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

German and Jeffrey
On the 1975 rankings Borg's no2 is disputable. Everybody ranked Ashe no1, But Tingay ranked Orantes 2. Connors 3. Borg 4. ; World Tennis ranked Connors 2. Borg 3. Orantes 4. ; Steve Fink ranked Orantes 2. Borg 3. Connors 4. I know other sources have Borg 2. But given these rankings I feel Borg, Connors, Orantes should be ranked co no.2. based on all the availabe sources [jeffreyneave Dec 27 2006]

I agree with Jeffreyneave here. I always thought that Connors deserved the Nr.2 ranking, due to his 3 major finals.He actually played better at Wimbledon than the year before, but ran into a hot player Arthur Ashe.He also had a positive head to head vs. Borg, and beat him in the sf Forest Hills on Har tru (and also in the US clay court) (German friend Dec. 28, 2006).


 * Hello

Haven't done a precise study of 1975, I do not disagree for the moment your arguments and then I've changed the article. Carlo Colussi 07:59, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Hello misters. i) Germanfriend : since my time is now counted then I have 4 priorities : 1) to finish correcting this article originally written by mister Peirce : being arrived at 1992 then I am concentrating on the 1992-2006 period, 2) to do the same in the French version (which is not completely similar : in the French version I have not listed rankings in 43 and 44 and not yet in 45), then 3) to correct the Rosewall article due to the World No.1 article changes, 4) then to do the same in the French version.

Given that a) I like your 3 propositions (1) to indicate some of the best amateurs, 2) to write a few words about the difficulty of weighting tours against tournaments, 3) your 1968-1969 rankings) and b) I have not much time

if you have the courage to write it in the article I would be very grateful.

ii) Jeffreyneave : I remembered this morning I haven't done something and you have just recalled me : to check the Roche-Laver meetings in 69 : I recognize I have written from memory and I wasn't sure but to prevent stopping the impetus of my corrections I've preferred to write it and to correct it if necessary before a viewer can notice it but I've forgotten that one of the specialists (with germanfriend) of the end of the 60's and the beginning of the 70's would look at the article so quickly. Tonight I'll try not to forget to check it.


 * I have found only 9 meetings between Roche and Laver in 1969 and a 5-4 record :

January 19, Roche won the NSW in Sydney 64 46 97 1210 over Laver in the final

January 25 or 26, Laver beat Roche in the semifinal of the Australian Open, Brisbane, 75 2220 911 16 63

February 3, Roche b Laver in the New Zealand Open final, Auckland, 61 64 46 63

February 9, Philadelphia Open final, Laver b Roche 75 64 64

February 13 or 18, Hollywood (Florida) Pro final, Roche b Laver 63 97 64

February 26 or 27 or 28, Oakland Pro final, Roche b Laver 46 64 119

May, Amsterdam Pro 3rd place, Roche b Laver 63 36 62

September 7, US Open, Forest Hills, final, Laver b Roche 79 61 61 62

November 22 or 23, Wills Open Covered Courts, Queen's Club & Wembley Arena Laver b Roche 64 61 63

Moreover in his autobiography page 82 Laver wrote "All through 1969 Tony was trouble for me. The main trouble. He beat me five out of nine times".

I have not yet seen your last comments on Rosewall's article and I think I won't watch them until I have finished the World No.1 article.

Carlo Colussi 12:00, 6 December 2006 (UTC)


 * These are the 9 I have traced. Both Roche and laver could have met In tokyo and MSG pro events because they are both roundrobins. The tokyo roundrobin had at least 9 players and was played over 10 days so it might have been a full 9 man roundrobin rather than the one at MSG which I think split the players into 2 groups of 4. I don't have detailed results for these events. [jeffreyneave] 7 dec 2006

Comments added to the 1970-2006 rankings
I've added some other rankings and changed the 1972 one because most of the journalists but Collins ranked Nastase ahead of Rosewall in 1972.

As I've told you some weeks ago I have changed some rankings of the ATP computer era. For instance Ashe in 1975, Borg in 1977-1978, Connors in 1982, Becker in 1989 were considered by almost everyone as the best players in the world while the ATP ranked other players at the first place.

Carlo Colussi 09:55, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Hello, german friend. while i see Your point on the 1978 ranking pro Borg, the 1977 ranking is a different matter. World Tennis (and others) had Vilas as Nr.1, he had the best overall record (one of the best years in open era), and despite Borg's positive head-to- head, he deserves the top spot imo.I agree, that it is a close and difficult decision, as in 1970, 75, 82, 89. In 98 Rafter was called player of the year by Tennis magazine (USA), and he has a claim for the real Nr. 1 in that year. Also the 95 year was a close race between Sampras, Agassi and Muster, who had the best overall record and beat Sampras indoors at Essen. Agassi probably had the best consistent record in majors and big titles.(german friend)

In 82 I think that Connors had the best record and surely not McEnroe always beaten by Lendl. In 89 Becker has the greatest record and what makes for me the difference between him and Lendl was the confidence of Becker before he served his 2 aces in the US Open final to win the tournament. As in 82 and in 89, Sampras has won 2 Grand Slam tournaments in 95 and Pete was also runner-up of the Australian. Had Agassi not been injured in the end of 95 he would have probably been the best. Sure Muster has won Essen but he has above all won on clay and nothing much else. In 98 Sampras has won Wimbledon, reached the semis at the US, the quarters at the Australian and the 2nd round in RG while Rafter has won the US and reached the 4th, 3th and 2nd rounds in Wimbledon, the Australian and Roland : so advantage to Sampras. Moreover the American reached the semis at the Masters where Rafter was absent. It is also probable that Sampras deserved the title at Cincinatti against Rafter because of a referee error and in the US Sampras injured. PS : I have chosen Geist's source to co-rank Laver and Rosewall in '64. And I will rank Hoad second in 59 (I will list some sources). But for 58 I haven't found sources ranking Sedgman 2nd or 1st as suggested by you or Jeffreyneave ? 84.96.87.77 08:36, 4 December 2006 (UTC)Carlo Colussi
 * Hello german friend : I had your ideas in mind. I think that 1977 looks like 1960 : in 1960 Gonzales dominated Rosewall in head-to-head matches and then retired while Kenny won the tournaments. In 1977 Borg dominated Vilas in meetings and sort of retired (playing WTT) while Vilas won. Knowing I've changed Peirce 1960 proposition in co-ranking Gonzales-Rosewall in 1960 I'll probably do the same in 1977 because World Tennis and Sutter had ranked Vilas #1 (Have you other examples to confirm ?). In 1975 in all rankings, but Tommasi's, Ashe is ranked first : have you any examples contradicting it ?

Hello, it is a bit a "dangerous" game, to change the ATP Nr.1 for the "real" Nr 1 in some years since 1973, because at last we had a statistical proven ranking due to the computer, not only subjective magazines rankings.But anyway, in some years there are legitimate debates. For 1977 i know, that Tennis magazine (USA), Bodo or a panel of writers?, had Borg Nr.1, while World Tennis chose Vilas.I don't have the World of Tennis annual for the year.in 89 Beckers feats in the majors and DC gave him the top spot in most peoples minds. On the other hand, Lendl has won a major and i think 10 to 5 tournaments.In 98 Rafter had a 2-0 advantage over Sampras, and really was injured late in the year, while Sampras played through.The ITF choices for world champion aren't too bad, except, as You said, for 1990.(german friend)

Moreover there is a certain homogeneity in listing from the beginning to the end rankings edited by magazines or journalists and in not introducing a computer ranking suddenly after 60 years without it.
 * Hello I don't think it's dangerous because I don't change the ATP rankings : The link to "List of ATP number 1 ranked players" is present in two places of the article then if people desire to see them there is no problem. Magazines rankings are subjective but ATP rankings are too very subjective (no Davis Cup points, no WCT Finals points, no Masters points in the 70's and the 80's, not enough points for the Grand Slam tournaments and so on ...) and moreover initially the ATP rankings were not officials as I've read in a Ashe interview in the 70's but a source of statistical information. Moreover isn't it dangerous to make believe to everybody that Connors would have dominated the tennis world from 1974 to 1978 when each witness of the time knew it was untrue : even Connors knew he wasn't the best in 75, 77 and 78 ? So I think that magazines rankings were less subjective than the ATP rankings of the time and still now the ATP rankings don't give enough points to the Grand Slam tournaments and don't give any points to the Davis Cup which is the foundation of the modern game because it has defined the Grand Slam concept. The first Budge's goal in 1938 wasn't the Grand Slam, that he had in a certain way invented after the Kieran assertion, but the defence of the Davis Cup. These "officials" rankings aren't still very good.

Nevertheless anyone who wants to see the ATP rankings can do it without any problems.

Carlo Colussi 07:44, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

The whole picture looks more trustful now, with detailled analyses of the complex and different rankings in each year. As a said before, in some transitional years on the pro circuit and even in the first open years, there was no clearcut Nr.1, but that was life. One little note: Until 1968 i would give also the best or the three or five best amateurs pro year, as it is already done sporadically. And in the introducing notes, one should point to the difficulty of weighting mano a mano World series against tournament play in the pro years.For 1968 i have two slightly different rankings by two panels (from DTB Tennis Jahrbuch 69 and 70): One panel of 15 jornalists including McCauley, Trengove, Snider, Gerald Williams, McGann, Tupper, Elian, Quist, Lencer (good German writer, died on the court), Grimsley, Bellamy, Collins, Tingay, Gray, Owen Williams; the other consisted of 17 mostly European journalists.

The first panel for 1968 had: Laver (150 p.), Ashe (128), Okker (117),Rosewall (110),Newcombe (78), Roche (74), Graebner (66), Drysdale (37), Gonzales (28), Ralston (22). The second panel had: Laver (170), Ashe,, Rosewall, Okker, newcombe, Roche, Graebner, Drysdale, Ralston, Gonzales.

FOR 1969 i have a ranking by a panel of the SID (Sport Informations-Dienst) by Ulrich Kaiser, with 17 journalists (mostly from European newspapers incl. Hellberg, Mezzanotte, Grau, Bellamy, Tingay, De Bie, etc., but also McCauley): Laver (170), Roche (153), Newcombe (134), Okker (109), Ashe (104), Rosewall (87), Gonzales (39), Drysdale (34), Gimeno (33), Stolle (33 tied), Emerson (28).

(german friend 5 Dec.)

In the 1969 rankings, you mention that Roche beat Laver 6 to 5. I've only got 9 results from Laver's book. Are the other two at the Japan pro round -robin and the Madison Square Garden Pro ? What are these results ? [jeffreyneave] 5 dec. 2006

Discussions and corrections about your article point by point : The World No.1 and No.2 from 1913 (until 1941)

 * I've changed Laver-Rosewall head-to-head record in 1965 from 12-5 to 13-5 because McCauley in his page 130 comment has not taken into account the East London match in October 1965 won by Laver against Rosewall (see results page 239) probably because the exact score is unknown : I've written all the results I had between the two Australians in the Rosewall article I have not yet finished.

Carlo Colussi 15:25, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Hello

I've changed a little your article until 1941 : in particular I've incorporated some big pro victories (Bristol Cup at Cannes or Beaulieu, Southport Pro, Paris Indoors, ...).

I have also changed the 12-0 Tilden-Richards statistics in 1931 in 10-0 (see Bowers, first and second lines of the third paragraph of the LATE SUMMER part : for the year Tilden counted ten match wins over Vincent Richards without loss.).

Instead of Daily Telegraph I've written A. Wallis Myers of London's The Daily Telegraph (and Olliff in 1939) because Myers with Danzig, Potter and some others were the great tennis specialists.

I've also changed Brit. Pro in Wembley Pro because Wembley has never been a British Pro (see my explanations where I say that the only British Pro which have existed were the Southport tournament in the thirties and the domestic tournament mainly held at Eastbourne where in particular Dan Maskell was the victor something like sixteen times. I've also said that there was another tournament held at Eastbourne and called the Slazenger Pro tournament).

I've added some information in the article the three major tournaments that I have recalled the major tournaments because some years the supposed three major ones weren't.

Another point this time I haven't changed : you've written the Co-No. 1 years in Boldface in your article ''Most Years as No.1 or Co-No. 1 (earliest first for those with identical numbers; Co-No. 1 year in Boldface)''. Wouldn't be better to make the reverse because when I look at 5 years Fred Perry, 1934, 1935, 1936, 1937, 1941 for example I have the impression that he has more dominated the other players in 1935, 1937 or 1941 than in 1934 or 1936 whereas it is the contrary ?

Last point : McCauley doesn't list any Wembley pro tournaments from 1946 to 1948 as suggested by Bud Collins. If I believe McCauley : in 1946 all the great tournaments took place in the USA (some domestic tournaments were held in Europe). In 1947 there were indeed head-to-head matches between Budge and Riggs in Wembley but no tournament and in 1948 the only great tournament found by McCauley is the U.S. Pro at Forest Hills.

Carlo Colussi 14:07, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Carlo Colussi 09:09, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I've corrected the "L'Auto, Budge and Tilden" part (year 1936) because Bowers has written Three contemporary evaluators–the Paris sporting paper l’Auto, Tilden in a January 1937 column, and Budge in a piece published in early 1937–all agreed in placing Vines first. and he doesn't say that Tilden and Budge have published their own ranking in L'Auto.

Vainqueurs
Is the name of the book "Vainqueurs 19xxx-2000 Winners 19xx-2000" or simply "Vainqueurs 19xx-20xx", with the "Winners etc." simply being a translation of the title by other people, rather than being an actual part of the title? I keep seeing references to it both ways.... Hayford Peirce 02:23, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

The names are more complicated than that but contains the expression "Vainqueurs 1946-xxxx Winners 1946-xxxx" : when I'll be home I will look at the exact titles  Carlo Colussi 15:11, 15 November 2006 (UTC) Here are the good titles :

1)

Vainqueurs

1946-1991

Winners

2)

Dico du Tennis Masculin

Men's Tennis Dictionary

Vainqueurs

Winners

Tournois Tournaments

1946-2003

Carlo Colussi 08:21, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Little remark : I've changed my username (Karl Kol) to my true name (Carlo Colussi)

Carlo Colussi 08:26, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Discussions and corrections about your article point by point : Professional tennis before 1926 and Sources of rankings
- I have never seen before Koželuh spelled thus, I've always seen Kozeluh so are you sure ?

Same remark for Năstase ? Nastase ? ž character in their box of type. (Or French typesetters, for tht matter.) But, of course, Wiki does, so we might as well be correct about it.
 * Yup, both of them are spelled that way in their native languages. Someone or other corrected these entries a long time ago.  I think the reason you haven't see it spelled this way before is that most English-language typesetters for books, magazines, and newspapers didn't have a

I'm not used to but sometimes I will try to spell them like that : Năstase and Koželuh. Carlo Colussi 15:11, 15 November 2006 (UTC) - I've just corrected Beginning with 1927 by Beginning with the 20's in the first source of rankings.
 * Fine.

- From 1973 you've taken the year-end ATP rankings as the basis but these rankings are often criticable (I've given numerous examples in the discussions) and moreover this list already exists in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_ATP_number_1_ranked_players. For instance, the list of French Open winners begins with 1927, I think. That's dumb. It was played beginning with 1891 and it's hard to find a list of the 1891-1926 winners. So I'm putting it into the list of French championships.
 * Well, I had to get them from somewhere, and Collins offered his own take on the 2 best. It was easy, and it was sourced.  Also, just because info exists in ONE article doesn't mean that it can't be duplicated in a different one.  Who wants to have to look at two different articles to find out connected info?  (At least in some cases.)


 * You have the whole list of the French Nationals amateur winners at http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palmar%C3%A8s_du_simple_messieurs_des_Internationaux_de_France_de_Roland-Garros where you can see that there are two different periods :

the one until 1924 where the tournament was almost exclusively played by domestic players with few exceptions (for example 1891 H. Briggs GBR)

and the second one which began in 1925 when the tournament became the real Internationals amateur of France (in 1928 the tournament was delocated to Roland Garros, the new stadium erected by the French to defend the Davis Cup they had won for the first time in 1927 outside Philadelphia).

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

So why not sometimes choose as No. 1 the "World Champion of Tennis" decreed by the International Federation of Tennis (ITF) from 1978 to 1999 (since 2000 the Race winner is considered as the World Champion) ?
 * Because I didn't know about it at the time. In any case, I'm really not particularly interested by modern tennis, so make any changes you want to, as long as they're sourced.  You know far more about it than I do -- I was just grabbing the stuff from Collins. Hayford Peirce 18:03, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

If we except 1990, when the nomination of Lendl was considered a scandal because everyone thought that Edberg the ATP No. 1 was the real number one but the Swede was punished by the ITF for having criticized and having not played the new Grand Slam Cup created by Philippe Chatrier this list is OFFICIAL and MORE ACCURATE :

1978 Borg, 1979 Borg, 1980 Borg, 1981 McEnroe, 1982 Connors, 1983 McEnroe, 1984 McEnroe, 1985 Lendl, 1986 Lendl, 1987 Lendl, 1988 Wilander, 1989 Becker, ..., 1991 Edberg, 1992 Courier, 1993-1998 Sampras and 1999 Agassi.

It would make justice for Borg in 1978 who was the real best player (and not Connors), for Connors in 1982 (and not McEnroe), for Becker in 1989 (and not Lendl) : do you agree ?

below you can look my answer about the 1954 Australian tour

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

Michel Sutter as a Source
I will go through your various discussions and pull out enough info to list Sutter as one of the Sources along with Bowers, etc. Hayford Peirce 18:53, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

French Histoire du Tennis
What do you think of this site:

http://bmarcore.club.fr/tennis/menu-tennis.html

I used their chapter "la revanche de Gonzales" as the basis for some info I put into various articles several months ago, but now I'm dubious about the correctness of what it says about the 1954, or is it 1953, Australian tour. Some of their info seems to be contradicted (or ignored) by McCauley.

Do you think we ought to list them as one of the Sources, the way Bowers is listed? Hayford Peirce 18:52, 24 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Hello

The problem about the supposed Australian tours of 1953 and 1954 is that anybody is clear.


 * Yes, I know -- he apparently repeats the same info. Bowers said to me in an email that McCauley is certainly mistaken about one of the years.

I've also read "Man with a racquet" written by Gonzales and Rice (?) but Gonzales hasn't indicated any date but it seems that the Australian tour was probably at the end of 1954 (and not at the end of 1953) because Gonzales talked about it after the Gonzales-Segura-Sedgman-Budge (and Earn) 1954 tour.
 * Gorgo doesn't really give all that much *exact* info in his book -- it's like Riggs' book -- a lot of dates and info are missing.


 * Yesterday I've said some stupidities (I've reread McCauley and Gonzales) :

a) Pancho Gonzales with Cy Rice 'Man with a racket'

p 111 : Jack...wanted me for a round-robin tour against Sedgman, the crowd-pleasing Segura and the old redhead, Budge.

p 112 : ''I won the round robin...At the conclusion of this tour, I went to tennis-booming Australia. Playing with ... Sedgman, McGregor - plus Segura''

p 112-113 : ''I swept the tour, beating Sedgman, 16 matches to 9, McGregor 15-0, and Segura, 4-2 ... From Australia we moved northward to Tokyo and then backtracked to Manila ... our final stop in Seoul, Korea ... 1954 was a profitable year''

b) McCauley

year 1953 :

- p 62 there is no reference to an Australian tour

- p 200 Australian tour with no date (Gonzales d. Sedgman 15-9, McGregor and Segura no results)

year 1954 :

- p 63 Gonzales-Segura-Sedgman-Budge (Earn) tour from January 3 to at least March (Budge then replaced by Earn) 1954

- p 200 McCauley wrote the results

- p 200 and 202 McCauley repeated the results of the opening in New York (but he didn't write the results of the 2nd day that I found in World Tennis)

- p201-202 the Tokyo-Seoul-Manila-Hong Kong stops in September-October 1954 : I think these dates are good because McCauley has probably taken them from World Tennis November and December 1954 (I have the December edition with Seoul, Manila and Hong-Kong results)

- p 64 the Australian tour

- page 202 the results of the Australian tour in November-December 1954 with Gonzales-Sedgman 16-9, Gonzales-Segura 4-2, Gonzales-McGregor 15-0

Conclusion

I think that there was no Australian tour in 1953.

There seems to have had an Australian tour in 1954 (Gonzales-Sedgman 16-9, Gonzales-Segura 4-2, Gonzales-McGregor 15-0) but the dates aren't precise because according to Gonzales it was before the Far East tour (Tokyo and so on...) and according to McCauley after the Far East tour. I've just written before that the Far East dates are probably good. I then deduce from Gonzales' writings that the Australian tour took place probably in August-September : this isn't by far the best season in Australia (but in Queensland or in Northern Territory). If I believe McCauley the tour was held in November-December, a better season for outdoor tennis. Moreover McCauley listed the results of another Australian tour just after in January-February 1955 with Ayre replacing McGregor. I prefer McCauley's dates to Gonzales's.

So I think (until new information) that between 1953-1954 there was only one Australian tour in November-December 1954 (Gonzales-Sedgman 16-9, Gonzales-Segura 4-2, Gonzales-McGregor 15-0, unknown results between Segura and the Aussies and between the Aussies themselves)
 * Great! I'll study the above carefully and see if I have to rewrite any of the stuff in the Pancho Gonzales article too. At one point I had duplicate info in there, then I tried to correct it.  I have puzzled over the various stuff that you bring up above but finally just gave up on it.  You are almost certainly correct.  (What do you think about "La Revanche de Gonzales" at the French site?  Are they writing about 1953 or 1954?  That was where I originally got my possibly mistaken info." Hayford Peirce 18:09, 26 October 2006 (UTC)


 * It isn't clear : firstly in the main page he writes 1955-1960 La revanche de Pancho Gonzales but when you click to reach the article the title is 1954-1960: La revanche de Pancho Gonzales.

Secondly he talks about the Kramer's contract signed by Gonzales at the end of 1953 (that's right) and then seems to say that Gonzales played just after the Australian tour (end of 1953-beginning of 1954 ?) but if you look at the picture below he writes ''Tournée Australienne, hiver 1954 Sedgman, Kramer, McGregor et Segura. Gonzales n'a pas encore remplacé Kramer sur l'affiche.'' If I have to trust this affirmation then I deduce that Kramer played in Australia in 1954 and in winter (I suppose the boreal winter at the beginning of 1954 but this is Australia and then probably austral summer) before Gonzales did the same.

Moreover he says that Gonzales played the Pails (and Parker and Budge) tour after the Gonzales-Sedgman-Segura-McGregor but according to McCauley Gonzales and Pails toured in New Zealand at the end of ... 1950 (winner Pails) and in Australia (winner Gonzales) at the beginning of 1951.

Conclusion : I think the article is very suspect. While waiting for some new information I say that there were a New Zealand at the end of 1950 with Pails dominating Gonzales, Parker and Budge, the continuation in Australia with this time Gonzales the winner and finally an Australian tour at the end of 1954 with Gonzales beating Sedgman, Segura and McGregor followed by another tour Down Under at the beginning of 1955 with Ayre replacing McGregor (the winner being unknown) Carlo Colussi 15:11, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

PS : The last updates of the French website are not in 2002 because for instance the chapter (63) 1977 : Le Wimbledon du centenaire was written in May 2006.

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

What I think in terms of sources for pro tennis is : 1) Ray Bowers at the top and by far because it seems he had done a very intensive and very fine work (incidentally later I will talk to you in details about the French Pro because Ray Bowers has evoked the first French Pro in only 1934, for example the 1933 edition found in McCauley's book or Bud Collins's book wasn't a French Pro according to Bowers but a USA-France meeting in the Davis Cup format, I think (but not sure) that World Tennis confirms Bowers's affirmation). I will check it later.
 * Well, I have just listed the Sources in the order in which I found them, I think, with each new source going to the bottom of the list.

2) McCauley and World Tennis (many results of McCauley are extracted from World Tennis)

3) the players themselves

and the top for the years before 1953 (when World Tennis was created (as Tennis de France)) would be American Lawn Tennis (and Tennis and Golf for France).

So in conclusion I don't think http://bmarcore.club.fr/tennis/menu-tennis.html ought to be listed as Bowers's list, chapter by chapter, because I think a) Bowers's work deserves to be the top source, and b) there are some probable errors in this site (for example I have always read that the Kramer-Riggs tour has begun on Boxing Day (December 26, 1947) and in this site it is written in "Jack Kramer le professionnel" "Le 27 décembre 1947..." or in Gonzales's chapter "Début 53, Jack Harris l'avait engagé, titre de champion du monde professionel à la clé, mais sans Riggs ni Kramer. Pancho s'était contenté de battre un Budge vieilissant pour un titre sans grande valeur... " : the site refers to the US Pro 1953 where Riggs was present and not absent as the site says.)
 * I didn't mean to list all the individual chapters, just the principal Website.

Nevertheless this site is not bad and gives a global view of the tennis history then I think you cite it as "Histoire du tennis et du Grand Chelem" http://bmarcore.club.fr/tennis/menu-tennis.html. Moreover this site proposes to email if we have some ideas, remarks or suggestions so errors can probably be changed as in Wikipedia.
 * I see that the last updates were in 2002, however, so I wonder if they really do update it?

PS : I give you again the 1961 remarks by McCauley about the best player where he didn’t clearly affirm that Gonzales was the best : page 108 he effectively wrote as a title in the first line "Gonzales is still World Champion" but as soon as the fifth line of the same page he also wrote "...Rosewall by now arguably the No.1..." and page 111 McCauley still wrote "...the greatest emphasis was placed one more in the Paris and Wembley events. By winning both titles from fields including all the best players, Rosewall could justly claim to have usurped Gonzales’ long-held position of Numero Uno" and page 116 McCauley chose Robert Roy (L’Équipe)’s 1961 rankings with Rosewall as the top dog.
 * I still don't understand why he calls the chapter that, then, when he clearly does think Rosewall was at least as good.

