Talk:World number 1 ranked male tennis players

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

Reposting my comment from February 2018, since I did not receive feedback; I think it's still worthy of discussion:

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

I don't see a post of yours from Feb 2018? On a personal level I agree with you. Federer has 2 majors (with wimbledon being worth two of any other major) and Nadal 2 majors, 3 masters to 2 in Feds favor, semis at ATP Finals vs rr for Nadal, 52-5 record for Fed vs 67-11 for Nadal. Fed 4-0 against Nadal. Pre-ATP it would be a slam dunk for Federer at year end. So point well taken. But almost all media sources will use ATP and ITF ranking for a basis as number one and Federer lost both those polls. The ITF punished Federer for not playing the French Open and the ATP rewarded Nadal for playing a lot (just as they did Connors in the 70s). Laureus sportsman award means a big zero. L'Equipe does carry some weight but I haven't seen a wall of other sources saying Federer was No. 1. My opinion mean bupkis. If asked my opinion I say Federer. When writing an encyclopedia I go with the sources. Fyunck(click) (talk) 06:03, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

It's in the #4 archive in which I replied to you directly. Might have a different IP. In any event, I would hardly say that Laureus means a "big zero." It's a cross-sport award meant to choose the year's best athlete overall. To say that's not prestigious because it doesn't have much history is a bit myopic. And not to give you credit as an individual (or me, or anyone else), but the kind of consensus, IMO, really does matter. When we look back at the years like 1964 (I believe), in which a bunch of pro writers rated Rosewall over Laver, we can't really see what they saw, and we've had to hash it out retroactively. 2017 is still fairly fresh, and I think the consensus (absent ATP and ITF) that Federer had the better year is pretty pervasive. I understand that "World No. 1" can mean, literally, the ATP's or ITF's chosen, but not only have they been at odds with each other, their choices have not been unbiased (see 1990). At this point I believe it's a numbers game with them (points accrued at ATP and ITF events), which is fine, but numbers don't always pass the eye test. I definitely would still like to see Federer being given the Laureus award added to the 2017 entry. It's an important distinction.

EDIT: Haha, I'm just reading the 1990 entry now. It says the ITF "wrongly" gave Lendl its player of the year award. Wrong by what criteria, exactly? 50.80.133.218 (talk) 17:27, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

Nowhere I look does it say the the Laureus sportsman award goes to the best athlete overall. There are a variety of factors that go into winning that award. Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:42, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

If you go here (https://www.laureus.com/world-sports-awards/2019) to the official website and hover over the additional information icon, it says it's "Awarded to the sportsman who best demonstrates supreme athletic performance and achievement – such as consecutive or multiple world, continental, international or national and major championship titles or the establishment of world records or best performances." That's pretty cut and dry. 50.80.133.218 (talk) 17:05, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

No it's not. A player could set a record such as most major titles in a career and win the award. A boxer could fight the greatest fight ever seen and lose in his next bout and win the award. Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:48, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

Uh, no. Those scenarios describe other distinctions the body awards, such as its discretionary lifetime achievement award and its "best sporting moment of the year," as voted by the public. It's a pretty simple matter of reviewing the Sportsman of the Year list and seeing that each was chosen based on the accomplishments of the prior year. 50.80.133.218 (talk) 20:05, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

I just went by the definition you provided. Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:21, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

Since they award this each year, interpreting "supreme athletic performance and achievement" (emphasis mine) as including anything other than what was achieved within the previous calendar year, or as being a one-off great performance, is an extremely broad reading of what the award intends. 50.80.133.218 (talk) 21:56, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

Just going by what you posted. The ITF and ATP seem to have final say these days as opposed to years past. Are there secondary sources that use L'Equipe and Laureus as a year-end ranking? I'm not sure we'll see eye-to-eye on what constitutes year end #1 in tennis press so I'll leave this conversation for others to enjoy and comment on. Fyunck(click) (talk) 22:10, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

Fair enough. Unsure what you mean by secondary sources, though. The ITF and ATP are objective sources in the sense that they rely on examination of point accrual (and, as I pointed out as recently as 1990, internal biases), while L'Equipe, ESPY, SI, the International Sports Press Association, Laureus and whoever else are, I assume, making subjective determinations. Does anyone else frequent this often enough for further insight on, at the very least, inclusion of the Laureus Award to the 2017 entry? 50.80.133.218 (talk) 22:25, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

Also for what it's worth, for the 2017 season Federer was co No. 1 with Nadal by L'Equipe, No. 1 by Laureus, and also No. 1 by Gazette dello Sport. See right here. The ATP, when it developed it point system in the 70s, never intended it to be used for year-end No. 1... it was simply for ranking for tournament entry. It's why for years they also had the ATP award for player of the year which sometimes contradicted the ATP points. People could see better with their eyes on who should be No. 1 rather then simply points based. But these days the points morphed into numero uno for the ATP, and the ITF uses whatever it is they use but mostly based on the 4 majors, Davis Cup and year-end championships. Every one of those you skip you get punished for in their eyes. One thing that really drops Laureus into the toilet of rankings is that they award it to a male and female every year. While Federer won for the guys, Serena won for the gals... and she played two frigging events in 2017. Just TWO!!!! And she lost in the second round in one of them. That makes Laureus nothing more than a popularity contest or one-off award. Fyunck(click) (talk) 22:48, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

Well, the women's edition cites a different criteria than the men's, i.e., "the most remarkable women from the world of sport along with the greatest achievements fans have admired throughout the year." I don't know how that is qualitatively measured, but it's hard to argue that Serena Williams winning the Australian Open while pregnant is anything less than remarkable. 50.80.133.218 (talk) 22:56, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

Gone through the answers. Federer has definitely better performance over Nadal. Sports Illustrated Tennis MVP was a tie between Federer and Nadal. It means Federer Co No.1. But the question is whether opinions other than ATP, ITF relevant. In my opinion, it is very relevant if both sources are contradicting each other (or) if one of the sources is silent (or) if one of the sources information is skewed. In 2017, both ATP and ITF sources declared Nadal as No.1. So the decision of Nadal No.1 is not Disputed. In fact, it was echoed by Federer. In 2017, ATP ranking system is normal and for ITF, Nadal played all Grandslams. Krmohan (talk) 17:12, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

Certainly getting old with all the back and forth edits

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

So I would definitely have Connors as 2+4.

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

Rosewall Vs Connors best example.

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

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

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

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

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

Television Coverage of Forest Hills TOC

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Why is Djokovic undisputed #1 for 2020?

He got ATP Computer Ranking #1 ie more importantly ATP Player of the Year. Fine. But ITF World Champion award wasn't given to anyone?

ITF might have decieded to skip it either because 2020 was interrupted with pandemic, or because they didn't want to give it to Djokovic after he got disqualified at USO.

Whatever the reason, we know that Djokovic mereley has "ATP Player of the Year" in 2020. Rafa had only that in 2013 and his year is not in bold, it means he isn't undisuputed #1. Guys from 1940s, are also not in bold.

Djokovic is #1 for 2020, but without both ATP and ITF awards, I say he's not undisputed, thus his 2020 shouldn't be in bold.93.137.4.196 (talk) 13:28, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

If only one award is given, then it's pretty undisputed. I didn't look to see what Tennis Magazine of France picked so if you can show that many important sources claimed Nadal we can examine your sources. Also, unlike through the 1990s, the ATP Player of the Year Award is required to go to the highest computer ranking. It can't be different. Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:26, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

I'm not an expert on this, I didn't follow what Tennis Magazine of France said. I'm simply following what I feel is logical. If ATP player of the year and ITF world champion are two official awards (ITF and ATP being organisations that run world's tennis) then you're undisputed only if you have both awards.

2020 Djokovic has only one award. Nadal has none. It means 2020 isn't "split between Djokovic and Nadal" as you thought I'm implying, 2020 is split between Djokovic and "we didn't have a true season".

In that sense, 2020 is most similar to disrupted seasons of the 1940s. You had #1 in those years, but it's not shown in bold as everyone knows it wasn't a proper season.

Djokovic is #1 for 2020, just not undisputed. Dispute is whether we had a proper season. So he shouldn't be in bold.

It doesn't take away of his totals. He still gets recognized for his 7 years, I just feel 5+2 is more accurate than 6+1.

93.137.6.53 (talk) 00:07, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

That would be a false premise. Your statement "ATP player of the year and ITF world champion are two official awards then you're undisputed only if you have both awards" is 100% incorrect. You are undisputed champion if no official organization disputes it. The ITF did not dispute it... the ITF award doesn't exist for 2020. In most of the history of tennis there were several sources that were used to determine world No. 1. Even today if every magazine were to disagree with the ATP and ITF there might be some wiggle room. You need to show sources in disagreement with the ATP's choice. "Dispute" is whether there is a dispute with who is number one. You need to show major sources that actually dispute Djokovic's ranking. Without those sources it's not in dispute. Fyunck(click) (talk) 03:53, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

2020 (though shortened by the pandemic) was nowhere near as short a season as 1945. The top pros only returned from World War 2 to play in events right at the end of the year. The rankings listed (which are themselves absurd) dont list Riggs number one, yet he is the consensus pick! My vote is to get rid of 1945 entirely. Tennishistory1877 (talk) 21:29, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

The answers for undisputed Djokovic are still not convincing. The revised ATP ranking system itself is not agreed by few top players. But this is how it is if there is no choice. We are not talking about all the magazines. SI Tennis is referred in the previous years as well. One can not neglect the performance of Dominic Thiem and may deserve mention along side Djokovic. We do not have to show if there is a dispute about no.1 ranking here. It is revised and already everybody knows that taking care of 2019 performance. Not 2020 alone. Let it be if not disputed. But there is no consensus for discrediting the performance of Dominic Thiem. He is better than Nadal and at par with Djokovic as one of the prominent sources declared. If both ATP and ITF contradicting each other or if one of the sources is silent (ITF chose not to give award) or if one of the sources base is not for the year 2020 alone (ATP revised ranking system), need to give weightage other prominent sources like SI Tennis (specific to TENNIS but also every year declaring). Here in 2017, they mentioned a tie between Nadal and Federer. But 2020, it declared WINNER THIEM and RUNNERUP DJOKOVIC. So it is clearly disputing ATP Year end award. So, We do not think Djokovic's year 2020 is undisputed. Even one considers that it is undisputed, 2020 year doesn't deserve to be BOLD for any player including Djokovic. Thanks for the understanding and considerations.

