claiming that they are contradicting. But they are clear about their champions. Back then, ranking only for seeding. Agree with Fyunck..There should be one listing from one source only. Respect their judgement. Agree with the view that to make a rule in this page that interrupted and disrupted seasons are never in bold.. Krmohan (talk) 17:18, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

Television Coverage of Forest Hills TOC

{{User:ClueBot III/ArchiveNow}} I was advised by another researcher that the 1958 and 1959 Forest Hills TOC were televised, although blacked out in New York City region. I will revisit that report and see what can be found in television listings. If those events were not televised, then the Hoad bio and other articles will need some adjustment and corrections.Tennisedu (talk) 04:56, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

Here is the report in the 1958 L.A. Times about the L.A. Masters tournament coverage on local Los Angeles television, "JACK KRAMER'S PRO MASTERS TOURNEY will be seen on Channel 2 tomorrow from the Los Angeles Tennis Club, 2 p.m. The featured matches bring together Pancho Gonzales and Lew Hoad, Tony Trabert and Ken Rosewall. I've always maintained that tennis is close to being the best sport, coverage-wise, seen on TV. The last time Hoad and Gonzales played before the cameras they put on one of the most sensational displays of tennis that I can remember." It is difficult to see this remark as referring to something other than the 1958 Forest Hills event. What else could it be? The Cleveland tournament in 1958 was a local broadcast in Cleveland. "The last time Hoad and Gonzales played before the cameras", "that I can remember" indicates that this reporter had seen it on television in Los Angeles. The most recent time that these two played before cameras is unlikely to be a match from 1957.Tennisedu (talk) 06:22, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

It probably refers to 1957 TOC between Gonzales and Hoad, but its pointless speculating without specific citations. The fact any edition of the TOC got US national coverage was very rare for the pro tour, so 1957 is noteworthy for that reason. Daily TV schedules were published in newspapers. 1957 the TOC appears numerous times in TV listings. No mention in 1958 and 1959 that I could find. Incidentally broadcasting of tennis events is something I am interested in. I know a lot about the history of UK TV and have spent many hours looking through this excellent website https://genome.ch.bbc.co.uk/ . This contains BBC Radio and TV listings from 1923 to 2009, very easy to search. It even has the original Wimbledon radio broadcasts in the 1920s featuring Teddy Wakelam and R. H. Brand. Wembley TV broadcasts are on there and the Wimbledon Pro. They also occassionally broadcast UK tour stops (there was one listed at Worcester). The sad thing is, I expect most of these pro tour telecasts have since been wiped, as it was standard practice for BBC to wipe TV programmes before the early 1970s (even some of their best shows). If they do still exist they would be telerecordings. I have learned a fair amount about Australian and US TV as well this past year thanks to the TV listings on newspapers.com. They used to broadcast the US (Amateur) championships back to the early 1950s with Kramer and Budge among the commentators, though these weren't comparable to the number of hours devoted to open era CBS broadcasts featuring Trabert, Summerall etc. Tennishistory1877 (talk) 09:51, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

Here is a description of the 1957 TOC broadcasts from the Tampa Tribune.

"The Tampa Tribune, 7 Jul 1957) KRAMER FEELS TELECASTS BIG HELP IN SELLING GAME Arguments, pro and con, regarding the affect television has on various sports are plentiful, but make no mistake about it, television definitely boosts tennis. Jack Kramer, the man who turned a smashing serve into golden touch, says so. And who can argue with the world's only first-rate tennis promoter? For those interested in what tennis is doing for TV, CBS carried an hour and 15 minutes of Kramer's Tournament of Champions today, and will have two hours (2.30 to 4.30 pm E.D.T., with the New York area blacked out) more of the same tomorrow from the West Side Tennis Club, Forest Hills. (...) "The pro tennis fan is definitely a different type than amateur fan, and we're out to make more pro fans. TV can help us greatly.""......Strange that Kramer would want to black out the New York area, especially if he thought that this broadcast would help to publicize the quality of pro tennis. The blackout decision probably backfired, it is possible that CBS did not renew the television coverage the following two seasons because of the loss of ad revenue from the New York market in the TOC broadcast. The New York blackout is even more strange when considering that the L.A. Masters pro tournament was allowed by Kramer to broadcast locally in Los Angeles, it is hard to understand Kramer's rationale with these two markets and television. I have checked the New York Times television listings for 1959 and there is no listing for the 1959 Forest Hills TOC, although that was also true for 1957 due to Kramer's blackout policy in the New York area.Tennisedu (talk) 19:29, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

Interesting article. I have read in the past that they didnt show the TV coverage in the home town where they held important tennis matches in Australia way back (it was in the hope it would boost ticket sales). This article is about cricket but talks about the end of this practice in Australia for cricket in 2005. https://www.smh.com.au/sport/cricket/nine-live-crickets-tv-blackouts-face-the-axe-20050429-gdl7zd.html Because I am not from the US or Canada I wouldnt know if home town no-shows were normal or not (but New York is a huge area not to show broadcasts). In the UK, broadcasts are done much more on a national basis. There is half an hour of regional programming a day and occasionally schedules differ between regions but basically most areas of England have the same broadcasts. Television (and particularly free to air TV) has always has been very important for sports. Tennishistory1877 (talk) 20:16, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

This one is strange because Kramer agreed to broadcast the L.A. Masters locally in Los Angeles, yet he insisted on a blackout of the lucrative New York City market, which must have hurt ad revenue for CBS in that 1957 series. I cannot understand this. CBS did not offer further national broadcasts of the Forest Hills TOC, probably due to the loss of the New York ad market. Too bad. Local blackouts were common on American television for the NFL football broadcasts, but tennis was a different story, tennis needed to take advantage of every national television opportunity.Tennisedu (talk) 21:16, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

Yes, pro tennis needed to maximise every opportunity to be shown nationwide on TV. Tennishistory1877 (talk) 21:34, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

1945

{{User:ClueBot III/ArchiveNow}} For what reason were the WPTA rankings for 1945 excluded? Those rankings reflected the World Pro Tennis Championship tournament in San Francisco in May, 1945 organized by the WPTA. The USPLTA tournament in July which gave rise to the USPLTA rankings for 1945 included only Van Horn, who won the tournament, and Nogrady among the touring pros. Why exclude the WPTA rankings?Tennisedu (talk) 17:50, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Firstly, the WPTA event took place early in the year in March 1945 and rankings issued that month also. A two man event between Van Horn and Kovacs whilst many other players were taking part in WW2. Why do they list the likes of Budge in their supposed 1945 rankings? They should exclude them through lack of data like USPLTA did. If you really want to keep this ranking, I wont argue with you, as I regard 1945 rankings as a complete joke anyway (along with 1943 and 1944, the majority of players were serving in the war). Tennishistory1877 (talk) 20:15, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