And I give you other sources :

If McCauley was unable to choose the number one, others than Robert Roy had made a clear choice and considered Rosewall was the best : Kléber Haedens and Philippe Chatrier of Tennis de France, Michel Sutter (who has published « Vainqueurs 1946-1991 Winners 1946-1991 » a book listing all the tournaments winners of this period and a new edition « Vainqueurs 1946-2003 »), Christian Boussus (1931 Roland Garros amateur finalist), Peter Rowley, Robert Geist, Tony Trabert, John Newcombe and also the New York Times and World Tennis magazine : the day after the Rosewall-Gonzales final at Roland Garros, the New York Times reported in his headline and sub-headline « ROSEWALL CONQUERS GONZALES IN 4-SET TENNIS FINAL AT PARIS – Aussie Captures World Pro Title – American Fades After Strong Start » and after the Roland Garros and Wembley events, World Tennis magazine finally ran a photo of Rosewall saying « Ken Rosewall now has a claim to the title of World’s Best Professional. ». In his book, page 146, Laver wrote « Rosewall…Eventually he took over the leadership of the group, overcoming Gonzales, but the public never knew or believed… ». Laver didin’t precise the year but it should be 1961 before the 20-month retirement of Gonzales.
 * Okie, that's interesting info.


 * I've originally written in World No. 1 and 2 Tennis Players Rankings and Gonzales list that Connors has beaten Richard "Pancho" Gonzales 7-6 6-3 at Los Angeles in 1973 but I've made an error (since corrected) because according to the ATP Connors had defeated Francisco Gonzalez (and not Richard "Pancho" Gonzales).


 * You've written ...suppose that we can give at least some weight to the tournament results -- are they equal to the tour results? I dunno..

Nowadays the situation is very clear : one of the reasons is the tennis circuit is rich then the greatest tournaments have great opportunities not to be cancelled. It is very likely that the Australian Open will be held in 2007. Antoher reason is that the best players are rich and relatively independant so they can enter every event they want. Consequently there is a great probability that the best players will enter the Australian Open next year. This is also right for the other Grand Slam tournaments and for the Masters Cup. So the Grand Slam tournaments are the very big events of today and the Masters Cup is the step below and so on. In 2005 the Masters Cup then deserved the fifth rank among the biggest events even though many great players were absent (Nadal, Agassi, Safin...) because the only reason of their absence was injuries. They were not forbidden to play this tournament and they had largely enough money and time to go to Shanghai. Then Nalbandian was the best player of the Masters Cup week before he defeated all the valid opponents and he also "defeated" the unvalid opponents due to his health (after all the first quality of a sportsman is to be the physically the strongest).

This situation has been the same since 1983 and especially since 1987 when the Australian Open changed its dates and in 1988 when it left Kooyong. The tradition has since been clearly the most important factor to determine the importance of a tennis event.

But before and in particular before 1973 (the real first Open year) a player could be prevented to enter a tour or a tournament because a) directly the international federation or the national federation or a tournament director or pro promoter put his veto or b) because money and/or time missed :

a) - the Nazis prevented von Cramm to play Roland Garros amateur in 1937 (for the singles but not the doubles), Roland-Wimbledon-Forest Hills in 1938..., - Though von Cramm has defeated Riggs 6-1 6-1 at the Queen's 1939, the Wimbledon organizers refused to invite the German because of his stay in prison,

- the amateurs players couldn't play in foreign countries more than some weeks a year,

- Bromwich hasn't played Wimbledon many times because the priority of the Australian Federation was the Davis Cup and not Wimbledon

- there are so many other examples I could write a book,

b) before World War II for an European or an American to go and play tennis in Australia and to come back could "cost" 12 or 13 weeks and much money. Now Federer has absolutely no money problem and needs one or two days to make the trip from Swiss to Down Under. In 1939 the Australian players couldn't play Roland and Wimbledon for money and time were missing.

In the case of the pros

a) they were forbidden by the federations to play the Davis Cup and of all the amateur internationals tournaments in particular those of the Grand Slam,

b) money was a very big problem.

i) A pro tournament wasn't never sure to be held the following year (no Masters Round Robin in Los Angeles in 1961, no Roland Garros pro in 1957...), ii) a pro tour needed (as a pro tournament) to attract the biggest crowds then a pro tour didn't oppose the two best players but the two most popular (in 1951 Segura was most popular than Gonzales, in 1953 Sedgman was most popular than Gonzales, in 1958 Hoad was more appealing than Rosewall, in 1963 Buchholz, an American, was preferred in a US tour to Hoad, an Australian,...). Hans Nusslein has no charisma then from 1936 he wasn't chosen for any tour. We can't blame him for that. In the meantime Vines didn't play any tournament for 3 years and a half between Wembley in October 1935 (that he won) and Wembley in May 1939 (that he lost) because he earned much more money in tours (several tens of thousands of dollars) than in tournaments (he just earned $340 for his victory in the singles of the US Pro in 1939). We can't either blame Vines for not having played tournaments at that time. So business considerations were at the center of all.

Then I think that our judgments about the importance of tournaments and tours before 1983 depend almost exclusively on the field and just a little bit on tradition. nevertheless for some years judgments are very difficult.

If I come back to the Vines and Nusslein examples, between 1936 and 1938 the best "tours player" was Vines and the best "tournaments player" was Nusslein. Because they played on different "circuits" they never faced each other during those years : so who was the best ? The answer is uncertain. The only element is that Vines dominated Nusslein before (in 1934 and in 1935) and after (very very slightly in 1939) the 1936-1938 period. So the probability that Vines was better than Nusslein between 1936 and 1938 is great (but not absolutely sure). Then we can consider that for these 3 years tours were more important than tournaments to choose the number one (but not obligatorily to choose the second and the following players).

If I look at the year 1959 all the best were at Forest Hills pro and at the Masters Round Robin of Los Angeles whereas in the Gonzales-Hoad-Cooper-Anderson tour were missing Sedgman, Rosewall, Trabert and Segura so for me the two cited tournaments were very much more important than the tour. If I consider all the tournaments the best player was Gonzales just ahead Hoad (see my explanations in World No. 1 and 2 Tennis Players Rankings and Gonzales list year 1959) and the tour results helped me to consider Gonzales as the best without any doubt.

In the 1961 world tour, Rosewall was absent because he has taken some long holidays (but was not in semi-retirement as you've written) and Segura, Trabert or Sedgman made some replacements but in Wembley and in Roland Garros all the best were there without any exception so in 1961 these tournaments were the biggest events and then superior to the tour. In the 1963 US tour with Rosewall, Laver, Gimeno, Buchholz, MacKay and Ayala were missing Hoad, Sedgman whereas in the French pro or the Wembley pro tournaments no one was absent so for me these two tournaments were above the tour without any doubt. In tournaments Rosewall was clearly the number one and the US tour just confirmed this statement. For 1963 I use "Tradition" for instance to place Wembley Pro or the French Pro above Cannes Pro or Rome Pro. In these four tournaments all the best were there so their fields were equivalent but Wembley or the French had a little "pro history" whereas Cannes or Rome hadn't.
 * I used that word because one of the Sources (McCauley, I suppose) used it. I'll change it to something else.
 * As you say, it's apparent that many of the best players were missing from various tournaments for various reasons, primarily financial.

If you have time to read all the stuff I have written in the different articles of this discussion page you could see how I rank such or such event for a given year.

I have also said that for some years I couldn't really know what were the most important events because the "tours players" absolutely or almost didn't face the "tournaments players". For instance this was the case in 1936, 1937, 1938 with "tours-player-Vines"; in 1950, 1951, 1953 with "tours-player-Kramer"; in 1960 with "tours-player-Gonzales" : so all comparisons between these two sort of players were very hard. For these seven years I've given the advantage to the "tours player" but without any certainty (if someone gives me a good argument proving that Nusslein was possibly the best pro in 1936-37-38, Segura in 1950-1951-1953 or Rosewall in 1960 I wouldn't argue much).

But for a given year, if I except the seven years cited before (and perhaps others I have forgotten) there has always been at least one or several tournaments where all the best players were present. For me then it is evident that these tournaments were the biggest events ahead of the tours because the tours hadn't all the best players.

In conclusion my opinion is that :

a) until 1982 because players weren't "free" in the broad sense, a) the field is the main factor and by far to determine the weight of an event and b) the tradition has just a little bit of importance (Wimbledon amateur 1957 had already a long and big tradition but the only present very great player of the moment was Hoad whereas the Pro Masters Round Robin in Los Angeles that same year had no tradition (it was the second edition if I'm not mistaken) but Gonzales, Segura, Sedgman, Rosewall, Trabert, Hoad and Pails were playing : for me there is no doubt that Wimbledon that year was a second-(if not third-)class event whereas the Pro Masters Round Robin in Los Angeles was THE EVENT (with Forest Hills Pro) in 1957)

so the tournaments with all the best players were the greatest events.

b) since 1983, tradition has elevated the Grand Slam tournaments to the four first places (and the Masters Cup far behind at the fifth one, the Davis Cup being sometimes the sixth event (I recall it was the first one in the 20's then the first one in the amateur circuit until 1959))

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

Discussions and corrections about your article point by point : firstly from the beginning to "Unofficial rankings before 1973"
Hello mister Peirce.

First of all I have well understood that any rankings proposed in the article have to be sourced so even though I think that Budge was the single No.1 in 1937 the only source of a 1937 pro-amateur combined ranking I know is that of Bowers and he ranked Vines and Perry equal to Budge. Same reasoning for 1947 : I think that Riggs was ahead of Kramer in 1947 but no source confirms it.
 * Yup, we've got to take the sources, no matter what we ourselves think.

Nevertheless you've written  It is easy to determine that Jack Kramer was the world's best player in 1950 and 1951  but I've given some arguments proving that it isn't easy at all. Kramer has only won (easily) tours these years but was dominated by Segura and Gonzales in tournaments (see my discussion beginning with ''Without any doubt the best "tours player" these years was Kramer but the best "tournaments player" was Segura (in front of Gonzales)...".
 * I was, of course, basing "easy" entirely on the tour results.

Consequently I have changed a little your sentence.
 * Your change is fine.

Moreover there isn't any real pro rankings of these years if we except those of the PLTA and in these cases Segura was the No. 1 each year and Kramer was No. 2 in 1950 and wasn't even ranked in 1951. I do not fully agree the PLTA nevertheless by these rankings this association probably meant that Kramer hasn't played half of the time and then wasn't (and by far) an omnipotent No.1 the whole years but only in the first halves.

In 1952 Gonzales has played almost as much as Segura and only Kramer has played very little (if we except the supposed European tour with no known results) so I've also changed your 1952 comment and moreover Gonzales has defeated Segura 4 times (and not 5) (see below) :
 * You're almost certainly right for both years.

Segura indeed entered the 7 and won 3 (among these 3 tournaments Gonzales was present in only one, the US Pro (Lakewood, Cleveland)).

Kramer has probably entered only 2, a) the round-robin tournament of Philadelphia where Gonzales ended winner and Segura second (Kramer was at best third and was beaten at least by Gonzales (and probably by Segura)), b) Wembley, the biggest event in 1952, where Kramer led 4-1 and 5-2 in the fifth and final set of the final but finally he was again defeated by Gonzales.

Gonzales entered 5 tournaments and captured 4 (Philadelphia where he beat Segura and Kramer; Scarborough by defeating Budge and Segura; Wembley by mastering Segura and Kramer; Berlin where Segura and Budge lost again to the American) and was finalist in the US Pro. Gonzales thus beat Segura in 4 matches out of 5.
 * I suppose that we can give at least some weight to the tournament results -- are they equal to the tour results? I dunno.  However, I don't think we can change the rankings much beyond as they stand right now.  It's infuriating that some *reputable* authority can't be found that came up with yearly rankings!

I have also changed your 1953 comment because Kramer didn't clearly reestablished himself as No.1 in 1953 because as in 1950 and in 1951 he didn't play the second half of the year and in 1953 he did all he could to avoid his new nemesis, Gonzales.
 * Well, once again it was based entirely on the tour result. Where, of course, if Sedgman hadn't injured himself, he *might* have been able to narrowly beat Kramer.  I myself think Sedgman was the greatest underrated and (today) unknown player of all time, but, as Kramer writes, when it came down to the final crunch against the very best players he just couldn't *quite* win....


 * I don't know if Sedg was the most underrated one but all the pros before Laver, without any exception, are all underestimated because they hadn't play a great part of their career in open conditions. It is almost sure that Sedgman would have won several Australian or British or US Open if he had been allowed to and I consider that his victories in the Australian Pro in 1954 and 1958 and his Wembley Pro titles in 1953 and 1958 are the equivalent. Carlo Colussi 15:11, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

For today I will end with your affirmation that Gonzales was the World No.1 for eight consecutive years from 1954 to 1961.

Don't you think that Rosewall was the best in 1961 (see all the arguments I've given in World No. 1 and 2 Tennis Players Rankings and Gonzales list) : the only complete rankings, pro-amateur combined, of 1961 were those of Robert Roy from L'Équipe ?
 * Let me read all of your stuff again. You put in so much material that I've only really skimmed it, but am now reading it thoroughly from the beginning to see how it jibes with what I am putting in from Bowers and McC.

What are your sources ? a) McCauley ? Though his 1961 account title was Gonzales Still World Champion inside the account itself he repeated several times that Rosewall was the No.1 and McCauley finally chose Roy's rankings to conclude his own account. b) Kramer ? This one thought that Gonzales was the best from 1954 to 1962 but we can't trust Kramer in this case knowing his feud with Gonzales and that he always underrated Rosewall : Kramer never claimed that Gonzales was the best in 1952 and he affirmed that Gonzales was the best in 1962 whereas the latter has not played a single match in 1962. c) Gonzales himself ? This one said that he was the No.1 because he had won more tournaments than Rosewall but the American omitted to say that Rosewall has won the 2 big events of 1961, Wembley and Roland Garros. Gonzales had such a great opinion of himself that he considered he was the best even in 1963 before the US Pro (Gonzales was crushed by Olmedo who never was in the Top5 in the Pros; and Rosewall captured the tournament). It is clear that these 3 sources can't be followed in this case : McCauley hesitated and Kramer's and Gonzales's opinions were skewed. Perhaps you will cite Bud Collins but this one always refers to McCauley or to Robert Geist for pro tennis before Laver era.
 * Well, lemme reread all this stuff. I'm basically going with what McCauley titles his chapter.  As a professional writer myself, I don't think that another writer calls someone the best in the Chapter heading, then says the opposite in the text itself.  He can do it, of course, but if he does he's a very sloppy (or very ignorant) writer.  Give me a couple of days to review this entire thing for 1961.  Maybe we can just call Rosewall and Gonzales co-No. 1 -- there would certainly be citations for doing so.

So why not take into account Roy's rankings ?

For the moment I do not change your sentence but I am waiting for your answer to my arguments.

The next time I will discuss about the continuation of your article from Professional tennis before 1926

PS : I've lately seen you've answered some of my questions in the discussion below : thank you.
 * I'm going to work my way through everything you've written but it's going to take a little time. Best, Hayford Peirce 18:31, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

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

List of Grand Slam Men's Singles champions
I'm going to add the amateur Grand Slam champions for each year beginning with 1928 so I've made this link in order to access the names easily. Hayford Peirce 17:57, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Sam Match and Jack March
Geez, now it appears that there really two different guys of this these names -- up till now I've always thought that there were just misprints about the differing names. At least Match seems to have been, mostly, I guess, an amateur, and March was the pro who organized the Cleveland tournies.... Hayford Peirce 05:18, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I did some Googling, plus looking through McCauley again, and I changed "March" in the 1955 rankings to "Sam Match" -- evidently both of them were pretty good players.... Hayford Peirce 21:07, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Hello

No this isn't Jack Match but Samuel (Sam) Match (Sam Match), born on January, 3rd, 1923, winner as an amateur of La Jolla (February 16, 1948), Philadelphia 1948, Utah State Open (I hate this word Open when it was forbidden to the pros) 1948 and 1949. His last good amateur performance I've traced is his final of the Salt Lake City tournament (July 2, 1950). In McCauley's book his first appearance in a pro tournament was at the California State Pro in Beverly (August 11-16, 1953). I then don't know when he exactly turned pro.

Jack March was a pro player : in McCauley's book you see him from the US Pro 1942 to the US Pro 1950, the latter being the first pro Cleveland tournament he organized (until 1964). I am not sure if he had been an amateur and I don't know when he turned pro. In World Tennis magazine, November 1964, in the article '25 years ago' relating the 1939 fall facts Jack March was already a pro at the Hollywood Beach Hotel in Florida.

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

Riggs-Budge two tours in 1946-1947 and Riggs-Kovacs tour in 1947
Here are the two most precise sources I have :

1) "The Life & Times of Bobby Riggs The Last Sure Thing" by Tom LeCompte

p 188-189 : ''« Opening March 9, 1946, in Chicago... 46 matches... 22 wins (for Budge) to Bobby (Riggs)’s 24. »''

p 190 ''« At the National Indoor Professional Championships in Philadelphia in the spring of 1947... Bobby (Riggs) crushed Budge again, 6-1, 8-6, 6-3. Afterwards the two agreed to a series of head-to-head tours in South Africa and Europe by promoter Jack Harris, Bobby again edged Budge, 12-6. Upon returning, Bobby (Riggs) himself sponsored a brief tour tour with Frank Kovacs... Bobby finished their brief tour on top, four matches to three."''

and 2) McCauley's book :

p 41 : « 1946…March... Budge... finally losing 21-23 » and p 190 in the results section : « R. Riggs d D. Budge 23 matches to 21 (Budge stated in an article for 'World Tennis' that the final standing was 24-22 in Rigg’s favor). (note : McCauley has wrongly written Riggs’s name)

p 43 "Jack Harris conducted a tour in December (1946)... The schedule was 6-7 weeks in South Africa then on to Portugal, England, Norway and Sweden..."

p 192 in the results section "USA Challenge Series R. Riggs d F. Kovacs 11 matches to 10"

In conclusion unhappily we can see that the informations are not sure nevertheless there are common points and in particular that Riggs has won two small tours against Budge in 1946 and 1947 and that Riggs has slightly overcome Kovacs in another small tour in 1947 :

a) McCauley and LeCompte agree that there was in the USA a Riggs-Budge tour beginning in March 1946 with Riggs as the winner 24-22 (according to Budge himself and LeCompte) and 23-21 (according to McCauley),

b) McCauley and LeCompte still agree that there was another tour between Riggs and Budge, this time in South Africa and in Europe, promoted by Jack Harris, but the two authors propose two different dates : December 1946 and January 1947 for McCauley or Spring 1947 (after the Philadelphia tournament) for Tom LeCompte. Only the latter gives results, 12-6 for Riggs.

c) Finally the two writers also agree that there was a USA Riggs-Kovacs tour in 1947 but if there is no doubt about the winner's identity, Riggs, the results are quite different : 11-10 for McCauley or 4-3 for LeCompte.

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


 * Thanks for all the meticulous info. I've just remembered that I own the Bobby Riggs autobiography, of which I've only read the first couple of chapters, which are about being beaten by Kramer.  Later today I'll leaf through the book and see if I can find some info from Riggs himself.  The book was published in 1949, so the info in it ought to be fairly fresh in the mind of the ghostwriter who actually wrote the book. Hayford Peirce 19:27, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Some corrections

 * I've made some changes in your article in particular in 1940 and in 1941 :

In 1940 Ray Bowers has written The next four places go to amateurs, where Australian amateurs Quist, who won the Aussie Nationals in 1940, and Bromwich probably merit inclusion.

He didn’t write that these 4 players were Americans but that among these 4 players there were probably the 2 Australians.


 * Well, as I've said before, I think, he wasn't 100% clear about this matter. I emailed him about this, describing the Wiki rules about Original Research, citations, etc., and this is what he replied:
 * "As to the remaining individuals on my combined pro-amateur rankings for 1940 and 1941, you can find the amateurs not given in my chapter listed in the U.S. official USLTA amateur rankings, published for example in Collins's Enclyclopaedia of Tennis. The reason I did not print the remaining names in the article itself is because I suspect that Quist and Bromwich and perhaps even von Cramm should have been inserted in any worldwide amateur rankings list. Since I have done no research on the amateur game, it didn't seem right to insert these players on my own authority. In effect, my incompletely-shown pro-am list omits Quist and Bromwich and instead continues listing the amateurs as given in the official list all the way down to my #8."
 * "It seems to me you could just obtain and add on from the USLTA amateur list, showing them on down to pro-am position #8 in your Wikiped piece, citing the USLTA list. Adding Quist and Bromwich if you wish would seem to violate the rules you stated."


 * I then rewrote 1940 to look as it presently stands. Bowers read the new entry and emailed me a second time:
 * "I note that you have revised the article's discussion of the 1940 rankings, I hope in a way satisfactory to all."


 * So, it seems clear that what he originally meant was to take the top 4 amateur listings from Collins and make them 5 to 8. And that Quist and Bromwich probably should be included, but that he doesn't know how to do it -- and that therefore he won't.  I think this is fairly clear in the way the 1940 entry now stands. Hayford Peirce 19:15, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

In 1941 you have not correctly placed Skeen that Bowers considers equal to Parker and better than Budge.
 * Yes, I meant to write it that way but didn't do it correctly.

In 1926 I have precised professional tours tennis, from its modest beginnings in 1926
 * That needs a little rewriting, which I will do.

because professional tennis has begun before 1926 :

McCauley cited a pro tournament in 1911 (I can’t check it right now because I haven’t the book at hand) and Bowers has written "The world's only significant pro tennis tournament, the Bristol Cup...former champion (1921-1923) Britisher Major John Rendall" :

He made reference to the Cannes-Beaulieu tournament which then existed since at least 1921.

1926 is the year of the first pro tour (with Lenglen in America) (in March 1927 took place the first US pro tournament at Palm Beach Tennis Club) so 1926 is the the first year of a US pro event

but pro tennis existed before 1926 in Europe.

I thus precise that pro tennis wasn't only pro tours but also pro tournaments and these one existed since at least 1911.

Lastly I do not agree with your inclusion of amateur rankings before 1927 because you omit the best pros of this period and particularly Karel Kozeluh who was probably better than for example Richards when this one was an amateur and later the Czech has regularly dominated the American when the latter became pro.

For example in 1926 you put Lacoste, Borotra, Cochet, Johnston, Tilden, Richards, Harada, Alonso, Kinsey, Jacques Brugnon all amateurs but in reality such pros as Karel Kozeluh, Albert Burke or Roman Najuch could claim a place in the top10.

It is not because Bowers did not make rankings before 1927 that the pros must be forgotten and then I think amateur rankings (at least in the 20's) shouldn't be considered as official for pro-amateur combined rankings. Bowers has begun his detailed accounts with the first pro tour in 1926 but not with the first pro tournaments.

Carlo Colussi 15:11, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, the problem is that Wiki needs citations -- I agree with you about the ranking problems but all I can do is insert whatever rankings I can find from an authoritative source. What I will do, however, is write a little bit about this problem in the main text.  Bear with me.... Hayford Peirce 19:15, 12 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I am satisfied by your explanations (Bowers's answer) and above all by your new chapter about pro tennis before 1926 clarifying very well the situation.

I will add a new remark :

Collins and McCauley are not two different sources about professional tennis. As written by Collins in his Encyclopedia Total Tennis page VI "I'm particularly indebted to Joe and Rose McCauley for their book, The History of Professional Tennis.. It then seems that all the few lines written each year by Collins about pro tennis are directly inspired by McCauley's work. So I think that the 1936 and 1938 Wembley tournaments existence is a debate between just McCauley and Bowers. Knowing that Bowers has concentrated his work on a small period (September 1926 to 1941) whereas McCauley has studied all he could from 1911 to 1968 I'd rather trust Bowers who could look at more details. Once I asked questions to Bowers about some dates and facts about tournaments and he answered me very precisely citing the very exact source (paper, date of edition,...). I give you an example of a question and of his answer :

(My question) Exact date of ending of Bristol Cup 1926 in Cannes?

''(Bowers's answer) : Kozeluh's win in the final round over Albert Burke is reported in Le Figaro of Saturday December 18. It is reported in New York Herald Paris of Friday December 17. The ending date must be Thursday December 16.''.

Consequently if Bowers says that the 1936 & 1938 Wembley editions have not existed though McCauley has written the contrary I will believe Bowers who has probably done a more detailed job because he had a smaller period to study.

Sometimes I do not agree Bowers's judgements but I trust him very much about his fact researches.

I then think it would be accurate not to mention any winner and finalist for these two years until someone eventually demonstrates that Bowers is wrong. Don't you think so ?
 * Well, I have just now added a paragraph to the article Pre-Open Era professional tennis tournaments about this problem, and have put question marks against the years 1936 and 1938. When I have more energy I'll go back and put in the necessary footnotes and references.  But I do, of course, agree with you that Collins almost certainly simply took all of his pro info directly from McCauley, so that if McC. has an error, then Collins is going to repeat it. Hayford Peirce 21:23, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Later I will make other comments (in particular about the Riggs-Budge tours in 1946 and in 1947 where Tom LeCompte has given some answers in his book) but I am waiting a) some of your modifications and b) when you will have finished to study my ''World No. 1 and 2 Tennis Players Rankings and Gonzales list" discussion.

I have also answered the "Interesting retrospects" article written by an unknown German person at the end of the discussion page.

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

1940 and 1941 by Ray Bowers
FORGOTTEN VICTORIES: A History of Pro Tennis 1926-1945 Chapter XI: AMERICA, 1940-1941.

http://www.tennisserver.com/lines/lines_06_10_01.html

Published on October 1, 2006.

I agree with his 1940 rankings.
 * Thanks for tipping me off to this article -- I have incorporated the new info in the Wiki article. But I'm not clear about whom he is ranking where after the first 4 -- just American amateurs?  Since he doesn't actually name anyone for 5 through 8, I will only put in the top 4.


 * Yeah he just says that Quist and Bromwich were probably ranked between 5 and 8 but he doesn't have a clear opinion (as no one in fact)

Carlo Colussi 15:11, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I have emailed him and asked if he can modify his aricle to incorporate the additional info -- even if he just emailed me the info I couldn't use it. Hayford Peirce 18:41, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

I too agree with his 1941 pro rankings but I don't know what to think of his 1941 pro-amateur combined rankings (1 Perry (pro) and Riggs (amateur) 3 Kovacs (amateur) 4 Skeen (pro) and Parker (amateur) 6 Budge (pro)) because in 1942 Budge clearly dominated Riggs and Kovacs who have turned pro. But why not ? I will look carefully at his accounts to have my own opinion (I think Bowers has not discovered much more results than McCauley : I will check it).
 * I'm only going to put in his top 6 for 1941, since once again he isn't clear about the amateur scene and how they fit in. I think I will email him and see if he will clarify these two years. Hayford Peirce 17:52, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

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

Full Names of Some Players
I've added a bunch of names to 1951 but the first names aren't given for some of them. Do you know any of these names? Thanks! Hayford Peirce 23:36, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

I made a little correction in "World No. 1 and 2 Tennis Players Rankings and Gonzales list" :

I've changed "Petra (winner of Barcelona)"

in

"Petra (winner of Barcelona in 1945 according to Tennis de France or in January 1946 in "The Lawn Tennis Almanack 1947" edited by G.P. Hughes)


 * Many thanks! That opened the link to Jimmy Evert -- I knew Cooke's first name but forgot to put it in myself.