I have argued that the choices of world number one on this page should be source led as much as possible. I believe 1960 and 1961 should be altered to reflect the sources listed and as for 1945, this seems to be a work of fiction. One could argue for 2020 that ATP rankings should be given more weight than a magazine, though I do take your point. The more systemised the choice of consensus pick is, the more legitimacy this page has. An editor choosing a number one based on their opinion (or if there are a small group of editors choosing the number one) has the stench of original research and I dislike this. If editors feel a change to the consensus pick is warranted, they should find sources to back up their argument. The argument you have highlighted has come about because there is no system. I would rather editors agree on a system, rather than choosing who they think is number one. Tennishistory1877 (talk) 09:18, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

(ATP) year-end rankings; Tennis MVP (Sports Illustrated). Year disrupted by COVID-19 pandemic, so there was revision of ATP year-end ranking to ATP’s Best of 24-month ranking (Rankings frozen from 16 March 2020 to 24 August 2020). ITF did not announce its World Champion. Similar to previous years, Sports Illustrated (SI) declared Winner of “Tennis MVP” award for the year 2020. Novak Djokovic defeated Dominic Thiem in the final of the Australian Open (Nadal was defeated by Thiem in the Quarter Finals). Wimbledon was cancelled because of the pandemic. In the US Open, Thiem defeated Alexander Zverev in the final, while Djokovic was disqualified from the tournament in 4th round (Nadal did not participate in the US Open). Rafael Nadal won the French Open (shifted from May to September) for the record 13th time defeating Novak Djokovic in the final (Thiem reached Quarter Finals of the French Open). Thiem also made to the Finals of ATP Finals (losing to Daniel Medvedev), while Djokovic and Nadal to the Semifinals (losing to Thiem and Medvedev respectively). In the year 2020, Djokovic was 1-1 vs. both Thiem and Nadal, while Thiem was 2-0 vs. Nadal. Djokovic won 2 Masters 1000 titles, while Nadal and Thiem none. No tournaments were made mandatory by ATP for players’ participation due to pandemic. Rankings: In the revised ATP's year-ending rankings, Djokovic was No.1, Nadal No.2 and Thiem No.3. Tennis magazine (SI) declared Dominic Thiem as Winner and Novak Djokovic as Runner-up for the Tennis MVP award.

It is not based on the individual opinion / group opinion but based on the facts and authentic sources of information. Thiem may deserve mention alongside Djokovic. However, in the No.1 column, whoever name is written, his/their name and year need not be in “BOLD” in my opinion (only due to pandemic, there is no definite system for consensus). Thank you for the understanding.

Please note that here No.1 ranking system is skewed for the year 2020; not the player(s). By the virtue of Ranking and sources of information, performance of both the players for the year 2020 alone is undisputed. Therefore, the year 2020 can not be made BOLD for both the players. Krmohan (talk) 03:35, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

My main issues with this page are to do with the pre-open era. There were no official ATP rankings then (and point systems in only a few years). All the main sources should be listed on the page (ie your point about SI), but at the moment it is down to editors to agree a consensus number one. This is problematic and opens the page up to criticism. I would propose a change to a systematic approach to determine consensus no. 1 and the system used explained on the page. Under an agreed system Djokovic may or may not be listed in bold as no. 1 in 2020, it would depend on what system is agreed. But at the moment it seems to be down to one or two editors to decide the consensus ranking order and I dont think that is the best way to do things. Under a system there wouldnt be lots of pointless arguments, the system would decide things. To me, this page is all about the sources. Tennishistory1877 (talk) 09:10, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

This is fully agreed that system would decide the things. This is what proposed in relation to the sources. For the current system, ATP Player of the year based on year-end rankings and ITF World champion based on average performance in Grandslams / ITF designated events (Olympics, Davis Cup Singles) are the two main sources. If both are directed towards one player for No.1, there is no issue. However, in case of the following, No.1 can be attributed like this. 1) In case of both ATP and ITF contradicting each other, both players can be designated as No.1 (not bold) 2. If one of the sources is silent and then other prominent source in the Tennis (e.g. Tennis MVP by SI) to be considered. 3. If the single source of information is not truly authenticating the year performance (e.g. ATP year-end ranking based on Best of 24 month ranking), third source of information (e.g. Tennis MVP, which is consistently awarded for every year performance in Tennis) to be taken into account.

In the above points, if they are leading to only one player, then his year is undisputed. If these sources are leading to more than one player, then the year can not be bold. For a year like 2020, which is disrupted by pandemic, this system need to be applied. The key sources for No.1 ranking are 1)ATP Player of the year 2)ITF World Champion 3)Tennis MVP by SI Magazine

With this system and key sources, The year 2020 definitely needs rewriting (editing with some more facts). Thank you all for understanding and looking forward for inputs, if any. Krmohan (talk) 12:06, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

Your proposal has some merit. I will look into a system that could be used on pre-1973 sources (there were different types of sources ie full ranking lists or passing references which should be given due weight). When I have time, I will put an RfC together (this is a new thread) and include some of what you have written in the proposal. If other editors wish to alter the proposed system, they can state how the system should be before it is implemented (if it is agreed to adopt a systematic approach). Just one thing though, it is one person one vote on wikipedia. Fyunck was absolutely right to remove your posts from other ids. If you attempt to use more than one id on the RfC, I will close the thread down and say no more on the subject. Tennishistory1877 (talk) 21:06, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

Fully agreed that there would be RfC for deciding the system. I definitely contribute from this id. I still have doubts that any system for pre-73 history would fit with so many sources. For the current era, it is all about authentic sources representing performance in the entire year and definitely be source based irrespective of one or many or group opinions. Whether the year 2020 is bold or not, the history text needs rewriting like for the previous years 2017-19. I propose edit the text column (history) with the facts. The proposed text to be as follows.

'(ATP) year-end rankings; Tennis MVP (Sports Illustrated). Year disrupted by COVID-19 pandemic, so there was revision of ATP rankings to ATP’s Best of 24-month rankings (Rankings frozen from 16 March 2020 to 24 August 2020). ITF did not announce its World Champion. Similar to previous years, Sports Illustrated (SI) declared Winner of “Tennis MVP” award for the year 2020 performance.

Novak Djokovic defeated Dominic Thiem in the final of the Australian Open (Nadal was defeated by Thiem in the QFs). Wimbledon was cancelled because of the pandemic. In the US Open, Thiem defeated Alexander Zverev in the final, while Djokovic was disqualified from the tournament in 4th round (Nadal did not participate in the US Open). Rafael Nadal won the French Open for the record 13th time defeating Novak Djokovic in the final (Thiem lost QFs of the French Open). Thiem also made to the Finals of ATP Finals, while Djokovic and Nadal to the SFs. In the year 2020, Djokovic was 1-1 vs. both Thiem and Nadal, while Thiem was 2-0 vs. Nadal. Djokovic won 2 Masters 1000 titles, while Nadal and Thiem none. No tournaments were made mandatory by ATP for players’ participation due to pandemic. Rankings: In the revised ATP's year-ending rankings, Djokovic was No.1, Nadal No.2 and Thiem No.3. Tennis magazine (SI) declared Dominic Thiem as Winner and Novak Djokovic as Runner-up for the Tennis MVP award'.

Krmohan (talk) 16:57, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

Pre-1973 would have to be calculated differently than post 1973. Pre-1973 is much more difficult. Nothing is ever simple and straightforward when it comes to the pre-open era pro tour! Tennishistory1877 (talk) 23:08, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

Fully agreed.. Can we go ahead with the editing of history text as proposed. The sources being a) ATP Player of the year based on revised rankings b) Tennis MVP by SI Magazine https://www.si.com/tennis/2020/12/02/mailbag-atp-year-end-awards-theim-djokovic-sinner It seems like Partial season, Revised ATP ranking and Tennis MVP winner award to Thiem by SI source is making Djokovic's year 2020 disputed rather than undisputed..It seems 5+2 for Djokovic is based on facts and sources.. Krmohan (talk) 18:57, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

You could be opening a can of worms with this. In 2017 no way do most other sources have Nadal as No. 1. Take out the points race and Federer is No. 1. If it was any year prior to 1970 Federer would have been a unanimous choice based on his 4-0 record against Nadal. And that's not the only year things would change. 2020 was a strange year. Thiem beat both Nadal and Djokovic in the ATP finals. But L'equipe Magazine had Nadal as their No. 1 tennis player. But the two big elephants in the room are the ATP champion and the ITF champion. With no ITF champion that leaves one very large elephant. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:40, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

Fully agreed on what, mate? He's telling you pre-1973 is different than post 1973. Now, I'm not sure about the 70s and 80s but at least from the 90s, it's impossible to dispute ATP or ITF rankings. Even if it's possible you would need many many independent sources to be in agreement for you to have a point. Thiem was not the year-end No. 1 for 2020, he didn't win enough points in 2020 to be #1. Period. Not even Thiem himself believes that nonsense. I'm not sure what the magazine's award is about but it's clearly not about the world no. 1 which this article is about. Djokovic for them is the world No. 1 It was another typically excellent year for 'Djokovic, the world No. 1 but he can't have their "MVP" because he made so many off-court unforced errors. Good luck with that. ForzaUV (talk) 09:00, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