President of WPTA (named in the 1945 WPTA rankings newspaper article I cited) was George Lyttleton Rogers. A strange character. A while ago I came across this report written near the start of a 1951 tour Lyttleton Rogers played with Kovacs and Parker. A tour that fizzled out because two of the players disappered and didnt play scheduled fixtures! This from Star Tribune 5 August 1951: "I haven't seen them since last Monday when I left Des Moines, Iowa." said Parker. Parker travels with his wife during the tour in their own car, while Kovacs and Rogers drive another. Parker said he didn't know what had happened to the missing pair who started the exhibition tour with him only a short time ago in Omaha, Neb. "As far as I know, they knew of our date here," said Parker. Rogers Is the business manager of the trio during their current tour." https://www.newspapers.com/newspage/183401089/ Tennishistory1877 (talk) 21:52, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Whoa, whoa...important not to jump to conclusions here. Rogers got married at this time, and Kovacs, also a little strange from some accounts, was an old friend of Rogers. Possible that Kovacs was best man to Rogers, the marriage took place in California, Long Beach area on Sept. 4. On September 8 or 10, Kovacs was back on court in Quebec City on clay, playing against another old friend, Parker. Looks like there was no problem from this interrupted tour. The sudden marriage of Rogers seems to explain the tour disruption. Parker did not know about the issues, they did not have smartphones in those days, it may have taken a few days to sort everything out and bring Parker up to date. Relax.Tennisedu (talk) 04:01, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

This was early August, not September, that they disappeared. And, whilst it was true, there were no smartphones, there were phones, and fixtures were booked. They should have informed the venues and Parker himself, who travelled to the venues. Maybe Parker had a forgiving nature and they patched things up. "Relax"? I am perfectly calm thank you, just relating a story from the pro tour. Tennishistory1877 (talk) 09:18, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

It looks like the Rogers wedding arrangements were unanticipated and were developed in August, perhaps the actual engagement was a sudden development. Sure, they should have notified the tour venues, but Rogers and Kovacs were probably on the road to California in early August, they probably did contact Parker soon after the August report. Parker himself had been on the road in early August and would not be receiving phone calls. Such was life on the tour. I doubt that there were ANY hard feelings related to this tour cancellation. Kovacs and Parker were back on court playing each other in early September. Not a problem.Tennisedu (talk) 16:49, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

Fixtures were often cancelled at the last minute, but to disappear and not notify anyone, not even one of the participating players, doesnt seem like very good behaviour to me. But lots of strange things happened on the pro tour. Tennishistory1877 (talk) 17:28, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

Well, notification was Rogers' responsibility, but he was the one who had a sudden wedding to arrange and attend. Both Rogers and Kovacs were presumably on the road to California in early August, but they probably were able to notify Parker of the tour cancellation shortly after that early August report. There were no ramifications from the cancellation, it appears, Parker did not make a fuss about it. No reason to make an issue of it today if the players then were not upset about it.Tennisedu (talk) 20:35, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

It was probably one of those events that caused a minor fuss at the time (ie the newspaper reports) but was soon forgotten. But it still wasnt good to abandon a player on a tour and not notify the venues. Tennishistory1877 (talk) 00:29, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

1973 situation

{{User:ClueBot III/ArchiveNow}} Hello. I would like clarification for 1973. Why isn't Newcombe recognized as co-#1 with Nastase?

The ATP era had started by that point, and Nastase got ATP #1. Fine. It's official as far as him is concerned.

But it was still a transitional period, ITF still not not having instituted their World Champion award, so essentially Nastase being awarded with year-end #1 was based on just one voice, the one from ATP. Moreover, since there was no ITF WC or ATP PoY (1975-1989), there is no "committee" aspect, just the computer rankings from ATP.

Tingay otoh proclaimed Newcombe as #1 in 1973.

So my question about 1973 is, why Tingay isn't relevant for e.g. 1973 when he says "Newcombe", yet is somehow relevant for 1972 when he says "Smith".

Has the guy lost his mojo between 1972 and 1973?

I think unofficial sources (such as magazines, journalists, etc) should be listed as trivia post 1978, since that's starting point of present modern era, with both ITF and ATP issuing their 2 awards and 1 rankings.

But pre-1978, we should include those respectable journalists. If Tingay mattered all the way up to 1972, and he was considered one of the ultimate authorities in tennis history, he shouldn't become obsolete in 1973, he should also matter at least until 1978 when both ITF and ATP start publishing their stuff.

If it's "Nastase only" for 1973, I see that situation as an attempt to "sort it out and find out true #1" by dismissing Tingay, which is not imo the goal of this page. We should simply list sources. If Tingay is a major source in previous years, he should be in 1973 too.

Consistency?

93.142.138.107 (talk) 10:36, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

Completely agree about 1973, Newcombe won the two most important events of the year, U.S. Open and Davis Cup, the match in the DC against Smith was match of the year. Nastase was upset at U.S. Open and lost to Smith in Davis Cup semifinal.Tennisedu (talk) 16:40, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

Laver situation

{{User:ClueBot III/ArchiveNow}} I will simply quote intro from Laver's wiki page:

Laver was ranked as the world No. 1 tennis player in nine different years, which is the most world No. 1 rankings for any player in tennis history. He was the No. 1 ranked professional from 1964 to 1970, spanning four years before and three years after the start of the Open Era in 1968. He also was the No. 1 ranked amateur in 1961–62.

I think all wiki articles should be consistent.

Yes, indeed, Laver was ranked No. 1 in 9 different years, across 3 different tours.

So that info should be clearly visible on this page which is titled: "World number 1 ranked male tennis players". Yet it isn't seen, it isn't written in the table which credits Laver with 7 seasons, so what's the purpose of this page of it's omitting important data and players' achievement?

I mean shouldn't the purpose of this page be to list all #1 players? And not to engage in determining who was the so called true No. 1 in each season.

I really wonder how is his 1962 #1 amateur season with Grand Slam dismissed altogether, but Budge is undisputed overall #1 for 1938, even though pro tour was in full swing at that time.

When you omit Laver's 1961-1962 #1 amateur ranking you're engaging in judging amateurs vs pro tour and dismissing amateurs as inferior. That shouldn't be allowed here, it's a judgement. On top of that, e.g. in 1938 you also do the judging, awarding amateur #1 Budge with overall #1, suggesting the opposite, that the amateur tour was superior.

So in both cases it's judgement.

We can not judge here, neither can we accept past judgements and rankings which compared apples vs oranges. Tingay or Bud Collins are in no better position that any of use to rank players who played on separate tours and have never even met during season. I might as well compare Batman vs Superman.

We are all kinda aware of the fact that pros became better and better over the years, but there's no way to prove it and besides, where do you draw a line, which season is the tipping point at which pros became better? Even if you picked one, you're engaging in judging.

So my vote is to have separate amateurs and pros #1, and accept them as co-equal and logically no one can have a bold season for the existence of amateur-pro era split.

Laver got 9 of these years, and it should be visible here in the table, imo he should top the table. Of those 9 years, only 2 are undisputed, 1968 and 1969. All the seasons during amateur-pro split are by definition disputed due to the fact that there have been 2 competing tours, and his 1970 is shared so that leaves him with 9 years, 2 bold + 7 non-bold.

