Talk:World number 1 ranked male tennis players/Archive 3

1931
On tennis warehouse, Andrew Tas has given a list of all available amateur tournaments in 1931. From this list it is quite clear, that Vines with i think 8 tournament wins, was by far the best amateur of the year, miles ahead of Cochet. He also beat Perry frequently on US grass and won the US champs. Carlo, if have no access to the webside, ask Andrew Tas, if he could mail You this list. I think, one should rank Vines equally with Tilden as Nr. 1 player, regardless waht Bowers wrote, who laid his focus on the pro tour. (German friend 25.6.2008)
 * Hello German friend. See my answer at the bottom of this page. Last year Andrew (a high class person) has not only given me his 1931 results but also his complete final results since 1877. Carlo Colussi (talk) 07:12, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

1952 statistics
I've changed some 1952 statistics because I've found some results in the Google archives : see my "1952 Philadelphia Inquirer Masters tournament" comment in Talk:Pancho Gonzales Carlo Colussi (talk) 08:35, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

The world number one and number two from 1877 (objective in intent but admittedly sometimes arguable)
This section was marked as original research in September, 2007, and non-neutral in December, 2007. Even the title, "The world number one and number two from 1877 (objective in intent but admittedly sometimes arguable)" in an admission of original research.

We should not have material like this in Wikipedia. However because the information may be useful in some form I have moved it here. --Tony Sidaway 23:04, 18 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I've removed this content from the talk page as it's very large and currently back on the article -Tony

End of moved section. --Tony Sidaway 23:04, 18 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I think this is a big mistake as I find this article extremely useful on a weekly basis. The "pov" and "original research" were added back in January '07, one by a person who hardly ever posts on wiki. No one I've seen has complained since so those obtrusive banners just sit there. There was no complaining even when they went on the page... poof, they were there. This article is very fair and neutral and strives for it all the time. And I'm saying this as an outsider to this artcle... I've only edited it once (twice now), and only to revert what I percieved as vandalism in ruining the page. You are trying to cut out its guts. Nowhere else are all the journalist, atp, itf, authors, etc.., rankings all put together in one cohesive unit. You can see them all right here and it's what readers are looking for. All the rankings are sourced well. You could have 20 articles based on every ranking system, which no one could find to read, but this one puts them together and really just adds them up. When new things are found it sometimes gets re-added, and when two people add up to the same number subjectivity creeps in or they are usually co-ranked. But the detail, monumental effort, fairness and usefulness of this article is right there in black and white. I know of Tennis Magazines whose writers look at this article to get get a grasp on a story they are creating because they know the sourcing is very good and the content pretty darned fair. I'd get rid of the two items you speak of in a heartbeat because it hasn't been a point of contention for over a year, but I thought it better to leave it to those who truely work this page on a regular basis. Fyunck(click) (talk) 07:59, 19 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I'll have a bit of a closer look at it. Maybe it's possible to edit it to remove original research, maybe not, but it might be worth giving it a try. --Tony Sidaway 04:16, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Before making a comment about OR and NPOV I just want to make a remark.
 * Hello,

This article has been mainly written by Hayford Peirce, myself and Károly Mázak with very useful remarks by both Jeffrey Neave and German friend. Peirce who is the original creator of this article, had the great idea to collect every available ranking including the professional players before the open era because in so many previous rankings as those of Arthur Wallis Myers or Lance Tingay, the pro players, who sometimes were better than the amateur players, were excluded. For instance in the 30s Myers watched the pros play and never ranked them in his own rankings because he favoured the traditional players officially amateurs. So he didn't dare to compare amateurs and pros because they played different circuits while he dared to compare amateur players who never entered the same competitions for many reasons including great geographic distance. By listing rankings combining every player whatever his state, amateur, "shamateur", "registered", professional or whatever else since the beginning of tennis competition, this article is very useful not to say more. I haven't seen anywhere an article listing the TRUE best players in the world since the beginning. Before 1968 it was always amateur players to the fore. Imagine that Ashley Cooper was ranked #1 in the amateur ranks whereas he was overwhelmingly dominated by the pros who were really better than him but everywhere it was wrongly stated that Cooper was the best. I would say that before this article, tennis history articles or books were completely wrong when they talked about world rankings so I am very grateful to Peirce for having originated this article and this is why I took so much time to contribute to that article which at last tries to restore the truth.