Without discrediting the players performance in the year 2020 affected by pandemic, let me give you the unbiased proposal / conclusion based on the facts, sources and a system by which two big elephants ATP, ITF can be considered. I am explaining only what all has been discussed and agreed previously in the "Talk" page irrespective of one or many or group opinions. Basically, this is for the reading of Historians and to clarify the queries as mentioned above. a) Year "2017" : First of all for 2017, it is already answered in other threads. Nadal is undisputed no.1 by ATP and ITF. Sports Illustrated (Tennis MVP) and L'equipe Magazine (Champion of champions) both magazines considered a tie between Nadal and Federer for the year 2017. Federer has definitely better performance over Nadal. It may indicate that Federer as Co No.1. But the question is whether opinions other than ATP, ITF are relevant. In this scenario, it is very relevant if both sources (The Big elephants ITF, ATP) are contradicting each other (or) if one of the sources is silent (or) if one of the sources information base is skewed. In 2017, ATP ranking system is normal and for ITF, Nadal played out all four Grand-slams and the year end championships. Both ATP and ITF have declared him "ATP Player of year" and "ITF World champion" even though other sources declared a tie between them. Hence, Nadal's No.1 is undisputed. Hope this clarifies the 2017 issue. b) Year "2019": You have mentioned as Nadal No.1 for 2020 by L'equipe Magazine. This is not correct and they have declared Nadal as No.1 for the year 2019. Nadal is ATP and ITF champion for the year 2019, not for the year 2020. This magazine considers not only tennis-specific but all the international sports and not only tennis-specific. Tennis MVP by SI Magazine is also Nadal. This is also undisputed for the year 2019. Refer: L'Équipe Champion of Champions - Wikipedia c) Year "2020": Look at the performance of players as per the facts of History and consistent sources. In the ATP's revised ranking, it is counting the performance of 2019 also in ATP's best of 24 month rankings by which Djokovic No.1, Nadal No.2 and Thiem No.3. If you consider the performance of only 2020 alone, Djokovic No.1, Thiem No.2 and Nadal No.3 (based on actual performance in the tournaments of 2020). Hence, ATP is not only the (reliable) source for the year 2020, by which we can go by, due to the partial season and ATP declared that no tournament is mandatory for participation due to pandemic. Coming to the next big source ITF which considers Grandslams and Year-end championships (+ Olympics, Davis cup) did not announce its award (the reasons either not known or very obvious). If you go by the performance of a player as per ITF champion criteria, Dominic Thiem is clearly the World Champion [Thiem - Finals (AO), Winner (USO), QFs (FO) and Finals (ATP Finals)] whereas Djokovic is the Winner of 'AO' and Finalist of 'FO'. He was disqualified by ITF-Grandslams and points were not awarded for USO by ATP for the year 2020. He lost to Thiem in the ATP Finals. Nadal - [ QFs (AO), Winner (FO) and SFs (ATP Finals)]. So, Thiem clearly edges out Djokovic and Nadal as per ITF. Due to the kind of season, ATP revised rankings and ITF being silent, if you go to the other consistent source in Tennis specifically as of now, which is Tennis MVP by SI, it did not declare a tie between Djokovic and Thiem unlike the year of 2017. It clearly declared Thiem as Winner and Djokovic as Runner-up. It clearly disputed Djokovic's No.1 and also corroborating the ITF criteria. Further, Thiem was 1-1 with Djokovic and 2-0 with Nadal whereas Djokovic is 1-1 with both the players in contention. So, with the available sources and the facts of actual performance, Dojokovic's No.1 position is disputed. Here, One may not be sure of Dominic Thiem as No.1 considering the due weightage to the big sources but Djokovic's No.1 is definitely disputed by SI Source. My submission is to rewrite the "Source of ranking and tournament results summary" with the above facts (already proposed text in the above) and edit the year "2020" for Djokovic as UN-BOLD, since the year 2020 is disputed as per the performance of the players and sources. If one goes by the proposed system like for the year 2017, then also year 2020 can not be BOLD for this player. Hope this is in order to settle the issue and clarifies the queries without any bias and irrespective of any one or many or group opinions. Thanks for your understanding. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Krmohan (talk • contribs) 11:27, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

Thanks. ATP is a big source and it is impossible to dispute ATP, ITF rankings, this is all well said and done for a normal season. Here 2020 is a partial season affected by pandemic. ATP has opted for revised ranking system based on 2019 and 2020 performance. If ATP has declared based on year-end performance for 2020 alone and Tennis MVP was a tie between Djokovic and Thiem, then Djokovic's No.1 could have been undisputed. But for the year 2020, his no.1 is disputed irrespective of Thiem declared as Co No.1 or not in the history based on the facts and sources. I think it further strengthens our discussions on making the year UNBOLD. Krmohan (talk) 12:59, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

I have just been looking at the years and have a system in mind. Whilst I agree with your comments about the 2 year ranking system and lack of ITF number one in 2020, Krmohan, you are leaving one crucial fact out. The ATP did award player of the year in 2020 and it was Djokovic. They chose not to go against their ranking list. Because my qualification system goes something like this: pre-open era every world series winner (these were the world champion for the year) automatically number one. All winners of a substantial point system automatically number one. All those with five separate citations in a year automatically number one. In years with no world series or points system, most citations listed as no. 1 (this applies to 1968-72 also). For post-1973 all those who were ATP number one (on a 12-month ranking system), ATP player of the year and ITF world champion automatically number one. Five separate citations in a year number one (Vilas qualifies in 1977 for example). It shouldn't be down to editors to rule out the decisions of official bodies based on an entire seasons results. If there are more ties for no. 1 so be it. The can of worms has long been open because editors choose no. 1 based on their opinion. From 1973 onwards, it should never be down to editors to decide between ITF, ATP no. 1 or player of the year. They should all be listed. Tennishistory1877 (talk) 18:40, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

The ATP is not allowed to go against their ranking list with ATP player of the year. They used to be able to, but not anymore per their own rules. And before 1990 the ATP ranking list was never meant to be used as who was the best player that year. The press did that. It was invented for proper seeding. That's why they had ATP player of the year because they knew the ranking point system didn't really work. Right now we simply go by plethora of sources. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:27, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

These are not normal times we live in at the moment. Under normal circumstances, the ATP no longer go against their no. 1 in choosing player of the year. But imagine a hypothetical scenario. Federer wins Wimbledon in 2019, he ends the year as no. 1 and Djokovic has a bad year. Then 2020 proceeds as it did. Federer is ranked no. 1 on the 2 year system but hardly played in 2020 (other than at the start of the year). On the 2 year ranking Federer is no. 1 at the end of 2020. Does the ATP present him with player of the year? This isnt credible. Maybe they change their rules and then change them back again. "Right now we simply go by plethora of sources" simply is not true. Arbitrary judgements are made many times. This demeans the page. This page should be about sources, not editor's personal picks or consensus picks. It shouldnt be down to editors to pick between ITF and ATP no. 1s. Lets try and keep the original research to an absolute minimum. Because at the moment I see anyone who happens to come across this page with knowledge of the subject finding the number 1 and 2 columns a laughing stock. Its as if wikipedia itself thinks it is the expert. That isnt what Wikipedia should be about. Tennishistory1877 (talk) 19:55, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

It's not a question of normal or not. It is written into their rules for number one. Can they re-write them? Sure. But until they re-write them they are rock solid that the two item must be the same. And we see thing totally different with this article. I don't see it as arbitrary at all and it is not a laughing stock with the tennis editors of ESPN or Sports Illustrated. I've submitted enough stuff to know. There are always some iffy years, but that's the nature of the iffiness of the sport. We don't have a single World Series or Superbowl. Could we do better... of course. It might be good to list the No. 1 amateur along with the No. 1 pro in the Amateur Era. Fyunck(click) (talk) 21:18, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

It is a laughing stock for an editor or editors to assume the role of expert or experts on wikipedia. You say arbitrary judgements are not made on this page, but that is absolutely not true (I have even witness you make them yourself, being in a majority of zero and being the first to make the decision giving you the casting vote). And that is not what wikipedia is there for. I may personally agree with some of the choices made by editors and write some of the same names if I were writing a personal list, but that is not the point at all. I would even be in favour of removing number 1 and 2 columns entirely rather than keep the status quo. There are iffy years you say. There were years without any citations at all, yet a number one listed, how absurd is that?! I found citations to at least give some legitimacy to these years. Adding citations gives more legitimacy to this page, making personal judgements less legitimacy. If you dont agree with my system outlined above, then please make suggestions yourself. But this no system opinions based no. 1 and 2 has to go. Tennishistory1877 (talk) 22:43, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

As I said, we totally disagree on your first point and I guess we always will. There are years without proper citations, but pretty much some press reports exist. And no, I do not agree with your system which is worse than what we have. Ranking them based on your set of rules of numbers of citations is the wrong way to do it. Basing the 1970s the same as the 2000s is 100% wrong also. Rules were different in tennis. Sure, today it's easy with the ATp and ITF. We can certainly expand the list of No. 1s to include all players who were called No. 1 by a source but that isn't realistic. We have articles on the Greatest Football games or greatest tennis matches. There are experts who don't agree on those matches but the articles are created anyways. That's because a majority of sources agree, but not all of them. Tennis before 1968 was a very strange beast. Money trading hands under tables, pro events with big turnouts, pro events that sucked, labeled champions who never played the best players, players that skipped tournaments because Davis Cup was more important, and like college football it had mythical champions. Subjective views of sports writers looking at objective results. And readers eat that stuff up and bring in advertising dollars while they read it.