Here is my last list :

Francisco Olegario "Pancho" Segura, Richard (Ricardo) Alonso "Pancho" Gonzales (for some years he changed to Gonzalez), Frank (Francis) L. Kovacs, Robert Larimore "Bobby" Riggs, H. Welby Van Horn, Carl Earn, Frank Andrew Parker, James (Jimmy) Evert, Robert "Bob" Rogers, Jack Rodgers, Joseph (Joe) Fishbach (and not Fishback), John Nogrady, Jerry Adler, Elwood T. Cooke, Vivian McGrath, Al Doyle, Harris W. Everett, Leonard Hartman, Norman Copeland (there is also Ed Copeland), Mitchell Gornto.

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

PS : I know English doesn't like the accents but "drolement penible" has to be written "drôlement pénible"
 * Yeah, I know, mais c'est vachement pénible avec un clavier anglophone, même avec les caractères français ici à Wikipedia, et je suis drôlement paresseu. Hayford Peirce 23:45, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

paresseux avec un "x" (lazy with an "y")

Oh mais même sur le clavier AZERTY il faut aller chercher les accents. Mais à chaque fois que je lis un document en anglais et que je vois Rene Lacoste au lieu de René Lacoste ou Francois à la place de François cela m'énerve car la prononciation est complètement différente : c'est comme si en anglais on écrivait Toldin au lieu de Tilden ou Hefard au lieu de Hayford (for the English readers : even on a AZERTY (French) keyboard you have to look for the accents. Each time I read a document in English and I see Rene Lacoste instead of René Lacoste or Francois instead of François it irritates me because the pronunciation is completely different : it's as if in English Tilden was written Toldin or Hayford Hefard).

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


 * I agree entirely. For the real articles.  But for notes, discussions, etc., I just do the quickest thing possible.  (I used to use French typewriters a long time ago, and, as you say, even with them, it's a pain to get the letters with the accents.) As for my name, "Il faut faire un grand effort pour prononcer Hayford correctement, hihi...." Hayford Peirce 16:29, 27 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Hello. Have you seen my last modifications (for instance I've made an error for Gornto)?

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

Answer
Firstly thank you for your comments about my knowledges (I have read Bowers's and McCauley's since last year and others articles since 2004 (for instance Michel Sutter offered me his "Vainqueurs 1946-2003" book) so I have had time for learning and having my own opinion. English is neither my second language nor my third one... it isn't my language at all. If you have noticed I use very few and simple words.

Secondly I have indeed understood that all facts or results have to be sourced (and when I did not forget to cite the source I did it, for example the supposed "1952 Europe tour" evoked by Kramer(page 56 of 'The Game') : this is why I have all written in the "Discussion" page and not in the "Article" page. I've just tried to be the more honest possible (Rosewall is my favorite player of all time for many reasons and I do not want to grant him what he doesn't deserve : I don't think he was the best from 1962 to 1964 but from 1961 to 1963 and in 1970; for example I've cited Robert Roy (from L'Équipe)'s source who ranked Rosewall number one in 1961 (McCauley has just extracted the first tenners but Tennis de France (février ou mars 1961 ?? with Emerson on the cover) has showed the 21 first and the 23rd (Neale Fraser) : I will look at precisely the month and the page of the source)) so I wrote all my comments just for the pleasure but as I have written before "In the French site I’ve just seen that the neutral point of view is one of the major rule" so I didn't erase or change anything in the "Article" page.

I then suppose I can write what I want but insulting or aggressive or lying matters in the "Dicussion page" : am I wrong ? Or even in this page have I to be fully neutral ?

PS : Let's laugh a little moment : Kramer hasn't sent me any letter in 1952 (my parents didn't know each other at the time). Carlo Colussi 15:11, 15 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, your English is just great, as well as the depth of your knowledge! I am just about ready to print up everything you wrote and am looking forward to being able to study it at my leisure.  Anything I find in there that can be used to made changes to, or to add to, this article will eventually get done.  And with changes to other articles if necessary, for instance how many times so-and-so has been No. 1, for instance.  As you can probably tell, I am skipping around in this article, adding some info here and there for maybe 3 years, then going off to do something else.  This is to keep me from getting too bored with doing just the same old thing over and over.  Eventually I hope to have put in all the info I can gather from various sources.  I may also add some additional stuff -- for instance, The Telegraph guy had TOP 10 lists for every year -- I could probably put in all of those lists for all of the pre-1920 years, which right now are rather blank.  I would certainly love to have a copy of that "Vainqueurs" book.  You can, by the way, obviously direct me to any French source of info -- it doesn't need to be translated for me.


 * As far as I know, you can write anything you want here in this discussion section as long as it has something to do with do (more or less) with the purpose of this article or, I suppose, tennis in general. You should try to be polite, hehe, but you can certainly argue for your own opinions.  I myself, I fear, have been guilty on several occasions of being somewhat rude or uncivil in some of these Discussions -- I get impatient with what I consider to be nonsense written by other people and sometimes forget that they do NOT consider it to be nonsense.


 * I'll add some more comments here once I've been able to digest all of your info -- and will start rewriting the article in consequence. Cheers! Hayford Peirce 18:52, 21 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Geez, I've printed it up and it comes to 43 pages of single-spaced, small-sized 10-font Ariel, 29,066 words! That's about half a book.... Hayford Peirce 05:13, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Hello

I haven't the exact date of the original 1961 Robert Roy's rankings in l'Équipe in January 1962 but Tennis de France published them in their N°106 FEVRIER 1962 (Roy Emerson in cover) page 17 under the title "Un classement open" (page 1 of this same edition Philippe Chatrier (and Kléber Haedens) recalled that Rosewall was the number 1 in 1961).

When I met Sutter two years ago he's told me that he gave me his very last book "Vainqueurs 1946-2003 Winners 1946-2003" (the first edition "Vainqueurs 1946-1991 Winners 1946-1991" is more complete with the finalists and the scores and some comments for each year whereas in the 2003 edition are only given the winners until April 28, 2003) and given the little public success of these sort of books there are difficultly available. I can give you an address in France where perhaps these books are saled :

"Le Sportsman 01 43 68 60 39

Horaires d’ouverture Lundi 14h - 19heures, Vendredi 11heures - 20 heures, autres jours sur rendez-vous

46 rue des Bordeaux 94220 Charenton le Pont"

I have bought my some World Tennis magazines (and other books...) at http://www.tenniscollectables.com/ and I have found McCauley's book at http://www.thetennisgallery.co.uk/default.asp

First remark : of course there are some errors in Sutter books as everywhere (after one year and a half of verifications I have sent him a few weeks ago about 80 pages of corrections and other remarks, for example he has forgotten Hoad's victory in Zurich 1962 or he has counted twice Gonzales's victory in La Jolla 1949 (he has also added a line "California" with the same finalists and the same score and perhaps the same date (I haven't the 1991 book at hand)) but they are remarkable books I'd be proud to have written if I had been the author. These two books are the backbones of my researches since two years ago.

Second remark : McCauley's has registered Wembley pro tournaments in 1936 and in 1938 whereas Bowers strongly contradicted that (in http://www.tennisserver.com/lines/lines-archive.html):

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

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


 * Where did Bowers write this? I can't find it.... Hayford Peirce 23:47, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Third remark : I am not sure there was a French Pro in 1953. Just after Wembley, November 16-20 (Monday to Friday), 1953 the four semifinalists of the London event came to Paris to play in the Palais des Sports a 4-man tournament during two days (Saturday and Sunday 21-22) (first round : Sedgman defeated Segura and Gonzales defeated Budge, third place : Segura defeated Budge, final : Sedgman defeated Gonzales) but I haven't seen anywhere this was the French Pro. To be sure it would be necessary I have the Tennis de France edition corresponding to the event but I haven't yet found it.

Last remark : being an environment defender I hope you have printed these 43 pages in RECTO VERSO. If yes, thank you very much for our earth and our future !!!

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


 * Thanks for the additional info. I'll see if I can find "Vainqueurs" somewhere for a reasonable price.  I will also read the Bowers stuff about Wembley more carefully, then probably remove any erroneous info from the article.  As for the French Pro for 1953, I can add some qualifying words to the article.  I have also looked (at random) at your remarks about 1955 rankings.  I think you're probably right and will put Segura in as No. 2.  It's awfully hard to know what to do with an amateur who had as good a year as Trabert had.  If, by rectro verso, you mean printing on both sides of the paper, I did indeed, once I saw how long the article was going to be! Hayford Peirce 18:28, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Hello. For Bowers's remarks about Wembley look at "Chapter VII: Awaiting Perry, 1936" the first lines of the paragraph "LATE SUMMER" for 1936 and "Chapter IX: Readying for Budge, 1938" the first lines of the paragraph "FALL SEASON IN EUROPE" for 1938.
 * Ah! There was no link on the Tennis page to either the 1938 or 1939 Bowers articles, so I didn't know that they existed. I have finally managed to find them and have placed the appropriate links in the Tennis article.  I also put a link to the Bowers Chapter 1 here in this article.  Thanks for the tip!  And I have made a mention in the 1938 place, also I wrote an additional paragraph about the problem.

Sure Trabert had a good amateur year in 1955 as Hoad in 1956 or Laver in 1962 but all were beaten when they turned pro, just after, by several players showing their real level on fast courts : below pros's level.
 * Well, I happen to agree with you on this issue. So I'll make sure that the rankings for those years do not show them as #2.

In my bad English "recto verso" (a latin expression) means "both sides". So thank you for our environment.
 * I took 3 years of Latin in school and it was drolement penible.... Hayford Peirce 23:05, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

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

Wow! Is All That I Can Say!
I dunno just who wrote all the below, but it is truly remarkable, especially if English is not your first language (I wrote the Gonzales and Tilden articles in French for the French Wikipedia, plus some other French tennis stuff, and I know how hard it is to write, rather than just chat, in another language). I'm going to print up everything you wrote and read it that way, then I'll be able to comment on it.

One comment, just from skimming quickly what you have written: no matter WHAT conclusions your extremely great knowledge leads you to, UNLESS it can be cited in some reasonable manner, then it cannot be incorporated into Wikipedia -- everything has to be SOURCED. Let me invent a really stupid example: Let's say that you found, in the top of your attic, an old letter from Jack Kramer that he wrote you in 1952 and that you had completely forgotten about until now. In it, he says, "No one knows this but you and me, but last year, even though I was beating Segoo 60 to 20 on the tour, we also played 200 other matches, for $100 a match, at a private home in Beverly Hills. Segoo beat me every single one of those matches, so he was clearly No. 1 in the World for 1951." Unfortunately, according to MY understanding of Wikipedia rules (I could be wrong, of course), you would not be able to use this info in article Wiki article. Nor could you change the No. 1 article to reflect this info for the year 1951. Your letter would qualify as Original Research. If, however, the letter turned up in an obscure book published in 1954 called "The Collected Letters to and from Bobby Riggs", then you could use it. And if you ran across a *really* crazy book dating from 1952 by Bill Smythe, say, that said, in black and white, "In spite of all the evidence against it, it is clear to me that the World's Number One player for 1951 was actually none other than Big Bill Tilden," then you could cite that in the article. Crazy, but you could. Which means, for instance, that even if the evidence to YOU, and even to ME, and EVERYONE ELSE, that Laver was slightly better than Rosewall in 1964, BUT McCauley says Rosewall was No. 1, then Rosewall has to stay No. 1 in the article. If you can cite another article saying Laver was No. 1, then we can, I suppose, weigh the judgment of the two sources and try to decide what to do. The whole philosophy of Wikipedia, as I understand it, is that everything must be able to be cited and to have a SOURCE. Otherwise it just can't be used.... Hayford Peirce 22:44, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

World No. 1 and 2 Tennis Players Rankings and Gonzales list
I have just discovered Wikipedia and I didn’t know any rule. In the French site I’ve just seen that the neutral point of view is one of the major rule (in the English site I haven’t seen it but it is probable that I haven’t well searched). Because my notes and comments are very subjective I can’t edit your article mister Hayford Peirce. Nevertheless there are so many facts, figures and so on that eventually some of my comments could be introduced in the article. Even though I do not master English (I’m a little Frenchy) I chose to write in this language because tennis history is much more developed in English than in French. This difficulty made me use a great part of my time of leisure so there will be a long time before I will look at again this article.

However Mister Peirce, you have made a remarkable work with your numerous articles and in particular because you have found the best sources I know (Bowers's and McCauley's) and that I have discovered myself a year ago.

Nevertheless I list some remarks about your sources of rankings :

- you privilege too much « after World War II » pro tours against the other events and especially big tournaments. Pro tours did not last all the year, usually during the winter and spring, and seldom opposed the 2 best players of the moment but rather the most famous pro player to the most famous amateur player, in other words the most popular players.

- In ‘Total Tennis’, Bud Collins has only proposed his 1968-1972 rankings, for the previous years he has cited other sources and since 1973 he has just written the ATP rankings so his name hasn’t to be considered as a source for almost all the years (nevertheless in the USLTA books of the 70’s he has given his own rankings, for instance in 1974 he placed Connors first in front of Vilas second).

- You have written that in 1932 « according to McCauley, however, Tilden and Nusslein played about 150 or 160 matches, with Tilden winning about two-thirds of them; » but Bowers in his Wembley 1934 account has written that « Nusslein and Tilden faced each other for the first time in 1934. (Earlier in the year it had been ascertained that Tilden led Nusslein in wins lifetime, 116-47.) ». It means that between 1931 (year of their first meeting) and 1933 included, the two men has met 160 times and that Wembley 1934 was their 161th match but it does not mean that they have met 160 times only in 1932 (for the anecdote their last confrontation took place in the final of Southport 1939). - Segura who was (and still is I think) Ecuadorian and not a USA citizen though he has been ranked in the US amateur rankings (as the Peruvian Olmedo and so on).
 * You are undoubtedly right about this -- I'll see if I can rework the 1932 section a little. Hayford Peirce 19:18, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I think it's pretty certain that he became a U.S. citizen at some point, so that he has joint citizenship. But I don't think it's worth tracking down an exact citation. Hayford Peirce 19:18, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Now I list and comment all the years where I do not agree your proposed rankings (which are changing in fonction of your discoveries in McCauley’s and Bowers’s sources : for instance some of my notes are relative to your Laver’s rankings at the second place in 1961 and in 1962 that you have modified recently in September when you have placed instead Rosewall and Hoad).

I have not yet studied the whole story of tennis so now I am not able to judge all A. Wallis Myers's rankings of "amateur" tennis players until 1938 (he died in 1939) but I have some different opinions about Bowers's rankings (incorporating Myers's) and your rankings.

(Oddly I began with 1931 where I agree with Bowers : in the « discussion » table, a person denies the first place of Tilden by writing « That the fresh pro Tilden now becomes Nr.1 again in 1931, when he was dominated the years before by Cochet, is highly disputable. ». In a certain way this person isn’t wrong because Cochet hadn’t lost to Tilden since 1927. But in 1931 a) Tilden was supposed to have improved (I recognize it is hard to check it), b) Cochet was ill to the point of missing Roland Garros amateur, of losing as early as the first round at Wimbledon amateur. The French Muskeeter didn’t play Forest Hills. France, as holder of the Davis Cup, just played the Challenge Round where Cochet won his two singles matches against Austin and Perry. Davis Cup being the BIG AMATEUR EVENT in those days far ahead of Forest Hills or Wimbledon, Cochet was considered as the first amateur in the world. So I think that Tilden’s record in 1931 was better than Cochet’s because the French has missed many great competitions. In fact from 1931 Cochet has steadily declined until the end of his career while Tilden has continued to progress until 1934 when he thought he has reached the peak of his career though he was dominated by Vines). Fiinally if Cochet has beaten Tilden in direct confrontations from 1928 to 1930 we can also oppose the fact that Tilden has usually beaten Cochet from 1933 (Cochet turned pro on September 22 and then could face again Tilden) to 1939 (last meeting of the two players on June 30 at Roland Garros pro). So I can’t affirm at 100% that on head-to-head matches Tilden would have dominated Cochet in the second part of 1931 when the French  has recovered his health. However the French was well less good in 1931 than in 1930 partly because before July he has done anything and most important Tilden has well played the whole year. So in this case, Bowers’s judgment does not seem unfounded and, without any other proof, is probably the best assertion..

Now I begin with my disagreements :

1934, 1935, 1937 :

If you look carefully at his accounts of the years 1934-1937 when Perry and Vines were almost equals, Bowers always gives the edge to Perry. He considers that Perry was either superior (1934,1936) or at least his equal (1935,1937) and moreover he uses the expression "Perry Vines" but never the reversed "Vines Perry".

In my opinion Henry Ellsworth Vines Jr. ("Elly") was nearly always better than Frederick John Perry ("Fred") in the 30's :

- from 1930 to 1932 Vines was clearly the best of the two (as proposed by Myers and incorporated by Bowers).

- I concede that in 1933 Perry was ahead because he won the "US amateur" and beat Vines in their Davis Cup encounter but the American, who injured himself during the match, had to give up. Globally Elly had won most of his meetings with Fred as an amateur.

- from 1934 to 1936 they cannot compete each other because a wall of stupidity separated the Pros (Vines, Nusslein, Tilden ...) from the "amateurs" (Perry, Crawford...)

- in 1937 Vines and Perry met each other again because the latter turned pro : they were equal in head-to-head matches (in the 30’s a pro head-to-head tour between two tennis stars being much more remunerative than a circuit of pro tournaments, the two players did not enter any pro tournaments that year), 35-35. Nevertheless among the two tours (one in North America, the second in the British Isles) they played, Vines won the most important one in America which was announced as the "World's pro championship", 32-29. Then I give a very slight advantage to Vines.

- in 1938 and 1939 Perry was clearly dominated by Vines.

So in the 30's when they could play each other (1930-1933, 1937-1939) Vines was at least the equal and was often superior to Perry if I except 1933. Of course it does not imply that Vines was automatically better than Perry in the middle years, 1934-1936, when they could not meet but the probability was strong. However Bowers seems to brush this argument away because it does not prevent him to give the edge to Fred Perry.

Another argument to the superiority of Vines is Budge's testimony :

in 1939 Budge has turned pro and has successively faced the two players and he wrote in his autobiography 'A tennis memoir', page 140 "It was simply that after enduring Vines's power game, I never felt any real pressure when playing Fred". Incidentally until his death when Budge was asked who he thought was the best player of all time (remember that he has played or seen all the greats from Tilden to Kramer-Gonzales-Hoad-Rosewall-Laver and then Connors-Borg-Lendl-Sampras), the Californian considered that when Vines was "hot" he was the greatest of all. So I propose the following rankings for the 1934-1937 period :

1934 : 1) Vines, 2) Perry

1935 : 1) Vines, 2) Perry

1936 : 1) Perry, 2) Vines (the same as Bowers's)

1937 : 1) Budge, 2) Vines ( 3) Perry ).

Knowing that Vines was beginning to have recurrent physical problems from 1936 (he did not play for four months from June to September 1936), Perry deserved the first place in 1936 and that's why I agree Bowers's judgement for that year.

For 1937 Bowers has ranked equally Vines, Budge and Perry and I almost agree. However in his account of the Vines-Budge tour (January 3, 1939 - March 6, 1939) Bowers has written "The two had not played since early 1937 in Florida, when Budge won their single set, 14-12.". Then I grant a very little ascendancy of Budge over Vines in 1937 and given that I said before that Vines was very slightly better than Perry this same year, all this explains my 1937 rankings.

1941 :

Except his tour with Tilden, Donald Budge has lost all the three competitions he entered : - at Forest Hills he defeated Richard "Dick" Skeen (a good player who, unhappily for him, knew his apogee, during the "World War II" years, from 1939 to 1946) and Tilden, but Budge finished second because Perry has beaten him (and the other two) in their single confrontation of the year

- at Rye, Skeen take his revenge by eliminating Budge in the semis

- at the US Pro, in Chicago on clay, the greatest tournament of the year, Budge lost as early as the second round, thrashed by Johnny Faunce 6-4 6-1 6-3.

Not an exceptional vintage for Budge.

Perry and Skeen played in 5 tournaments, all won by Perry who was the real "top dog" of 1941 (as written by McCauley in his book page 36). Skeen was finalist in 4 of them and in particular at the US Pro. Then Budge was only the third pro player in the world and even less well placed in a pro-amateur combined ranking.

I have read Bowers's account of 1941 and I almost entirely agree his conclusion (he ranks the players in this manner 1) Riggs (amateur) - Perry (pro), 3) Kovacs (amateur), 4) Parker (amateur) - Skeen (pro), 6) Budge (pro)) saying that the best amateurs were superior to the best pros in 1941. One of the reason was Budge's temporary decline in 1941 : he was "handicapped" since the end of 1940 through all 1941 (illness in October 1940 followed by overweight, fall in the staircases requiring a facial surgery in May 1941). Moreover there was no "new blood" in the pro ranks which probably demotivated the Californian. Another reason was the amateurs' progress with an entire generation not far from his apogee (Riggs, Kovacs, Parker, McNeill, Schroeder, Kramer, Segura, Mulloy, ...) : when Riggs and Kovacs, as new pros, met for the first time Perry and Budge, in Madison Square Garden (MSG) at the opening of the Riggs-Perry-Kovacs-Budge (and Stoefen) tour, on Boxing Day (December 26, 1941), the new recruits won : Kovacs beat Budge 6-4 in the third set and Riggs led Perry 5-4 and 30-15 in the deciding set before Perry broke his elbow and then had to default. Wishing to avoid ranking players equal at the first place I will just go a little further than Bowers and take into account the MSG results :

So in 1941 : 1) Riggs (amateur), 2) Perry (pro) ( 3) Kovacs (amateur), 4) Parker (amateur), Skeen (pro), 6) Budge (pro)).

In 1942 Budge recovered his health and his motivation and therefore his ancient level : he then became again the best one.

1943-1944 :

a) To be logic if you propose rankings in 1943-1944 then you have to do the same for 1915-1918.

b) While waiting for new informations from Bowers, I think this is very hard if not impossible to establish rankings in 1943-1944.

1943:

- If I look at the probable seven best players in the world in 1942 (Budge, Riggs, Kovacs, Sabin, Skeen, Perry and Schroeder (amateur)) I have found only one match for the whole year 1943 concerning all these players : an exhibition in the first half of 1943 at Minneapolis Armory for the benefit of the Red Cross where Riggs defeated Sabin in a single set 18-16 (source : the column called "25 years ago" in the edition of June 1968 of the US magazine "World Tennis"). (Robert Geist in his book "DER GRÖSSTE MEISTER Die denkwürdige Karriere des australischen Tennisspielers Kenneth Robert Rosewall" page 41, wrote that Tilden would have beaten Schroeder in 1943 but I have no confirmation).

i)  Riggs was incorporated in the Navy in april 1943 if I am not mistaken,

ii) McCauley has not traces of Skeen and Kovacs in the pro circuit,

iii) Budge was in the Army Air Corps and, in the beginning of 1943, in an obstacle course he tore a muscle in his shoulder. In his book 'A Tennis Memoir' page 144 he said "The tear didn't heal, and the scar tissue that was formed complicated the injury and made it even serious. Nevertheless...I was able to carry on with my military duties...as long as two years afterwards, in the spring of '45, I was given a full month's medical leave so that I could go to Berkeley and have an osteopath, Dr. J. LeRoy Near, work with me."

iv) Perry has broken his elbow on Boxing Day 1941 in his first match of the round-robin tour against Riggs (Budge and Kovacs were the other players of the tour). He came back some weeks later on the tour (he has never fully recovered the mobility of his arm) but he retired at the end of the tour at the beginning of april 1942 (he returned on the pro circuit in december 1945)

v) Except the possible match evoked before, Schroeder has not played a single match.

- The depleted existing circuits were completely separated.

i)  The only pro tournament listed by McCauley is the US Pro without of course Perry, Donald Budge, Riggs, Kovacs, Skeen and Sabin. The winner was Bruce Barnes, the finalist was Nogrady, the semi-finalists Karel Kozeluh and Welby Van Horn, the quarter-finalists Tilden and Lloyd Budge (Donald's brother) and Berkeley Bell and Gene Mako (Vincent Richards was eliminated in the previous round by Lloyd Budge). There was also a US tour between the old Tilden and Richards.

ii) The US amateur circuit was also weak but some good players participated : Joe Hunt (winner of Forest Hills), Jack Kramer (finalist of Forest Hills), Segura winner of 38 matches out of 41 (source : Bud Collins), Sidney Wood, Frank Parker, Talbert, Elwood Cooke...

iii) The US amateurs in the Army who had not any furlough of course could not enter any tournament

iv) In Europe, as Germans, Nusslein (pro) and von Cramm (amateur) could not play at all, but I have discovered that Henri Cochet (who was still a first tenner or in the "top 20" in "open rankings" from 1933 to 1939 except 1935), was reinstated amateur during World War II (probably in 1942) and he had the opportunity of playing in France (Toulouse, Roland Garros, Limoges) or in Spain (San Sebastian, Barcelona which he won in December) and that he recovered the first place of French amateurs in front of Yvon Petra (future winner of "Wimbledon amateur 1946").

iv) In Australia neither Bromwich nor Quist have played during the war except for patriotic tournaments and exhibition matches arranged by governing associations.

So firstly many players were prevented to play because of the war and

secondly if you consider those who had the opportunity to play you don't have to select only those who played the US amateur circuit but also the others everywhere in the world. You are not sure that Hunt or Kramer were better than all the pros (Barnes, Nogrady...) or all the other amateurs (Cochet, Petra, Quist, Bromwich, ...).

In this case my conclusion is No rankings in 1943 unless there are new informations (Bowers ?).

1944:

Not much better than 1943.