This said, of course there were researches to find sources listing combined rankings but I don't understand why this article is supposed to be non-neutral. Because I've written that Arthur Ashe was the true n°1 in 1975 though the ATP ranking placed him only #4 ? But I've cited some sources who ranked him #1 : Lance Tingay, Bud Collins, John Barrett, Judith Elian and I could have add Barry Lorge (Tennis Magazine USA), Wataru Tsukagoshi (Tennis Magazine of Japan). Even the ATP itself, that it to say the association and not the computer, ranked Ashe #1 that year. Except possible omissions (but I would be very astonished) all the rankings in this article have been sourced. So if you think that a source is missing, say it and I or anyone else will find and cite that source but don't tag the article as non-neutral without saying which phrase or statement is non-neutral.

In the end I thank Fyunck and all the other persons very much for defending this article.

Carlo Colussi (talk) 12:37, 24 January 2008 (UTC)


 * My theory is that no one edits this article other than the select few listed above because fixing it would be an overwhelming job, just as fixing the Ken Rosewall article would be a huge challenge. Both articles are full of opinion and original research, neither of which is appropriate for an encyclopedia like Wikipedia but would be entirely appropriate in another medium.  I'm sorry Carlo, but this article has to be neutral because it is a Wikipedia article, not because any particular Wikipedia editor says that it must be so.  This is not something that can be voted on.  This requirement cannot be waived through consensus.  Tennis expert (talk) 03:25, 25 January 2008 (UTC)


 * This article is fully appropriate., Whatever the rules of Wikipedia are, Wikipedeia should encouage this type of work. Wikipedia should not just regurgitate other published work. This work put together objective sources from other published work, and produces something that has never been seen before. That's what Wikipedia should be. It allows new but objective work to be published. Just because  a journalist has had his work publiswhed does not make it any better than any well informed editor on the internet. Low brow fields like sport and entertainment are not nuclear physics referred by highly regarded academics. Wikipedia should get rid of these pretensions in areas like sport where the sources are run of the mill hack journalists.  jeffreyneave 28 january 2007  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.85.28.67 (talk) 19:32, 28 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Whether you or I think this article is appropriate is beside the point. The Wikipedia rules are not something you or I can waive.  The organizers of Wikipedia are clear: this is an encyclopedia and no original research or uncited opinion is allowed, regardless of the subject matter.  Tennis expert (talk) 23:39, 28 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Agreed. However as I've seen in countless wiki articles (even articles of the day) original research is a very grey area that has become quite flexible in its interpretation, both good and bad. Fyunck(click) (talk) 23:51, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

There is nothing sacrosanct about Wikipedia rules. If they are wrong or inappropriate to the objectives of this work, they should be changed. The founder of Wikipedia said in a recent binterview this database is for everyone to improve and contribute to the world's knowledge. Every page is available. Unfortunately he forgot to mention that the one thing you can not edit are the rules. That's a disgrace. This work is a demoracy about improving the world's knowledge. Just like a democdrecy rules and laws can be changed. Therefore everybody should contribute to the laws and not the dictatorship of a minority elite. A concensus should emerge about rules just as it does in the content of these pages. It is illogical and undemocratic to do otherwise. The internet is great democratic invention and should be used increase the world's knowledge and distribute it more easily than books are able to do. In otherwords original research backed by fact should be encouraged not derailed by petty elites. When academics publish new work and have it referred, it has to have something new and not just be the reproduction of other people's work. Otherwise it will not be published.

jeffreyneave 29 jan 2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.85.28.67 (talk) 16:47, 29 January 2008 (UTC)


 * See WP: NOR. Tennis expert (talk) 01:18, 30 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm going to remove these very aged tags. The arguments for keeping the material are compelling. This is the sort of table that any good reference work uses to help readers make sense of complex information. Greg Grahame (talk) 03:33, 8 January 2009 (UTC)


 * The tags are just as applicable now as they were in 2007. And by the way, this is an encyclopedia.  Tennis expert (talk) 03:52, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Archive Please
I make a motion to archive all of 2007 talk (it's huge) and since no one has made a comment since november other than Sidaway just keep his 3 paragraphs on the main talk page and not the whole bloody transfer of rankings. Trying to add an item is a drag on my computer it is so unwieldy. Thanks. Fyunck(click) (talk) 07:27, 19 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Done. The amount of archived information was easily enough for two very large archive pages. --Tony Sidaway 04:40, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
 * The older archived comments are a mess because they're often undated and often go up the page instead of down as usual (perhaps by people who are used to replying to emails by putting their own comments on top). Some of the very earliest comments were removed early on and are only available in the history.  I've chosen to leave them as-is rather than make an effort to sort them all out. --Tony Sidaway 04:52, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Answer to 200.1.116.14
Hello. Stockton was one of the very best players in the first half of 1977, leading 2-1 in his confrontations against Connors then the best player of the world so Stockton's absence at Roland Garros 1977 was a loss. In the second half of 1977 I recognize that Stockton didn't confirm his great form of early 1977. Carlo Colussi (talk) 11:27, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