We see all those viewpoints in papers, supposedly source them, the big pile of No. 1s goes into the No. 1 slot. Perhaps the slot should be renamed to make sure readers realize that? But it will always be subjective. The yearly college football champions sometimes became champions by 1 vote out of 60. Because it was close they didn't make two teams co-champions. Now there's a playoff to make things easier. Tennis doesn't have that. Fyunck(click) (talk) 23:40, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

"There are years without proper citations, but pretty much some press reports exist." Lets take 1947 as an example. Before I found a citation, none were listed and there was no world series that year. Whether some reports existed is irrelevant if they aren't listed. A number 1 and 2 were still listed though. And any numbers 1 and 2 based on no citation are 100% opinion based judgements. "We have articles on the Greatest Football games or greatest tennis matches. There are experts who don't agree on those matches but the articles are created anyways." This statement goes to the very heart of how you and I disagree. You seem to think this page should be some list that has been concocted by self-appointed experts at wikipedia and broadcast. As if wikipedia is a broadcast platform, like The Tennis Channel or Sports Illustrated. And yet the ironic thing is, I have seen you remove other people's work when they have attempted to do the same thing. I witnessed you remove an editor's list of "Greatest matches of all time" because it was an opinion based list concocted by the editor. Perhaps you think this page is different because there are citations listed on it, but that doesnt really stack up if you sometimes ignore the citations in forming the judgements. No system is fool-proof, but my system is a lot more reliable than yours, which is no system at all. It is about time we heard some other opinions on this page other than yours, fyunck. Tennishistory1877 (talk) 00:15, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

I don't know where you get that, but that is not what I think... but go ahead and keep saying it if you like. You always seem to get personal in your conversations and that's not a good thing at Wikipedia. I won't be party to another one of your pissing contests... there have been too many. You have been warned multiple times by others about making things personal here. Please stop. And I actually don't have the power to "remove" a published article here at wikipedia. No one person does. I can recommend it be put up for deletion, but then it's up to others to help decide. But I don't recall the article so you'd have to post the link. Fyunck(click) (talk) 04:10, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

Fully agreed with the system and views of @ Tennishistory1877. Your inputs and comments are very well taken. In fact, this is the objective of Wikipedia as you mentioned. 'Source of ranking and tournaments results summary' should be with all facts and sources with citations. After that, your statement of " I would even be in favour of removing number 1 and 2 columns entirely rather than keep the status quo" for the year 2020 may be correct. Thx for your inputs and comments.. Krmohan (talk) 02:11, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

@ForzaUV....For the last three decades, in spite of ATP and ITF being main soures, there have been several disputes even between those two. What has been agreed is put the facts (results) and sources with citations. There would be a better system rather than opinions like yours, mine and Fyunck. Fail to understand why you undid the sources of ranking and results summary. Kindly go through the history, sources and facts mentioned in this talk page. How one can claim that Djokovic has fantastic year when the entire season of 2020 is not played out and option of participation is left out to players due to pandemic. Tennis MVP award is a source mentioned in the years 2017, 2018 and 2019 if you see the article. You have also not mentioned on court errors of Djokovic in the US Open. Nadal did not participate in the USO series. I am just answering to yr comments. Nothing personal. But let us not distort the facts and sources as mentioned in the tables. Still I have kept Djokovic as No.1 in the no.1 table. My only submission is year disrupted and there are sources available that this player's no.1 position is not consensus, thus disputed. Please undo the version of complete history with facts for the year 2020, without any bias. Please keep the true version for a period of time to get the others opinion in talk page. Hope you all understand the situation. Kindly go through the entire summary before undid. Looking forward to..... Krmohan (talk) 06:52, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

The only opinion I have on 2020 is there is only one major source for the ranking.... the ATP. The ATP and the ITF are pretty much the only sources everyone uses for tennis over the last 30 years. If one of them bows out we use the other. We have an ATP ranking and it's the one 99.99% of sources would use. It was a weird year to be sure. A quick mention of the Thiem rating by SI could certainly be done. Mentioning the Nadal rating by L'Equipe could also be done. But really that's about it. And there are sources available for many years the ATP and ITF agree. Again 2017 comes to mind. Should that be undarkened by your logic? Should every year be changed that we find two sources that disagree with the ATP/ITF? Fyunck(click) (talk) 07:16, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for your understanding. Yes, agreed that ATP and ITF are pretty much the only sources. If there is a normal season, we definitely agreed that ITF and ATP are directing to only player, we are declaring him as No.1 leaving all other key sources. If they are contradicting each other, we have No.1 and Co No.1, again leaving all other sources. It is fine. In a year like 2020, the season is partially played. We do not know why ATP has chosen 24-month ranking, they could have given ATP player of the year by 2020 year alone. In that case also, Djokovic is No.1. They have given the option for players participation. Players should not be punished for their non-participation. In that way, season is partial and it is played out by only few players. In a normal case, players opt to sit out on their own (like Federer skipping French Open in 2017, the big sources like ATP/ITF can take their decision), it will be binding. Here in 2020, players not participated due to pandemic. Whether the benefit of non-participation can be taken by other players ??. So, we are not sure about ATP Source of rankings, even though tour has to be played by certain rule book. Let us take ITF, which takes into account GS+YE championships. Here, we are not sure why it was silent although three Grandslams and YE championships are played. We are not sure whether it is Wimbeldone cancellation, Players are not required for mandatory participation (Nadal skipped USO series) or they have disqualified the top player in one of the grandslams, eventhough there is stand-out player Dominic Thiem as per their criteria. For ITF also, we are not sure why it is silent. When ATP ranking system failed to reflect the performance of year 2020 alone (note this is not a failure by ATP or Player(s) but due to the weird year) and other big source ITF is silent, somebody in the talk page mentioned about a system by which whether the player is undisputed or not with the other available sources and based on the performance. The proposed system for the current era (i.e. when ATP and ITF Big sources failed to represent the performance of particular year) is already recommended. This is what proposed in relation to the sources. If both are directed towards one player for No.1, there is no issue. However, in case of the following, No.1 can be attributed like this. 1) In case of both ATP and ITF contradicting each other, both players can be designated as No.1 and Co No.1 (both players not bold) 2. If one of the sources is silent and then other prominent source in the Tennis (e.g. Tennis MVP by SI) to be considered. If both are indicating the same player, he is undisputed. 3). If the single source of information is not truly authenticating the year performance (e.g. ATP year-end ranking based on Best of 24 month ranking), third source of information (e.g. Tennis MVP, which is consistently awarded for every year performance in Tennis) to be taken into account. If both are indicating the same player, the player is undisputed. In the above points, if they are leading to only one player, then his year is undisputed. If these sources are leading to more than one player, then the year of those player(s) can not be bold. For a year like 2020, which is disrupted by pandemic, this system need to be applied. The proposed key sources for No.1 ranking are 1)ATP Player of the year 2)ITF World Champion 3)Tennis MVP by SI Magazine (Tennis-specific). With this system, for 2017 Nadal is undisputed as the big sources (ATP and ITF) indicated him as the Payer of the year and World champion. Even with this system and key sources/facts available for 2020, the year 2020 definitely needs rewriting (editing with some more facts). That's why the text is re-written with the facts. I definitely agree that one can add more facts with citations, which is the objective of Wikipedia. But the actual information / facts can not be neglected/ removed in/from the history (Article page). Thank you all for understanding and looking forward for inputs, if any. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Krmohan (talk • contribs) 08:40, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

Thanks. Hope u to undo the version of mine, which is with facts. Further, u can add some more facts related to Nadal about 2020 (like he did not participate in USO series, awarded from other source L'Equipe with citations..In my view, No changes recommended for other years like 2017. For a year like 2020, we should publish correct information and definitely needs elaboration with facts about sources of ranking and tournament results summary. Looking forward to your rewriting/editing of article page...Thx.. Krmohan (talk) 09:32, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

It seems to me you use this "personal attacks" line every time I put points to you that you can not answer, fyunck. I am getting very tired of it. As you have not given any suggestions as to how the system may be altered, I will have to go with the version I have written. 2020 is a difficult year. I fully take on board krmohan's comments, even if they have been repeated a little too much. I still think ATP player of the year means just that, but there may be an argument that says ATP player of the year is automatically based on the ATP's two year system, so in 2020 is in fact player of the 2 years. How does one assess a partial season? You seem so sure on everything, fyunck, but maybe there is more reason for doubt on some issues. I can not see any justification between editors deciding between ITF and ATP choices for number one, as is the case in some years. Wikipedia is not supposed to be full of lots of opinion piece articles written by editors, its an encyclopedia. Anyway, I will leave this thread for a few days and allow editors to give their views on my system. If no more views are forthcoming, its an RfC. Tennishistory1877 (talk) 09:47, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

If you are getting tired of me pointing out you getting personal in your arguing, then that's tough, because I will keep doing it when I see it. Simply stop doing it. Other editors have also warned you. There's no need for it. Now, Of course there is some reason for doubt about 2020. The fact the ATP used a rolling 2019-2020 point system that is better for seeding than determining who the best player of the year is, makes the year unique. In fact, since we break the No. 1 into years and the ATP pretty much didn't for 2020, I'm really thinking hard how we handle this particular year. Maybe this year should include sources other than just the ATP rolling point system. If that's the case we would need to look a little harder for solid sources. We have ATP for Djokovic, SI for Thiem, and L'equipe for Nadal so it's possible we'd need all three as co-1s and listed as such with the proper sourcing. I'm interested in what @ForzaUV: thinks. Editors can certainly give weight to sources, and 2020 is a bit peculiar. But I'm on the fence about it. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:18, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

I do not wish to get involved in re-hashing past disputes on here unless they are relevant to this article, fyunck. It is enough to say others have disagreed with you in your assessment of me. So far on this particular thread, as well as arguing with me, you suggested to me a few days ago on my page not to speak to Krmohan, calling him a troll. What I find him to be is a new editor, so therefore unfamiliar with wikipedia protocol. Just a general point: long-standing editors could be more welcoming to new editors. It wasn't so very long ago I was a new editor myself. New editors do not necessarily know about sourcing, RfCs, indentation of comments, having a registered id, not using more than one id etc. Usually new editors join because of their passion for the subject. So let us concentrate on the issues in hand. And I think the most constructive thing we can do is to discuss rules for this system. We are agreed 2020 is difficult, not only because of the pandemic, but also because there was not a clear cut number one (it seemed to me Djokovic lost his way somewhat after the resumption from the pandemic, lost easily to Nadal at the French Open and was disqualified from the U. S. Open).Tennishistory1877 (talk) 19:48, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