93.143.111.228 (talk) 09:20, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

You have a point but I think this should be about Budge situation for example than it’s about Laver. In 1961 and 1962 it seems clear to me - at least from the sources presented in this article - that Gonzales, Rosewall and Hoad were seen as the best tennis players despite Laver’s dominance on the amateur tour. On the other hand there are multiple instances in the 1930s where the amateur player was rated higher than the pro player and I’m honestly not sure why but we have to go with what have on the sources. I think the article would benefit from more sources for 1932 to 1938. ForzaUV (talk) 16:29, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

As I often said, this page can only go into two directions:

1. Determining true #1 for each season. If this is chosen as a path, you'd have to come up with the tools and formulas to break all possible ties, since the goal would be to determine "true #1" and there can only be one. Good luck with that. And even if you do it, it becomes the authentic work of couple of editors here, not an encyclopedia.

2. Listing all the players who were ranked as #1 by relevant sources. This one is more fair and actually easier, as it requires merely "labouring" through sources and listing them here, and often resulting in shared years, but so what. If the player has a claim to #1 one way or another he has the claim and so be it.

Laver was #1 amateur in 1961-1962 so if he's omitted from the table on this page, it means all amateurs should be omitted. Why is Budge 1938 credited as #1 or Wilding 1913 or W.Renshaw in 1880s? They were all amateurs. Remove them. It's very simple. Then change the wiki page title to: #1 ranked tennis professionals.

If not, if it's about all-time #1, then all amateur ranked #1 players should be listed in the final table.

I see you're more interested in questioning Budge 1938 being undisputed #1 and whether should this page acknowledge pro #1 in 1938 and you're kinda dismissing Laver 1961-1962 by saying: "pros were better anyway at that time".

But like I said, how can you, or anyone else, even contemporary sources, "prove it"? Playing on separate tours, those players never met. Such rankings, even if they're from Tingay or Collins are howgwash and they should be dismissed as it's no different than fortune telling. Tingay and Collins opinions matter if they rank players who played against each other in h2h series, for the same titles, on the same tour etc, not when they pull out their analysis out of nowhere.

Amateurs and professionals should be acknowledged as co-#1 because their tours were separate. Laver will get acknowledged with more years (which is what happened in real life) but fewer of them will be in bold, which is again, accurate portrayal of things.

Recognize 9 years for Laver and also don't shy away from the fact that only 2 (1968-1969) are undisputed because he was the undisputed #1 in a unified era only in those 2 years.

Then apply same criteria to everyone else.

Tennishistory1877 what do you say?

93.143.98.177 (talk) 07:47, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

Laver, after winning the 1962 Grand Slam, lost easily to Rosewall on the 1963 world series. After 1948 no rookie pro won the world series (or even came that close to winning). No rookie pro finished top of the tournament point standings in the last years before open tennis arrived either. A long line of top amateurs had to settle to be second, third or fourth best in their first season in the pro ranks. Just one thing, although you are under no obligation to get a registered id, I prefer communicating with registered ids if I am involved in communication over a sustained period, as I dont want to keep asking "is this the same person as before?" I also dont like entering talk threads unless there is a good chance of changing information on the page. I can see that, whilst there is a general desire to have a more systemised approach for the pre-open era, everyone has a different idea about what system should be used. Tennishistory1877 (talk) 09:26, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

Ok, I'll finish by simply saying this. I appreciate your stance so I just want to say it.

I am aware that pros have arguably surpassed amateurs in quality sometimes around cca 1948.

However it's just our "feeling" that we get by comparing newly arrived pros facing older ones on pro tour. But you, me, nobody can ever prove that someone was superior/inferior in a given year considering they never met, due to them playing on separate tours. We can not base stuff on our feelings or on hypothetical matches that never happened. Laver and Rosewall never played against each other in 1962 and they never could have. It's a complete fantasy. So it's ridiculous to rank them side by side. When you have similar situation for 19th century it's always declared a tie (Player A won Wimbledon, player B won Irish, they never met, so a tie) even though it's the same tour.

And here someone arbitrarily decides which tour is superior to justify ranking one guy ahead of another?

In my view, saying pros were better by definition is extrapolation by a huge margin and it's like saying it's certain Thiem wouldn't have won USO 2020 if Djokovic was around. Kinda makes sense, the best player defaulted, it helped Thiem's odds, but is it certain that he wouldn't have done it anyway? How can we know when they never actually met at USO that year. And besides, Djokovic was down a break and would have had tough time prevailing in that match over Carreño Busta even if he wasn't defaulted. Just look at Olympics this year playing that same guy. And then Djokovic would have to beat Zverev, but look at the cost of doing that this year at USO, tough 5-setter. So in a hypothetical final vs Thiem in 2020, he'd be at least somewhat worn out and playing a guy that took him to 5 sets in his favourite slam, AO that same year. So why wouldn't the same guy, Thiem, take him to 5 sets at USO and beat him there. How can anyone say Thiem would have no chance?

That's not an analysis or comparison to me.

In the same vein, saying 1962 amateur Laver is by definition inferior to 1962 pro Rosewall based only on the fact that Rosewall was superior on pro tour next year, in 1963, is a fortune telling.

For what we know, Laver might have a genuine personal letdown after stellar 1962, no? Look at stellar 2011 Djokovic followed by great, but not that great 2012. Look at Wilander 1988 followed by next year etc. Lots of such examples. But does a letdown in 1963 invalidates his 1962 form?

Besides, pros always had the added advantage of amateurs coming to their tour, their surroundings, playing on new courts, different venues, under new rules, customs, that was unfamiliar to them. We all know how Rafa feels comfortable at Phillipe Chartrier. Familiarity helps. The pros had that advantage that they used for a season or two against newly arrived players. So it doesn't necessarily mean they were better in pure tennis terms, even that alone is somewhat debatable, let alone that a leading pro in 1963 was by definition superior in 1962 to a leading amateur in 1962. That's lol for me.

It's so far-fetched imo.

But don't get me wrong, I'm not arguing amateurs were ahead, I'm arguing, imo the tours were separate and both should get recognition for their #1 ranks.

I mean why is Emerson still credited with 12 slam titles on a wiki page detailing all-time slam wins? Slam wins from amateur era matter, but amateur year-end #1 doesn't?

It makes little sense to me. Do as you please, I was just trying to help and have better consistency in this page. All the best.

93.143.98.177 (talk) 13:51, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

Fully subscribe to your views about the page. When you are listing World No.1 based on reliable sources, we need to respect the judgement of sources. But at the same time, one should also see how tour/season is played out. Need to consider A and P tours, partial or full season etc. We can not attribute few parameters to player at the cost of other players performance. Let it be unbold...Agree to Laver (2+7) and Djokovic (5++2) with a specific mention about the tour/season. Agree with No fortune telling and no hypothetical. The page should be with facts, unbiased and rational...If there are three or four players, let them be written UNBOLD or Keep World No.1 blank... Krmohan (talk) 05:00, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

Thx. For me the this page will be truly factual once it recognizes and states all year-end #1 players correctly.

Laver gets recognized for his 1960-1962 amateur slams in all-time slam table, but absurdly doesn't get recognized as amateur year-end #1 in all-time year-end #1?

I'd really like to hear the logic behind that?