- In the pro ranks only one tournament was organized at Pinehurst where Van Horn beat Skeen in the finals. The US Pro Championships were not held.

- Some exhibitions for war effort or the benefit of the Red Cross were organized in the US with such players as Van Horn, Kovacs, Tilden, McNeill (amateur), Mulloy (amateur), Budge and Kramer (amateur). The latter two has played each other twice, Budge winning the first time and Kramer the second one (during the war, amateurs may be permitted to play exhibitions with or against professionals if the latter were in the Armed Forces and if USLTA approval was given).

- In the US there was still a little amateur circuit and in Europe a few tournaments. Same conclusion as before : No rankings in 1944 unless there are new informations (Bowers ?).

1945 :

It's a little different from 1943-1944 because the great majority of the great players have played at least one official tournament. In particular this was the case for all the best pros even though they didn't compete in the same events.

- The greatest tournament of the year was "The US Pro harcourt Championships" held at the Los Angeles Tennis Club from December 5 to 9. Except Kovacs, Van Horn and Skeen all the leading pros were there : in particular Riggs, Budge and Perry made their return in official competition. Riggs beat Budge 3 sets to 1 (Riggs won the last three sets 6-3, 6-2 and 6-0) in the finals and Tilden finished third, having beaten Stoefen in the quarters and Perry for third place.

In a depleted US Pro played at New York City from June 25 to July 1 the only leading players were Van Horn (the winner), Nogrady, Tilden and Skeen, all reaching the semi-finals.

In the only tournament where Kovacs is supposed to have played this year (according to McCauley's results) he beat Van Horn 14-12 6-3 in the finals at San Francisco.

- In the US amateur circuit Parker was undefeated (source : World Tennis) winning 4 tournaments (La Jolla invitation, the US amateur at Forest Hills, the Pacific Southwest at Los Angeles and the Pan-American at Mexico). Other prominent figures were Talbert, Segura, Cooke, Mulloy, the young Flam, the Argentinian Alejo Russel or the Ecuadorian Segura.

- In France Petra (winner of Barcelona in 1945 according to Tennis de France or in January 1946 in "The Lawn Tennis Almanack 1947" edited by G.P. Hughes) was taking the lead but Cochet was still there.

- In Australia the best players of the country were back with a new guy, Dinny Pails who won the New South Wales Championships in Sydney by blitzing Bromwich 6-1 6-2 6-4. Hopman and Geoff Brown were the semi-finalists and the old master, Jack Crawford lost in the quarters to Hopman. Bromwich took his revenge over Pails in the Victorian Championships at Kooyong (Melbourne). Because of a tennis elbow Adrian Quist, seeded two, had to default in Sydney and didn't play his semifinal at Melbourne.

- Armed Forces meetings:

With the war winding down in the summer 1945 the US Army Air Corps and the US Navy agreed to stage a series of Davis Cup style between the two services. On one side the pro Budge and the amateur Parker on the other side the pros Riggs and Sabin. Given the rivalry between Budge and Riggs and given the rivalry between the two services these matches were played under a lot of pressure and thousands of dollars were bet. Budge considered these exhibitions as his great return and he badly wanted to win them. In the first match, on the island of Guam, Budge trounced Riggs 6-2 6-2. On the island of Peleliu Budge won again 6-4 7-5. Riggs won the next two matches against Budge 6-1 6-1 (island of Ulithi) and 6-3 4-6 6-1 (island of Saipan). Budge confided in Parker his disbelief at losing two matches in a row to Riggs. In the fifth and final match on the island of Tinian, scheduled for the first week of August 1945, Riggs defeated Budge 6-8 6-1 8-6. This was the first time Riggs had beaten Budge in a series. Riggs also won 3 matches out of 5 against the amateur Parker (both holder and future titlist of the US amateur Nationals at Forest Hills).

The only good players having not played at all in 1945 were Kramer, Schroeder and Joe Hunt : all three were in the Army and Hunt tragically died on February 2 in the plunge of his fighter plane in the Atlantic.

It is still hard to rank all these players because there were few confrontations : i)  In the pros Kovacs never met Riggs or Budge,

ii) The amateurs who could play stayed on their continent.

Nevertheless

i) I can suppose that Kovacs was slightly less good than Riggs and Budge in 1945 because this was the case in 1942 (in 1943-1944 they have almost not played) and especially in 1946 and in 1947.

ii) Parker the possible best "allowed to play" amateur has lost to Riggs in the Army interservices series and Kramer the probable best "NOT allowed to play" amateur thought that until 1946-1947 he was not mature enough to beat Riggs or Budge (he said it in his book written with Frank Deford "The Game My 40 Years in Tennis").

So according to these fragile assumptions I propose the following rankings in 1945 : 1) Riggs, 2 ) Budge ( 3) Parker (amateur) and Kovacs)

1947 :

- In his book (see before) Kramer explained very clearly that Riggs dominated him from the end to December 1947 to mid-January 1948 at the very beginning of their pro tour. The threat of being beaten was the greatest incentive to push Kramer to change something in his game. This was at this dangerous moment that he decided to play the big serve-and-volley percentage attack game for which he is still famous today. He said that his youth heroes were Vines and Budge, the two players he patterned himself after. In his first matches against Riggs, Kramer would hand back on second serves, even when they played on the fast canvas. But being dominated by Riggs (2 matches to 0 then 3-1 then 8-5) and knowing that if he lost the tour he could never be chosen for another future one, Kramer made the biggest and riskiest move of his whole tennis career and completely adopted the serve-and-volley game (Kramer, "The Game" page 160 : "Because it was the only way I could beat Bobby Riggs"). This bet succeeded beyond any hope because the results were wholly reversed at the end of the five-month tour.

So at the end of 1947 Riggs was slightly better than Kramer and in 1948 Kramer was clearly the master.

- Among the pros the hierarchy was very clear with Riggs ahead of Budge himself in front of Kovacs : The biggest tournament was the US Pro (Forest Hills Pro) where Riggs won over Budge with difficulty 3-6 6-3 10-8 4-6 6-3. The second biggest event was the US Pro indoors (Philadelphia) with the same finalists and the same winner. If I exclude the unknown results of a one and half-month tour in December 1946-January 1947 with Riggs, Budge (and Van Horn and Earn) the two rivals met 8 times in 1947 and each one won 4 times.

- In the amateurs Kramer has captured all the biggest competitions : his singles in the Davis Cup Challenge-Round (at the time the Davis Cup was the more important amateur event far ahead of Forest Hills or Wimbledon), Forest Hills amateur, Wimbledon and the Pacific Southwest at Los Angeles (always at the time this tournament had the strongest field after the two other cited tournaments ; Roland Garros amateur or the Australian Nationals had then weaker fields and Kramer never entered these events as an amateur).

- I am not sure at all that Kramer would have dominated Budge in 1947 this is why I rank them equal.

This said my 1947 rankings are : 1) Riggs, 2) Kramer, Budge.

1949 :

By winning all the events he played, Kramer was the undisputed number one in the world. To designate the number two is not an easy task at all. Three names stand out : the amateur Schroeder, the amateur (then pro) Gonzales, the pro Riggs.

First I compare Schroeder with Gonzales. In the greatest amateur event, the Challenge Round of the Davis Cup, both won their singles against Sedgman and Sidwell. As ever Schroeder played tennis little because he never gave his life to the game (at the end of the 40's he was a refrigerator salesman). To give an idea, in a career of 13 years he played Forest Hills only 5 times and Wimbledon only...once. Morevoer he never entered Roland Garros amateur and the Australian amateur. In 1949 on his first and only trip abroad (if I except the '46 Challenge Round) he won the Queen's and had followed with a spectacular triumph at Wimbledon whereas Gonzales reached the semis in Paris and lost to Geoff Brown at Wimbledon in the round of 16. At Forest Hills the two men faced each other in the final, Gonzales winning in five sets, two weeks later at the Pacific Southwest in Los Angeles, he repeated the same performance against Schroeder in four sets. In big amateur events their performances were quite similar. I give a slight egde to Gonzales because a) he has won 9 tournaments against 7 (or 8) for Schroeder and b) he has beaten Schroeder three times in four matches.

Now I compare Gonzales with the pro Riggs. Damn difficult ! Not only they didn't face each other but also they didn't play the same competitions. When Gonzales turned pro, on October 25, he only faced Kramer until the end of 1949. If I except Gonzales and Parker who were pros for just two months in 1949, Riggs was probably the second pro in 1949 behind Kramer. Except an European tour where he mainly faced Kramer, Riggs played two big tournaments (see McCauley's book, pages 194-195) : Wembley where he reached the final only stopped by Kramer (2-6 6-4 6-3 6-4) and the US Pro at Forest Hills  that he won (Kramer, due to commitments in Europe, was unable to defend his crown and Segura was also absent).

As a last resort I will try to compare the win-loss records of Riggs and Gonzales against Kramer to designate the best of the two. But there is another problem : I haven't the the 1949 win-loss record of Gonzales-Kramer. They met for the first time on October,25 and at the end of November 1949, Gonzales has won 4 matches against 22 for Kramer. At the end of January 1950, Gonzales-Kramer's record was 8-42 but I haven't the "end of December 1949" record. Nevertheless the percentages of wins of Gonzales were respectively 15,4% and 16,0% at the end of these two months. Mathematically it is not correct to say that the December percentage was about 15,7% (the average of 15,4 and 16,0) but I guess I am not very far from the truth (Gonzales improved a little because at the end of the tour, May 21, 1950, his percentage was equal to 22,0% with 27 wins and 96 losses). Again mathematically it is not valid to compare Riggs's record (not enough observations) with Gonzales's because McCauley has found only 6 meetings between Riggs and Kramer in 1949 but there are the only available figures. Riggs has beaten Kramer once so Riggs's percentage is about 16,7% (1/6) just a little better than the Gonzales's estimated percentage.

On these very fragile statistics and method I would propose my 1949 rankings : 1) Kramer, 2) Riggs ( 3) Gonzales, 4) Schroeder) knowing that the last three are likely to permute (perhaps you prefer 1) Kramer, 2) Riggs, Gonzales, Schroeder).

1950-1951 :

Without any doubt the best "tours player" these years was Kramer but the best "tournaments player" was Segura (in front of Gonzales).

In 1950-1951 there were very few big pro tournaments. I call a big one a tournament where at least two of these three players, who dominated so much the others, were present. Here is the very short list : Philadelphia 1950 (winner : Gonzales, finalist : Kramer, I do not know if Segura entered), the US Pro 1950 without Gonzales (on clay, winner : Segura who has beaten Kramer in the semis and Kovacs in the last round), Philadelphia 1951 (winner : Kramer who has, among others, defeated Segura (who ended third) and Gonzales (second)), the US Pro 1951 (winner : Segura, second : Gonzales, Kramer qualified for the final round-robin won his first match against Parker but then withdrew injured), Wembley 1951 without Kramer (winner : Gonzales, finalist : Segura), Berlin 1951 without Kramer (winner : Segura, second : Carl Earn, third : Gonzales).

In two years Segura has won 3 big tournaments, Gonzales 2 and Kramer 1 (I do not count Wembley 1950 because neither Kramer nor Segura entered and I exclude Paris in January 1950 where Segura defeated Kramer because I don't know if it was a tournament or a head-to-head match). One of the reason why Kramer was less good in tournaments was that Kramer suffering from osteoarthritis since the summer of 1950 was completely exhausted and handicapped after his very long tours (123 matches against Gonzales and about 90 matches against Segura). So he has played very few competitions in the second halves of 1950 and 1951 (in 1952 he seemed to have played only 2 tournaments and probably no tour and in 1953 he has virtually retired on July,9 after his last competition).

It would be fair to grant Segura and Gonzales the places number one and two but they have been so much crushed by Kramer in the tours that it is almost impossible to do it.

In his tour (October 25, 1949 - May 21, 1950) against Gonzales, Kramer won 96 matches and lost only 27 (97-26 if I have to believe Kramer).

Segura for having beaten Kramer in Paris (January 1950) and in the US Pro 1950 (Cleveland) was rewarded and was chosen for challenging Kramer in a tour (October 28, 1950 to March 1951, this was the only time Segura played a big tour as the attraction, before and after he only played "the animal act" id est the preliminary match). In this tour he was brushed away by Kramer who won 64 matches against only 28 for Segura (source : McCauley, 58-27 according to Kramer in his book, page 187). At one moment Kramer won 19 matches consecutively.

Although the Professional Lawn Tennis Association (PLTA) ranked Segura the number one in 1950 and in 1951 (and also in 1952) I think Kramer was probably the best by a very little margin these two years.

So my rankings in 1950 and 1951 are the same as yours :

1950 : 1) Kramer, 2) Segura ( 3) Gonzales)

1951 : 1) Kramer, 2) Segura ( 3) Gonzales)

but if someone gives me a little argument proving that Segura was the best I will not be a tough opponent.

1952 :

If I look at the 1952 results compiled by McCauley, Budge and Gonzales hasn't really played more sporadically than Segura. The journalist has traced 9 tournaments and 1 tour in 1952 (Kramer page 56 of 'The Game' has written that he, Budge, Segura and Gonzales have been "touring in Europe one summer...I believe it was 1952" but there is no results and the year is not sure).

- The tour listed in McCauley's book was with Gonzales, Parker, the Irish George Littleton-Rogers and the ... 59 years old Bill Tilden. The only result on hand was a victory of Gonzales over Tilden 6-1 6-2.

- among the 9 tournaments 2 seemed to be domestic Nationals (the German Pro and the British Pro) so there left 7 tournaments for the leading Pros :

Segura indeed entered the 7 and won 3 (among these 3 tournaments Gonzales was present in only one, the US Pro (Lakewood, Cleveland)).

Kramer has probably entered only 2, a) the round-robin tournament of Philadelphia where Gonzales ended winner and Segura second (Kramer was at best third and was beaten at least by Gonzales (and probably by Segura)), b) Wembley, the biggest event in 1952, where Kramer led 4-1 and 5-2 in the fifth and final set of the final but finally he was again defeated by Gonzales.

Gonzales entered 5 tournaments and captured 4 (Philadelphia where he beat Segura and Kramer; Scarborough by defeating Budge and Segura; Wembley by mastering Segura and Kramer; Berlin where Segura and Budge lost again to the American) and was finalist in the US Pro. Gonzales thus beat Segura in 4 matches out of 5. This was the first year that "Big Pancho" (Gonzales) dominated "Little Pancho" (Segura) in their head-to-head matches and since the trend has never changed until the end of their careers.

Gonzales deserved the first place in the Pros without any doubt because he lost only one event; Segura was clearly second and Kramer was perhaps the third owing to the fact he nearly captured the greatest event of that year in which he relatively easily drew Budge aside in the semis.

- The best amateur in 1952 was undoubtedly Sedgman. When he turned pro the Australian has probably met Gonzales three times in 1953, troucing the American 6-1 6-2 6-2, 6-1 6-3 and 6-3 7-5 so one can say that Sedgman in 1952 was possibly better than Gonzales in 1952. Not sure because Gonzales "vintage 1953" was less good than Gonzales "vintage 1952" so the comparison is not easy. In 1953 Gonzales was drawn aside of the great competition for ten and a half months (I will explain later this duration) by Kramer. This one has replaced Riggs as the promoter of the professional tennis in 1952. Kramer thus arranged a big 1953 tour with himself as a player facing Sedgman the new pro and with Segura and McGregor playing "the animal act" but without Gonzales the best pro in 1952. One said that after having been defeated twice by Gonzales in 1952, the decreased (by age and by osteoarthitis) Kramer feared his compatriot. Thus Kramer (until July 9 when he retired), Sedgman and Segura have played many matches between them all along the year :

Sedgman in particular is the one who has the most met the big players in 1953 : he has played Kramer 97 times, Segura 10 times and Gonzales 3 times whereas Gonzales has faced Sedgman (obviously) 3 times, Segura twice and has never played Kramer so in 1953 Gonzales was underprivileged compared to Sedgman. From 1954 Gonzales, who could play again the great competition, has regularly dominated Sedgman (and all the others until May 1960).

All this to say that in 1952 Gonzales was possibly better than Sedgman and given that a) Segura has probably kept the same level between 1952 and 1953, b) Segura has beaten Sedgman 7 times out of 10 in 1953, c) the Australian having improved between 1952 and 1953, I think also that Segura was probably better than Sedgman in 1952. Knowing that Kramer has played very little in 1952 I place him after Sedgman.

Here are my fragile 1952 rankings (as in 1950 - 1951 any valid new argument can change the order) :

1952 : 1) Gonzales, 2) Segura ( 3) Sedgman, 4) Kramer).

1953 :

I am not sure that Kramer has reestablished his supremacy in 1953 because I think he probably avoided that year to meet Gonzales who deserved to play a big tour.

But I recognize that Kramer was under a new and big pressure as a professional tour promoter : he had to gain and not lost money. Since Gonzales has become the number one in anonymity in 1952 after having been trounced by Kramer in their 1949-1950 tour and after having had a short amateur career (1947-1949) with few titles, Pancho was not famous at the beginning of 1953 and couldn't draw big crowds. Kramer, even though he has played very little in 1952, was the most famous pro player so economically the best pro tour was one opposing the most famous amateur (Sedgman) to the most famous pro (Kramer). And perhaps Kramer has not enough money to sign Gonzales to tour with Sedgman, Segura, McGregor and himself.

Thus because probably of politics (Kramer possibly fearing Gonzales's domination) and probably of economic problems (Gonzales not drawing big crowds and then money) the year 1953 was a skewed one and for me it is horribly hard to determine a hierarchy.

Here were the nine best pros in 1953 :

- in the top rank we had Segura, Kramer, Sedgman and Gonzales (the real order has to be established),

- in the second echelon we had Budge, McGregor, Riggs, Kovacs and Pails, those five well below "the Big Four" because they were very rarely beating one of the top rank.

I will list the "Big Four" records to clarify (not sure) the situation :

i)  Segura :

- he has won 5 tournaments in 1953 more than any other pros (Gonzales 3, Sedgman 2, Kramer 2, Riggs 2)

- he has dominated Sedgman in their confrontations (7-3) and he was equal with Kramer (1-1) and with Gonzales (1-1)

ii) Kramer :

- he has dominated Segdman in their tour (54-41) and again Segdman in tournaments (respectively 2-0) but he has played only one half of the year due to his injured back (osteoarthritis) and above all he avoided Gonzales against whom he has not won since 1951

iii) Sedgman :

- to his credit he won Wembley, the tournament which had the strongest field (Sedgman, Gonzales, Segura, Budge and Riggs) so the biggest tournament of the year (Note that were missing Kramer, McGregor, Kovacs and Pails at Wembley so you can conclude that in every tournament of that year at least 4 of the best 9 players were always absent : it does not help to rank the players). The Australian also swept Gonzales 6-1 6-2 6-2 at Wembley and repeated the same feat in Paris two days later (November 22) 6-1 6-3 and in Geneva 6-3 7-5 (November 25 or 26)

- to the Australian's debit there were his defeat to Kramer in their tour and his numerous defeats against Segura iv) Gonzales :

- I said before that Kramer has drawn aside Gonzales of the great competition for ten and a half months : because Gonzales was not invited in the long tour with Kramer, Sedgman and Segura, Pancho could just play in tournaments with weak fields where the only good players he has beaten where Riggs and Budge who were past their prime. Because of this, the first time he met a top rank player (Segura) was on November,18 in the semis in Wembley so in the first ten and a half months of the year he hasn't faced a top player (in fact he hasn't faced a great one for twelve months since his victory over Kramer in the same tournament the year before).

In 1953 Gonzales in head-to-head matches was crushed so strongly by Sedgman.

Here are the statistics of the head-to-head matches between the four players :

Segura-Gonzales 1-1

Segura-Kramer 1-1

Segura-Sedgman 7-3

Sedgman-Kramer 41-56

Sedgman-Gonzales 3-0

Kramer-Gonzales 0-0.

Here are the players's wins in tournaments :

Sedgman has won the greatest event Wembley (with Sedgman, Segura, Gonzales, Budge and Riggs but without Kramer, McGregor, Riggs and Kovacs) and the Paris 4-man tournament (probably not at all a French Pro) ''(with Sedgman, Gonzales, Segura and Budge).

Segura has won the Caracas 4-man tournament with Segura, Kramer, Sedgman and McGregor probably as important as the Paris event if the latter wasn't as I think a French Pro. The Ecuadorian has also won the Lyon 4-man tournament probably almost as important as Paris and Caracas because Segura, Sedgman, Gonzales and Cawthorn entered this competition. Finally Segura won 3 other minor tournaments quite equivalent (Scarborough with Segura, Sedgman, McGregor and Pails; Riccione a 4-man tournament with Segura, Sedgman, Pails and McGregor; and Rimini with the same players)

Kramer has won 2 tournaments equivalent to the Paris and Caracas events : New York a 4-man tournament with Kramer, Sedgman, Segura and McGregor and Chicago with the same players.

Gonzales has won 3 minor tournaments : the U.S. Pro with Budge, Riggs and Kovacs, the Canadian Pro-Quebec City with Riggs and Kovacs and the California State-Beverly Hills with Budge.

Finally Kramer won his tour against Sedgman.

Kramer is probably the best player of the first half of the year because he had dominated Sedgman in the tour and he had better global results than Segura in the 3 tournaments they played together but Kramer has missed the second half of the year and in particular the Wembley tournament which was the greatest tournament of the year and he intentionally avoided Gonzales.

Gonzales has been crushed three times out of three by Sedgman in particular in the Wembley final so he can't be the #1.

There left Sedgman and Segura. Sedgman and Segura have won each one equivalent events : Paris for Sedgman and Caracas for Segura. Sedgman has also won Wembley the greatest event (and nothing else) while Segura has won Lyon, Scarborough, Riccione and Rimini. So I think that in tournaments Segura is at least equal to Sedgman because I think that these 4 Segura wins weight as much (if not more) as the Sedgman's Wembley win. Let's suppose there is a doubt, another argument gives the edge to Segura : his win/loss record against Sedgman : 7-3.

Then I propose these fragile rankings for 1953 : 1) Segura, 2) Sedgman, ( 3) Kramer, 4) Gonzales) but I am not sure.

1954:

In the 4-man (Gonzales-Segura-Sedgman-Budge) tour where Budge was replaced in March by Carl Earn, Budge results are unknown but McCauley recalled that Budge won only a few matches (in particular the first one, in Los Angeles against Gonzales). If I suppose that Segura and Sedgman have each one won as many matches against Budge then Segura has ended just ahead of Sedgman because a) their records against Gonzales were strictly identical and b) Segura beat Sedgman 23 matches to 22. So very small advantage to Segura. In the small Far East tour with Segura, Gonzales, Kramer coming back after his first retirement and Sedgman, Segura was the best (Segura-Gonzales 1-1, Segura-Sedgman 2-1 and Segura-Kramer 4-0). But in the US Pro where all the best pro players were present if I except Dinny Pails who was the least good (Kramer has not yet come back in singles), Sedgman beat Segura 6-2 7-5 2-6 6-4 in the semifinals and in the Australian Pro (there have been only 3 editions of this tournament in 1954, 1957 and 1958) Sedgman captured the title, beating Segura in the final. I think that these 2 victories of Sedgman over Segura weight much than the small leads of Segura in tours : for me Sedgman was the second best player in the world by a small margin. Gonzales, having won almost all the competitions, was the number one by far.

My 1954 rankings : 1) Gonzales, 2) Sedgman (3) Segura)

1955 :

If I consider the following facts :

a) Segura played at about the same level in 1955 and in 1956

b) Trabert has improved a lot between 1955 (as an amateur) and 1956 (as a pro) in Jack March’s opinion (the promoter of the Cleveland tournament, 1950-1964, which was considered as the US Pro in 1950 and from 1952 to 1962),

c) Segura regularly dominated Trabert in 1956 (a year again dominated by Gonzales over Sedgman)

I affirm that Segura was superior to Trabert in 1955.

Moreover the pro circuit in 1955 was a succession of finals won by Gonzales over Segura (Sedgman has played very little in 1955 and in particular underwent a surgery of appendicitis).

So I propose the following 1955 rankings : 1) Gonzales, 2) Segura ( 3) Trabert)

1958 :

Gonzales was probably the best in 1958 because he won the Tournament of Champions in Forest Hills, and the US Pro (but without Sedgman and Rosewall). The fact he beat Hoad in their tour was not determinant in the hierarchy because they did not face such players as Sedgman, Rosewall, Segura or Trabert (the two last playing the « animal act » of the Gonzales-Hoad tour). Gonzales faced Hoad because the Australian was at the time the most attractive player for the public and then economically the best choice. Nevertheless Hoad has made a good year in 1958 but I am not sure he was the second player in the world because Sedgman and Rosewall have well played too.

In the first, chronologically big tournament of the year, at Kooyong, Melbourne, Hoad started very well by beating all the greats (Rosewall, Segura, Trabert, Gonzales and Sedgman in succession), the others were as follows : 2) Sedgman and Gonzales, 4) Rosewall, 5) Trabert and Segura. Then in the Australian Pro (without Segura) at Sydney, Sedgman won the tournament where Trabert beat Rosewall in the first tour and Hoad in semifinals. Then came the US Pro without Sedgman and Rosewall : Gonzales took the title over Hoad in the final... The next big tournament was the Tournament of Champions at Forest Hills where Gonzales retained his crown, Rosewall ended second, Hoad fourth and Sedgman sixth. In the Masters Round Robin in Los Angeles, Segura took the last very great title of his career. Gonzales, Rosewall and Sedgman all ended second and Hoad ended seventh and last with no victory at all... In Eastbourne (without Gonzales and Sedgman) Rosewall won over Trabert, Hoad’s winner in semifinals. In Roland Garros Rosewall took his first French Pro beating Kramer, Sedgman and Hoad in succession (Sedgman lost third place against Gonzales) and in London at Wembley Sedgman captured the crown by beating Segura, Gonzales and Trabert. Rosewall was fourth, beaten by Trabert in the semis and by Gonzales for third place. Hoad, injured since Roland Garros, defaulted in the first round and then didn’t play the rest of the year. The other events well less important.

In the very big tournaments with all the greats (I include Wembley where Hoad was registered though he defaulted) :

- Sedgman has won Wembley and has ended second (with Gonzales) in Melbourne and second (with Gonzales and Rosewall) in Los Angeles ; he was fourth at Roland Garros and sixth at Forest Hills,

- Hoad has won Melbourne, was finalist at Roland Garros, ended fourth at Forest Hills, seventh at Los Angeles and defaulted in the first round of Wembley,

- Rosewall has won Roland Garros, was second at Forest Hills, was second (with Gonzales and Sedgman) in Los Angeles, was fourth at Melbourne, was also fourth at Wembley.