I gave you a curtesy post about an editor who had posted the same thing over and over under multiple IP and registered accounts. I had left his original post but removed all the others. I thought you would want to know. It was a "keep your eyes open" post. And you throw that back in my face? How big a chip do you carry on your shoulders? And others may disagree with your attacks, but most do agree you have huge issues with nastiness when it comes to tennis articles here. And obviously it's continuing. Drop it please!!!!! 2020 is a bit sticky, but not the article as a whole. Most years are handled by the best sources found so that's the best "rule" to use. Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:38, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

I have dealt with very few editors in my time on wikipedia (there's four including yourself I have had dealings with with any sort of regularity and I know for a fact one of those four does not think of me in the way you have portrayed me). You, on the other hand, have a long history of being involved in conflict on wikipedia going back many years. I make no comment on many of these conflicts, because I don't know enough about them, but I will say (judging from my own history of dealing with you and my observations of the way you speak to others) that I will take no lectures from you about how to behave on wikipedia. I do consider it an issue if new editors are labeled trolls, largely because they do not know about rules and protocols which you are very familiar with. As you have clearly shown with your last remarks that you do not wish to play a part in formulating a set of rules that can be put forward in an RfC, there seems no point in us continuing to converse in this thread. So I shall bid you goodbye. Tennishistory1877 (talk) 21:34, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

And I have dealt with countless editors on Wikipedia. Some have been problems like you but most have not been. You are actually ok for the most part until you go ballistic and start attacking people. My observations of you is you eventually start attacking anyone personally who disagrees with you. Quite sad really but probably because you are so close to the topic. And when I see countless spam and trolling every single day and help out with it here at Wikipedia regardless of subject, and something catches my eye, I let editors like you know about it on your talk page so you can help keep an eye out. If it's really bad I let administrators know. Do you do that... nope, nada, zippo. I'm pretty proud about how I treat fellow editors. Do I occasionally mess up... sure I do. Am I interested in following a set of your rules instead of going with the best sources we have... not really. Have a good one. I'm sure we'll be working together somewhere down the line. 23:03, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

Agreed. I have updated the 2020 content with the facts and sources with citations. One has to go through the same, verify the content and comment on RfC. Simply removing the content without verifying and adding contribution discussion in the talk page is ridiculous. Bold enough to say that this is against encyclopedia. Regarding RfC, I have few thoughts. While suggesting the sources other than ATP/ITF, we better define a minimum standard. Is the source consistent, widely recognised, internationally accredited and more so tennis specific. I feel that some sources, popular events consider all sports and it may be difficult to calibrate one sport (e.g.football) over another (e.g. with tennis). Some passing references, individual opinions may not be taken into account in the proposed system. May be a framework or minimum standard should help in defining authentic source. Whether one system can be sufficient for the history. May be for some periods (e.g. post 1973 or open era or from 1990). In that case, few periods can be separated out rather than each year. If the system is not sufficient, one should not hesitate to choose either keep no.1 and no.2 blank or defining more Co No.1s. In any case, it is better to go for a system which address these issues. Otherwise, it will be endless discussions and purpose of Wikipedia's authentic information will be defeated. These are my thoughts. Being a new user, I am not sure of where RfC is published. Could u pl share the link. Until then, I urge not to change the facts mentioned in the article for the year 2020 and keep it for a period until there is outcome of RfC from @tennishistory1877. Thanks for the reading and understanding. Krmohan (talk) 16:49, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

Yes I understand you are not familiar with wikipedia protocols, Krmohan. I will handle the RfC. This mean Referral for Comment. This is about asking editors for their views. I will post a new thread for the RfC. I will tell you when its there if you like. I would rather not further classify sources. The ITF and ATP are the two major governing bodies. If enough sources disagree from the official view, then the player is listed (ie Vilas 1977). So its not as if we disregard other sources entirely. To me 5 sources means a fair weight of evidence, a margin of doubt to list that player as co. No. 1. 2020 is difficult and may need further discussion. Tennishistory1877 (talk) 17:19, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

Yes, It is interesting and looking forward to RfC. Yes, 2020 is very difficult. I guess it may be beyond any system. In that sense, only history should reckon (that) the year 2020 can not be made bold for any player. Krmohan (talk) 18:12, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

It is actually fairly easy to do post-1973 (apart from rare occurences like 2020). Pre-open era is more difficult. 1930s may need to rely on combined pro-amateur rankings, as things were not so clear cut then). Post-war Kramer was the last rookie pro to win the world series in 1948. Tennishistory1877 (talk) 19:11, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

Post 1973 isn't always that easy. The ATP has used the ATP Player of the Year to mark the season's No. 1 player. Most years it's the same as the points ranking, but sometimes not. And the last 10 years they changed the rules to say the highest point getter must win the Player of the Year. There are plenty of oddities out there. Fyunck(click) (talk) 23:03, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

Looking down the list of ITF no. 1 from 1978, ATP year end number 1 from 1973 and ATP player of the year from 1975, the following years indicate that the sources are not unanimous (also includes Vilas multiple 1977 sources): 1975 Ashe (PoY), Connors (YEno.1) 1976 Borg (PoY), Connors (YEno.1) 1977 Borg (PoY), Connors (YEno.1), Vilas (many other sources) 1978 Borg (ITF, PoY), Connors (YEno.1) 1982 Connors (ITF, PoY), McEnroe (YEno.1) 1989 Becker (ITF, PoY), Lendl (YEno.1) 1990 Edberg (YEno.1, PoY), Lendl (ITF) 2013 Nadal (YEno.1, PoY), Djokovic (ITF) 2020 partial season due to pandemic

Changes to article 1975 Connors listed alongside Ashe 1976 Borg listed alongside Connors 1977 Connors listed alongside Borg and Vilas 1978 Connors listed alongside Borg 1982 McEnroe listed alongside Connors 1989 Lendl listed alongside Becker 1990 Lendl listed alongside Edberg 2020 undecided

Not a huge number of changes as can be seen. But a whole lot less editor involvement. Pre-1973 is much more difficult. Tennishistory1877 (talk) 22:54, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

@Fyunck....The original article on 2020 really lacks facts. It has got partial details. That's why it is updated with complete information like ATP rankings, who is silent and who participated/not participated etc. You can verify the content and add if anything is missing. If there is any thing you know, pl add. How can you write Nadal and Thiem did not win none of the masters. When in 2020, only three masters played in the partial season. They participated in only one. The original article is with partial information about 2020 and it is written as if the season is played out full. It is demeaning of players. Let us understand one fundamental thing about 2020 that season is partial, few tournaments played by few players only. The fact that one did not play the tournaments will not go to other players by the way. It is not even mentioned in the main article how rankings changed in 2020You did not even this in the artic Krmohan (talk) 00:55, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

Mention all this in the article. Let world go through the same. It is a verifiable content. You may add some more with your sources. You say that ATP and ITF are big sources and governing bodies but why they are silent and resorted this kind of rankings. As far as ATP is considered, one may be no.1 but there are other players who are better or at par with him. This is corroborated by other sources. Let us not neglect the facts per say. Hope u understand the same and the article be live for any additions for some period of time. Otherwise, the article with partial information on 2020 is biased. Hope this is in order and you may do some additions about Thiem and Nadal. Until everything is discussed, no player can be designated in BOLD...Thx.. Krmohan (talk) 01:06, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

@Krmohan: Actually that's not the way Wikipedia has ever worked. Until discussed and agreed to by consensus, if you change something and it gets reverted and you then put it back, you are being disruptive. You should revert yourself, but I'll explain more on your talkpage. Fyunck(click) (talk) 03:25, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

@Fyunck...Thx. You have asked me to convince in the Article. Let me try and explain..You agree that 2020 is partial season and weird year. Djokovic is ATP No.1 and by the virtue of other big source being silent, another sources contradicting and in fact ATP resorted to best of 2 yrs performance and not made any player participation mandatory due to pandemic, one can not designate him as World no.1. The tour played 75% Grandslams, 100% YE championships, 33% Masters and rest of the tournaments around 30% per say. In the majors and YEC, there are other player(s) better or at par with him. Here, benefit of doubt for World No.1 (not ATP No.1) can not go to one player at the cost of other players performance or partial season due to pandemic (not due to other players' own reasons). How one can be made World no.1 for one particular year 2020 considering 2 yrs performance for the partial season played out. He is ATP No.1 fine but not World no.1. Especially when there are other standout performers and declared Runner-up by another source for the year 2020. That is why @tennishistory called out for a system. If by any system, if he can be designated as World No.1, fine. Then bring it on to the table of RfC and if any system addresses not only year 2020 but other years, it is welcome. If system / RfC does not address 2020, then leave the Wikipedia stuff with facts, not with partial information. This is detrimental to Wikipedia and History. Hope this convince or answer your queries. By the way, it is other way round, you have to convince us why the article is filled with partial information and why Djokovic is World no.1 (not only ATP No.1) with a system. As of now, his world no.1 position for 2020 is disputed not only by the other players in contention, by other sources and by partial season due to pandemic. If he can be designated as BOLD, it is a by system as per RfC @tennishistory. So, leave the actual stuff as it is for the benefit of History. By the way, I have also proposed some framework in the talk page, you may build upon that in RfC. I hope this is in order to leave the article for 2020 as it is. You may add but pl do not change the history...Thanks a lot for your reading and understanding... Krmohan (talk) 04:03, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

@Krmohan: One thing you have seemingly misunderstood. You need to convince BEFORE you reverted again. Not after. Self-revert your edit and discussion can still go on. You have it backwards as I explained on your talk page. Editor @ForzaUV: and I have already reverted you once. Fyunck(click) (talk) 04:17, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