All-time slam titles are counted regardless whether they're amateur or open era. Why isn't that the case for year-end #1 as well? We know slams from late amateur era are somewhat less worth, but no way to prove how much so we just count them if we're compiling all-time list.

When he want to focus on what's comparable we observe open era only and make another list for open era only.

But we're not making all-time slam list while at the same time omitting late amateur slam? How can you call it an all-time list if you've omitted slams that you deem inferior? It's preposterous to do that.

This page is de facto doing that to year-end #1. So it's a major issue.

Wiki page detailing with all-time major title wins likewise counts ILTF WC titles, GS titles and pro slams together. Of course the count is somewhat inflated considering for the cca almost 40 years we're counting from two co-existing tours, ending up with Rosewall 23 major titles. But it is what it is. Likewise it should be 9 year-end #1 for Laver, also kinda inflated, but it's what happened.

Proper page would have:

Laver 2+7 (missing) Connors 1+5 (check) Sampras 6+0 (check) Djokovic 5+2 (missing)

In the end you could always make the table so that it gives you an option of showing players ranked by A) total numbers of years at #1, B) number of only bold years at #1.

93.140.138.195 (talk) 17:44, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

We have discussed this issue more than a few times here, but it is worth reviewing. I think that we have acknowledged that "consistency" is not always followed in some of the lists, we use different definitions for "No. 1" in the records area. I would suggest that we not try to change too much at once in terms of criteria, I like the idea of a combined amateur/pro list, I don't like the idea of two separate lists for amateurs and pros. But I think that if more than one player has a legitimate, recognized, and authoritative complete field amateur or pro contemporary ranking source for a year giving them a No. 1 ranking, that should be acknowledged. We have not followed that rule here. And if a player does not get an authoritative, legitimate, complete field contemporary ranking at No. 1 for a given year, that player should not be ranked world no. 1 in our article. If there are NO contemporary rankings showing anyone ranked for either tour at No.1, we should acknowledge that openly, and not try to browse later decades or pick our own no. 1 in a year in which there are ZERO contemporary rankings. It is not enough to simply quote from a newspaper that so-and-so is the "top" player. That is hardly a complete field ranking list. That is no better than ranking from reputation and advertising. I would suggest that we start there, and see what our article would look like if we acknowledged only those No. 1's who were actually ranked as number one in contemporary rankings. That is the criterion upon which this article is supposed to be constructed from, let me remind everyone that this is a ranking article which supposedly relies upon "tennis ranking authorities who provided the annual rankings on which the listed rankings are based." Well then, let's do that, and start with the rankings themselves. I know that some will say, "We can't rely on the rankings, the rankings were no good." But that is a judgment call, which we are not supposed to be doing here. We do not have to change very much in the annual accounts of what took place, the right-hand column. It makes no sense to make our own rankings from this perspective almost a hundred or fifty years after the facts. Finally, this article is about "Annual World No. 1", it is not an article about "All-Time Greatest Player", but about who WAS RANKED No. 1 in a given year. Two completely different concepts. We have placed too much emphasis on "how many years" player X or player Y was ranked No. 1, as if that was a criterion for all-time greatest player. This article is not about that. The concerns about upholding the reputations of various great players has caused some problems in this article, taking our focus off of the goal.Tennisedu (talk) 19:16, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

Contemporary pre-open era rankings are a collection of many different sources, very few completely satisfactory (that is why later historians have tried to make sense from the disorder by making their own retrospective rankings). There were "Official" rankings of pros post-1973, but not before that. Which end of year top 10 pro ranking lists (of which there aren't a huge amount) were totally unbiased? Maybe McWhirter and one or two others. Complete field pro rankings are not in great abundance (this doesnt include the farcical 1962 UPI poll for example, as three names are stated). There is a great ranking variation, ranging from top 10 to 1. Many of the quotations stating the world series winner is world champion and world number one are merely pointing out the obvious (the only other ranking of significance is a point ranking of a series of tournaments). This is what the season was made of, a world series lasting several months, plus, in later years, a collection of tournaments and eventually only the tournament circuit. If Jack March wanted to rank the winner of his event no. 1 in his annual rankings released a few days after his tournament finished each year, that was up to him, but this event lasted just a few days. That is why I think any system should favour world series and tournament series winners, because that constituted a season or most of a season. I even found a direct quote from 1949 that the world series winner determined the best player. "Young, hard-hitting Pancho Gonzales, the National Amateur tennis champion from California, takes his first step on the professional trail tonight in New York in quest of the title Jack Kramer now holds. That is the recognition of being the best player in the world." That is why to leave the world series winner off the number 1 spot (as in 1961) seems wrong to me. To me, a season does not last 2 weeks, so 1945 should be removed on those grounds. 1960 currently lacks citations for Rosewall. Actually there arent that many years I feel are wrong post-1913. I agree with tennisedu about a joint list, because routinely ranking the third or fourth best player (amateur no. 1 in the 1960s) is wrong when sometimes a contender for no. 1 isnt listed at all. Tennishistory1877 (talk) 21:46, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

Incidentally, I will soon be ditching this device I use for the internet (including wikipedia editing), as the past few weeks it frequently doesnt register letters that I type and regularly turns itself off, (sometimes in the middle of edits!) So I apologise for any misspelt words in talk threads, I will do my best to rectify the errors! Tennishistory1877 (talk) 22:46, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

It is a complex issue, but I think that we have to start with what actually happened in terms of ranking LISTS, and much of the material we are relying on are not even close to being lists, just advertising blurbs, such as "the best" or "the top" or "the champion", which are promotional in nature, designed to maximize public interest in the money-making tours of pro champ vs. amateur champ. Those tours were usually disappointing in terms of tennis results and often left out pro players who were greater than the amateur and possibly greater than the pro. Usually they do not indicate who was the No. 1 player, and we have to resort to our own assessment of tournament results to arrive at a conclusion. And they are OUR conclusions, with our own judgments. If we want to remain within the rubric of this article, we need to accept ranking lists of the time, and not allow our own felt need to support the reputations of various great players to override the purpose of this article. If there is a blank in the rankings, let us acknowledge that. Some world championship tours were arranged to allow a more formal determination of the world No. 1, especially 1942, 1954, 1961, and 1963, all were designed to give a formal ranking outcome for the top pros. If some pros skipped those tours of their own choice or due to injury, that was just how the cards played out, and we should accept that. We should not be substituting our own logic, as fine as that might be, for the actual rankings such as they were. We may want to promote certain players as the greatest ever by sustaining legends of the greats, but that should not be allowed to take over this article.Tennisedu (talk) 22:57, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

Speaking as someone who has found the vast majority of 1920-1967 sources listed on this page that were not in Collins or McCauley, I continue to read and learn more on a daily basis and share some of these facts with others. This long-held and well-established narrative that the world series was the way the pros decided who their top player was, is also substantiated in many of the sources I have found, including direct references such as I have listed above (and you conveniently ignore because it doesnt suit your narrative). Of course in applying modern standards, we may wish to organise the pro tour differently, but we can only deal with what actually happened. You and I disagree on what you describe as "advertising blurbs". Many newspaper articles refer to the best player in the world as the best player in the world, its really not rocket science. I am not even sure why I am replying to this thread, as I have said all my views before (just as you have). Tennishistory1877 (talk) 23:24, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