That's correct Carlo, I erase that. You are right. I just add that in 78 and 79 Vilas won a depleted Aussie Open cause I think at least we must named it, always was a grand slam (with the add of wins in depleted draws of course). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.70.188.140 (talk) 22:46, 23 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Hello,

in the French version of the Vilas article I've written that the Argentinian won Roland Garros and Australian tournaments with depleted fields but a very big fan of his who don't want see the truth, has erased my comment. So I've decided to put it back and he's erased it once again. So since months we never stop erasing each other edits. Carlo Colussi (talk) 15:16, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Carlo, me again! I don't erase what you said, it wasn't me at least! Like I said before, I erase Stockton cause for me wasn't a big clay court player, that's all. Agree with Gerulaitis and Orantes, who almost always won to Willy. I fully agree with you about AO and depleted fields until 1983, but you must consider that in RG 77 the weak draw wasn't all about injuries or Vila's fault. It's like if in a Slam of this times, for some reasons, Federer and Nadal wouldn't go. You can quit the status of Slam to the event. Borg wasn't injured at that time, for example. But thank you for all the efforts and info you give to us. Regards! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.173.126.251 (talk) 20:23, 1 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Hello. I'm lost because, sorry, I don't know who you are : there isn't any clear signature.

I've just said that in the French version of Wikipedia, SOMEONE (in that case too there is no clear signature) always reverts my edits in the Vilas article and doesn't want to recognize that the Australians had very depleted fields : I remember that each year I was so disappointed when almost no great player came Down Under. Once, in 1979 I think, Connors let hear that he could came but in the end he didn't came as ever since 1976. Carlo Colussi (talk) 10:24, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Carlo, me again. I'm Lucio Garcia and I edit wiki in spanish, I'm not signed in english. Thank you for your time. Don't worry if someone don't recognize the true, at least there's people like you, like me, like so many others, that knows the reality of those tournaments. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.173.109.218 (talk) 22:39, 8 April 2008 (UTC)


 * All right. Hello Lucio. Eventually are you interested in translating this article in the Spanish Wiki ? I'm making advertising because I think this article so interesting (this is the article who convinced me to contribute to Wikipedia and I worked hard on it). After contributing to it, I translated it in the French version (and I've added a link). I recognize it needs work because I want both sites to be coherent : each time an edit (I'm talking about substance and not form) is made in the French or English version, I correct the other version (for instance a few days ago in this article, Károly Mazák changed some rankings and sources of the 19th century and warned me by email. So, as soon as I've had time, I've edited the French version). Carlo Colussi (talk) 07:06, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Ok Carlo, I'll start to translate. I'll don't change any without let you know. Regards!--Lucio Garcia (talk) 18:05, 12 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Thank you. Good work and good luck. You could call it "Lista de tenistas masculinos número 1" en la categoría «Tenistas masculinos N° 1 mundial» Carlo Colussi (talk) 14:57, 14 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks to you. I'll take the name from you! When I'll have ready the page I'll upload. --Lucio Garcia (talk) 21:46, 27 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Fine Carlo Colussi (talk) 09:44, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

What, people just edit huge chunks without discussion?
Instead of just wholesale clear-cutting a forest it would certainly be good wiki manners to discuss items here first. We have someone who just vaporized a section saying he pasted it into another article and now it's redundant. I looked back about 6 months and the section was there and seems helpful to understanding this article. Why someone would want to remove it now (and call us "dudes") is rather strange. If it needs to be edited down a little no problem, I can work on making it shorter next week. My goodness someone could do it to any article..."I just copied a section of the Civil War into another article on famous battles so I'm removing it from here." Fyunck(click) (talk) 06:26, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

What, people just copy huge chunks of this article and paste it into another without discussion and then don't delete it from this article, leaving Wikipedia with two copies without reason?
Let's try this again (for about the fourth time). CARLO COLUSSI is the person who copied a big chunk of this article and then pasted it into another article. I was merely cleaning-up what he left behind. We cannot have ~5K-worth of the same information (word-for-word) in 2 DIFFERENT articles. I couldn't care less which article contains this information. If you have a problem with what he did, then address it with him. Quit blaming me. Tennis expert (talk) 15:31, 1 May 2008 (UTC)