@ForzaUV @Fyunck....I hope my explanation is read and understood in true spirit of Wikipedia. The article of 2020 without complete information and facts. Request you to keep it on live for some period, until some other opinions are taken into consideration other than both of you. It is highly detrimental when 2020 is without actual history and facts and when there is RfC upcoming... Krmohan (talk) 04:28, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

ITF didn’t dispute ATP regarding the year-end #1 thus your claim that #1 is disputed is FALSE. 2020 was a disrupted season but that’s mentioned in the summary and I’ll link the season schedule to make it more accessible for anyone interested. You would need to have many sources to be in agreement to disputes either the ATP or ITF and you don’t have any of that. ForzaUV (talk) 04:35, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

@ForzaUV...This is my last try to convince you as well. Pl do not assume things with your opinion. Are u sure or do you know why one big source ITF is SILENT in spite of 3GS+YEC played out. If big source does not mean that it is not disputing ATP. In our history, If ATP and ITF choose one player, he is undisputed World No.1. If both are contradicting, then there are No.1 and Co No.1. The fact that ITF is silent does not make Djokovic World No.1. He is ATP No.1. As per ITF criteria, Dominic Thiem is also Winner. But we are not designating him as Co No.1 because ITF is Silent. But Djokovic's No.1 is disputed by other source as well. Hence, leave the stuff as it is, otherwise it is distorting History. You are taking undue advantage of ITF being silent for the partial season affected by pandemic. This is aganist Wikipedia policy. Unless there is a system by which he can be designated as World No.1, the year 2020 can not be bold. Hope u understand logic, facts, sources and above all History. Just simply mentioning disrupted by pandemic does not do justice for the year 2020. You have to elaborate sources of ranking, tournament results summary and with complete verifiable content. Hope this answers your query and let us restore the stuff as it is in Wikipedia article...Expecting some kind of research from both of you....Thx for your understanding and quick response... Krmohan (talk) 05:41, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

I repeat if one big source is silent does not mean that it is disputing or not disputing ATP. Especially when ATP itself resorted to revised rankings (may be to run the ATP tour). Still Djokovic is ATP No.1 not World No.1 as ITF being Silent and/or other available sources contradicting and not supporting at the moment. You can verify that with a system or other available sources. Hope you got it and restore the article page with my version. Thx.. Krmohan (talk) 06:01, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

The ITF didn't announce its champion due to the cancellation of Wimbledon but that doesn't mean Djokovic wasn't the player of the year. Yes it wasn't a full season but the year happened, tennis was played and Djokovic had the best results among his peers, he won the most titles, the most matches and accumplated the most points so how it's possible to dispute his rankig when he was clearly the best? I would've understood your "concern" and might have sided with you if I thought there was another player who had better results but there was not. ForzaUV (talk) 06:22, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

I did add a few more lesser ranking sources to the box, including a Sports Illustrated contradiction of itself, but I think that's all that's needed here in a strange year. No major source is going to say anything other than Djokovic was world No. 1 for 2020. This isn't a player being shunned like Edberg was by the ITF in 1990. Fyunck(click) (talk) 06:42, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

Can u publish the source that ITF stated it is Silent because Wimbledon was cancelled. Attach citations in the history. It may be due to every player is not given opportunity for pandemic. Since Djokovic played the season, he is ATP NO.1 not World no.1. What about his disqualification. There are other best players in the world. Three grandslam split each with Djokovic, Nadal and Thiem. Thiem reached YEC. Djokovic played more tournaments especially only to get ATP No.1. Rest of the tournaments are very few and played by few players. It does not credit automatically Djokovic as it was due to pandemic. Get the facts and not assumptions. It is just discrediting and demeaning other players. He definitely deserves ATP No.1 not World No.1 by the way. He is player of the year by ATP but not World Champion with other sources. Dominic Thiem has 1-1 with Djokovic and with Nadal 2-0. Nadal thrashed Djokovic in FO. Djokovic is disqualified in USO. All three split GS..Djokovic is not superior to both of them by world standards only by ATP, may be due to other players non participation. Check facts and do not assume. Restore the article... Krmohan (talk) 06:38, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

These are all your opinions. Please update with all citations. This is not exactly like other years 1990, where players could not play due to their own reasons. It is due to pandemic. That's why it does not discredit others. Your opinion is also not holistic, there is a bias. Forget about other sources, the fact that ITF silent by their own standards, says it all. He is just ATP No.1 only for the year 2020. Please do not add additional title of World no.1 by taking undue advantage of the partial season, which is with few tournaments and played by few players. There is no reason and no benefit of doubt at the cost of other players and your assumptions. Can not convince one if one can not go into intricacies of the matter. He is ATP No.1 but do not add other titles without a system...I am done with the suboptimal standards and facts being maintained. Do not know who will understand the basic policy being managed just by opinions... Krmohan (talk) 07:00, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

Can you please nest your responses by adding one more colon than the paragraph you are replying to. It helps to understand who you are replying to. I added only sourced entries. Everything was sourced not opinion. I did not add anything other than a few sourced champion listings by other sports entities. One thing though. If they get removed by others you won't see me adding them back. I didn't change anything... bold or otherwise from longstanding consensus. That would require a new consensus. Fyunck(click) (talk) 07:22, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

@ Fyunck...appreciate your response. Seen the citations. Yesterday we discussed on the min standard of sources in RfC..International, tennis specific etc ....to be discussed in RfC..Some events/awards are just one sport over the other. I do not know how these add value because can not calibrate among different sports. The source has to be consistent and it is already declared by ATP ranking ....Just an addition. Appreciate you have added three sources other than TENNIS MVP. Let me give you my opinion on these.

a) SI player of the year across sports. No where in the article it mentioned Djokovic as RUNNERUP to Mookie Betts for the award. There is only one Player of year. This does not add any value.

b) Tennis connected player of year. It is taking into account ATP record for the year 2020. They have not applied any judgement. Simply endorsing ATP. It is declaring just because He is our favourite player and again most relevant and reliable player. Not adding any value.

c) I do not know how L'Equipe second finish in all sports will calibrate with second in Tennis. Not adding any additional information. In my opinion, the fact that ITF silent says it all. Djokovic ATP :::No.1 no denial and no argument on this. Whether he can be designated Bold or World No.1, this can not automatically happen. It can be made Bold after the consensus or with a system. It is not other way round as per the existing framework of ATP and ITF deciding champions. Please make it UNBOLD. Further, you have to mention "REVISED" rankings as per Best of 24 month ranking. You need to Thiem No.3. Need a mention of Year-end championships. Other sources may be kept if they really add value but they do not confuse. You should keep Tennis MVP as mentioned in 2017, 2018 and 2019. It is also corroborating ITF criteria, which is silent in this case. Comparision with other sports may be popular events without any calibration. Tennis connected is as per ATP for the year 2020. It is up to you to keep or remove. Thank you for connecting with some other resources. 2020 is very difficult and different. We can not give World No.1 title to Djokovic at the cost of other players. To make him Bold, pl wait for RfC or Consensus... Krmohan (talk) 08:34, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

break 1

And my response to you is this. a) Not every sport was represented. These were the greatest of the great in 2020. Djokovic was chosen as a finalist from all the tennis players, not Thiem. He was certainly one of the runners-up. And it contradicts their own MVP award which would also have no value per your reasoning since MVP says nothing about No. 1. I put them all there where it seems you wanted bias by picking and choosing. b) It's there award and it says nothing about giving it only because the ATP did. c) The ITF wasn't silent. No one put tape over their mouths. They said because of the pandemic no award was given. So yes it can happen and yes it did happen. Everyone pretty much accepted it. I really think if an RfC actually happens, it will fail to change things for 2020. I could be wrong of course but I think the change you are proposing will be a giant snowball in favor of the ATP listed champion being the only No. 1 in 2020. And of course if you don't like what I just added you can remove the items, just as others can and did remove what you added. That's how it works here. But I'm getting weary of adding to the colossal wall of text on this subject. You aren't convincing me at this point, and obviously I'm not convincing you. Fyunck(click) (talk) 09:01, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

My listing system for 1973 onwards would state (very much like in 2013) ITF no. 1, ATP year end number 1, ATP player of the year and any player with 5 or more sources. No listing from the editors of wikipedia. So 2020 could say: ATP end of year no. 1 (based on 24 month ranking for 2019 and 2020 season) Novak Djokovic, ATP player of the year Novak Djokovic, ITF award not given. This makes the situation clear. And with citations for years before 1973, it should be possible to reduce editorial involvement before 1973 to a minimum too. Tennishistory1877 (talk) 09:10, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

There's a huge problem with a part of that. The ATP itself said the year end points getter was not intended to be the year end number 1 player. That was what their ATP Player of the Year award was for. It was the real deal for the best player of the year. Somewhere along the line the press morphed it into something else. I forget what year the ATP changed it so that the points leader had to also be Player of the Year. It wasn't that long ago. But in the 70s and 80s the ATP looked at it very differently than today. And since today, the ATP must award the Player of the Year trophy to the points winner, listing them both is kind of pointless. Fyunck(click) (talk) 09:18, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

Well if that is what concerns you, from the point where ATP end of year rankings and player of the year automatically became the same, then have one listing, but not before that date. The ATP ranking is based on a points system. A points system takes into account every result, which any opinion based judgment does not. A points system takes into account a player reaching the quarter finals of a tournament rather than the last 16, whether the event is a Grand slam or an event of the lowest tier etc. In the early 1990s, when I was in my teens, one year I devised my own ranking system based on how I felt each tournament should be graded. Results of every ATP event that year were included (not so easy to find then, these were pre-internet times, but I found them). At the end of the year I compared my top 100 to the ATP's. It differed very little. From 1973 onwards is relatively straightforward because we have such systems of measurement as the ATP's (even if pre-1990 the system of calculation may not have been as good). Let us list the ATP year end no. 1s, player of the year and ITF champions and let the reader's decide. Just as the ATP year end number 1 is listed elsewhere on wikipedia, let it be listed here. This page is not a magazine article "World number one male tennis players by the editors of wikipedia". And pre-1973 citations have now been found for years such as 1947 which should mean editorial involvement is minimal. Let us acknowledge that the world series winner was world champion. Let us acknowledge the winners of tournament series. Let us stop the futile arguments and the inconsistency with editors trying to influence the rankings in certain years. Lets be transparent about the system used.Tennishistory1877 (talk) 10:02, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