The issue under discussion in this section is whether we should accept the contemporary ranking lists which were actually issued, or whether we should substitute our own judgment as to who should be ranked No. 1 for each year. My major complaint here is that the rubric of this article has been undermined by a desire to maintain the legends of the greats, and to give those greats No. 1 rankings of our own creation for years in which they did not receive any contemporary No. 1 rankings. And, no, in many pre-Open years, when only two players contested the world championship, it was far from clear that they were the two best players. A press promotion could use the term "defending world champ" for a player who was past prime and no longer the best overall player, as judged by the more open competition of tournament play, which was the only legitimate test of relative prowess for the entire pro field in most years. A defending world champ could skip the tournaments and maintain his title against raw rookies. I would prefer not to comment on the merits of that system in determining a world No. 1. Many of the ranking lists in the pre-Open era emerged from tournament play, in which the field of pros could test relative merits, and these ranking lists should provide the starting point for any historical review of actual rankings. I am not suggesting any changes at all to the right hand column, to which Tennishistory1877 and others (including this editor) have contributed so much interesting research. But the left hand column should be tied to actual historical ranking lists.Tennisedu (talk) 00:18, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

"My major complaint here is that the rubric of this article has been undermined by a desire to maintain the legends of the greats, and to give those greats No. 1 rankings of our own creation for years in which they did not receive any contemporary No. 1 rankings." This is completely untrue regarding the 1913 onwards period, where citations exist for every year (I found contemporary rankings for years in which no ranking previously existed). The pre-1913 period is problematic in this regard but not later. Maintaining the legends of the greats? No, merely confirming the truth that the best players in the world were the best players in the world. Whether you personally rate the world series is irrelevant, there are many contemporary citations to show that it was regarded as the premier event, something acknowledged by later historians. The status of the world series really is not a contentious issue, you have tried to pretend it is one because of your relentless bias. Tennishistory1877 (talk) 09:31, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

It's interesting to read you guys, you know about this so much. Considering I'm not offering any research into historical data I hope I'm not a nuisance by nitpicking on how this page should look like.

But I have like several questions that you can ponder over. In the entire Wikipedia, there are several pages where we can see that Laver won 11 GS titles. In those pages, amateur and open slams are counted together. Sometimes the mix up of amateur and open titles is shown, such as here. - https://ibb.co/6b2vCHd perfectly accurately signaling that his 11 is actually made of 6+5.

And there are some pages showing us he won 19 of so called majors in total, with 11 being GS titles and 8 so called pro slam. So again 11+8, and more broadly, 6+8+5.

So when it comes to majors, he's quite well covered and ranked in various pages.

But when it comes to #1, there is literally no page that would list Laver and recognize his 9 year-end #1, and year-end of of other players, applying identical criteria. We have no ways of seeing it anywhere, so we don't know it's actually 2+4+3.

That shouldn't be the case. It's my firm view. He's got several amateur years, several pro years and then open era years. It should be visible in this all-encompassing page

Yes, in his case, 9 is probably inflated, but with strict rules, 7 will be non-bold which will provide us with proper picture. Besides, isn't slam count of all players during amateur-pro division also inflated to an extent? Yet we count those slam titles in all-time tables. Emerson held the slam record, and wasn't really considered goat, so whoever tops this year-end #1 page won't be goat either.

I'm not a zealous fan of hater of any player (even though I have my favourites) and I wouldn't use this page to try to boost any player's legacy. In the end #1 is (imo) a second tier achievement in tennis. It's an award you win after some computer calculated something or after some committee decided to give it to you. Winning Wimbledon in comparison is a much greater, in a sense true achievement.

But still, it feels wrong not to acknowledge amateur and pro #1 as co-equals, even though we know that in some periods amateurs probably had the edge and pros had it in some other, later periods. But that's impossible to prove. Their tours were separate and it's beyond our powers to determine with certainty who would have won. They never met so how could we know? We can't. And neither could past analysts. In that sense we should dismiss past sources when they insist on pros being ahead of amateurs by default.

Their rankings are valid when they rank players from the same tours, when they rank players who played against each other, who played in same venues and for the same prizes or trophies, but their rankings are not valid when they're attempting to rank players from competing tours who never met.

So if some expert of group of experts ranked a leading amateur as the world #4, we should still recognize that player as the leading amateur and award him with amateur #1. It's not us who is doing anything, the guy has been ranked as the leading amateur by contemporary sources. We are merely being aware of the fact that there have been two tours.

Boxing has 4 belts or how many and those belts all sort of rankings/ratings and nobody has issue with that. Yet two #1 for the period of amateur/pro division is supposed to be controversial.

I must say, by dismissing amateurs #1, from the 50s or 60s you're engaging in determining and judging stuff, determining that pro tour was superior and it it's wrong. First because it's unprovable and second, judging should not be the goal of this page.

Ricardo 93.143.108.166 (talk) 02:54, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

I strongly agree with you on those points. My major complaint here is that our own judgments are being used instead of the actual ranking lists to support favoured all-time greats who were supposed to be No. 1 players, but who were sometimes not ranked No.1. Another good point is the importance of venues and formats. There was really much less difference between amateur and pro No. 1 players than the results of the world tours would suggest. Take for example 1956, when Trabert was beaten badly by Gonzales indoors, but actually Trabert beat Gonzales 15 to 11 on outdoor surfaces, which he was familiar with from the amateur ranks. Laver did poorly against Rosewall in early 1963 on indoor play, but looked strong against Rosewall on grass surfaces in January in Australia, venues Laver was familiar with. Much of the pro/am difference was related to adjusting to tough matches every day instead of every week. We should acknowledge both amateur and pro No. 1 rankings for what they represent.Tennisedu (talk) 03:23, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

"My major complaint here is that our own judgments are being used instead of the actual ranking lists to support favoured all-time greats who were supposed to be No. 1 players, but who were sometimes not ranked No.1." This is blatantly untrue, as citations exist for every year after 1913. Your remarks comparing outdoor to indoor surfaces have been heard many times before. It is not the job of editors to judge court surfaces. We dont write "the Paris Masters is an indoor event, so therefore isnt as important as Indian Wells". Tennishistory1877 (talk) 10:18, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

I don't think we should pass our own judgements, it's not our job to rank players, however I also think we can't blindly follow past experts in their erroneous ways, namely when they made logical errors.

Columbus thought he arrived to India. Today we credit him for his voyage and exploration, but we're not saying he arrived to India. We corrected that error and we did that long time ago actually. We say he arrived to America. Tennis experts from the past also made an error. Ranking players from separate tours was an obvious, logical error.

Here in wikipedia we shouldn't change the rankings order, and it's not our job to re-rank players. But we should recognize the fact that two separate tours existed, and that contemporary experts foolishly assumed one tour was superior over another. Even if at some point they were right, how can you ever prove something like that?