 * And as I said before the section itself is vital to this article. I have no problem at all with shortening it or summarizing it and then adding a link to where it was copied to. My problem is that simply removing an entire section with no discussion is bad wiki protocol. Maybe Mr. Carlussi didn't realize that putting a section in another article would make you remove it completely here. Did you ask him and explain the problems of wiki bandwidth? Maybe someone would have taken on the challenge of shortening the section if you discussed it here without shouting. I've found that most people editing at wikipedia can be quite reasonable if given half a chance. Fyunck(click) (talk) 09:04, 5 May 2008 (UTC)


 * (1) Who's shouting? Wikipedia automatically "bolds" level three section headers.  (2) There's no "bad wiki protocol" here.  I've explained my reasoning, several times over.  If you don't like Wikipedia policy about repetitive information, then I suggest you try to get the policy changed instead of ignoring it through reversions.  (3) If you believe the section is vital to this article, then I suggest you delete it from the other one, i.e., revert Carlos Colussi, and re-insert it here.  Tennis expert (talk) 00:08, 6 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Therein lies the problem... you don't think you did anything unwiki-like by deleting with no discussion (multiple times), as opposed to editing and working with people to make the article better for everyone. I guess I'll have to take a whack at editing it down so as not to upset the chemistry of the article. Sorry about the bolding... I thought it was a new section. Fyunck(click) (talk) 01:01, 6 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Mister Tennis Expert. Once again you perhaps know very well the Wikipedia rules but you use them once again too abruptly. Your revision of "18:03, 30 April 2008" was really bad because, I completely agree Fyunck(click), you deleted a vital section explaining the rankings below. Incidentally I thank mister Fyunck for having restored this section. So perhaps I'm wrong in having copied this section into another article but you shouldn't have erased it so abruptly. Nothing prevents you to discuss and modify both sections in both articles but you, you prefer acting like a judge who apply the law to the letter but not in the spirit. Honestly stop whining when other wikipedia users complain of your manners. Carlo Colussi (talk) 07:26, 7 May 2008 (UTC)


 * (1) That's what edit summaries are for. I fully explained my reasoning, which I regret that you apparently did not read.  What I did was not irrevocable, as Fyunck full proved.  (2) Rules are rules.  We are all "judges" here, you included.  You have reverted things, too, but you won't find me complaining about your "manners" (or the lack thereof) in doing so.  When you violate the rules, it is your responsibility (not mine) to fix the problem.  Therefore, you (not me) should have modified the text in one or both articles so that they are not repetitive.  (3) You'll have to get used to my "whining" (your characterization, not mine) whenever I am attacked without justification.  Tennis expert (talk) 08:21, 7 May 2008 (UTC)


 * The justification was surely there, you just refuse to accept it. An edit summary is very short and yours said the deleted material was "no longer needed here" which is totally false. It said nothing of a wiki policy I had no idea existed. Look at all your revert summaries and they say nothing about wiki policy. Wouldn't it have been better to have posted here in this talk section something like "hey everyone, it's against wiki protocol to copy word for word an entire section into another article. Could someone take the time to edit this or the other article so that they conform to wiki policy? Otherwise we need to delete one or the other." If you don't care enough about the subject to edit it yourself and a week or so goes by with no response, then you might have gone ahead and deleted it. If you had done that we wouldn't be chastising you for bad wiki manners and all would have been fine. You could also have posted something on Mr Colussi's tak page and informed him of wiki protocol and maybe he would have done all the changes himself. You have done this before... instead of asking or talking things out you pull out the anti-social scalpel and amputate a leg when the patient had a wart on her toe. You'll find most will meet you halfway if you try to do things in a friendly manner. Fyunck(click) (talk) 09:03, 7 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Once again Fyunck(click) I thank you because you have perfectly transcribed what I think, especially as I don't master English language. You are totally right but you, Tennis Expert, are completely wrong. You pretend being always perfect with no default at all whereas the others are, to be polite, very perfectible. You say you are attacked without justification but it's completely false : in fact you are blind to all your faults, you are completely undiplomatic and though I don't approve Jeffreyneave's crude words towards you, I fully understand his reactions towards you. Whatever people tell you, you don't want to collaborate peacefully : you are a curt person, sharp as scissors. Carlo Colussi (talk) 10:57, 7 May 2008 (UTC)