I would have to see the article with its changes in a editor's sandbox. Before WW2 I don't have as much research, but afterwards our charts are pretty much spot on with the results per sources. What I always thought would be better was to acknowledge both the pro and amateur No. 1s in out chart. That would help a lot. No player should lose their spot as No. 1 per the sources, but it's possible that a small few could get elevated to joint No. 1 because more sources have been recently found. Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:52, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

I cant agree about pro and amateur number 1. Kramer was the last rookie pro to win the world series in 1948. After that, the incoming amateur or amateurs lost every time. I regard amateur tennis post-war to be no more than a feeder system for the pros, becoming more so as time went on. Perhaps this is an unsurprising view from someone who has focussed so much on pro tennis history. I often say I have very little bias, but if I have any it is towards the pros rather than the amateurs, but only because all my research (and the results) lead me to this conclusion. Actually the system I would suggest would not change the no. 1 choices hugely. I already listed the alterations post-1973. 2013 already has ITF and ATP no. 1s listed, I see no reason not to replicate this in the 1970s and 1980s, also including the ATP points no. 1. A few more ties, but from 1991 onwards no changes other than 2020 (the 24 month ranking is an issue). I think krmohan made some very relevant points on this, even if he repeated them ad naseum. To say Djokovic was no. 1 in 2020 based on a 24 month ranking isnt right. I think it perfectly fine to have no no. 1 this year. I think 1945 is ridiculous to even list. There was no season! Just 2 weeks in December when the top pros resumed competition after world war 2. I am not someone who has to have a definitive number 1 at all costs. Some years there is sufficient margin of doubt. 1961 for example, I cant really see a justification in leaving the world champion out of the choice for co-number 1. World champion has a significant meaning. Others may also be listed too, but only if there is sufficient doubt. A few years like Sedgman in 1953 a co.no.1 is currently listed who shouldnt be (this is based on 1 citation). Despite my criticisms of this article, I think the choices for no. 1 are mainly good, but its the method of calculation I most take issue with. Under my system, not only no. 1 but how they were no. 1 would be listed. Similiar to 2013, players name followed by: "ATP no. 1", "ITF no. 1", or "5 citations", "world champion", "Points system winner". Then the readers would see why the choices were made. Tennishistory1877 (talk) 22:27, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

You guys wrote a book here on something which was supposed to be fairly simple and logical. I will add few things. I see you talked about magazines for 2020 which is absurd. 2020 isn't 1960s or 1890s. In previous eras, before ATP, magazines should matter, but magazines opinion nowadays can't decide #1. You can list France tennis magazine, SI or L'equipe or Laureas award, and imo you should list all of those, but all of that is just a trivia in present age. Whatever those magazines or awards say, they can never dispute official organisations (ITF and ATP). This site should follow basic logic. Tennis is globally run by ITF and ATP and it's them who proclaim #1 player. The undisputed (bold) season needs to be certified by both organisations. If both those organisations don't pick the same player as #1, the player is not undisputed. It doesn't matter if ITF and ATP openly contradict each other or one of them is silent, what matters is whether they're in agreement or not. 2020 is effectively shared between Djokovic (ATP) and nobody (ITF) and thus his season is not bold and it's 5+2 for him. And please, stop talking nonsense about Thiem being in contention. Djokovic is undisputed ATP #1 for 2020, he got computer #1 (24-month so kinda questionable) but he also got ATP Player of the Year and he won ATP race for 2020, 6455 pts to 3815 pts for Thiem, so it's ridiculous to talk about Thiem. 2020 is simply non bold Djokovic season, but only Djokovic. It's an incomplete season and that's all.

93.140.186.82 (talk) 19:50, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

I never thought one magazine article should be enough weight for a number one ranking in 2020. I would prefer just to say 2020 was a partial season. Is it right to judge a season in the modern age missing a slam and many other big events? This list suffers from a desire to have a number 1 at all costs, the best example being the year 1945, when the top pros played the circuit for 2 weeks in December! However, a large weight of evidence from non-ATP sources is used to support the Vilas nomination in 1977 (no ITF award until the next year). Whether this is correct could be debated. It seems to me 1973 onwards should be fairly straightforward (apart from 2020), with official full-season sources. I am used to dealing with rankings in the pre-open era which are much more difficult. Tennishistory1877 (talk) 20:31, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

@Tennishistory1877 @Fyunck @ForzaUV I endorse and fully support views of https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/93.140.186.82. The year 2020 is very difficult. What is ridiculous is one editor has to convince the other editors. There few guys sitting on the engine just simply making the player and season bold without any logic, system and basics. Let me start with 2020. You do not have any system for World No 1 but you consider only two big sources (ATP player of the year and ITF World champion). If ATP and ITF directs to one player he is World no.1. If both are contradicting, then u have ATP Champion (ATP No.1) and ITF Champion (Co No.1). How you editors have designated Djokovic as World No.1 when ITF Silent. Djokovic is just ATP No.1. You started Djokovic as Bold in the Wikipedia and asking everybody in the world to convince why he is not World No.1 / Bold / Undisputed. In fact, you guys have started with BOLD and asking everybody to convince why he is not disputed. It is absurd to work this way as per Wikipedia policy. When you have not defined any other sources in a system, Djokovic is just ATP no.1. The fact that ITF is silent, it says it all. He is not ITF World champion. Do not extra titles to one player at the cost of other players. By all means, he is disputed by partial season, other better players, other sources and by his own disqualification in one of the Grandslams. ITF states like one may consider points or computers decide, but in the end ITF chose using flexibility, experience and human judgement. The criteria may say Grandslam, YEC, Olympics and Davis Cup. If ITF chose not to anounce it's World Champion, it has reserved its verdict by being SILENT. Why you guys are taking advantage of this and right from the begining publishing Djokovic is undisputed. If one has to be blunt, he is disputed by his own standards. In order to get ATP No.1 ranking, he participated in some low grade event (Vienna I guess) and thrown the match aganist Sonego after claiming ATP No.1. So he is simply No.1. You do not have to take all above assumptions/reasons but one of the big sources is silent, it means he is not undisputed. It is very simple, logical and basics to keep him unbold. You need to restore the page for consensus...

Now, let us talk about a system for yesteryears including 2020. One can not go by no.of sources. It is very simple that even one source outside ATP/ITF, the player is disputed. Instead of putting a no. of sources, let us go to the credibility of the sources. As per the special contributions, almost all tennis specific sources go by either ATP or ITF criteria. There is no value addition unless one of the big sources ranking system is skewed or SILENT. In that case, even one source contradicts, the player is disputed for the season. Here, some of the sources declaring their awards as the player is favourite, reliable or just going by ATP/ITF. One more suggestion, the awards based on popularity or across different sports have no meaning at all. For example, Some player is player of the year in international sports. But he is no.3 or no.4 in his own sport. We are not sure what is the criteria for that award considering all the sports. Is it popularity, consistent performance over a period of time or celebrity or one exceptional performance in that particular year (Nadal winning 12th FO title thrashing No.1 player or Djokovic winning 6 ATP/ITF YE awards)...It is very difficult to calibrate the awards given in all the sports category). L'equip is giving National and International awards based on extraordinary performance in all sports. For the history when ATP and ITF did not have sophisticated system, you need to depend on other credible sources (not number of sources, but consistent, tennis specific, internationally renowned magazine etc). @Tennis History suggested ATP No.1 ranking and ATP player of the year as two separate sources listed. It is meaningless. One is sufficient. This will make sense when ATP resorted to completely change over to 24 months instead of 12 months (54 weeks). The performance for particular year may not be matching with 2 years performance. Just like partial season of 2020. Anyway, I have left all my thoughts in critic way. It is up to you. As far as logics, basics, respecting big sources decision, wisdom and judgement go, Djokovic is not undisputed, not World no.1, not to be designated in the BOLD by default. He is only ATP No.1 and do not deserve to be World No.1 by default. There is nothing personal and it is all verifiable content. There will not be any contributions from my side on the subject any more. Thx for your reading and understanding. It is a pity that one has to convince for right thing in Wikipedia.... Krmohan (talk) 08:23, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

Sorry, but I just assumed that 93.140.186.82 was a friend of yours. He's never posted a thing except here. Fyunck(click) (talk) 08:42, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

I do not know...But it is about yr thinking says it all. Trace back to the history...all the bests.. Krmohan (talk) 08:58, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

And yet on many points the unregistered id was arguing against krmohan! I also note there is a thread about Connors being number 1, which raises the exact same issues I have on this thread. I haven't actually heard from anyone other than you that endorses the removal of ATP end of year point rankings from the number 1 position, fyunck (even if krmohan is operating under several guises, that still leaves you in a minority of one). I wont endorse all of what krmohan says on this thread, but I think he and I would probably agree to no rankings in 2020 rather than the status quo, because a year does not contain 24 months. I would also agree to unbold Djokovic, but not to add Thiem.Tennishistory1877 (talk) 09:43, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

I don't remember endorsing the removal of the ATP Points ranking at all. I did say that the ATP itself said the point system was made for seeding, not to determine year-end number one. But that has changed through the years. I also said that if the ATP Points winner is used, and the points winner MUST win the Player of the Year trophy, you can't use both as a determination of No. 1. If there was free will to give one but not the other, then of course you can use it. And if Krmohan was operating under multiple guises he would have a vote of zero as he would be crossed through and blocked instantly. That's how badly it's frowned upon here. I hope that's not the case. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:38, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