The scores are settled on court, not in the minds of Bud Collins and co. If he compared Rosewall and Laver in 1962 he might have compared Tilden and Rosewall and ranked them as well because in 1962 Rosewall player Laver as much as he played Tilden. Zero times. If an expert, or a panel of experts said that Rosewall is a #1 pro in 1963 over Laver and everyone else, so be it. That year Roswewall and Laver played vs each, played in same tournaments, for the same prize and titles, etc so that verdict has some weight.

But to say that in 1962 Rosewall as a #1 pro is ahead of 1962 Laver as an #1 amateur, why exactly? Just because Rosewall had more success against Laver in 1963? But 1963 isn't 1962. Those guys never played against each other in 1962. Player's form can always take a nosedive. Laver might have been genuinely worse in 1963, whichh shouldn't invalidate his 1962 heights. Finally, I don't think we should go deep into comparing tours, I'd like to avoid that, but I agree with the general idea of tennisedu. The so called superiority of pros might been simply an advantage in terms of familiarity with the courts, surfaces, traveling, tour, etc stuff simply being different there which prevented newly arrived pros from dominating the pro tour right from their arrival. E.g. indoor (wood) might have been a solid argument. Does Rosewall's wood superiority in 1963 over arguably wood rookie Laver really means that Rosewall was better player overall the year before, in 1962 across all surfaces?

Probably not. And hasn't first US open in 1968 been won by a former amateur player Arthur Ashe who in 1967 wasn't good enough to win amateur Australian, losing in the final, but was good enough to win open US in 1968 against the field of both tours combined? If the amateurs sucked so much how could an amateur win first US open?

Just think of that. But as I say, I wouldn't go there, I would never compare the tours, I would simply recognize the fact that there were two tours.

I think it's the most logical path recognizing the entirety of tennis history. Just like that page which has Rosewall credited with 23 majors in total ie majors won across all tours, this page should credit players with year-end #1 across all tours. And no player can ever be in bold as the year-end #1 in the period of (at least) 1927-1967, for the duration of a amateur-pro division. Ricardo 93.143.108.166 (talk) 11:49, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

Pro tennis began in the 1880s, not 1927 (and some of the early pros were very good players indeed). Arthur Ashe was not number 1 in 1968. No one said a top 10 ranking in the 1960s would contain only pros, we are talking about number one. Every amateur who turned pro after 1948 (and there were many of them) had to settle for second best, third best or worse in their first sesson as pros. I am aware that everyone is repeating themselves (assuming you are the same person as before, which I cant be 100% sure of being messages are sent from different IPs). This thread is just recycled hot air. Tennishistory1877 (talk) 12:23, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

Yes, I'm the same person you talked to here. I'm the guy complimenting you for Connors (1+5). I'm signing as Ricardo.

Ok, I just can't accept that anyone could ever rank and rate players from separate tours. It's bizarre suggestion for me. If experts in the past did that, it is wrong on logical grounds. So I would take those experts and their ratings and in the absence of amateur #1, I would acknowledge the highest ranked amateur (in their own rankings) as an amateur #1. So it's not me or us ranking players, it's us extracting amateur #1 from their ratings. For me such amateur #1 is fully legit and it's not us deciding anything. If you say that there was no separate #1 amateur ranked player in some years, then this is how you observe the amateur #1.

Bottom line, if two separate tours existed, there have to be two #1 players by definition. Would you ever rate Medvedev vs Barty in 2021? They don't play in same tour, it's beyond dumb for me to rank them side by side. If you really want to flip flop on rankings, such as saying pros > amateurs in 1962, but amateurs > pros in 1938 you'd have to prove it why is that so in a given year. But just quoting Collins or some other expert isn't a proof imo, because he too engaged in fantasizing, comparing players who never played against each other in a given season. Such rankings ought to be rejected by Wikipedia since they don't satisfy scientific criteria. Why would Collins or anyone else be in a position to impose his opinions on hypothetical matches that never happened?

As for my 1927-1967 timeframe, at some point you have to draw a line. E.g. post 1978 when we have both global official organisations, ITF and ATP, issuing their official rankings, so from that point on we're not interested in journalists or magazines and their opinions. They can be mentioned in right column as a trivia, but they don't affect rankings. So fully modern era is post 1978. Likewise I proposed 1927-1967 as the period in which hardest split between the amateurs and pros existed, with US pro starting in 1927. For me it's logical begining of full pro era, but I'm no expert and if you say it's earlier, so be it. And I never said Ashe was #1 in 1968, but I used him as an example to counter this idea that pros were superior to amateurs by default. Here was a guy playing in amateur tour the whole time, never winning a slam among amateurs, suddenly winning a slam in his first open season playing against both former amateurs and pros.

It was meant to illustrate that the so called gap in quality might have simily been an illusion. Ricardo. 93.143.108.166 (talk) 12:54, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for signing your posts Ricardo, at least I can see if I am speaking to the same person. "Just quoting Collins or some other expert isn't a proof imo, because he too engaged in fantasizing, comparing players who never played against each other in a given season. Such rankings ought to be rejected by Wikipedia since they don't satisfy scientific criteria. Why would Collins or anyone else be in a position to impose his opinions on hypothetical matches that never happened?" I dont know what this refers to. Amateur rankings are found in Collins. The mid-1970s ATP or ITF rankings are very different than earlier rankings. It was the tours and tournaments containing the best pros that are the reason pro tennis is talked about (among historians) today. Also, there were many pros and pro events prior to 1927. I have spent many years researching the subject in great detail. I have found many "new" pro results and tournaments. Its a fascinating subject. Barty v Medvedev is not the same at all, because the tours contain separate players with no movement between the two tours. There was a lot of movement from amateur to pro (and in the early years from pro to amateur ie Cochet and Feret). I suggest you conduct further research on the topic, as tennis is quite complex in the pre-open era. Its not easy to apply what you may think of as logical rules to something you dont fully understand. Tennishistory1877 (talk) 14:04, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

I am misunderstood with Collins here just as I was misunderstood when I mentioned 3 columns (ITF, ATP #1 and ATP PoY). I didn't mean there should be literally 3 columns, I meant those three co-equal criteria/columns are essential for modern #1, at least for 1978-1989, afterwards it boils down to two again. The way post 1973 period is organised on this page is logical to me and I approve of it. My bad for not being clear enough.

Now I am again misunderstood but my bad I guess. I used Collins as an example, an expert or pundit who ranks players who played in separate tours. Such rankings are product of author's imagination, he couldn't have used objective parameters considering there were no matches between the players. So whether the conclusion is pro>amateur or amateur>pro it's a complete fantasy. Just because it's Collins or Tingay or whoever, changes nothing.

Encyclopedia should be factual, not present fantasies. Even if it's by respectable source, a fantasy is still a fantasy. There was movement between the tours, however they were still separate, I can't stress that enough. If Rosewall outdid Laver in 1963 pro tour, it doesn't automatically mean he would have done that in 1962 pro tour, let alone that he would have done that in some 1962 unified, open tour. Unprovable. You may think Medvedev vs Barty comparison is goofy, but haven't there been several ratings ranking greatest players (male and females together) so you had Connors and Graf next to each other? I can find links but you probably know about it so no need for me to do it now.