 * And both you and Fyunck are being incivil with all these personal attacks on myself, which also violates Wikipedia rules. I suggest that both of you stop it before it escalates further.  See WP:CIVIL.  Tennis expert (talk) 14:15, 7 May 2008 (UTC)


 * It's interesting that you "don't approve of Jeffreyneave's crude words" toward me yet you "fully understand his reactions" toward me. That's complete double talk.  And I collaborate all the time around here - you have no idea what you're talking about.  Tennis expert (talk) 01:02, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Of course that's not "complete double talk" : this is the difference between substance and form. I don't approve the form Jeffrey uses but I agree with the message he tries to give. Carlo Colussi (talk) 10:52, 13 May 2008 (UTC)


 * It's good at least that you see what kind of problems can be created when you don't take other peoples feelings and hard work into account. See WP:CIVIL. Maybe now it will settle down around here. Fyunck(click) (talk) 21:34, 7 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Don't ever presume my agreement with anything you or anyone else says. As for "hard work," well, I'm sure some vandals "work hard" in coming up with their vandalistic edits.  Whatever is contributed to Wikipedia, whether it took 10 seconds or 24 hours to write, must comply with the rules.  That's a fact of life around here, regardless of whether you or I agree with them.  Tennis expert (talk) 01:02, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

I always presume a couple things - that there is good in people and/or that eventually they will see the light. Maybe it's a weakness but that's the way I am. Fyunck(click) (talk) 03:57, 8 May 2008 (UTC)


 * One problem is to define "vandals" Carlo Colussi (talk) 10:52, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Copy Edits
The rewording is certainly needed but please don't sterilize it too much. Many of the minor facts help people understand why the rankings were what they were. In fact the further back ones goes the more subjective the rankings become and the extra info becomes even more important. Thanks. Fyunck(click) (talk) 06:05, 25 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm not "sterilizing." What should be clear to every dispassionate reader of my edits is that I'm clarifying and trying to make what was a totally subjective and original research article more encyclopedic.  This article is about the #1 and #2 male tennis players for each year; therefore, it is completely superfluous and confusing to talk about, for example, who was ranked #15 by the Association of Tennis Professionals (ATP) or who was a "shooting star" or who "unexpectedly" won a particular tournament or how a particular tournament was "weird" or why Pete Sampras's 14 Grand Slam singles titles is not as significant as it seems.  I could go on and on about the defects of this article, the most fundamental of which is how particular sources were chosen and others were excluded.  That possibly insurmountable problem is not something I'm addressing right now, but it will need to be addressed sometime soon.  Currently, I am using the sources already listed by previous editors.  Strangely, one of those editors now wants to ignore sources for certain years other than the ones he now believes are "official," when he should know that none of them have ever been "official."  If there were any "official" sources, such as the ATP since 1973 and the International Tennis Federation since 1978, then why did the previous editors ever mention the various Tennis magazines or commentators for years after 1972?  Strange indeed.  Tennis expert (talk) 08:31, 25 May 2008 (UTC)


 * But one can also see when a race is really close say, between the top 4. I can agree that #15 is pretty far out there and really has no place, but you can also see the rise of future #1's when an occasional extra ranking or two is dropped in. Actually the sections are a lot harder to read since they are half links now. I see it a lot these days and I'm sure it's wiki policy or something to make sure all those names have links, but it makes for very poor visuals. The English may not have been great before but it made for an easy flowing read. Fyunck(click) (talk) 08:53, 25 May 2008 (UTC)


 * It is far better to read "Sampras began his reign at #1 by triumphing in Wimbledon over Courier, in the U.S. Open over Cédric Pioline and in the ATP tournament at Key Biscayne over MaliVai Washington" than to see simply a list of wins. If the english is poor please fix it but otherwise you're just rubber stamping each section to the detriment of the article. I'd hate to see what would happen to the 60's. Fyunck(click) (talk) 09:11, 25 May 2008 (UTC)


 * "Triumphing" is an opinion-loaded term and unencylopedic. "Reign" also is unencyclopedic.  Besides, do World No. 1's receive a crown or are they called "His Royal Highness"?  I have no idea what you mean by "rubber stamping each section to the detriment of the article."  As for the 1960s edits, if I ever make them, you really should WP:AGF.  Tennis expert (talk) 23:04, 25 May 2008 (UTC)