In the Australian Pro where only one great (Segura) was missing :

- Sedgman won the tournament,

- Hoad was directly qualified for the semifinals where he lost to Trabert,

- Rosewall was beaten in the quarters (first round) by Trabert too.

In big tournaments where two greats were absent (the US Pro (without Sedgman and Rosewall) and Eastbourne (without Gonzales and Sedgman) :

- Sedgman was always absent,

- Hoad reached the final of the US Pro (beating the old Parker and in the semis Trabert) and the semis of Eastbourne (where he just beat Cawthorn),

- Rosewall won Eastbourne (beating Segura and Trabert) and was absent of the US Pro.

In the very big tournaments

Rosewall was	1, 2, 2ex aequo, 4 and 4

Sedgman was	1, 2ex aequo, 2ex aequo, 4 and 6

Hoad was	1, 2, 4, 7 and defaulted in a first round

so very little advantage to Rosewall in front of Sedgman himself ahead of Hoad.

In the other big tournaments Sedgman won the greatest, the Australian Pro where just Segura was missing while Rosewall won Eastbourne where Gonzales and Sedgman weren’t there. Hoad was just finalist of the US Pro where Sedgman and Rosewall were missing.

For these « second rank » big events I give the edge to Sedgman over Rosewall (and naturally over Hoad).

I think this Sedgman’s advantage is greater than Rosewall’s very little advantage previously described.

Moreover in a tour de France (Perrier trophy) with Rosewall, Hoad, Segura and Trabert, the winner was Rosewall (final standings for Segura, Trabert and Hoad are unknown). However Rosewall also dominated Hoad in this case.

I insist but the results of supposed « World » tours engaged only the concerned players : Gonzales-Hoad 51-36 just says that Gonzales had clearly beaten Hoad in the first months of 1958 and nothing else, in this tour neither Gonzales nor Hoad have beaten Sedgman, Rosewall, Segura, Trabert or another player. Trabert-Segura 34-31 just indicates that Trabert has narrowly dominated Segura in head-to-head matches in the first months of 1958. And I recall that in these tours the players were chosen on an economical criterion. In 1958 Rosewall or Sedgman or Trabert weren’t as loved as Hoad who had a magnetic appeal.

So my 1958 rankings are : 1) Gonzales, 2) Sedgman ( 3) Rosewall, 4) Hoad)

1959 :

Kramer's rankings for 1959 were : 1) Gonzales, 2) Sedgman, 3) Rosewall, 4) Hoad, 5) Trabert

Robert Roy (from the French sports paper L'Équipe)'s rankings : 1) Gonzales, 2) Sedgman, 3) Rosewall, 4) Trabert, 5) Hoad

Robert Barne (Kramer's Australian Manager)'s list : 1) Hoad, 2) Gonzales, 3) Rosewall, 4) Sedgman, 5) Trabert

I do not agree with anyone and in particular with Kramer’s and Roy’s rankings.

I have never had a high consideration for Kramer’s rankings because his judgments were sometimes completely erroneous. In his book pages 238 and 239 he listed his possible winners of Wimbledon and Forest Hills if these tournaments had been open before 1968 : a) when he has felt that a player was absolutely dominant then he has given that player both titles, b) when there were two leaders he’s given one title to one player and the second to the other (arbitrarily assigning Wimbledon to one and Forest Hills to the other). Kramer acknowledged some surprises could have happened but he thought that his list wasn’t far from the reality if tennis had always been open (he didn’t propose any Wimbledon titlist between 1940 and 1945 knowing that Great Britain was in war).

I disagree not with his arguments but with many of his results.

In 1934 and in 1935 he thought that Vines would have won both titles but even though I think Vines was at least the equal of Perry, Vines wasn’t absolutely dominant as Federer is nowadays.

In 1939 he supposed that Vines and Budge were quite equals but this was the case just at the beginning of the year then Budge has improved so much that he knew the only year in his career where he was absolutely dominant.

Kramer guessed he was himself absolutely dominant in 1950 but this is wrong because of his physical problems and Segura could have won a Forest Hills open.

Kramer also considered he was the equal of Gonzales in 1952 but this was untrue : the records clearly indicate that Gonzales was by far the best pro in 1952 and that he had the « Indian sign » on Kramer at that time.

For 1955 he put Sedgman at the same level than Gonzales’s but the latter has all won that year and Sedgman was out of the circuit a great part of the year.

For 1957 Kramer couldn’t choose between Hoad and Gonzales but the Australian was beaten by all the best pros when he quit the amateur circuit in the second half of the year.

For 1959 he thought that Gonzales was omnipotent but Hoad indeed was very close (see below).

Little remark : McCauley (page 104 of his book) wrote that Kramer’s rankings of 1959 and 1960 were identical : this supposed 1) Gonzales, 2) Sedgman but in his book, page 239, Kramer selected Gonzales and Rosewall as the two best players in 1960.

But all these previous examples are details compared to his 1962 and 1963 suggestions :

- in 1962 he supposed that Rosewall and Gonzales were in the same league though Rosewall has won 7 of the 8 biggest tournaments while Gonzales, retired, hasn’t played a single match, busy to give tennis lessons to rich customers in a Bahamas hotel,

- for 1963 he chose Gonzales and Laver when the former, coming back to competition, played and lost one single match in the whole year and when the latter was overwhelmingly dominated by Rosewall, the pro king of the time. Finally in 1967 he supposed that Rosewall and Laver were very close but Laver was indeed omnipotent on fast courts that year.

Let’s come back to 1959 :

Firstly Gonzales and Hoad has captured the two first places in the two greatest tournaments of 1959 :

Gonzales won the Masters Round Robin in Los Angeles with Hoad finishing second and the Australian won the Tournament of Champions at Forest Hills beating Gonzales in the finals. In these tournaments the "Big Six" (Gonzales, Hoad, Sedgman, Rosewall, Trabert and Segura) were all present.

Secondly Gonzales and Hoad has won each 5 tournaments (according to McCauley's results, pages 211-215), more than any of their rivals (Rosewall came third with 3 victories).

Gonzales and Hoad were then the two best players.

Now I will explain why I think Gonzales was still the best :

- firstly he has ended number one in the tour played by himself, Hoad, Cooper and Anderson ( 1) Gonzales 47 matches won, 15 lost, 2) Hoad 42-20, 3) Cooper 21-40, 4) Anderson 13-48) even though in this tour Hoad led Gonzales 15-13 in direct meetings but Hoad was less good than Gonzales against Cooper and Anderson what explains the global lead of Gonzales in this tour. Later in the year Gonzales would reverse his results in head-to-head matches against Hoad (see below).

- secondly Pancho had a better overall record against the best players than Hoad had :

Gonzales-Rosewall 2-3 (or 2-5 according to Peter Rowley in "Rosewall Twenty Years at the Top" page 82 citing the "New York Times" and the "Sunday Times" of England : it is very possible that McCauley has not found all the results),

Gonzales-Hoad 19-18 (13-15 in tour + 6-3 in tournaments or isolated matches),

Gonzales-Sedgman 5-2,

Gonzales-Trabert 4-1,

Gonzales-Segura 1-0;

Hoad-Gonzales 18-19,

Hoad-Sedgman 4-5,

Hoad-Rosewall 5-5,

Hoad-Trabert 5-4,

Hoad-Segura 3-2;

Gonzales trailed only Rosewall whereas Hoad trailed Gonzales and Sedgman and Hoad was equal to Rosewall in head-to-head matches,

- thirdly in the five tournaments won by Hoad, two were only small 4-man tournaments.

These are all the reasons why I give a slight edge to the American.

My 1959 rankings : 1) Gonzales, 2) Hoad ( 3) Sedgman and Rosewall, 5) Trabert, 6) Segura ...)

1960:

Sedgman did not fight for the first or the second place in 1960 because he has not win a single tournament or a small tour. His best performances were his third places at Wembley and at Roland Garros which made him, in my opinion, the fourth player in the world that year (after Gonzales, Rosewall and Hoad).

Without any doubt the two best players were Gonzales and Rosewall.

Gonzales decided to retire on May,16 but he changed his mind and was back on December,30 because "I need money" as he said at the time. In 2006 standards he would not have been ranked number one because he has only played 4 and a half months that year (one tour and one small tournament without any leading pros);

he wouldn't have accumulated enough "Race points" to be the first but in 50's or 60's standards he was, for almost everyone, the number one (at the time Hoad considered Gonzales the best and I don’t think (nevertheless no certainty) that Rosewall considered himself as the best). Let me explain to you. If I except his tour with Gonzales, Rosewall has nearly all won and in particular the three greatest tournaments of the year, chronologically the Masters tournament in Los Angeles, the French Pro at Roland Garros and Wembley (Hoad was finalist in two of them). The Tournament of Champions at Forest Hills was not held in 1960 due to poor attendances the previous years.

I open a bracket : The Tournament of Champions at Forest Hills has incredibly never been a success. For example Wimbledon 1957, an amateur tournament so without Gonzales, Segura, Sedgman, Rosewall and Trabert was a success even though the only very good player was Hoad who outclassed his opponents winning the final on July,6. Hoad then made his pro debut in the The Tournament of Champions at Forest Hills (July 14-21, 1957) with the five best pros forbidden of Wimbledon. In spite of the presence of all these great players the pro tournament drew small crowds and lost a bunch of money. The pros who were the best players by far were incredibly ignored by the public who preferred the traditional amateur events. This attitude involved the suppression of the Tournament of Champions in 1960. Bracket closed.

In all Rosewall captured 6 tournaments in 1960 in front of Hoad with 4 victories. So in the absence of Gonzales, temporarily retired, Rosewall was clearly the leader. But it is very hard to say that Rosewall was the number one in 1960 because he was completely crushed by Gonzales in the 4-man (Gonzales, Rosewall, Segura, Olmedo) tour (from January to May 1960). This tour was perhaps the peak of the entire career of the American.

The tour finals standings :

1) Gonzales 49 matches won - only 8 lost

2) Rosewall 32-25,

3) Segura 22-28,

4) Olmedo 11-44.

Look at the record, Rosewall was far behind Gonzales in this tour who has won almost all their direct confrontations. Halfway through the North American part of the tour the standings were Gonzales 23-1 (his only match lost 6-4 4-6 13-11 to Olmedo in Philadelphia) and Rosewall 11-13.

So here is the same sort of problem that the 1950 problem or the 1951 problem to rank the best players.

After the tour Gonzales played and won a tournament in Tuscaloosa (without any big player) and said goodbye to everybody.

My (again fragile) 1960 rankings : 1) Gonzales, 2) Rosewall, ( 3) Hoad, 4) Sedgman )

1961 (since September 2006 you have rightly brushed Laver aside : my notes are relative to the fact you’ve ranked Laver second at the time nevertheless since your modification you still consider that Gonzales was superiror to Rosewall in 1961 but I do not agree and I give a few arguments):

Robert Roy (who died in the spring of 1962) of the French sports paper L'Équipe had published his first World "open" rankings for the year 1959. Here is what he proposed for 1961 :

1) Rosewall, 2) Gonzales, 3) Hoad, 4) Trabert, 5) Segura, 6) Gimeno, 7) Cooper, 8) MacKay, 9) Olmedo, 10) Buchholz, 11) Laver (first amateur), 12) Anderson, 13) Emerson (amateur), 14) Pietrangeli (amateur), 15) Santana (amateur), 16) Ayala (amateur until his win at Graz, September,3 then pro from "Roland Garros pro" (September 12-17)), 17) Krishnan (amateur), 18) Sangster (amateur), 19) Lundquist (amateur), 20) McKinley (amateur), 21) Darmon (amateur), ... 23) Neale Fraser (amateur).

Roy ranked the amateurs so badly, but probably rightly, because a) the previous amateur leaders (Cooper, Anderson, Rose and Olmedo) have been totally crushed by the best pros in 1959 and in 1960 (Cooper, the best of the four, has reached at best the seventh rank in the pros), b) Gimeno (and eventually Buchholz) have waited long before winning great tournaments, and c) Laver has been crushed by Rosewall and Hoad for his pro debut and has even lost his first two pro matches against MacKay.

My own rankings slightly differ : a) I consider that Hoad hadn't a great season owing to his injury on March,4 at Paris where he had to retire with a pulled tendon in his foot. Hoad needed much time to fully recover, b) I think that Emerson was better than Laver because even though the latter has won Wimbledon amateur, he has lost many times against Emerson and particularly on such great occasions as Forest Hills or the Australian, c) though Sedgman played little in 1961 I think he deserved to be in the Top20.

Here are my own 1961 rankings :

1) Rosewall, 2) Gonzales, 3) Segura, 4) Gimeno, 5) Trabert, 6) Hoad, 7) Cooper, 8) Emerson (first amateur), 9) Laver (amateur), 10) MacKay, 11) Olmedo, 12) Buchholz, 13) Santana (amateur), 14) Pietrangeli (amateur), 15) Sangster (amateur), 16) Sedgman, 17) Anderson, 18) Ayala (amateur and pro), 19) Krishnan (amateur), 20) Whitney Reed (amateur).

In these two cases Laver turned around the 10th place in the world but he was absolutely not the 2nd player and I will try to demonstrate it. Between the second half of 1961 to the first half of 1964 the top dog was Ken Rosewall who was at his apogee and stayed at an even level as the standard of play level he was. During this same period Laver has improved a lot in particular in his first year as a pro in 1963 if I have to believe Sedgman in January 1964 : "Rod has made tremendous strides in a short time in the pro ranks and now makes a lot of fewer errors than he did as an amateur. He is putting real pressure on Rosewall, our top player, and now ranks ahead of Gimeno, Hoad and Buchholz." In other terms Laver in 1961 or even in 1962 was well less good than in 1963 when he turned pro. Let me tell you what he did in 1963 to give you an idea.

Laver made his pro debut in Australasia in January 1963. In this tour he played against Rosewall and Hoad. He faced them 21 times and won ... only 2 matches : Laver-Rosewall 2-11 and Laver-Hoad 0-8 (McCauley had only details for 12 matches against Rosewall and 6 against Hoad).

Then Laver played another tour in the US with Rosewall again, Gimeno, Ayala and two Americans Buchholz and MacKay (Hoad was not chosen because there would have been to many Australians : here is another example for not giving too much importance to tours but for best considering tournaments where all the best players enter). In the first phase each player faced each other one about eight times. I have just the global results of this first phase (which lasted about two months and a half) and all the results of the first month : Rosewall ended first (31 matches won - 10 lost), Laver second (26-16), Buchholz third (23-18), Gimeno fourth (21-20), MacKay fifth (12-29) and Ayala sixth (11-30). In the first month Rosewall faced Laver 4 times without any defeat, I don't know the results of their about four next meetings. Then in the second and final phase the first (Rosewall) and the second (Laver) of the first phase has met to determine the final winner (and the third (Buchholz) met the fourth (Gimeno)). In 18 matches Rosewall beat Laver 14 times to definitely conquer the first place (Gimeno beat Buchholz 11-7). Then came in mid-May the season of the tournaments. In those occasions Rosewall only beat Laver 4-3 but Rosewall won 5 tournaments (against 4 to Laver) and in particular the 3 or 4 greatest tournaments of the year 1963 : chronologically the US Pro at Forest Hills (without Gimeno and Sedgman) on grass where he defeated Laver 6-4 6-2 6-2, the French Pro at Coubertin on wood where his victim in the final was again Laver (this one considers in his autobiography "The education of a tennis player" page 151 that "...I played the finest tennis I believe I've ever produced, and he beat me" so imagine the level reached by Rosewall on this occasion), The Wembley Pro on wood (Hoad finalist) and the Italian Pro at Rome on clay (Laver beaten 6-4 6-3 in the final). In those biggest tournaments Rosewall has won 4 times whereas Laver has reached 3 finals and 1 quarters (Wembley) so there was no match between the two Australians. Moreover in direct confrontations Rosewall has badly beaten « Rocket » (Laver’s nickname) in 1963 : 11-2 then 4-0 then about 4 meetings with unknown (to me) results then 14-4 and then 4-3.

Incidentally I give my 1963 rankings : 1) Rosewall, 2) Laver.

So

a) Laver has been completely dominated by Rosewall in 1963 (see above) and at his pro debut in January 1963 has been crushed by Hoad,

b) Laver has much progressed between 1961 and 1963 (see Sedgman's remark),

c) Rosewall has probably played at the same level between 1961 and 1963,

implies that Laver was far behind Rosewall (and some other leading pros) in 1961 (and in 1962).

Now I come back to the year 1961.

Two players have completely dominated the circuit this year : Rosewall and Gonzales.

Gonzales has come back from his seven and a half month retirement on December 30, 1960 when Rosewall tired by a ten-year career decided not to retire, as Gonzales, but to have a rest and have some good time with his family for the first half of the year. So Rosewall declined the offer to tour in the World Series with Gonzales, Hoad, Olmedo (replacing Rosewall), Gimeno and the two new recruits MacKay and Buchholz (Segura, Trabert, Cooper and Sedgman sometimes replaced the injured players). During Rosewall's absence Gonzales still dominated the pro circuit. Gonzales has won all the events he played in 1961 except the two biggest ones by far that year because there were all the best players and these events had a certain tradition : Roland Garros Pro (clay) and Wembley Pro (wood). Those two tournaments were won by Rosewall what made him probably the number one in the world by a very small margin. At Roland Garros the Australian captured the title by beating Gonzales in the final 2-6 6-4 6-3 8-6 and at Wembley he won the tournament in defeating Hoad, Gonzales's winner in the semifinals.

I give another reason that makes me think that Rosewall was better than Gonzales in 1961 :

From 1960 on Gonzales has never won a big best-of-five set tournament (he won Tuscaloosa 1960 (without any leading pro), Copenhagen 1961 and the US indoor 1964 where just the finals where best-of-five set matches) but he never won in the 60’s (and of course in the 70’s) a best-of-five set tournament as the French Pro where all the matches were played on this format.

Moreover in 1961 Gonzales has won near all his matches on indoor fast courts whereas Rosewall has won on all surfaces : Roland Garros on clay (the slowest surface), Wembley on indoor wood (the fastest surface) and the New South Wales Pro at the White City Stadium in Sydney on grass.

In head-to-head matches Rosewall and Gonzales faced each other 4 times in 1961 (twice in tournaments and twice in teams matches), each winning twice but the Rosewall's win at Roland Garros had much weight than the other matches.

So in 1961 Rosewall was stronger than the ageing Gonzales in best-of-five set tournaments and the Australian has won on all surfaces. These facts plus Rosewall’s wins of the two biggest events makes me think that he was the best player in the world by a little margin. By citing some tennis witnesses I will begin by McCauley : he wasn’t clear in his 1961 rankings and didn’t clearly affirm that Gonzales was the best : page 108 he effectively wrote as a title in the first line « Gonzales is still World Champion » but as soon as the fifth line of the same page he also wrote « …Rosewall by now arguably the No.1… » and page 111 McCauley still wrote « …the greatest emphasis was placed one more in the Paris and Wembley events. By winning both titles from fields including all the best players, Rosewall could justly claim to have usurped Gonzales’ long-held position of Numero Uno » and page 116 McCauley chose Robert Roy (L’Équipe)’s 1961 rankings with Rosewall as the top dog.

If McCauley was unable to choose the number one, others than Robert Roy had made a clear choice and considered Rosewall was the best : Kléber Haedens and Philippe Chatrier of Tennis de France, Michel Sutter (who has published « Vainqueurs 1946-1991 Winners 1946-1991 » a book listing all the tournaments winners of this period and a new edition « Vainqueurs 1946-2003 »), Christian Boussus (1931 Roland Garros amateur finalist), Peter Rowley, Robert Geist, Tony Trabert, John Newcombe and also the New York Times and World Tennis magazine : the day after the Rosewall-Gonzales final at Roland Garros, the New York Times reported in his headline and sub-headline « ROSEWALL CONQUERS GONZALES IN 4-SET TENNIS FINAL AT PARIS – Aussie Captures World Pro Title – American Fades After Strong Start » and after the Roland Garros and Wembley events, World Tennis magazine finally ran a photo of Rosewall saying « Ken Rosewall now has a claim to the title of World’s Best Professional. ». In his book, page 146, Laver wrote « Rosewall…Eventually he took over the leadership of the group, overcoming Gonzales, but the public never knew or believed… ». Laver didin’t precise the year but it should be 1961 before the 20-month retirement of Gonzales.

Here I recall my 1961 rankings : 1) Rosewall, 2) Gonzales (and surely not Laver)

1962 (original comments influenced by your ancient rankings placing Laver second) :

As I have said for 1961, Laver didn't deserve either the second place in 1962. Rosewall has made his 1962 rankings excluding Segura as a new retired player :

1) Rosewall, 2) Hoad, 3) Gimeno, 4) Laver (amateur), 5) Buchholz. I almost agree Rosewall's judgement (I reintegrate Segura in 1962, see below).

As in 1963 Rosewall has completely dominated the pro circuit in 1962 : not only he has retained his Wembley and Roland Garros crowns still the two biggest events by far in 1962 but he has also won 5 (Adelaide, Melbourne, Geneva, Milan and Stockholm) of the next 6 biggest tournaments (in 1962 there have been small tours not very important). He has thus captured 7 of the 8 biggest events that year, the only one he lost was Zurich where he was defeated in the semifinals by Segura who in his turn left the title to Hoad (Rosewall also won 2 small tournaments in New Zealand).

McCauley has traced 6 Rosewall's defeats in the whole year but since my reading of his book I have learned that in an Australian TV series in February Rosewall has won 10 matches consecutively but has lost the last one so Rosewall has lost at least 7 matches in 1962 (it is yet very little). Far behind Rosewall there was a group constituted of players very close that I rank thus : Hoad (winner of Zurich and finalist at Wembley the greatest tournament), Segura (Rosewall's winner at Zurich and winner of 4 small tournaments), Gimeno (finalist at Roland Garros Pro and at Adelaide, Milan and Stockholm) and Buchholz (winner of 3 small tournaments including a very depleted US Pro).

In the amateurs Laver has won the Davis Cup with his country and about 21 tournaments in particular those of the Grand Slam so he was the best amateur without any doubt. When he turned pro in 1963 in his first meetings he was badly crushed by Rosewall and Hoad, he was about equal with Buchholz but he has dominated Gimeno (the clay specialist) on fast courts in the first month (February) of their clashes (Laver has beaten once Segura in June 1963 but the Ecuadorian has virtually retired eight months and a half before). Do not forget that Laver has progressed between 1962 and 1963 so if he had met in 1962 Rosewall, Hoad, Gimeno or Buchholz his results probably would have been worse than in 1963.

So my 1962 rankings are : 1) Rosewall, 2) Hoad, ( 3) Segura, 4) Gimeno, 5) Laver (amateur) and Buchholz).

1963 (like in 1960, 1961, 1962 you have changed your rankings and I agree your revised version) :

Even though Hoad has trounced Laver in January 1963 I think Laver was this time the second player in the world because he has so much improved that at the end of the year he has surpassed Hoad, Gimeno and Buchholz.

Laver was second to Rosewall in the great events : Rosewall has won the four and Laver was runner-up in three occasions (the US Pro at Forest Hills, the French Pro at Coubertin, the Italian Pro in Rome). Besides these two players only Hoad reached a great final (in Wembley, the greatest event). In tournaments won Laver with 4 triumphs (Kitzbuhel, Cannes, Noordwijk-on-Sea and Cape Town) was also second to Rosewall (5). Followed Gimeno (3) and Buchholz (2). Hoad and Sedgman has won no tournament at all in 1963. Moreover in the US tour Laver was also second to Rosewall but ahead of Gimeno and Buchholz (and MacKay and Ayala the last ones).

In head-to-head matches Laver only trailed Rosewall 9-33 + 4 or 5 unknown results, and Hoad 5-11 + 4 unknown results.

So even though Hoad had a good beginning (8-0 against Laver) and a good end (final at Wembley), he didn't deserve the second place at all.

As for 1961 I give you my own complete 1963 rankings just for the fun :

1) Rosewall, 2) Laver ( 3) Gimeno, 4) Buchholz, 5) Hoad, 6) Sedgman, 7) Emerson (amateur), as often I deny Lance Tingay’s rankings who had placed Emerson after Osuna and McKinley), 8) Osuna (amateur), 9) McKinley (amateur), 10) Olmedo, 11) Anderson, 12) Santana (amateur), 13) Stolle (amateur), 14) MacKay, 15) Ayala, 16) Wilson (amateur), 17) Robert Haillet, 18) Ralston (amateur), 19) Froehling (amateur), 20) Darmon (amateur), 21 Pietrangeli (amateur), 22) Lundquist (amateur), 23) Bungert (amateur), 24) Sangster (amateur), 25) Trabert (semi-retired), 26) Davies, 27) Kuhnke (amateur), 28) Ronald Barnes amateur), 29) Ken Fletcher (amateur), 30) Mulligan (amateur), 31) Riessen (amateur), 32) Barclay (amateur), 33) Ham Richardson (amateur), 34) Gonzales (comeback to competition), 35) Segura (semi-retired), 36) Roger Becker (amateur) (not Boris or Benjamin) and Sammy Giammalva, 38) Cawthorn and Quay.

1964 :

Usually Rosewall has always been underrated (this was also the case for Tilden in his pro years, Cochet in his pro years, Vines, Perry in his pro years, Budge in his pro years, Riggs, Kovacs, Segura, Gonzales, Gimeno : in fact all the players who were great in the pros before the open era) except in 1964. The majority of tennis witnesses considered Rosewall was the number one in 1964 (Joe McCauley, Robert Geist, Michel Sutter... among the journalists and the players themselves thought Rosewall was the best). Rod Laver himself after his triumph over Rosewall at Wembley said « I’ve still plenty of ambitions left and would like to be the World’s No.1. Despite this win, I am not that yet – Ken is. I may have beaten him more often than he has beaten me this year but he has won the biggest tournaments except here. I’ve lost to other people but Ken hasn’t. ». I suppose Laver made reference to Gonzales : in 1964 Rosewall has beaten Gonzales 11 times out of 14 while Laver, 26 years old, was beaten by Gonzales, 36 years old, 8 times out of 13. Moreover the official pro points rankings taking into account 17 tournaments (7 points for the winner, 4 points for the finalist, 3 points for the third player, 2 for the fourth one and 1 point to each quarter-finalists) were 1) Rosewall 78 points, 2) Laver 70 points, 3) Gonzales 48 points, 4) Gimeno 47 points, 5) Buchholz 31, 6) Hoad 29, 7) Olmedo 26 and 8) Ayala. Finally in a Challenge Match considered by many as a World Championship match, held in Ellis Park, Johannesburg, at the end of the South African tour, Rosewall beat Laver 6-4 6-1 6-4.