I used Medvedev Barty to make a point it's absurd, no matter who does it. Lumping males and females together in a list is just most obvious example of lumping separate tours together. Same goes to amatuer-pro split. With all due respect I think it's futile to compile a list insisting on a single year-end #1 for the period of most brutal split in tennis (amateurs vs pro). There should be two in all those years. By default. Insisting on a single #1 for all those years is actually more extreme view and a more hardcore approach than insisting on a single #1 in mere disputed seasons in open era (or early amateur era).

My point, if you (or anyone) can impose a view that 1962 pro Rosewall is the absolute #1 for 1962, totally ignoring 1962 amateur #1 Laver, without them ever meeting in that season, then it's all settled. Why do we even have shared years for open era? Those should be even easier to solve. If you (or Collins) can arbitrarily deciede which tour is superior as a whole in a given time, then you can certainly break ties in 1975 or 2013 that happened between just two guys in the same tour.

Just follow it through then. I think differently however. The concept of shared season should first and foremost apply to the period of amateurs/pro split, and only then as an odd occurrence in certain season during unified tour such as 1975, 1977, 2013 etc. OTOH like I said, if you start solving splits, solving 2013 is far easier to solve than 1962. In 2013 Nadal and Djokovic played in same tour, so you can look at their h2h and success in same tour and then either embrace ATP view or ITF view. 1962 is not only more difficult but it's literally impossible since you're supposed to rank players who never met and who played in competing, different tours. Ricardo. 93.143.108.166 (talk) 16:24, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

In my view, listing to be separate for A and P with indication of #sources. Laver definitely to be 2+7 in my opinion Krmohan (talk) 17:42, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

1953

{{User:ClueBot III/ArchiveNow}} Someone has chosen to make an issue of the No. 1 ranking for 1953, and has attempted to change the longstanding ranking on this page for that year without discussion on this Talk page. I suggest that a discussion be made here before any changes are made to the ranking. The basis for challenging the existing ranking is that there were some newspaper one-line blurbs about Kramer being the No. 1 for 1953. However, there are no ranking experts identified as the source for this statement. There must be a ranking expert before challenging the existing ranking experts cited in the current ranking.Tennisedu (talk) 19:07, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

The long-standing consensus was that Kramer was ranked first and Sedgman second. You altered this to a tie when you found a ranking for Sedgman. Although I did not personally agree with this change, I allowed it to stand until more rankings were forthcoming. Now I have found more rankings stating Kramer was number one so I have changed the ranking list back to what it originally said. I disagree with you making up your own biased rules for this article. Tennishistory1877 (talk) 19:16, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

The addition of Sedgman to joint No. 1 took place a long time ago. It was not challenged by any editor until now. You have not discovered any new ranking expert or ranking list which would challenge the Tennis de France complete season ranking. Your source of the ranking remains unidentified, which is not my rule, as you claim, but the longstanding rubric of this article. You are attempting to broaden the definition of "ranking" beyond what the article states.Tennisedu (talk) 19:21, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

It was altered a few months ago by you and for the record I was not in favour, but at that stage I trusted you to not cause disruption in altering it back if I found further ranking sources, which I have now done. The longstanding consensus over many years was that Kramer was ranked ahead of Sedgman. For the record I will not be trusting you again. Tennishistory1877 (talk) 19:29, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

It is a longstanding edit made according to a central ranking list created by a group of experts. Your proposed change is based on an advert statement with no identified ranking expert. That means there is insufficient basis to change the ranking on the page. Not every ranking reference is of equal value, in your case, and many others which you cite, there is not any identified ranking expert, and therefore the reference is of low quality. If you want a reference to a ranking to be taken seriously, you need to identify the ranking expert. Here is the statement at the top of this article, we are required to list "the tennis ranking authorities who provided the annual rankings on which the listed rankings are based". Otherwise your citation carries no weight in the creation of these rankings. Before you change this again, attempt to arrive at a consensus on this page. Let us hear from other editors about this issue, because this is very central to how this page should be edited.Tennisedu (talk) 20:00, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

I will not get involved with judging pre-open era ranking sources with you. All are listed. I will not debate with you who is or is not an expert. I do not trust your reasoning and it has shown to be very frequently motivated by bias. There is no way you and I will agree on this, so lets just save our breath. Rather than arguing with me and creating yet more hot air, try spending more time looking for sources to back up your argument. Tennishistory1877 (talk) 20:25, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

You and I should not be the only ones discussing these issues. Your recent profuse citations contain absolutely zero identification of experts, and therefore have zero weight in determining the ranking list. You need to find a relevant citation which identifies the experts who made the ranking. Let us hear from other editors here, although I notice that you seem to have a tendency to engage in bitter arguments with other editors. Please try and exercise self-control on this page.Tennisedu (talk) 20:31, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

Today's editing. First, you directly condradict a statement you made just a few hours earlier on the structuring of this page. Then you post a bitter rant on here. And to finish you engage in yet more combative editing on the Lew Hoad page, a page that has already been locked once. Your biased editing is very well documented on your talk page and your edit history. In the past few days I have altered several statements of yours on the Hoad page of records you claimed Hoad had which he did not have. Your blatant inaccuracies are so frequent I have lost count of them all. Your attempts to try and influence new editors looks desperate. I am sad to see someone sink so low. Tennishistory1877 (talk) 22:23, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

Again, you have shown a tendency to initiate bitter arguments on these pages. I again urge you to exercise some modicum of self-control and not abuse the rules of the annual ranking article. If you insist on citing blurbs of advertising, choose something which has a reference to an actual ranking source. These little newspaper statements make no reference to any expert ranking. You are cluttering this page with material of no pertinence to the issues. There was no basic contradiction on my views on structuring, you have again quoted words out of context, here is what the full context was: "I don't like the idea of two separate lists for amateurs and pros. But I think that if more than one player has a legitimate, recognized, and authoritative complete field amateur or pro contemporary ranking source for a year giving them a No. 1 ranking, that should be acknowledged. We have not followed that rule here. And if a player does not get an authoritative, legitimate, complete field contemporary ranking at No. 1 for a given year, that player should not be ranked world no. 1 in our article. If there are NO contemporary rankings showing anyone ranked for either tour at No.1, we should acknowledge that openly". In some years, we should leave a blank space. In 1953, we have two legitimate pro rankings, one with Sedgman at No. 1 , and the other from March a 12-month ranking with Gonzales at No. 1. That Cleveland list makes sense viewed from a 12-month perspective, which is how Budge explained it. These two lists were made with full awareness of Kramer's tour with Sedgman, but gave greater weight to tournaments than to the world pro tour. That was a tennis judgment not burdened by commercial considerations, unlike the tour ads referring to "the champ" should be understood.Tennisedu (talk) 23:24, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

Fully agreed with tennishistory1877 on 1953 and on leaving Kramer as sole pro #1. His recently added sources are not what tennisedu says they are, and in fact they're better than many sources from tennisedu that we've already let stand in this article and in others.