 * How is triumphing in a final different than beating someone in a final? Reign is a simple fact in this case and you must take these things case by case. Sampras had a 6 year reign as number 1. By rubber stamp I mean each year you have made each box look pretty much identical... just the names have changed. That makes for poor reading and looks more like an almanac instead of an encyclopedia. People want to be informed on how close a race was, how close someone was to not winning, whether it was the last win of a super career. When I first read those sections year by year they were informative and yet it gave me a slight feeling like I was there; like it was more than just numbers. Your changes make it seem colder and less eyeball friendly. I would not have originally read it year by year if all the boxes looked that way. And we do want people to enjoy reading this encyclopedia while getting their facts. Fyunck(click) (talk) 23:35, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

I haven't read the article for a while, but i agree with Carlo and Fyunck, that the 90s columns now look very steril. The comments originally were meant as argumentations for the ranking debates, now they are simply win lists, which would be better integrated into yearly tournaments accounts (german friend 26.6.08). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.60.136.33 (talk) 11:01, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Pétra and not Petra
I know that English uses very seldom accents but the true name of the French player is "Yvon Pétra" with an "é" and not an "e". Carlo Colussi (talk) 06:50, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

1931 : Vines or Cochet best amateur ?
I wrote in the article

"A. Wallis Myers ranked Cochet #1 amateur thanks to his wins over the British players in the Davis Cup but the French had a relatively poor season with only three tournament wins (Monte Carlo being the most prestigious); Myers strangely ranked Ellsworth Vines only #3 in the amateur ranks though the American won 9 tournaments including the U.S. amateur Championships (comparisons are difficult because that year Vines wasn't invited to play abroad and Cochet didn't quit Europe)"

because though there is no official source stating that Vines was the best amateur (Cochet was chosen by Myers and Francis Gordon Lowe seemed to retain Myers's opinion), Vines was clearly the best amateur that year. As ever in those times, players couldn't easily travel abroad. In spring 1931 Vines wasn't yet considered as the best US amateur so he wasn't invited to play Wimbledon and the Davis Cup : Wood and Shields then crossed the Atlantic to play both events but when they came back to the US they didn't confirm they were at the top of the US amateur tennis and Vines completely dominated the US circuit, beating Perry 4 times in 4 meetings (or according to other sources 4 out of 5 confrontations). So Vines couldn't play in Europe that year. On the other side Cochet didn't play in the US (because he hadn't appreciated the Forest Hills organization in 1928 he didn't come back to the US before 1932) so comparisons between both players are hard. Nevertheless Cochet's season was relatively poor. He won Monte Carlo over Lyttelton Rogers, then the Danish Covered Court (Copenhagen) over Einer Ulrich, father of Torben and Jürgen and grandfather of Lars, drummer of metal band Metallica. Cochet then won his third and last tournament of the year, the Austrian Chps in early May. Next week he lost easily to Pat Hughes in the Italian Chps at Milan because of his illness. Then he couldn't play at all the French at Roland. He made his comeback at Wimbledon, still ill, and lost in the first round. When he played the Davis Cup Challenge Round in late July he hasn't fully recovered his health nevertheless he defeated both Austin and Perry. Then he virtually retired until next year. In those years the the Davis Cup Challenge Round was the climax of the amateur year. This partly explains why Myers ranked Cochet as the best amateur but the British journalist also ranked Cochet on reputation. The problem is that he forgot Vines because the latter wasn't selected in the US Davis Cup team. Therefore the American player couldn't cross the Atlantic to show how strong he was. Carlo Colussi (talk) 07:26, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

carlo, who is  gordon lowe and where has he expressed an opinion on 1931 rankings.I have vines at 8 wins from  andrew tas. Keeping cochet as number 2 is plain stupid. publication does not mean quality and myers' opinion should be ignored. truth is all important not stupid wikki rules.

jeffreyneave 27 july 2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jeffreyneave (talk • contribs) 19:07, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Francis Gordon Lowe was a good British player in the 1910s who published the best Annuals I have ever seen in the 1930s (better than Ayres' or Wright & Ditson). In this case the Annual was "Lowe's Lawn Tennis Annual 1932" is the answer to your question. if I'm not mistaken Vines won even 9 tournaments Carlo Colussi (talk) 12:31, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

The only "Pancho Gonzales - Björn Borg" meeting : New York December 1972, indoor carpet, 2nd round, Gonzales winner 6-1 6-1
Hi everybody,

In the archives of this talk page a Gonzales-Borg meeting was evoked.