So almost everybody thought Rosewall was the top dog. But I made my own (also perfectible because I didn't take into account some tour or challenge matches out of tournament competitions and some results are missing in McCauley’s accounts) rankings. I considered the 29 tournaments opposing the best touring pros (I didn’t take into accounts some ‘domestic’ tournaments) listed by McCauley. Except for the US Pro, the French Pro and Wembley Pro that I consider as the very big events in 1964, I gave as much points to a tournament winner as there were big players in this tournament (I considered there were 10 big names in the pro circuit : Sedgman, Rosewall, Olmedo, MacKay, Laver, Hoad, Gonzales, Gimeno, Buchholz, Ayala). I affected half the winner’s points to the finalist, as many points to both semifinalists as the finalist but I made a difference between the third player, receiving 3/10 of the winner’s points and the fourth one receiving 2/10 of the winner’s points and finally 1/8 of the winner’s points to each quarterfinalist (then the finalist received half the the winner’s points, the semifinalists globally received half the the winner’s points, the same for the quaterfinalists). For the 3 biggest events (I could also have included the Masters Round Robin in Los Angeles and even the US Pro indoor in White Plains in the biggest events) I just multiplied the points by two. I give you an example : in Cannes 1964 were present 8 big players : I then affected 8 points to the winner, 4 points to the finalist, 2.4 points to the third player and 1.6 point to the fourth player (2.4+1.6 = 4 points for the semifinalists) and 1 point for each qarterfiinalist. In Wembley all the 10 big players were there so I gave the winner 2*10 = 20 points,…. My final results were : 1) Laver 115.625 points, 2) Rosewall 114.5 points, 3) Gonzales 70.5, 4) Gimeno 44.5, 5) Hoad 29.25, 6) Buchholz 28.125, 7) Olmedo 20.25, 8) Sedgman 16.5 (if I have included Los Angeles and White Plains in the biggest ones, Rosewall would have led) …My pro rankings don’t differ very much from the official points rankings. So it’s hard to choose between the two Australians who were very close whatever angle you choose. But even though Rosewall has been better than Laver in head-to-head matches against the third pro, Gonzales, I give a very slight advantage to Laver because « Rocket » has beaten « Muscles » (Rosewall’s nickname) 12 times out of 15 in direct confrontations that year.

For once I think that Rosewall was overrated (I noticed that a few days ago you didn’t follow McCauley’s assertion (page 126) « Rosewall tops again but only just » because in a first time you chose Laver as the number one but then you recently reversed the positions by putting Rosewall first : now I then disagree your new rankings).

My 1964 rankings : 1) Laver, 2) Rosewall ( 3) Gonzales, 4) Gimeno and Emerson (amateur))

1970 :

Many journalists has ranked either Newcombe number one, Rosewall number two, Laver three (for example Lance Tingay) or Laver number one, Rosewall number two, Newcombe number three (for instance in the vote of the panel of leading tennis writers which served to the World Championship of Tennis (WCT) organization to sent invitations to the 32 best men to play the 1971 WCT circuit) but very few (as Judith Elian from L'Équipe) has placed Rosewall number one in 1970.

I will recall an evidence unknown or forgotten by many : the four tournaments of the Grand Slam has only been the four greatest events in tennis, from a purely sporting point of view, since 1983. Before this year it was never the case except perhaps in 1969, because there was always, a given year, at least one Grand Slam tournament with a weak field. For example the Australian Nationals have always had a weak field until 1982 if I exclude 1969 and 1971. Roland Garros amateur was played without the official professionals and Roland Garros Open 1970, 1972 were held without any "contract pro" (professionals under contract with promoters (National Tennis League (NTL) or World Championship of Tennis (WCT)) and Roland Garros 1971 saw just a few contract pros. Wimbledon amateur was of course played without any pro and Wimbledon 1972 was forbidden to contract pros and the 1973 edition was boycotted by the ATP members and finally the US amateur was always forbidden to the pros. Moreover from 1920 to 1959 (40 years) the Davis Cup was the greatest amateur event far ahead Wimbledon or Forest Hills and in particular from 1920 to 1930, when the best amateur was better than the best pro and so was the best player in the world, the Davis Cup was the greatest tennis event. In the 30's, the 40's, the 50's (and perhaps the 60's) the Pacific Southwest tournament in Los Angeles had often the best field of all the tournaments after Wimbledon and Forest Hills and far ahead some Roland Garros and all the Australians. I've always heard that Vines, Budge, Kramer, Segdman, Rosewall or Hoad had regularly played at the Pacific Southwest but I know that Vines as an amateur has played just once in Australia and never in Roland Garros amateur, that Budge has only played one Australian amateur and one Roland Garros amateur, that Kramer has never entered the two tournaments (but he has played one Roland Garros Pro in 1958), that Hoad has not played Roland Garros in 1955 and above all that Rosewall has missed Roland Garros 1955 and 1956 when he was the best amateur on clay (his best surface) in order to prepare Wimbledon. Do you imagine Nadal having missed Roland Garros 2005 and 2006 to have better chances at Wimbledon ? Surely not. Finally when the best pros began to be better than the amateurs (the first year was perhaps 1931 when Tilden as a pro was possibly better than Cochet amateur and since 1948 the best player on earth has always been a pro) some pro events became greater events (in a sporting point of view) than the Davis Cup, the Grand Slam tournaments, the Pacific Southwest or other great amateur competition. For example if I compare Roland Garros amateur 1958 (played in May) with his pro equivalent (played in September) there is no match. Mervyn Rose (the winner of the amateur edition) and Ayala (the finalist) were crashed by the best pros when they turned pro (respectively January 1959 and September 1961). In Roland Garros Pro 1958 were present the six best players in the world : Gonzales (who reached the semis), Sedgman (semis), Rosewall (winner), Hoad (finalist), Segura (quarters), Trabert (quarters) (even the old Kramer, who wasn't anymore one of the six best, participated (quarters)). But all these great players were forbidden at the amateur edition. For example in 1958 none of the Grand Slam tournaments was a "big" event : Melbourne Round Robin Pro, the Tournament of Champions at Forest Hills Pro, the Pro Masters Round Robin in Los Angeles, Roland Garros Pro and Wembley Pro were the "very big ones" that year (see what I’ve said before).

In the history of tennis

a) Southport Pro (in the 30's), the German International Pro at Berlin (30's), Forest Hills Pro (50's-60's) when it wasn't the US Pro (in 1958 there was a pro tournament at Forest Hills and a US Pro held at Cleveland but in 1963 the US Pro and Forest Hills Pro were an only and same tournament), the US Pro itself, the Australian Pro (held only three times in 1954, 1957 and in 1958), the Madison Square Garden Pro, San Rafael Pro (1965-1966), the French Pro (Roland Garros or Stade Pierre de Coubertin), Wembley Pro, some other Australian Pro tournaments, and some Johannesburg Pro tournaments,

b) pro teams competitions as the Bonnardel Cup (second half of the 30's), the Kramer Cup (1961-1963),

c) some big world pro tours (Vines-Budge in 1939, Budge-Perry the same year, Kramer-Gonzales in 1949-1950,...) and some challenge matches (Rosewall-Laver at Ellis Park, Johannesburg 1964, ...) were the greatest events in tennis.

Of course for every year you have to precisely look at every event to emphasize the real big events. For instance the US Pro hasn't always been a big one :

in 1948 or in 1964 all the great players were there but in 1936 or in 1960 many were missing. The same thing can be said for Wembley : in 1950 the field was weak but in 1934 or in 1961 all the best pros were present.

Moreover the Grand Slam concept only exists since the 30's (the journalist John Kieran transferred this expression from bridge to tennis just before Crawford played the final at Forest Hills amateur in 1933 and John Donald ("Don") Budge intended to do it before the Davis Cup defence in 1938 : Tilden or the Muskeeters at their prime have no idea of this notion so at the time these tournaments weren't the big events and before 1925 there was no question of Grand Slam at all because the French amateur Internationals did not even exist.

In about 1858 Major Harry Gem drew a sort of tennis court on the grass of his property : he played a game quite similar to the tennis. In about 1863 Major Wingfield also played a sort of tennis in his residence of London. From about 1869 in Warwickshire Harry Gem and his Spanish friend Augurio Perera had been experimenting with a new version of the game which they first called pelota and later lawn rackets. Gem, Perera and Frederic Haynes and Arthur Tomkin formed a club in Leamington : it was the world’s first lawn tennis club founded. Wingfield patented « Modern Tennis » under the name "Sphairistike", this was dated on February 23, 1874. So Wingfield who has not invented « Modern Tennis » (but probably Gem in 1858) became famous because he has put tennis up for sale. Then the first tournament seemed to be held at Wimbledon in 1877 (July 9-16).

If I consider 1877 the first year of tennis matches and knowing that the four Grand Slam tournaments have been each year the four greatest events since 1983 then these tournaments have been the real foundations of the game only during the last 18,5 percents (2006 - 1982 / 2006 - 1876) of modern tennis history. In other words, during 81,5 percents of the modern tennis history (so a very long time) the four Grand Slam tournaments has not been the four big ones.

Conclusion : before 1983 you cannot judge the career or simply the year of a player by looking at his results in Grand Slam tournaments (just choose for instance 1982 and you will see that the Masters (or perhaps the Davis Cup), not the Australian Open, was the 4th event of the year).

I come back to 1970 which does not escape the rule : the Australian and especially the French had weak fields. For instance in Australia, the "Dunlop Open" held two months (in March) after the Australian Open (in January) in the same site (Sydney, White City Stadium) saw such players as Laver, Rosewall, Emerson, Gonzales, Gimeno or Nastase all absent in the Grand Slam tournament.

That year the greatest events were 1) Wimbledon, 2) Forest Hills far ahead another else. Then in third position but very far behind we can possibly place the Masters of the Grand Prix (in Tokyo) and just behind in 4th position we can hesitate between the US Pro indoor at Philadelphia, the Dunlop Open in Sydney, the US Pro in the suburb of Boston or perhaps another tournament (I am not very sure) but we can surely eliminate the Australian Open, the French Open or the Davis Cup from the four greatest tennis events in 1970.

Because Laver hasn't won either Wimbledon or Forest Hills and was eliminated so early (each time in the round of 16) that year he can't be considered the number one even though he has won more tournaments, more matches, more money than anyone else. That year these two tournaments were THE events because they had all the best players and were Grand Slam tournaments so it's nearly impossible to give the number one place to someone who hasn't won one or two of these EVENTS. There remains Newcombe (Wimbledon's winner) and Rosewall (Forest Hills's winner).

- Rosewall has won Forest Hills and was finalist at Wimbledon : in the first one he beat Newcombe in the semis 3 sets to love whereas at Wimbledon "Newk" (Newcombe's nickname) won over "Muscles" (Rosewall's nickname) in the final 3 sets to 2.

So in these two events if Newcombe has won the greater title (advantage Newcombe) and was equal in direct confrontations (one match all), Rosewall has won more sets (5-3) (advantage Rosewall),

- Rosewall ended third in the Grand Prix circuit and Newcombe ended seventh and then didn't even qualify for the Masters where only the 6 first were admitted. Rosewall also finished third of the Masters (advantage Rosewall).

- In the fourth event (US Pro indoor or US Pro or Dunlop Open) the best performer was Rosewall who reached the final of the Dunlop Open (advantage Rosewall).

- In the Pro circuit, the First Annual Tennis Champions Classic and the WCT circuit, Rosewall has a better record than Newcombe. In Tennis Champions Classic, a succession of challenge matches Newcombe played and lost just one match against the old Gonzales (6-4 6-4 6-2) while Rosewall won 3 matches and lost 2. In the WCT circuit Rosewall won 2 tournaments and Newcombe only one (advantage Rosewall).

- In all the circuits Rosewall has won 6 tournaments out of 20 and Newcombe only 4 out of 24 (advantage Rosewall). - In head-to-head matches Rosewall has beaten Newcombe 4 times out of 5 (Rosewall's only defeat was at Wimbledon) (advantage Rosewall).

- Rosewall earned $140,455 while Newcombe $78,251.

- Finally Rosewall was at least the equal of "Newk" on fast courts (grass, wood, fast synthetic surfaces, fast ciments) and "Muscles" was better on slow courts (clay) (advantage Rosewall).

My opinion is that Rosewall was the best because if I except his fifth set lost to Newcombe in the Wimbledon final, he has always been better than Newcombe on any criterion.

My 1970 rankings : 1) Rosewall, 2) Newcombe ( 3) Laver, 4) Roche)

1971 :

In 1971 there were two sorts of professional players. The WCT contract pros who were paid by the WCT organization in two times a) with a guarantee by contract and b) with prize money according to the victories : they have to play in a circuit of 20 tournaments and the top eight players in ranking points were invited in a big 8-man tournament (the 21th), the WCT Finals, played in November at Houston (quarters and semis) and at Dallas (final). When the WCT players were off they could play tournaments of the other pro circuit, managed by the International Lawn Tennis Federation (ILTF) ("The officials"), the Grand Prix circuit (supposed to be the "Traditional circuit") usually reserved to the other pros called the "independant pros". Some tournaments (for example the Berkeley tournament which had a stronger field than the US Open's) were held by both organizations. But the war between "The officials" and WCT climaxed in a ban by the ILTF beginning on January 1, 1972, of the WCT players from the Grand Prix circuit. To give an idea in 1971 about 7 (Newcombe, Rosewall, Laver, Ashe, Okker, Drysdale, Riessen) of the 10 best players in the world were contract professionals. The other 3 (Smith, Kodes, Nastase) were independant pros.

Newcombe has always been an overrated player. He didn't deserve the first place (given by Tingay or Collins) and I am not sure he was the second player in the world in 1971. As in 1970 or as in 1973, Newcombe has won the biggest event of the year 1971 (Wimbledon) but besides that he hasn't made a lot of things.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

So let's look at Newcombe's record : he won Wimbledon, the greatest event, by crushing Rosewall in the semis 6-1 6-1 6-3 (however Newcombe had a very easy quarterfinals match against Dibley, 6-1 6-2 6-3 whereas Rosewall had to fight for about four hours against Richey, 6-8 5-7 6-4 9-7 7-5) and by beating Smith 6-3 5-7 2-6 6-4 6-4 in the final. But besides that and some WCT tournaments he has won, Newcombe's season was a great blank : one of the causes is the US Open at Forest Hills where I concede he was not lucky at all. Firstly in the singles in the first round he was opposed to Jan Kodes, Roland Garros' winner. At the time only 8 men were seeded in this tournament (at the beginnings of tennis there was no seedings). Before this tournament Jan Kodes has never done anything on grass so he didn't deserve to be seeded in the first eight but the tournament's organizers should have choose at least 16 seeds in order not to oppose the Wimbledon's winner to the (even depleted) Roland Garros's winner as early as the first round. On this occasion Kodes made his first performances on grass : not only he hardly defeated Newcombe 2-6 7-6 7-6 6-3 but he also beat such players as Barthès, Lutz, Froehling and Ashe. Only Smith in the final stopped the Czech 3-6 6-3 6-2 7-6. Secondly Newcombe injured his knee while winning the doubles with Roger Taylor, preventing him from winning any tournament until Las Vegas in May 1972. So at Forest Hills Newcombe was beaten by the future finalist. In the Australian Open he lost in the round of 16 against Riessen. In the WCT circuit he ended only sixth behind Laver, Okker, Rosewall, Drysdale and Ashe (and in front of Riessen and Lutz) and he qualified for the 8-man WCT Finals tournament where he quickly lost in the quarters (first round) against Rosewall who took his Wimbledon's revenge, 7-5 6-2 5-7 6-3. Then if I look at the fifth position events : Newcombe lost in the quarters to Kodes in Rome; he was absent of Berkeley (due to his US Open's injury); Riessen defeated him in the quarters of Barcelona and Nastase, Newcombe's nemesis in the 70’s, eliminated the Australian in the quarters of Wembley. As many contract pros he didn't enter Roland Garros and was forbidden of Davis Cup. Finally though a contract pro, he has piled up enough Grand Prix points to play the Masters but refused the invitation because he was tired. He has captured 6 tournaments. He has won 58 matches and lost 16, his percentage of wins were thus of 78.4%. In his confrontations he was superior to Rosewall (3 matches to 1), equal with Smith (1-1 but Smith has won 4 sets and lost 3) and trailed Laver (1-2) and Kodes (0-2).

Smith's record : he was finalist at Wimbledon extending Newcombe to five sets. He won the US Open by defeating Kodes, Newcombe's winner. He was absent of the Australian Open and as an "independant pro" could'nt qualify to the WCT Finals. In Rome he reached the quarters (beaten by Laver), he was absent in Berkeley and in Barcelona and lost in the first round of Wembley. Finally in a depleted Roland Garros he was defeated by Nastase in the quarters; in Davis Cup the USA played only the Challenge Round (and won it) and Smith won his two singles against Nastase and Tiriac; having ended first of the Grand Prix circuit, Smith played the Masters (without any contract pros) where he ended second behind Nastase. He has captured 6 tournaments, has won 84.3% of his matches (70 out of 83). In his head-to-head matches he was equal with Newcombe (1-1) and with Kodes (1-1) and trailed Rosewall (0-1) and Laver (0-1).

Rosewall's record : he reached the semis at Wimbledon, he was absent at Forest Hills (due to his children's illnesses and to the conflict between ILTF and WCT) but he won the Australian Open (in March) without losing any set and the 8-man WCT Finals in November (he has ended second ex aequo or third (not clear) of the WCT circuit). He was absent of Rome; he reached the final at Berkeley against Laver; he lost in the quarters of Barcelona against the future winner, Orantes and he was stopped at the first round in Wembley. He didn't play Roland Garros, he was forbidden of Davis Cup but as Newcombe he could play the Masters held about ten days after his WCT Finals victory and as "Newk" he refused the invitation for he was tired after such a long season and he took his holidays of end of the year.

He has won 7 tournaments and 78.7% of his matches (70 out of 89). In direct confrontations he trailed Newcombe 1-3, Laver 2-3 but has dominated Smith 1-0 ("Muscles" has never met Kodes that year).

Conclusion :

Firtsly I compare Rosewall with Newcombe because it is easier given that they have played the same circuit. Rosewall was better than Newcombe in very big events (Wimbledon, US Open, Australian Open, the WCT Finals) :

Rosewall has won the Australian Open and the WCT Finals and has reached the semis of Wimbledon;

Newcombe has won Wimbledon and just played the quarters of the WCT Finals.

Moreover Rosewall has won more tournaments (7) than Newcombe (6) and had a slight better percentage of wins (78.7% against 78.4% for Newcombe).

I then consider that Rosewall was slightly ahead of Newcombe.

Secondly I compare Smith with Newcombe.

In the very big events where both players were present, Smith was better (victory at Forest Hills and final at Wimbledon) than Newcombe (victory at Wimbledon and loss to Kodes (in the first round) at Forest Hills).

So Smith was also slightly ahead of Newcombe.

Finally I compare Smith with Rosewall.

In the only very big event, Wimbledon, where both were present, Smith has resisted Newcombe much better than Rosewall : Smith has led 2 sets to 1 against "Newk" while Rosewall has been crushed by his countryman. Moreover Smith's US Open victory is slightly greater than Rosewall's Australian Open victory.

Then I place Smith slightly ahead Rosewall even though the Australian has won his only meeting with the Californian.

Laver and Kodes didn't fight for the first place but they were right behind the three top players.

Laver's record : quarterfinalist at Wimbledon, absent at Forest Hills, eliminated in the round of 16 at the Australian, finalist at the WCT Finals, winner of Rome (on clay over Kodes 3 sets to love, the future Roland Garros titlist) and of Berkeley, quarterfinalist at Barcelona and finalist at Wembley, absent at Roland Garros and at the Masters, forbidden in the Davis Cup. In direct meetings he slightly dominated Smith (1-0), Rosewall (3-2), Newcombe (2-1) and was equal with Kodes (1-1). He was indeed the best in the second rank events but he failed in the very big events (he was defeated by Gorman at Wimbledon, by Cox in the Australian and by Rosewall in Dallas).

Kodes's record : first round at Wimbledon, final at Forest Hills, absent in the Australian, absent in the WCT Finals because he was an independant pro, final at Rome, round of 16 at Berkeley, absent in Barcelona and round of 16 at Wembley, victory in a depleted Roland Garros (with just a few contract pros but without Newcombe, Rosewall, Laver, Okker and so on...), defeats by Metreveli and Mandarino in Davis Cup, fourth place in the Masters. Nevertheless he did well in head-to-head matches with the best because he mastered Newcombe (2-0) and was equal with Smith (1-1) and Laver (1-1) (he didn't met Rosewall).

My own 1971 rankings : 1) Smith, 2) Rosewall ( 3) Newcombe, 4) Laver, 5) Kodes).

1972 :

I do not agree Bud Collin's rankings but for once I agree Tingay's. I don't think Rosewall was the second player in the world in 1972 because Nastase was probably better. 1972 was nearly a pre-open year because the WCT contract pros weren't allowed to enter a Grand Prix tournament until Wimbledon included. The first tournament where some contract pros and independant pros played together was Merion (in the last rounds Taylor a WCT player beat Connors (independant) in the semis and Anderson (independant) in the final) at the end of August just before the US Open.

My events rankings were : 1) the US Open : the only Grand Slam tournament with all the best players without any exception (only Tony Roche suffering from a tennis elbow very handicapping wasn't there, he had to wait until the end of 1974 to be again one of the best), 2) the WCT Finals at Dallas reserved to the contract pros still globally better (with a narrow margin) than the independant pros, 3) the Pacific Southwest Open in Los Angeles : the second best field after the US Open with many contract and independant pros, 4) the Stockholm Open with the third best field in 1972, 5) the autumn WCT Finals in Rome, 6) Wimbledon and the Davis Cup both forbidden to the contract pros, 8) Roland Garros also forbidden to the contract pros, 9) the Masters, Finals of the Grand Prix circuit where the contract pros could compete only from August, 10) any WCT tournament other than the Finals (Dallas or Rome). Note that I consider the 1972 Australian Open won by Rosewall as an ordinary tournament because only two players (Rosewall and Newcombe) among the Top20 entered though everyone was welcome : begun the previous year, on December 26, 1971 (ended on January 2, 1972), that is to say six days before the ILTF's ban could be applied, all the contract (and, of course, independant) pros could have come but few were interested because the tournament was held during Christmas and the New Year's Day.

Rosewall was great until the WCT Finals in May at Dallas that he won. In the final round he and Laver played one of the greatest matches of all time. But when he came back, after a six-week rest, at the end of June, in the St Louis WCT tournament, held for the contract pros at the same time as Wimbledon where they weren't allowed to play, he never found his magic touch. From June to November he never won a single tournament and just reached one final in the Fort Worth WCT tournament. At the US Open the biggest event of the year by far he lost in the second round, in the Pacific Southwest in LA he beat 20-year-old Connors but was defeated by Okker in the quarters. He didn't enter Stockholm. He (as Laver injured) couldn't qualify for the autumn WCT Finals in Rome. Admittedly he has gained 7 tournaments in 1972 but from June he has captured only one in Brisbane (in December) with a very weak field.

Nastase was good almost all the year (the only time with 1973 in his whole career) : a bad defeat was quickly followed by great wins. Above all he has captured the US Open at Forest Hills, the EVENT of the year. At the Pacific Southwest he lost in the round of 16 to Tanner (the future finalist). In Stockholm he reached the semis beaten by Okker. As an independant pro he didn't enter the WCT Finals in Dallas and Rome. In a depleted Wimbledon he reached the final (by eliminating Connors and Orantes) and played with Smith (the winner) what it is supposed to be a) the finest and best final (in front of the Crawford-Vines clash in 1933) in the history of Wimbledon until the 1980 Borg-McEnroe meeting, b) the second greatest match of the year 1972 after the Rosewall-Laver final at Dallas. In the Davis Cup, forbidden to the WCT pros, he beat everybody but Stan Smith in the final (in Bucharest's cauldron, the latter underwent probably the strongest pressure that any player has ever lived in this sport). In Roland Garros (also forbidden to the contract pros), though second seeded player, Nastase was eliminated in the first round by the young Panatta. In the "official" circuit reserved to the independant pros, the Grand Prix circuit, he ended first in front of Smith and won the Masters beating the American for the first and only time in 1972, this year Smith has beaten Nastase 4 times.

In conclusion Nastase has won the greatest event in 1972 whereas Rosewall has "only" won Dallas and above all Nastase has been good, regular throughout the year (a miracle for him) even he underwent bad losses in Paris and in Bucharest while Rosewall has been nearly completely out from June to December.

Consequently Nastase was probably better than Rosewall, for once overrated, in 1972.

On the other hand there is no doubt about the identity of the best player in 1972 : Stan Smith. He reached the quarters at Forest Hills and then won the Pacific Southwest in Los Angeles (among the 64-field players were present in particular Smith, Nastase, Rosewall (WCT), Ashe (WCT), Orantes, Okker (WCT), Riessen (WCT), Lutz (WCT), Gorman, Hewitt, Connors, Tanner, Pilic (WCT), Cox (WCT), Taylor (WCT), Stolle (WCT),...) and the Stockholm Open (with Smith, Nastase, Okker (WCT), Riessen (WCT), Drysdale (WCT), Taylor (WCT), Pilic (WCT), Kodes, Gimeno, Emerson (WCT), Connors, Gorman, Richey (WCT) and others). Of course Smith couldn't play the two WCT Finals. In the depleted Wimbledon he played and won one of the two matches of the year to win the title. In Davis Cup he beat everybody (in particular Nastase and Tiriac in Bucharest) except Gimeno in the semifinals and in the independant pros's Masters he reached the finals (beaten by Nastase), owing to the beautiful Gorman's gesture of fair-play : in the semifinals, against Smith, Gorman had retired just before playing his match point because he knew his injury woudn't enable him to play the final.