The year currently has a tag indicating dubious and to be discussed, but I also agree with tennishistory1877 that discussions with tennisedu have never ended well and are not productive, and it's best to disengage (as others have disengaged from each other recently, I see). Happy to discuss with other editors, however. The dubious tag can stay or go, but for my part I agree with tennishistory1877 on this year.Krosero (talk) 19:16, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

Now, why am I not surprised to hear you say that, Krosero? As I have already urged Tennishistory1877, please attempt to exercise personal self-control on these pages and not let personal bitterness get the better of these contributions. It is unacceptable for this article to use rankings from an unidentified authority, that is right in the lead to the article. Completely worthless. Bending the rules here degenerates the quality of the article. We should respect the rules for this article and also for polite editing on this site.Tennisedu (talk) 20:19, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

The two of you can reproach each other whatever you want, it will not change the fact that this article is fundamentelly flawed. The reality is that there was no official world ranking prior to 1973. Every "world no 1 ranked player" listed here for every year before that is a pure question of opinion. All these so called consensi are nothing but original research. There is no right or wrong, just personal opinion.Tvx1 22:08, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

I don't believe that at all. And you have to extend the opinion based ranking to about 1990 since the ATP based their best player by a panel of personal opinions till then, or longer. Same with the ITF. Same with college football for most of it's history... personal opinions. Tennis is no different... expert personal opinions from magazines and books. We list them here with the sources. Fyunck(click) (talk) 22:19, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

There is a difference between a ranking system based on sources and a ranking system not based on sources, Tvx1. It is the latter I am most anxious to avoid. There is an argument for removing the ranking columns pre-1973 and certainly it would make life simpler and mean there were less rows. For me its the sources that make this article what it is. Tennishistory1877 (talk) 22:31, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

Still expert personal opinion. Not official rankings in any way. The presented consensi are nothing but WP:SYNTHESIS by Wikipedians. This article violates multiple Wikipedia policies.Tvx1 00:09, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

I have questioned only recently the type of article this is and whether it fits with wikipedia. I even asked a respected long time editor on these pages (who you may know) for his view about it. If you think it violates wikipedia rules then you should bring this to the attention of administrators. Tennishistory1877 (talk) 10:02, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

Thank you, Tennishistory1877 for acknowledging that this is your own point of view. But this article has a clearly defined parameter, it is about "annual rankings", it is not about who was the greatest player for a year or for an era. The focus is "the tennis ranking authorities who provided the annual rankings on which the listed rankings are based." Only identified authorities are within the scope of this article. It is easy to confuse the two subjects. Also the TIME parameter is clearly defined, "at the end of each calendar year generally considered to be the best overall for that entire calendar year." These are supposed to be ANNUAL rankings for the ENTIRE calendar year. That eliminates brief blurbs tied to a short stretch of time. If anyone is interested in a possible compromise, we could simply move the "Rankings" sections from the summary column on the right and place them in toto into the left hand columns. That would allow us to avoid exercising our own personal judgments about what information should be regarded as decisive or important.Tennisedu (talk) 22:38, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

Authorities according to whom? Some Wikipedians? Respected sources, yes. But authorities over the sport? Authorities are those who organize the tournaments and the tours. What you have are journalists expressing their personal opinion. As I pointed out there were no yearly rankings in any way before 1973. Only journalists and (former) players who expressed who they considered the “best” during the year in their personal opinion. You can argue over this eternally, none is totally right or totally wrong.Tvx1 00:09, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

I agree with krosero. I no longer wish to engage (other than basic agree or disagree type answers) with someone who has become increasingly rude and demanding, misrepresents what I say and whose long-standing and overwhelming bias all mean it is impossible to have a sensible conversation with him. Tennishistory1877 (talk) 22:55, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

I really don’t understand why you continue to react so offended. There is little rudeness or incivility. You are actually making more personal comments than the other way round. You are really just not agreeing on this subject. Both of you have the good right to have different opinions. With this dispute you are really only wasting each other’s time because it is nigh on impossible to agree on something so subjective.Tvx1 00:09, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

That is correct, you dont understand. When you have looked back through the long edit histories of the respective posters, looked back through the long edit history of the Lew Hoad page, seen the multiple edit reversions and warnings the editor in question has received for making biased edits (not just from me, but from other editors also), observe the way the page was temporarily locked over the problems there and understand the reasons that such a polite and reasonable editor such as krosero refuses to speak to the editor any longer, then and only then will you begin to comprehend the situation. Tennishistory1877 (talk) 09:48, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

The term "authorities" in the context of this article refers to the individuals who constructed the rankings. If we cannot identify or discover who exactly the authors of the rankings were, then the ranking in question does not fall within the paramaters of this article. Very simple, and very obvious. If I offered you a product but did not tell you who built the product, would you be willing to buy it? Not me. I want to know who constructed a house which I might buy, was it a well-known contractor, or a general handyman? Authority refers to authorship. Does that help, Tvx1?Tennisedu (talk) 02:27, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

I think you are mixing up English words here. Authority≠author. Authority=Someone who has the right to make some special decisions in organisation (e.g. a wikipedia Administrator has the authority to block editors), to make rules, to organize events or competions. Author=someone who writes things or creates works of art and retains the legal rights to them.Tvx1 16:04, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

In this case , authority means someone who has expertise on a particular subject. Or you could simply use the term "expert".Tennisedu (talk) 20:18, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

Should use it. Authority≠expert. If you mean expert, simply say expert. Least confusion for everyone.Tvx1 19:49, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

Often you will hear someone say, "So-and-so is an authority on the subject." It is a common term.Tennisedu (talk) 21:58, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

I disagree with bashing of ITF

{{User:ClueBot III/ArchiveNow}} Show some respect for ITF World Champion. E.g. in 1982 McEnroe is "ATP Points leader" and Jimmy Connors is "ATP and ITF player of the year". That's wrong. Connors was ATP Player of the Year and ITF World Champion for that year. If it's by accident, it's disrespectful to rename the ITF award just for the sake of convenience, and if it's on purpose then it's very misleading as it suggests/leads readers to conclude ATP player of the year is big brother to ITF award. Just think what would opposite look like: "Connors was ITF and ATP world champion in 1982"? Either both awards get properly mentioned with their proper names, or if they're described by their nature, call them ITF and ATP committee awards, similarly to ATP points leader. It's a semantics issue, but important one. Boris Johnson is UK Prime Minister, not UK Chancellor. And Angela Merkel is German Chancellor, not German Prime Minister. So both should be mentioned properly, or if you want umbrella term, then both of them are heads of their respective governments. Ricardo 93.140.225.100 (talk) 12:20, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

Yes, both should be mentioned separately. Criteria for ATP PoY and ITF WC are different, so the names. Tennis MVP by SI and Player of year by SI are two different awards and two different criteria. One of the members in the page claiming that SI is contradicting themselves by awarding Tennis MVP to Thiem and selecting Djokovic as one of the nominees for Player of year for 2020. L'Equipe rated Nadal second best player of year in all sports when Nadal is rated No.2 in Tennis (No.3 for year 2020 ATP rankings).... Krmohan (talk) 17:36, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

Agreed. It would simply mean ATP Champion or ITF champion. Better change for 1978, 1982, 1989 as "ATP & ITF Champion" instead of "ATP & ITF player of the year" at least.Krmohan (talk) 12:41, 4 November 2021 (UTC)