Both players met in the second round of a New York tournament held on December 6-10, 1972 Michel Sutter gave December 7 as the ending date, on indoor carpet and a very old Pancho Gonzales (44 1/2 years old) easily defeated a very young Borg (16 1/2 years old) 61 61. In the final of that event Gonzales lost to Charlie Pasarell. Carlo Colussi (talk) 12:45, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Tennis Magazine and not Tennis, in France
In France, the French magazine of Tennis is called "Tennis Magazine" and not "Tennis" as it has been edited in this article. Carlo Colussi (talk) 08:02, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Lacoste in '29
Just a small thing that I noticed: Lacoste's ranking as #2 in 1929 is absurd. He won Roland Garros beating Cochet and Tilden but won only 1 tournament apart from that. Borotra, with 2 finals in RG and Wimbledon and multiple wins in prestigious indoor tournaments including one over Tilden, plus his taking part in the DC final, was probably better overall. Still, I would rank Borotra at #3 as Tilden was the better player, winning Forest Hills, being in 2 semi-finals in the European majors (losing to the eventual winner both times) and then beating Borotra in the Davis Cup final. Isn't there any source ranking Tilden as #2?

SgtJohn

I've some Potter rankings hidden somewhere (very well because I don't know where it is at this very precise moment) and perhaps he did rank Tilden 2nd but I can't guarantee it at all.
 * Hello Jonathan,

Here are Tilden's, Karel Kozeluh's and Bowers's rankings. Even Tilden considered that he was behind Cochet :

(P) means (Professional)

1929

Tilden : 1 Cochet, 2 Lacoste, 3 Tilden, 4 Borotra, 5 Frank Hunter

Karel Kozeluh : 1 Cochet, 2 Lacoste, 3 Tilden, 4 Borotra, 5 Frank Hunter, 6 George Lott, 7 Johnny Doeg

Ray Bowers (who for the amateurs followed Myers’s ranking) : 1 Cochet, 2 Lacoste, 3 Borotra, 4 Tilden, 5 Karel Kozeluh (P), 6 Frank Hunter, 7 George Lott, 8 Vincent Richards (P)

However Robert Geist proposed last July some of his temporary rankings to Károly, AndrewTas and I for discussion and he had then ranked the players as follows : 1 Cochet, 2 Tilden, 3 Borotra, 3 ex aequo Lacoste, 5 K.Kozeluh (P), 6 Richards (P), 7 Hunter, 8 Doeg, 9 Lott, 10 Van Ryn.

Here was Károly's answer last summer to Geist's proposition : "All the experts placed Lacoste 2nd, after Cochet (I know Lacoste probably only played the French Champs, but won it). I would place Tilden 3rd, above Borotra (like all the experts except for Myers. Tilden beat Borotra in Davis Cup and won the US Champs). Doeg was US3, ahead of US4 Lott."

Andrew's answer : "I agree with your rankings Robert. Lacoste won the French but only narrowly defeated Borotra. Tilden had to come back from two sets down in the 4th round and quarter-finals and must have been spent so I don’t put too much weight into his loss to Lacoste. Also Lacoste needed to play Wimbledon and the Davis Cup to get a higher ranking. Borotra though had a win over Cochet. Also Karoly your right, Doeg had six tournament wins compared to Lott's two, including the Pacific SW and the Longwood Bowl and Seabright. Doeg extended Tilden at the US while Lott lost earlier to Allison. Kozeluh was definitely the best pro and defeated Richards on several occasions."

Mine : "No clear opinion because Lacoste indeed won the French but then virtually retired so his 2nd place can be discussed."

As you said SgtJohn, I've also discovered recently that around November 1929 Borotra beat Tilden in a meeting between London and Paris on indoor wood (see "Great Lawn Tennis Pen Pictures of famous matches" by AW Myers, published early in 1937).

Today (February 13, 2009) I don't know Geist's conclusion and I think his ranking hasn't been yet published anywhere.

Carlo Colussi (talk) 11:57, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Rankings before 1915
Reviving old(archive2) discussion... The Concise History of Tennis (2010), by Karoly Mazak seems to be rather opinionated piece and not very reliable...using phrases such as "in a weak field", "narrowly beats", "but nearly beats him" etc...It has been documented that Wilding was a modest man, and thus always praised his opponents. Can you really use his modesty and respect for fellow players for an argument against his achievements? Also lot of judgement seem to be based on what Vaile(whom I found also rather biased, seemed almost disliking Wilding's game) thought about their style of play or "who would have won"-scenarios - rather than their actual achievements - Absurd.

In 1950 Brookes, Wimbledon Champion of 1907 and 1914 etc, ranks Wilding as 4th best player behind Tilden and Dohertys, and ahead of Budge, Kramer, Lacoste and Perry.