Because of the separated circuits Smith or Nastase never met Rosewall or Laver in 1972 : a real shame in a supposed open era.

My 1972 rankings : 1) Smith, 2) Nastase ( 3)Rosewall, 4) Laver)

1975 :

Connors and Vilas were the two highest ranked player of the ATP Computer but were not the two best players in the world. I agree computer's rankings of the two first places in 1973 and 1974 but for 1975 I don't.

The ATP rankings have always been bad :

Davis Cup and WCT Finals have never been granted ATP points. I recognize that it is hard to estimate a victory in Davis Cup but, as I have said before, this event has been the greatest in amateur tennis for 40 years. For example Sedgman (over Savitt) in 1951, Trabert (over Rosewall) in 1953 or Fraser (over Olmedo) in 1959 have been awarded the number one in the amateurs, by the most famous journalists even though their runner-up has won more Grand Slam tournaments, because they have won their singles in Davis Cup' Challenge Round. In 1930 Tilden has won the greatest tournament Wimbledon, and Cochet "only" Roland Garros but the French has beaten Tilden in the Davis Cup thus the French was considered the best by A. Wallis Myers. I recall the 1931 example where Henri Cochet, having just played and lost only one match in all the tournaments which were named, years later, the Grand Slam tournaments, was considered the number one amateur by Myers because the French has beaten Austin and Perry in the Davis Cup’ Challenge Round.

Even though the prestige of the Davis Cup has declined since that period it would have been necessary to find a formula giving points to the players or to change the format of the competition so necessary. For instance if Laver hadn't played the Davis Cup in 1973 I would have ranked him something like the seventh or eigth or ninth player but as he won all his singles against Kodes, Hrebec, Smith and Gorman (and incidentally all his doubles) in a competition where all the players, including contract pros, could compete at last (about 13 of the Top20 accepted a selection in their team), I think he perhaps deserved the fourth place.

The Grand Prix Masters had never points at the beginning of the ATP Computer rankings then later, if my memory is good, only Grand Prix Points were given and only recently enough (I do not remember when) ATP points has been given to this event.

Finally the big events have never been given enough points. Even in the 21st century it is not the case. Imagine that Safin by winning two Masters Series tournaments in a row, Madrid and Paris, in the fall of 2004 has been granted 200 ATP Race points. This was exactly what he received for his victory in the Australian Open in January 2005. It means that 1 Grand Slam tournament is just equal to 2 Masters Series tournaments. Do you think Safin is famous because he has won Masters Series tournaments ? Of course not but because he has won Grand Slam tournaments, the US and the Australian. Hadn't he won them he would be already forgotten. In the 60's and in the 70's Tom Okker was almost as gifted as Nastase but the "Flying Dutchman", as he was nicknamed, is almost fully forgotten whereas the Rumanian is always famous not because of his antics but because he has won Grand Slam tournaments. How many persons know that Henman has won the Masters Series in Paris-Bercy in 2003 ? Just a few and when he retire only some British woud remember him whereas his compatriot Fred Perry still evokes something today (During the 2006 US Open I read an article in L'Équipe (the French sports paper) where Emmanuel (Mike) Agassi, Andre's father, was said to have for youth heroes, Perry and Budge. For all the respect I owe to Henman, I don't think he will be a hero for future generations).

All this to say that the Grand Slam tournaments should be granted perhaps about four times more points than an ordinary Masters Series tournament that is to say twice more than they are granted today.

Conclusion : the ATP rankings or the ATP Race give an indication of the players' level but are not pretty good.

Let's come back to 1975. The biggest events that year were 1) Wimbledon, 2) Forest Hills (the US Open) and at a lower level 3) Roland Garros, 4) The Masters, 5) the WCT Finals, 6) the Davis Cup and at the third level 7) the US Pro indoor in Philadelphia and 8) the US Pro in Boston.

Connors has won no great tournament in 1975, his best victory was North Conway where he beat Laver and Rosewall in succession to win the title. Not only he lost the finals of Wimbledon and the US Open but also those of Stockholm, Wembley and the Australian. He didn't enter Roland Garros, the US Pro in Philadelphia or the US Pro in Boston, the WCT circuit, the Davis Cup (in October and in December 1975 he played the 1976 edition losing the deciding match against Mexico's Ramirez). Qualified for the Masters he didn't come. In confrontations with the best his results were : Connors-Ashe 0-1, Connors-Borg 2-0, Connors-Vilas 0-0, Connors-Orantes 0-1, Connors-Nastase 1-0. If all the competitions had had the same importance Connors woud have been the best, as in 1974, but it wasn’t the case.

Vilas hasn't fulfilled in 1975 the great hopes raised by his previous season : "only" semi-finalist at Forest Hills, quarterfinalist at Wimbledon, finalist at Roland Garros (without Connors), semifinalist at the Masters (without Connors). He was regular but he hasn't strike a great blow. His results in head-to-head meetings with the best were : Vilas-Ashe 1-1, Vilas-Borg 1-3, Vilas-Connors 0-0, Vilas-Orantes 0-4, Vilas-Nastase 1-1.

Ashe has won 9 tournaments (Barcelona WCT, Rotterdam WCT, Munich WCT, Stockholm WCT, WCT Finals at Dallas, Beckenham (out of WCT or Grand Prix or Riordan circuits), Wimbledon, Los Angeles, San Francisco) in 1975 : he eliminated in succession Borg, Roche and Connors at Wimbledon and he beat Alexander and Borg at Dallas. In the Masters he won all his round-robin matches but lost in the semis to Borg. His two great wins and his lead, 2-1, against Borg in the biggest events made him the number one in the world. In head-to-head matches for the whole year he led Borg 4-3, Connors 1-0, Nastase 2-1, was equal with Vilas 1-1 but trailed Orantes 1-2.

Borg won 5 tournaments including Roland Garros (without Connors) and the US Pro and he won all his singles, in particular against Orantes, in the Davis Cup enabling his country to win the "silver salad bowl" for the first time. Moreover he reached the finals of the Masters and of the WCT Finals and the semifinals at Forest Hills. His head-to-head matches results with the best were Ashe 3-4, Connors 0-2 and Vilas 3-1, Orantes 1-0 (in Davis Cup), Nastase 1-1. For the first year Borg has showed he could be good on all surfaces : he first reached the quarters of a "real" Wimbledon (in 1973 Borg has already reached the quarters but in a tournament where only four (Nastase, Taylor, Kodes and Connors) of the twenty best players were present). Only Ashe could claim to be above the Swede that year.

Orantes won 8 tournaments (7 on clay) including the US Open but he failed in the other great events (loss in the first round of Roland Garros and severe defeats from Nastase and Borg in Davis Cup, no showing at Wimbledon and a bad Masters). Moreover apart from the clay he has won very few matches : all his successes on the best were on clay but one on hard over Nastase. Because of this and of his big losses in the big events other than the US, I rank him behind Connors, an all-surface player, even though he has beaten the American at Forest Hills. Here were his results in direct confrontations with the best : Orantes-Ashe 2-1, Orantes-Borg 0-1, Orantes-Connors 1-0, Orantes-Vilas 4-0, Orantes-Nastase 3-4.

If Nastase hadn't won his last competition in 1975, the Masters, his season would have been very disappointing with few good results and because of his abominable behavior that year : he was disqualified at Bournemouth (against Proisy), at Washington (Richey) and at the Masters in a round-robin match against Ashe (happily for him, the erratic Rumanian has won the two other round-robin matches to continue the competition) and in the Canadian Open final at Montreal he didn't fight at all after disputing a line call in the first set tie-breaker and in Tucson (semis) against Rosewall he protested an ace which appeared to be clearly in and declared "I quit". After a long pause before play started again, the Australian lost his concentration and lost the match.

In terms of results too his year was bad if I except three performances. In Davis Cup he beat the Spaniards Higueras and Orantes but Spain defeated Rumania. In the US Open he reached the quarters where Orantes took his revenge. And above all, after his controversial behaviour against Ashe, he played probably the best series of his life, dominating Orantes and Panatta with difficulty in round-robin matches but above all in trouncing Vilas in the semis 6-0 6-3 6-4 and Borg in the final 6-2 6-2 6-1. In the other great occasions Nastase was out of form because he lost early (against Panatta in the third round of Roland Garros and against Sherwood Stewart in the second round of Wimbledon) and he didn't enter either the WCT circuit or the US Pro indoor or the US Pro. The Rumanian, including the Masters and the "out of WCT and Grand Prix circuits" Helsinki tournament, has won 6 tournaments and his record with the best were : Nastase-Ashe 1-2, Nastase-Borg 1-1, Nastase-Connors 0-1, Nastase-Orantes 4-3, Nastase-Vilas 1-1. Though Nastase has won the fourth greatest event (the Masters), Vilas has best succeeded in the great events despite the fact the Argentinian has won none. This is why I place Vilas above Nastase in 1975.

My 1975 rankings : 1) Ashe, 2) Borg ( 3) Connors 4) Orantes 5) Vilas 6) Nastase)

1977 :

This time again the ATP rankings were bad. No one at the time considered that Connors was the best. Borg or Vilas had the best records and Connors was third, everybody agreeing. The great problem is to rank the two lifters. In 1977 Borg (and Gerulaitis) played the World Team Tennis (WTT) circus during Roland Garros. Connors still being in feud with Chatrier, the Grand Slam tournament was deprived of Borg (the best claycourt player of the moment), Connors (the still (but not for long) best player in the world), and Gerulaitis (the winner of the Italian Open where such players as Vilas, Nastase or Panatta entered). Vilas in a good form and benefiting from the absence of all these great players captured Roland Garros.

WTT, created in 1974, was (and still exists in 2006 : Sampras has played it this summer) a mixed (women and men) team competition opposing "supposed" cities. The matches were played on fast courts and in only one set and worse a competitor could be replaced by another in the course of the set.

Two or three reasons have devaluated Roland Garros in the 70's where (nearly) all the best players came only in 1973 and in 1979 :

1) the war between "The officials" and the WCT organization from 1970 to 1972,

2) the war between "The officials" (Philippe Chatrier) and the WTT organization from 1974 : rightly Philippe Chatrier, president of the French Federation (and future president of the International Federation), fought WTT but in the wrong manner because, instead of attacking the organization, he banned from 1974 to 1976 the WTT players. For instance in 1974 Newcombe, Connors, Rosewall were concerned and in 1976 Nastase lately discovered he couldn't play his favourite tournament (in 1977 Chatrier seemed less inflexible because Nastase played Roland Garros and WTT). Connors, forbidden of the French in 1974, decided in reaction not to play the four next editions from 1975 to 1978 (so in all five editions in a row) when he was at his best preventing him surely to win the only Grand Slam tournament he "has never had under his belt".

So let's come back to 1977. Borg came to Wimbledon (WTT had the power to fight Roland Garros but not Wimbledon) and retained his crown, taking temporarily the first place (not that of the ATP rankings) to his victim, James Scott Connors, in the final in five sets. Vilas lost in the third round against Billy Martin.

At Forest Hills the Swede was scheduled to meet Vilas in the semis and Borg, having the "Indian sign" on Vilas (the Swede had beaten the Argentinian the five last times, three times in 1976 and twice in 1977 at Nice (6-4 1-6 6-2 6-0) and Monte Carlo (6-2 6-3) both on clay), had a great opportunity to meet Connors in the final. But because of an injury Borg had to give up against Stockton in the round of 16. So Vilas replaced his "bête noire" for the final and surprisingly took the crown from Connors. So the Masters (held in January (for the first time) 1978 to obey the goddess TV) was going to be the supreme judge but not really : once again and for the third time that year Borg defeated Vilas (6-3 6-3) in the semis but the Swede was beaten in the final by Connors 6-4 1-6 6-4.

I consider that Wimbledon was the first event of the year 1977, Forest Hills the second, the Masters the third (because from the first time since 1973 all the best players tried to qualify for this tournament and played it), Roland Garros only the fourth (too many great players absent). Borg has won the first one and has beaten three times Vilas (for four years Borg has never lost to Vilas in 9 matches : from Sao Paulo WCT (March 30, 1976) to Monte Carlo (March 31, 1980) included ; Vilas has captured the second and the fourth one but has always lost to Borg ; Connors the third one. Had Borg won the Masters he would have been the best without any doubt but the proud Connors interfered.

For me it's too difficult to give the first place to Vilas even though he deserved it in a certain way because Borg has so much crushed Vilas in 1977 (and more generally in the second half of the 70's). On the other hand Borg has not supported his sport (he was not the only one in this case) in not playing Roland Garros in 1977 (and in never playing the Australian Open if I except the 1974 edition) and it is also hard to give him the first place in 1977 knowing he played the WTT circus (once again he was not the only one) instead of Roland Garros.

Lastly I give the first place to Borg because his level (potential) on any given match was better than Vilas’s on every surface (clay, grass, cement) and either indoor or outdoor.

My 1977 rankings (as fragile as the 1953's with Segura, Kramer, Sedgman and Gonzales) : 1) Borg, 2) Vilas ( 3) Connors)

1978 :

That year there was no doubt about the identity of the best player. Again the ATP Rankings were wrong. Borg has won Wimbledon and reached the final of the US Open. Connors has won the US and reached the final of Wimbledon : about equality but Borg has captured Roland Garros (without Connors) and beat all his opponents in Davis Cup (still without Connors). Thus the Swede was ahead the American.

My 1978 rankings : 1) Borg, 2) Connors

1979 :

Borg was again the best. He has made a "Little Slam" even though it is not recognized like such : he has won 3 big events out of 4 (the first one Wimbledon, the third one Roland Garros, and the fourth one the Masters played in January 1980) and reached the final of the second one, the US Open.

McEnroe was the second player in the world (and not Connors even though the ATP Rankings rated the latter as the second player) because he won the US Open (having beaten Connors in the semis and Gerulaitis in the final), the WCT Finals (the fifth event of the year) with victories over Connors and Borg. Finally McEnroe was a good member of the US team winner of the Davis Cup (Connors still absent). Connors was the third player by reaching semifinals in the WCT Finals (beaten by McEnroe), at Roland Garros (beaten by Pecci), at Wimbledon (beaten by Borg), at the US Open (beaten by McEnroe).

My 1979 rankings : 1) Borg, 2) McEnroe ( 3) Connors)

1981 :

Once more the ATP Rankings irritate me. McEnroe winner of Wimbledon and the US Open, semifinalist of the Masters, quarterfinalist of Roland Garros and winner of Vilas and Clerc in Davis Cup was clearly the best player in the world. Borg was without any doubt the second one : he has won Roland Garros, he was runner-up to McEnroe at Wimbledon (very close to win) and at the US Open (threatened of death). Moreover he has beaten Lendl the two times they met (Roland Garros and Stuttgart).

Little recall of the greatest 1981 events : 1) Wimbledon, 2) the US Open, 3) Roland Garros, 4) the Masters, 5) the Davis Cup (in particular with Lendl, McEnroe playing and even Connors but the latter only in the Czecoslovakia-USA meeting).

Until the US Open Connors was still the third but Lendl made such a wonderful end of year that he finally deserved the third place even though he always lost to Connors in two occasions (La Quinta final, Davis Cup (match without stake)) in 1981 : the Czech (future American) has captured the Masters (in January 1982), was runner-up to Borg at Roland Garros and has always beaten McEnroe, each time in great occasions (Roland Garros, Davis Cup and Masters). Connors hasn't done any exploit (in Connors's view) but was regular : he reached the semis at Wimbledon and the US Open (defeated each time by Borg) and the quarters to Roland Garros (beaten by Clerc).

My own 1981 rankings : 1) McEnroe, 2) Borg ( 3) Lendl, 4) Connors).

1982 :

For once Connors has been underrated by the ATP rankings. From 1974 to 1978 he has almost every week been wrongly ranked number one : he deserved this place only in 1974 and probably in 1976 but surely not in 1975, 1977 and 1978. But in 1982 he was undoubtedly the best player in the world and McEnroe was only the third even though he was granted the number one spot by the ATP rankings.

I tell which were the greatest events : 1) Wimbledon, 2) Roland Garros and the US Open (in a great 1982 survey among the players themselves, I do not remember any more very well but I even believe that the players ranked Roland Garros just in front of the US Open), 4) the Masters, 5) the Davis Cup.

Connors as a winner of Wimbledon and the US Open, a semifinalist of the Masters and a quarterfinalist of Roland Garros deserved the first place. In head-to-head matches he has slightly dominated Vilas (1-0), was equal with McEnroe (2-2), but trailed Lendl 1-2. For the anecdote I traced 4 challenge or exhibition matches between Connors and virtually retired Borg (this one has played a few matches between 1982 and 1984 and came back in 1991 until 1993) with 3 wins of the American. The Swede was still able in 1982 on a given match to beat any player in the world. He has also beaten Lendl, McEnroe and Gerulaitis in an australian exhibition and in the "out of the official circuit" Antwerp tournament he has gained one set against McEnroe in the semifinals, not bad for a player out of the traditional circuit.

Lendl won the Masters (in January 1983) over McEnroe 6-4 6-4 6-2 in what I think the best match of the whole Lendl's career. The Czech also reached the final of Flushing Meadow and captured 16 tournaments (15 WCT or Grand Prix tournaments including the Masters plus the "out of the official circuit" Antwerp tournament) and has always defeated McEnroe, 5 times (Dallas WCT final, Toronto semifinals, US Open semifinals, Masters final, and Antwerp tournament final) achieving a 8-match (without Antwerp officially 7-match) winning streak against the American.

McEnroe as a finalist of Wimbledon and of the Masters, a semifinalist of the US Open and as a winner of all his Davis Cup matches but also always beaten by Lendl, deserved only the third place.

My 1982 rankings : 1) Connors, 2) Lendl ( 3) McEnroe).

1983 :

This time Lendl was overrated by the ATP rankings because he hasn't won any big event : Wilander was indeed the real runner-up to McEnroe. The Masters (played in January 1984) decided who was the best of the two. This was the year when the Australian Open became durably the fourth greatest event in tennis behind Wimbledon, the US Open and Roland Garros. Except possibly in 1969 and surely in 1971 this open had a very weak field before 1983 with usually only two to five of the twenty best players but 1983 saw (an knee-injured) McEnroe (Wimbledon winner), Lendl (Wimbledon semifinalist) and Wilander (Roland Garros runner-up) playing on the slow grass courts of Kooyong. Among the four best players in the world only Connors was missing (he never came back to the courts he had quit in 1975). From then on this event became a real Grand Slam tournament and still more when played at Flinders Park (now Melbourne Park) in 1988 on rebound ace.

Before the Masters a) McEnroe has regained Wimbledon and has reached the quarters at Roland Garros and b) Wilander has won the Australian, he has also reached the Roland Garros final and the quarters of Flushing Meadow and he has beaten McEnroe 3 times out of 3 (Roland Garros quarters, Cincinatti final and Australian semis) and then had a lead over the American but this one caught the Masters title beating Wilander in the semis.

Lendl has gone far in every event but didn't win anyone : quarters of Roland Garros, semis of Wimbledon, finals of the US Open, the Australian and the Masters.

Connors with his victory in the US Open, his semifinal at the Masters and his quarterfinal at Roland Garros was fourth.

My 1983 rankings : 1) McEnroe, 2) Wilander ( 3) Lendl, 4) Connors)

1984 :

Once more Connors was overrated by the ATP Rankings because those give more importance to small tournaments and regularity than to the big events. In 1984 Connors hasn't won any great competition whereas Lendl has captured Roland Garros. Moreover Lendl reached the finals of Flushing Meadow and the Masters and he threatened Connors in the semis of Wimbledon. All this made clearly Lendl the true McEnroe's rival. The latter knew his best year by winning Wimbledon, the US Open, the Masters (in January 1985, his last great success) and by reaching for the first (and only) time the final at Roland Garros. He was also prevented from playing the Australian because he have rightly been suspended after his deplorable attitude in the semifinals of Stockholm against Jarryd.

Wilander retained his Australian crown, reached the semis of Roland and of the Masters and was quaterfinalist of the US. Moreover he met three times Connors (Cincinatti, Stockholm, Davis Cup) without losing a match.

"Jimbo" as Wimbledon finalist and semifinalist of the French, the US and the Masters was then only the fourth player in the world.

My 1984 rankings : 1) McEnroe, 2) Lendl ( 3) Wilander, 4) Connors)

1985 :

Wilander was a man of great events and thus the ATP rankings made him not justice. Had he beaten Edberg in the Australian he would have been the best by far.

Having indeed lost he was "only" the second player in the world. Becker has been the second player of the second half of the year. McEnroe was only the third player that year and not the second one as the ATP rankings affirmed at the time. I give you some arguments : a) Lendl : winner of the US Open, winner of the Masters (fifth event of the year, played in January 1986 (this was the last time that the Masters of a given year was held in January of the next year)), finalist of Roland Garros, semifinalist of the Australian Open. Undoubtedly the number 1.

b) Wilander : winner of Roland Garros, finalist of the Australian Open, semifinalist of the US Open (the Swede extended so much McEnroe that the American wrote in his autobiography that this match was the one which made him lost the number one place and was the beginning of his rapid decline). Mats deserved the second place.

c) McEnroe : finalist of the US Open, semifinalist of Roland Garros, quarterfinalist of Wimbledon and the Australian and winner of 8 tournaments was third.

d) Becker : winner of Wimbledon, finalist of the Masters and winner of 7 out 8 singles in Davis Cup in particular against Mecir, Edberg and Wilander. The German claimed the fourth place.

My 1985 rankings : 1) Lendl, 2) Wilander ( 3) McEnroe, 4) Becker).

1989 :

Though Lendl was the ATP number one, Becker was the best.

Here were the greatest events of the year 1989 : 1) Wimbledon, 2) US Open and Roland Garros, 4) Australian Open, 5) Masters, 6) Davis Cup, 7) Key Biscayne, 8) WCT Finals in Dallas (the last ones, suppressed the next year with the new ATP circuit), 9) Paris-Bercy indoor (at the time this was the greatest indoor event if we except the 8-man tournaments of the Masters and of Dallas, now it is just a Masters Series tournament like the 7 other ones behind Miami).

Becker won Wimbledon and the US Open defeating Lendl each time (respectively in the semis and in the final). He also won all his Davis Cup singles (in particular against Agassi, Wilander and Edberg) enabling his country to capture the Cup once again and won Paris-Bercy. Morevoer he reached the final of the Masters and the semis of Roland Garros.

Lendl won the Australian Open and Key Biscayne, he also played the US Open final and reached the semis of the Masters and Dallas but his two defeats by Becker in the two greatest events made the decision in favor of the German.

My 1989 rankings : 1) Becker, 2) Lendl.

1993 :

Even though 1993 marked the decline of Courier nevertheless he was the second player in the world. Stich didn't deserve this place : if I except his Masters win he hasn't done much else. He has reached the semis in the Australian Open (beaten by Courier) and the quarters of Wimbledon (defeated by Becker) and with his country he captured the Davis Cup (the only great players he has met in this competition where Korda and Edberg : he lost against the former but beat the Swede (in a not counting match)).

Courier has won the Australian Open and reached the finals of Wimbledon and Roland Garros what was enough to give him the second place in front of Stich. In head-to-head matches they were equal 1-1.

My 1993 rankings : 1) Sampras, 2) Courier

1998 :

Rios was very good in "small" tournaments but on big occasions he was surpassed, of course, by Sampras but also by Moya who deserved the second place.

Rios reached the final of the Australian Open, the quarters of Roland Garros and won Key Biscayne (and Indian Wells).

Moya has won Roland Garros (beating Rios in the quarters in their only meeting of the year) and also reached the semis of the US Open and the final of the Masters which place him undoubtedly before Rios in any valuable rankings.

Naturally Sampras, with his victory at Wimbledon, his semifinals at the US Open and at the Masters (where he beat Moya in a round-robin match, the only time they met that year) and his quarters at the Australian Open, was the best player on earth.

My 1998 rankings : 1) Sampras, 2) Moya.

1999 :

This is the only year where Agassi was really the first one and still by default (in 1995 or in 2003 Agassi had not been the number one for the whole year).

If Sampras hadn't been injured in the Indianapolis tournament just before the US Open he would probably have won this Grand Slam after his superb summer demonstrations when he mastered Agassi successively at Wimbledon, Los Angeles and Cincinatti and Rafter still in Cincinatti, probably playing his best tennis ever on mid-fast or fast courts. Nevertheless Agassi has made his greatest year : wins in Roland Garros and Flushing Meadow and finals in Wimbledon and in the Masters.

Sampras has won Wimbledon and the Masters and has beaten Agassi 4 times in 5 meetings and moreover he has played between Wimbledon and Cincinatti better than anyone that year (in 2000 Safin has perhaps reached an equivalent (even superior) level in the US Open final) and then I think the American was better than Kafelnikov, winner of the Australian Open and semifinalist of the US Open and the Masters (the Russian has lost 4 times in as many matches against Agassi and has never met Sampras).

My 1999 rankings : 1) Agassi, 2) Sampras ( 3) Kafelnikov).

2003 :

Once again I do not agree the ATP rankings because in this case Federer was overrated. Effectively he has won Wimbledon (and the Masters) nevertheless he has completely missed the other big events where he never exceeded the round of 16 (US Open and Australian Open, each time defeated by Nalbandian) and even the first round (Roland Garros, Luis Horna). In Davis Cup he beat Philipoussis but lost to Hewitt. In counting Wimbledon he has won 7 tournaments (but no Masters Series).

Compare this record with Roddick (win at the US Open, semifinal at the Australian and at Wimbledon and first round at Roland, plus a semifinal at the Masters and six tournaments won including the US Open and two Masters Series) and you see that Roddick was superior to Federer.

Now let's have a look to Agassi's record : win at the Australian Open, semifinal at the US Open, quarterfinal at Roland Garros and fourth round at Wimbledon, final at the Masters and 4 tournaments won with the Australian, including a Masters Series (the biggest one : Miami).

Ferrero : not a bad record too. One victory in a Grand Slam tournament (Roland Garros), one final (the US Open), one quaterfinal (the Australian Open), one fourth round (Wimbledon). With Roland he has won 4 tournaments including two Masters Series.

So Roddick, Agassi and Ferrero have done better than Federer in Grand Slam tournaments and in Masters Series tournaments. Even though the Swiss was better at the Masters and in ordinary tournaments I consider he was just behind the three others (since the Masters 2003 things have well changed).

If I gather the Grand Slam tournaments and the Masters, Roddick, Agassi and Ferrero were very equal so I give a very slight edge to Roddick because a) he has won more tournaments than Agassi and Ferrero, b) he was superior to Ferrero in head-to-head matches (1 match won - 0 lost) and equal to the Spaniard in number of Masters Series tournaments won and c) he was superior to Agassi in Masters Series won and equal to his countryman in head-to-head matches (1-1). Between Ferrero and Agassi the choice is even more difficult. Same number of tournaments won, equals in direct confrontations (1-1). I give a microscopic edge to the Spaniard for having won two Masters Series (Monte-Carlo and Madrid) against one (the greatest one, Miami) for Agassi.

So here are my fragile 2003 rankings : 1) Roddick, 2) Ferrero, ( 3) Agassi, 4) Federer). However I will not strongly oppose any other opinion.

2004 :

I think it wouldn't be unfair to grant Hewitt the second place just ahead of Roddick.

In Grand Slam tournaments Hewitt was slightly superior :

he was only beaten by the future winners (Federer three times and Gaudio),

he has reached one final (the US Open), two quarters (Roland Garros and Wimbledon) and one fourth round (the Australian) whereas Roddick has reached one final too (Wimbledon), two quarters too (the Australian and the US Opens) but only one second round (Roland).

In the Masters Cup Hewitt has beaten Roddick in the semis to reach the final (again beaten by a certain Swiss).

The two players have won 4 tournaments each one but Roddick has won the Miami Masters Series : I think this little advantage for the American is largely erased by Hewitt's victory in the Masters and slightly better Grand Slam tournaments' records of the Australian.

Federer's year was the best one since Laver's in 1969 so the Swiss was the best by very far.

So here are my 2004 rankings : 1) Federer, 2) Hewitt ( 3) Roddick).

I then give you my whole list of rankings. If there is no source ranking it means this is my own opinion expressed in my previous comments when I do not agree the others’ rankings :

Most Years as No.1 (earliest first for those with identical numbers):

8 Pancho Gonzales, including 7 consecutive years (1952, 1954, 1955, 1956, 1957, 1958, 1959, 1960)

7 Bill Tilden, including 6 consecutive years (1920, 1921, 1922, 1923, 1924, 1925, 1931)

6 Rod Laver, all consecutive years (1964, 1965, 1966, 1967, 1968, 1969)

6 Pete Sampras, all consecutive years (1993, 1994, 1995, 1996, 1997, 1998)

5 Don Budge, including 4 consecutive years (1937, 1938, 1939, 1940, 1942)

4 Jack Kramer, all consecutive years (1948, 1949, 1950, 1951)

4 Ken Rosewall, including 3 consecutive years (1961, 1962, 1963, 1970)

4 Björn Borg, all consecutive years (1977, 1978, 1979, 1980)

3 Henri Cochet, all consecutive years (1928, 1929, 1930)

3 Ellsworth Vines (1932, 1934, 1935)

3 Bobby Riggs, all consecutive years (1945, 1946, 1947)

3 Jimmy Connors (1974, 1976, 1982)

3 John McEnroe (1981, 1983, 1984)

3 Ivan Lendl, all consecutive years (1985, 1986, 1987)

3 Roger Federer, all consecutive years (2004, 2005, 2006)

I will end with the supposed pro-Gonzales list.

It is possible that mister Pierce overrates Gonzales but the fact is that the American was pretty good.

1) As men I do not like (not to say more) Gonzales, Nastase, Connors, McEnroe, Lendl, Becker because of their behaviour on courts.

Gonzales could physically threaten players less strong (according to Kramer, Gonzales never did it with Hoad and Sedgman, strong men, and once in a doubles match of the Veterans’s circuit (Grand Masters) Gonzales was going to strike Hartwig but Sedgman firmly advise the American not to do anything and this one obeyed).

Nastase has been sometimes unbearable on court (against Richey in the 1971 Masters, Graebner at London in 1972 (the American has physically threatened Nastase because the Rumanian was badly behaving, frightened this one quit the court unable to play after the first set), Rosewall at Tucson 1975, Ashe in the 1975 Masters and so on) that I forget his wonderful gift and his sometimes great humour (he was my favourite player when I was younger but after reading many documents including his 2004 autobiography I have changed my opinion).

Though I was a fan of his game Connors has been a …Let’s remain polite.

McEnroe has misused the referees so many times knowing he wouldn’t be fired of the court because he was often the big name (take a look at his autobiography where he wrote it very clearly).

Lendl a) instead of stroking a passing-shot away the player, he could stroke of all its forces direct to the body (for those who have seen remember for instance the 1981 Masters final against Gerulaitis when he « exploded » Vitas with a forehand passing-shot) and b) he used to take « 3 hours » to serve (as Connors).

I remember Becker hustling with his shoulders Jarryd in their semi-final at Wimbledon 1985 during the changes of sides. I also remember his scorning attitude when the public supported McEnroe having three match points in the decisive tie-breaker of their meeting in the semifinals of Stratton Mountain in 1986 and I also remember more generally his haughty port on the court.

2) As a man I was not fond of Borg at his peak because he didn’t support his sport by neglecting some great events (unhappily at the time he wasn’t the only one and many others did the same) : he missed Roland Garros 1977 because of the WTT circus. He entered only once the Australian (in 1974). When tennis needed some solidarity in 1973 because of the Pilic affair (even though the player was not very respectable) he didn’t boycott Wimbledon. But to play a well paid challenge or exhibition match he has always been there. But this is not thanks to the Swede that the Australian has finally become one of the foundation of the game. And without foundations, without big events with great tradition, a sport could not survive. In the second half of the 70’s tennis could have die because the professional players spoiled the public, ready to give up any match when there was a little problem and ready to drop a match if money was guaranteed (Orantes didn’t fight at all against Connors in their 1976 challenge match, played indoor on a fast court where Orantes had no chances to win but he didn’t refuse the $250,000 dollar cheque).

But Borg was correct on the court contrary to the other cited players who besides their horrible character didn’t support their sport too (Gonzales never promoted tennis but worked his tennis for hours while his colleagues spent time to make some publicity for their sport, Nastase played the Australian only once and was happy when he was suspended in the fall of 1976 because he could play many very well paid challenge matches against Borg, and so on…).

Though I do not like very much these men I have to concede they were great players.

For instance knowing that Rosewall was my favourite player I hate all Rosewall’s defeats inflicted by Gonzales but I must admit that Gonzales was globally superior to Rosewall. As I have written before I am not sure that Gonzales was the best in 1952 but from 1954 to May 1960 I see no rivals to the American either in the pro ranks or (even less) in the amateur ranks.

In the pro ranks I have already talked about all his reign years except 1956 and 1957. 1956 was mainly a succession of Gonzales-Sedgman finals where the American almost always prevailed if I except Trabert’s wins over Sedgman and Gonzales in Roland Garros pro. In 1957 Gonzales won the 2 greatest events : Forest Hills Pro and the Masters Round Robin in Los Angeles (he also won the US Pro without Sedgman but it is right that he ended only fourth at Wembley).

In the amateur ranks who were the best from 1954 to 1960 : Trabert in 1953, probably in 1954 (besides his Wimbledon success Drobny has done almost anything that year) and in 1955. Hoad was clearly the best in 1956 (but Rosewall was clearly the best in the 4 last months of 1956 beating Hoad 3 times in a row in Forest HIlls, in Adelaide and in Melbourne where Hoad threw the end of the match away). Hoad was the best in the first half of 1957 and Cooper (with Hoad in the pro ranks) in the second half then Cooper in 1958, Fraser or Olmedo in 1959, Fraser or Laver in 1960 (Kramer think that Laver has lost to Fraser the Wimbledon final because Rocket was exhausted by his previous doubles match).

What Trabert has done in his pro career ? Facing the best pros he has improved until the end of the 50’s or the beginning of the 60’s. His great wins were Roland Garros Pro 1956 (with Gonzales) and Roland Garros Pro 1959 (without Gonzales) and if I am a little severe, nothing else. He was, not always of course but, regularly beaten by Gonzales, Sedgman, Rosewall or Hoad in the pros (whereas he had dominated the two last before 1956 when they were amateurs but not at their peak). For me, in all his career,Trabert has reached at best the third place in « open » rankings, in 1955 behind Gonzales and Segura and because Sedgman was « absent ». In 1956 Sedgman coming back Trabert went down to the fourth place.

Rosewall : even on his beloved Australian turf on which he has known his greatest amateur successes, Muscles was dominated in January 1957 by Gonzales who hadn’t fully recovered from his sore hand (a big cyst had formed beneath the surface of the palm) and then was severely beaten in their first US matches.

Hoad : we all know he has lost many matches in his first pro encounters (2 wins and 9 losses for his two first pro tournaments in 1957, Forest Hills and Los Angeles, the two greatest events of the year as I’ve written before). Then he made tours in Europe, in Asia with Segura, Rosewall and the old Kramer who made his first full « half year » in singles since 1953 (Sedgman replaced Kramer at the end of the year in Australia). In Europe, more precisely in Hossegor (France) he was defeated by Kramer and was so mentally destroyed not knowing how to play the pro players that he asked advices to Philippe Chatrier (then director of « Tennis de France ») and nodded what the journalist told him.

Finally there is not much to say about Cooper, Olmedo and Fraser.

Cooper has told that Gonzales was the toughest opponent he has ever faced. In their numerous encounters between 1959 and 1961 (Gonzales was retired in 1962 and come back in 1963 but in his turn Cooper retired in 1963), Cooper won only 2 matches, in particular the first one then in the 4-man tour with Gonzales, Hoad, Anderson and himself, Cooper won … 0 match against Gonzales who beat him 14 times. In three years with the pros Cooper never reached the final of a big tournament (in the pros he just won the 1959 Eastbourne tournament over Trabert and Hoad and the 1960 European Grand Prix tour in front of Gimeno, Segura, Anderson, Olmedo and Haillet).

Olmedo : same thing. No great final and a 0-6 0-6 0-3 crushing by Rosewall in their 1960 semifinal of Wembley (final score 0-6 0-6 3-6).

The Peruvian has at best been a 9th player in the world in 1960 or a 10th in 1963.

Given that Fraser, who stayed amateur, was quite equal to Olmedo at this period, I suppose the same thing : in 1960 Fraser and Laver couldn’t compete with Gonzales, Rosewall, Hoad or Sedgman.

After what I think Gonzales’ peak, the January-May 1960 tour, the American has surely declined but very slowly (I exclude 1962 because of retirement and 1963 because of difficult coming back). In 1961 I placed him second but very very close to Rosewall. In 1964 for his next full year he was the third pro behind Laver and Rosewall but in front of Gimeno : as I have written, Gonzales, 36 years old, has beaten 8 times out of 13 the new pro king Laver, 26 years old. Not bad. Comparisons with amateurs were difficult because between Laver in 1963 and Stolle and Ralston in 1967 no great amateur turned pro but I will say a few words for the year 1967.

In 1965 Gonzales played from January to July at the US Pro outside Boston on grass. There he lost his greatest match of the year in the semifinals against Rosewall 6-3 6-2 6-4, future winner. If he had lost 11 times out of 14 against Rosewall in 1964 he took a nice revenge in 1965 because he beat the Australian 7 times out of 10 in 1965, in particular in a final on clay at Dallas (previously Gonzales had dominated Sedgman and Laver), 8-10 7-5 12-10. It wasn’t a best-of-five match but at 37 years old to be able to beat the clay imperator of the time on his surface, wasn’t a minor exploit. In the beginning of the year in Australia only Laver, who then established clearly himself as the best in the world, surpassed Gonzales. I rank Gimeno and Gonzales third ex aequo in the pro ranks in 1965 behind the two Australians.

In 1966, Gonzales played little and just one very big tournament at the Madison Square Garden where only Rosewall (future winner over Laver) stopped the American 7-5 7-5 in the semifinals. Gonzales beat Gimeno for third place. Next week in the BBC2-TV Wembley 4-man tournament (played in one day, March 31, 1966, with the biggest purses) (not to confuse with the traditional Wembley tournament held in autumn) on wood, indoor, Gonzales beat Rosewall 13-11 in a Pro set then 18 minutes later (during the BBC News) he faced Laver and won 6-3 5-7 12-10. He did well in head-to-head matches with the best : Gonzales-Laver 2-2, Gonzales-Rosewall 2-3, Gonzales-Gimeno 2-0.

From 1965 until 1973 (the last year of his career) Gonzales hasn’t played a full year : 1967 didn’t except the rule. He didn’t enter the Madison Square Garden, the US Pro, the French Pro, Wembley Pro. He just played an Australian tour, some tournaments in the US and in Europe, especially Wimbledon Pro where Hoad beat him in the last great match of Hoad’s career. In direct confrontations he was still a threat to anybody : Gonzales-Laver 2-8, Gonzales-Rosewall 2-2, Gonzales-Gimeno 2-0, Gonzales-Buchholz 1-1, Gonzales-Hoad 0-1 and against the new pros Gonzales-Stolle 4-2 and Gonzales-Ralston 0-2. Stolle was one of the best amateurs in 1966 with Emerson, Roche and Santana. In 1966 he has won the German Championships at Hamburg and most important the US amateur at Forest Hills over Newcombe. In January 1967, for his last amateur tournament in Manly he won the final over again Newcombe who was going to capture Wimbledon amateur and Forest Hills amateur later that year. After Manly, Stolle played his first pro match on January 31 against Ralston. On February 5 he met Gonzales for the first time. Who has won ? Pancho. Ralston as a 1966 Wimbledon finalist was probably the fifth amateur in the world. Then here is a little indication of the best amateurs’s level from 1964 to 1967. Gonzales was able to compete with Stolle and Ralston. Stolle who was in the same league as Emerson, Roche, Santana or Newcombe from 1964 to the beginning of 1967. So it isn’t foolish to say that Gonzales was probably as good (if not better) as the best amateurs from 1964 to 1967 and from 1968 on, when he was in his 40’s, he has more often beaten Emerson than the reverse (I haven’t still yet all counted but this is something like 12 to 3 for the American), he has often dominated Newcombe when this one was at his peak, he has too beaten Roche at his peak, several times.

In 1968 he stayed again in the Top10. He is known to have been the first pro to be dominated by an amateur (Cox) in the open era and to have lost as early as the third round at the first Wimbledon open (to Metreveli) but he has also reached the quarters of the US Open where all were present (even the very old Segura and Parker came), beating the Wimbledon finalist, Roche. At the first Roland Garros Open just a few players were missing (the eight pro WCT players and some amateurs) : among the best on clay were only missing Roche (WCT), Newcombe (WCT), Okker (a) amateur during Roland Garros then b) registered player (a player dependant of his (and the international) federation so eligible to play the Davis Cup and forbidden to play pro events as an amateur, but authorized to take prize money in the open events contrary to an amateur, what an oddly situation) during the summer and c) professional in 1969) and Santana (amateur). These four players have been good on clay but they have never won the biggest events on clay (you would say that Roche and Santana has won Roland Garros : I would reply they have won only the amateur editions without the pro clay masters Rosewall and Gimeno (and Laver on a lower level) but when Roland Garros was really open (id est in 1969) Roche didn’t exceed the semifinals and Santana the fourth round. So I’m coming back to 1968 Roland Garros : Gonzales reached the semifinals in eliminating Darmon still a good clay player and above all Emerson, the holder of the previous amateur edition, in the quarters (Emerson was pro since April,1). For the anecdote Gonzales beat again Emerson in Roland Garros (this time the Pro edition) two months later (because the French Open had just been born, the French Pro was suddenly less important : this one then didn’t survive for long and 1968 saw the last edition ; from 1963 to 1967 it has been held at the Stade Pierre de Coubertin but in 1968 for the last one it came back to Roland in July just a few days after Wimbledon and at this occasion Laver won his second (and of course last) French Pro).

In 1969 Gonzales entered the three Grand Slam tournaments on grass (he didn’t play the French) and each time he reached the round of 16 (beaten by Bowrey, Ashe and Roche respectively in the Australian, the British and the US). He also won the richest tournament after the US Open in 1969, the Howard Hughes Open at Las Vegas where he successively defeated Newcombe 6-1 6-2, Rosewall, Smith (Laver’s winner) and Ashe 6-0 6-2 6-4. Do you think this isn’t great, at 41 years old, to crush players near their peak and at least 15 years youngest (Newcombe and Ashe) ? Gonzales also capture the Pacific Southwest Open in Los Angeles over Rosewall, Smith, Osborne and Richey. In head-to-head matches he was at least equal (Ashe 1-1) or better than the other Americans (Smith 2-0, Richey 1-0).

In 1970 he probably quit the Top10 but stayed in the Top20. Nevertheless on one match he was able to beat everyone. He first played in the First Annual Tennis Champions Classic : he beat Laver, who made his 1970 debut as the Open Grand Slam holder, in five sets. Next meeting he defeated Newcombe, 1969 Wimbledon finalist and future titlist of the same tournament, 6-4 6-4 6-2. In May, at 42, Pancho retained his crown in the Howard Hugues Open tournament at Las Vegas, overcoming Laver in four sets. I have traced five meetings between the two men in 1970 and Gonzales led with 3 victories over the third (in my opinion) player of 1970.

In 1971 Smith has established himself as probably the best player after his success in the US Open and his Wimbledon final. Few weeks after the US he was beaten in the semi-finals of the Pacific Southwest Open in Los Angeles, by a 19-year old player who was on the verge to enter the Top20 named James Scott Connors. Then Jimbo lost for the second time that year to his 43-year old mentor, a certain Gonzales.

In 1972 Gonzales finally quit the Top20 but he was still able to win 3 small tournaments.

In 1973, at 45, he has just won a few matches but when lost he wasn’t ridiculous. Against Connors and Okker then first tenners he has honourably resisted (7-6 3-6 3-6 in Columbus against Connors who has just won the US Pro over players as Smith or Ashe; 7-6 3-6 1-6 4-6 against Okker in the first round of the US Open).

I have made no comment about Gonzales’s career before 1952 when he possibly reached the top.

But I would just say that this champion has been in the Top20 each year for 22 years from 1948 to 1971 if I except 1962-1963 when he was fully retired (1962) and difficultly coming back (1963).

He has been in the Top10 for 20 years (from 1948 to 1969 but in 1962-1963).

He was probably the best in 1952 (see before my 1952 brief account) ; he was omnipotent form 1954 to 1956 ; from 1957 to 1959 he was almost surely the number one ; in 1960 and in 1961 he was undoubtedly the best with Rosewall and what is highly debatable are the places between the two players (I granted Gonzales the first place in 1960 and the second one in 1961).

From 1964 to 1970 he was able to dominate on one match all the best players (Newcombe and Laver in 1970)..In 1971 Richey, Franulovic, Orantes and the promising Connors and Tanner have lost once to the old Pancho (who defeated Tanner again in 1972, a year where Tanner reached the quarters at the US Open and a few days later beat Nastase at LA).

To his debit Gonzales never won Wembley Pro after 1956 (he was beaten by Segura and Kramer in 1957, by Sedgman in 1958, by Hoad in 1961,…) but because of his battle against the promoter Kramer he didn’t enter the tournament in 1959 and in 1960 when he was probably the best (one of the reasons of his short retirement in 1960 was the legal lawsuits between the two enemies). He still hasn’t won Roland Garros pro but the first one held after World War II was in 1956 and morevoer there was no 1957 edition and again because of his clashes with Kramer he didn’t play the 1959 and 1960 editions. So he just played the 1956, 1958 and 1961 editions where he reached two finals and one semifinal. Before 1956 the pros rarely played on clay but it is told (without any guarantee) that in 1952 Gonzales dominated Segura on clay in an European tour (is it the 1952 tour with also Budge and Kramer evoked by the latter ?). If this is true it was a great performance because Segura was at the very top of his form and was too firstly a claycourt player born on this surface (and then better than on fast courts). As I have told before he has beaten on clay Rosewall and Laver in 1965 at Dallas (in only best-of-three set matches) and in 1968 at 40 he has reached the semis of Roland (and in his amateur days in 1949 he has won the US clay amateur over Parker, Roland Garros amateur holder and he has also reached the semis of his only Roland Garros amateur).

Gonzales has dominated the 50’s decade as no one has done in another decade, except perhaps Tilden in the 20’s, and in 1964, at 36 years old, he has beaten Laver, the new king, 8 times out of 13.

Conclusion : even if I do not like at all Gonzales I must admit that the American is very near the top and perhaps the best of all time. I just see Tilden to contradict but it is true that I am very short-sighted so maybe I am wrong (one of the more critical points of my arguments is the fact that I don’t take into account the greatest competition nowadays and the hardest physical prowess needed today).

I recall that Gonzales has (I would say « had » because he was dead eleven years ago) one of the best records ever : he has won something like 20 or more very big events (comparable with the Grand Slam tournaments of today).

With his 22 years in the Top20 only Tilden and Rosewall surpassed him in longevity.

And finally among his contemporaries probably only Hoad and Laver have reached higher summits when they were hot. Only both of them could do more with a ball than Gonzales in a given match but day in day out Gonzales was the more consistent (Hoad could be the best one day and very ordinary the following day and even Laver knew these variations but was more regular). So I think there isn’t many players above Gonzales. Probably none. Some would argue that Federer is already the best and I would answer that just among his contemporaries, at the date of September 2006, Agassi is still better than Federer. There is no doubt that noone in the tennis history has played as well as Federer at his best. Though mental strength is very important in tennis the athletic and technical parts are also important. Nowadays players (and rackets) are more powerful and stronger than in the past. If Vines vintage 1938 had met Borg vintage of 1980, the Swede woud have won without any problem and now this same Swede woudn’t win many games against Federer 2006 vintage. In the absolute there is no match but the true comparison to do is to compare the players in relative terms. Sure modern physicists know many more scientific theories than Einstein but without him they woudn’t have made all their new theories. Without Newton many Einstein discoveries woud have been impossible and so on. What is important is the fact you have been ahead of your generation, that your ideas, your inventions have enabled many progresses during your era. Why woudn’t it be the same in tennis ? So the real comparison would be to compare for instance Tilden with a Federer born 88 years before (because the American was born in 1893, 88 years before 1981, Federer’s birthdate) or a Tilden born 88 years after. In the first case what would have done Federer with a wood racket, with no coaching, with no hard physical training and with almost no scientific approach ? In the second case what would have done Tilden with modern rackets, with modern dietetics, with video… ? This is impossible to answer but given that Tilden was so ahead of his generation it is probable that he would have been a good player in the 2000’s.

Nevertheless if I consider some different eras of tennis history some players stand out in terms of potential (their level at their best) : Vines in the 30’s (in Tilden’s or Budge’s or Kramer’s opinion when Vines was hot you had no chances to win), Hoad in the 50’s or 60’s (according to Gonzales, Rosewall or Laver), Sampras in the 90’s, Safin and Federer in the 2000’s. So in relative terms these 5 were probably the best at their best and Federer is possibly the king of the kings (even the now old Laver, 68, who has seen the best from Gonzales to Federer, told that Federer is able to do shots that nobody has ever done). Behind these 5 players there are probably Kramer, Laver, Becker, Agassi and at a third rank Budge, Sedgman, Gonzales, Borg, McEnroe (who was better than Borg on fast courts but less good on slow courts) and Lendl. I have probably forgotten some players. All this to say that Federer is possibly in relative terms of potential the greatest of all time (in front of the cited players) but this is only one criterion to judge a player.

There are also the records and the longevity and in these cases the Swiss is far from being the best.

In September 2006 he has won 9 very big events (his Grand Slam tournaments) far from what have probably won players such as Tilden, Gonzales, Rosewall or even Laver, id est about 20 very big events (for instance in Laver’s case I exclude his Grand Slam tournaments won in his amateur era because if tennis had been open he wouldn’t have won anyone but I consider that his 1964 Wembley success or his 1967 US Pro win is a very big event nearly as great as 2003 Wimbledon Federer’s victory or 2005 Australian Safin’s victory).

The Swiss’s longevity is only 6 years long (from 2001 to 2006 among the best) whereas Tilden’s or Gonzales’s exceed two decades. So now Federer is still far from being the best of all time however his chances to become the best are real.

If I compare him with a modern player such as Agassi, Andre is still superior to the Swiss in my opinion. Firstly the American has better records even though Federer has won one more Grand Slam tournament. Secondly Agassi’s longevity is really better : 16 years in the Top20 (1988-1992, 1994-1996, 1998-2005). This criterion makes the real difference between the two players. In the last one Federer has the advantage : at his best he surpasses Agassi’s best level but the American is not far.

Knowing that Agassi isn’t the best player of all time I conclude that Federer isn’t too (for the moment) but that Gonzales is close to that place.

I will finish about a supposed Gonzales-Borg meeting :

Effectively I haven’t seen any meeting between Gonzales and Borg but knowing that the Swede a) has begun his career in October 1971 at the Stockholm Open in taking one set to Franulovic, one of the best players of the moment and b) was at 17 in the Top20 in 1973, the two players could have met. Nevertheless Gonzales has beaten twice Connors in 1971 (who wasn’t yet in the Top20) and Connors took his revenge in 1973.

I hope you had a good reading.

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

Links
You could at least change the links, CieloEstrellado, when you change the name of an article. Thank you.

Carlo Colussi 14:52, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Neutrality

What do the critics exactly mean with nonneutrality. If it relates to some formulations and phrases used, ok. But then, make your criticism clear. But overall, the article discusses the complicated ranking system in tennis very carefully. And many sources are given. All the rankings were subjective pre 1973, and even afterwards there is still a moment of subjectivity in the ATP ranking, whether to include or exclude certain events. The ATP for instance, had a row with the ITF in the 90s. Therefore the Grand Slam event at Munich, with the best of the 4 majors in the draw, and the biggest prize money available, was never included in the ATP ranking. If it would have been, probably Rios would have been Nr. 1 in 1998. Also the Davis Cup was never (or seldom) intergrated in the ranking. So the article, as it is now, describes the history of tennis rankings quite correctly (German friend 30.1.2007).


 * Thank you very much German friend.

It is stated that there are unverified claims. Perhaps there are few but I doubt it because there are many sources listed : so give me an example of unverified claims and I will try to give the related source.

Carlo Colussi 10:04, 31 January 2007 (UTC)