I think it has to be noted about Wilding that unlike his biggest rivals he won big grass titles but was very dominant on clay too: won precursor of RG 1913 and 1914(not losing a set), Monte Carlo 5 times(Record broken recently by certain Rafael Nadal) etc big international European clay titles, unlike other top players who won mainly on grass only. Also he won a "Major" on indoor wood too, The World Covered Court Championship(WCCC).

I see Larned holds years 1908, 09, 10 and 11...for doing what exactly???...he won the US National Championships by playing ONE MATCH against whomever got through to play him...in 1908 he beat Beals Wright, 1909 William Clothier, 1910 Tom Bundy and 1911 rising youngster McLaughlin. In addition he beat a handful of British players at Davis Cup eg Dixon etc...look it up at official DC-site. Note1: Larned was 36/37 years old in 1909. Note2: There really were hardly any international players at US Champs during those times.

Let's look at results only - and forget whose game looked "nice", who was probably better etc subjective statements. (I've listed majors in order of perceived international importance):

#1 GORE and Larned
 * 1908
 * Gore WIM(whole draw)
 * Larned US(1 match)(+Boston)
 * Alexander(USA) wins AO but loses his DC final matches to Wilding and Brookes
 * Decugis French

#1 WILDING, #2 Gore or Larned
 * 1909
 * Gore WIM(1 match)
 * Larned US(1 match)(+Boston)
 * Wilding AO + beats **Brookes at Perth + 5-0 DC final against USA
 * Decugis French

#1 WILDING, #2 Larned
 * 1910
 * Wilding WIM(whole draw) + wins lots of tournamets in Europe eg Queens, Brussels, Riviera, Paris?
 * Larned US(1 match)(+Boston)
 * Heath wins AO
 * Germot French

#1 WILDING and BROOKES
 * 1911
 * Larned US(1 match, d. McLoughlin)
 * Wilding WIM(1 match)(+Queens) + Monte Carlo(d. Decugis), Nice, Cannes, Lyon, Riviera...
 * Brookes AO(d. Heath) + DC(d. McLoughlin)
 * Gobert French

#1 WILDING, #2 McLoughlin
 * 1912
 * Wilding WIM(1 match, d. Gore)(+Queens+MC)
 * McLoughlin US(Whole draw, Larned retired from tennis 1911)
 * Froitzheim WHCC (Word Hard Court Championship, RG predecessor)
 * Parke AO
 * Decugis French

#1 WILDING!, #2 McLoughlin
 * 1913
 * Wilding WIM(1 match) + WHCC + WCCC + other European titles(basically a Grand Slam plus a great clay-swing)
 * McLoughlin US(Whole draw) + DC
 * Parker AO
 * Decugis French


 * 1914
 * Brookes WIM(whole draw, d Wilding)
 * Wilding WHCC(without losing a set) + perfect clay swing beating Brookes twice and later on grass practice match
 * Williams US(whole draw)
 * O'Hara Wood won AO
 * Decugis French
 * McLoughlin beat Wilding in 4 and Brookes in 3 at DC in New York - Yet "Antipodes" won the the Davis Cup. I don't think that's enough for #1, he didn't have any important titles that year did he...

#1 WILDING and BROOKES

That's my suggestion...phew... Comments? --Mrmarble (talk) 01:02, 4 February 2011 (UTC)


 * In response, all the old articles and rankings are highly opinionated and they remain so today. Today's point system is opinionated in the way the points are valued though at least the players know beforehand what they need to do. College football has it's champions picked in a super opinionated manner yet those rankings stand year after year. That's just the way things are and the sports writers of tennis in the early days, like A.E.Crawley, and revered opinions of writers such as Richard Yallop, go a long way. In looking at your post you make some good points. 1913 and 1914 have an long established source in the The Daily Telegraph so those years look fine to me. The rest will always be open to interpretation but the The Pastime classification of British players agrees with much of it as do other works. 1912 looks good to me but to be honest I'd just have Brookes as number 1 in 1911 but it's just my opinion. In 1910 was tough but Crawley ranked Larned 1st. In 1909 I'd have had them switched like you did, Wilding over Larned. In 1908 I probably would go with Larned over Gore because he did better in Davic Cup than Gore. Close though. In terms of importance Davis Cup would probably be at the top of most of those years and the French so far down as not to register.


 * So I agree with some and disagree with some and I'm guessing it will always be that way even among good sources in the early days of tennis. I haven't written any tennis books so my opinion really doesn't matter. Fyunck(click) (talk) 08:17, 4 February 2011 (UTC)