On another thread (long before krmohan appeared) another user made the point about Connors being no. 1 on ATP points and not listed as no. 1 those years on this page. I agree with that person's view and believe all winners of ATP points no. 1 (providing they are based on a 12 month ranking), player of the year and ITF award should be listed (the ITF award winner isnt listed on this page in 1990 for example). The points leader and player of the year needn't be listed seperately if they are the same, but they should if different. I won't edit war you on this because I concentrate my editing largely on the pre-open era, but I will say it appears you are acting against consensus on this (or at least the consensus on the thread I saw). I have always believed 1973 onwards should be a straight listing, with the only points of contention being Vilas in 1977 and 2020. Its about removing editorial bias. I dont wish to impose my own bias on the years 1973 onwards and dont wish others to either. Before 1973 is not so easy but we should seek to be as fair as possible. I agree about your comments on multiple guises. One user one vote. Tennishistory1877 (talk) 21:06, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

Fully agreed...I would also agree to unbold Djokovic, but not to add Thiem...Thx for the conclusion and consensus at the end. Krmohan (talk) 13:03, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

It seems strange to me that someone would argue for the removal of ATP end of year rankings based on a 12 month ranking system, yet argue to keep ATP rankings based on a 24 month system. Tennishistory1877 (talk) 14:30, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

ATP is a big source. ATP Player of the year is based on automatic calculation of ranking points. As per their criteria, it can be based on 24 months, 12 months or higher/less than that. May be six month. It is to govern the tour. Since ATP tour is very hectic and many mandatory tournaments, 24 or 12 months is left to their wisdom and judgement. Krmohan (talk) 15:14, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

And it made logical sense to switch to the 24 month ranking during the pandemic for seeding purposes. But it shouldnt be used as an end of year ranking if based on 2 years results. Tennishistory1877 (talk) 15:27, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

ATP ranking system has lot of gaps as well. For example, irrespective of draw size and time of play, they award 1000 points to all masters. Can u compare and put Indian Wells, Montecarlo and Paris masters on the same page. Never... Can u compare two back to back Master series with Grandslam (Canada + Cincinnati = US Open). Previously, they used to take into account Olympics and Davis Cup Singles, not any more now. They never took into account Hopman Cup Singles even it was ITF sanctioned event. Now they take into account ATP Cup but not Laver Cup even though both are ATP sanctioned events now. It is a bit weird and not consistent over the years (they may call it improvisation). ITF seems to be relatively better as they use flexibility, experience and judgement even though they consider Grandslams + ITF sanctioned events. ATP base is questionable which is just mechanical ranking. The point system is somewhat skewed in my opinion. But this is what it is and one has to respect their decision. See Zverev questioned Federer's 24 month ranking in the pandemic. In my opinion, they may have to separate their mechanical ranking, before pandemic, during pandemic and after pandemic (when comes to normal ranking). But it is big work having benefit to nobody....Just personal thoughts... Krmohan (talk) 15:36, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

There have always been difficult areas within a calendar year to sort out, but it is a shame there have been the variations between Olympic games. Its a well accepted fact that Olympics will never compare to Grand Slams (and shouldnt try to compete), but I think the ATP should award some points for Olympics. The ITF had it right on 2020 in my view: incomplete season, players staying away from certain events, so no annual world champion award. The ATP rankings are good overall, trying to sort out rankings before the ATP introduced them in 1973 is much harder. Tennishistory1877 (talk) 16:01, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

Since Olympics is not annual event. Previously, ATP awarded Olympics 750 while Masters 1000, YEC 1500 and Grandslams 2000 points. Olympics should not compete with GS. But it was underrated over Masters and YEC also by ATP points. This may not be fair. That's why I like to keep ATP player of year judged by overall performance in tournaments, no. of titles, head to head results for relative comparision with next best player etc rather than mechanical points. But ATP has decided that their no.1 is ATP player of year. Rankings to be used as guide for Tournaments participation only. In any case, it can be subset of ATP Player of year criteria. Like for ITF, average performance in Grandslams, Olympics and Davis Cup count in overall performance but ultimately, champion has to be judged by committee. Krmohan (talk) 16:34, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

Points systems are the most accurate though (in a normal year with a 12 months point ranking). They take into account every result and the relative difference between wins depending on round reached and level of tournament. But it is a shame about the Olympics no longer receiving points, I was disappointed to hear that a few years back. The Olympics could even be included as an extra Masters event in years when it was held, with the same points as a Masters. The rules of entry are slightly different at Olympics though (encouraging lower ranked nations). Tennishistory1877 (talk) 16:52, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

And I guess that this statement "There will not be any contributions from my side on the subject any more" we can throw out the window as you continue to add things here and revert to your version on the main article? Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:38, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

The point system doesn't really take into account every result. The points fail on head to head confrontations, which is also quite important. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:38, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

We also have the ITF award, which is decided by a panel. But my own preference in normal (non-pandemic) times is for the ATP point system, which takes into account every result played in a year in every tournament and grades them proportionally. No panel ever does that. However, a 12 month award should be decided by a 12 month ranking. Tennishistory1877 (talk) 20:11, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

FYI, Krmohan, although I personally dont believe 2020 should be a bold for Djokovic (for the reasons outlined about the 24 month ranking system) 2 other members do, so that is a 2-2 tie, which means the page should stay as it originally was. However, from what I have seen discussed on another thread, fyunck does appear to be in a minority with not listing ATP points winners in the 1970s and 1980s. Of course the matter could be discussed more fully with other editors. I always welcome more editors becoming involved. Tennishistory1877 (talk) 20:26, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

Let me be clear on this. I never said to not list the ATP points winner in the 70s and 80s so stop lying about that. You seem to want to put words in my mouth. And the ATP panel certainly takes into consideration the ATP points. They just look at more. And how do you know the ITF doesn't look at that also? The ITF also gives points, but for the four majors, Davis Cup, and I think the Year End event. So points are used but not exclusively. Points are great but they also have problems with intangible things and head-to-head battles. The ATP did not invent the point system to determine the years best player. They have said so. That doesn't mean it's not an important aspect of the year. It should be mentioned. But for the later years there is a problem. In 1920 if a player won the US Championships, Wimbledon, and the World Grass Court Championship, you wouldn't say they won three majors. Why... because the World Grass Court Championship and Wimbledon are the same event. In 2019, per the ATP, the ATP Award and ATP points winner must be identical. There is no wiggle room. They are basically the same thing now, an Award for best player given to the ATP points winner. It did not used to be that way... they were independent of each other. But that changed at a certain point. It would be misleading to our readers to make them think that there are two items in a player's favor of No. 1. They could both be mentioned but there needs to be a / or something to signify they come as a package deal and cannot be separated. Fyunck(click) (talk) 21:17, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

There is no need to be so aggressive, fyunck. I read your remarks carefully. Did you read my remarks referring to that other thread? Are we talking at cross purposes here, or do you appear now to have no objection to number 1 listings for the ATP points winners from the 70s and 80s along with the ITF award winner? If so, can we alter the rankings to reflect this please? This would at least clear up the 1973 onwards section (apart from 2020, which will always be an unusual anomaly). Tennishistory1877 (talk) 21:59, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

If I am aggressive now it's because I'm growing weary of your attacks and now lies about me. I have been very clear on my stance. Of course we can use points winners to help determine No. 1. If you mean we only use ATP Points and ITF then absolutely no! That would go against sources. In the 70s and 80s the ATP Player of the Year was more in line with the ATP best player than the points winner. You know that as well as I. That doesn't mean we don't mention the points winner in the prose table-cell. And in the most recent years we only need to use ATP points/(ATP player of the year) and ITF, because those two are all that matter today. I have no issue if in disputed years, such as the mid 70s, Connors gets added as the points leader. Readers can make up their own minds, but no one with a half a brain cell thought Connors was No. 1 in those years, be it experts or the press. He was simply the points winner. Fyunck(click) (talk) 23:16, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

I can handle the fact we dont see eye to eye, but can we at least try and be civil to one another? I dont think you understand me at all. I am not out to get you, even if I sometimes disagree with your views and your behaviour. I have felt unjustly treated by you in the past, but it has actually struck me in this thread how insecure you are. Tennishistory1877 (talk) 23:50, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

You have mostly never been civil to me. I have tried and you have not. Now all of sudden it's "can we at least try"? My behavior? You have to be kidding me or you're on drugs. I have no problem being civil to you, and we can certainly try, but I have serious doubts that you will change. It's actually striking me for the first time that you may not realize how awful you have been to me and others. Even your holding out a flower has to come with thorns by your insecure statement. Incredible. Fyunck(click) (talk) 00:44, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

You are starting to worry me with this latest reply. This starts to sound seriously paranoid. It was not just me that thought you were wrong in that incident a few months ago. Krosero told you were wrong and Wolbo told you you were wrong. You did not apologise to me. You continue on this thread to make accusations against me. Can you please stop saying things like "It's actually striking me for the first time that you may not realize how awful you have been to me and others." This is an issue YOU have with me. Please try and deal with whatever it is. And this is a sincere statement, so dont try and read into it things that arent there: I dont like your behaviour sometimes but I dont hate you. In fact the more I see on this thread the more I pity you. We are different people. You dont understand me, and maybe I dont understand you either. But enough of this now! Tennishistory1877 (talk) 01:20, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

If you stop with the continual attacks and accusations I will stop defending myself from them. That's all I can do. But your giving with one hand and striking with the other with things like "pity" and "insecure" will never help a situation. Fyunck(click) (talk) 02:03, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

I do pity you because I see that insecurity is driving your behaviour. But to say to someone "You have to be kidding me or you're on drugs" is not the sort of language I expect from a wikipedia editor and I think you should seriously think about removing that statement. I am going to bed now, its very late here, I suggest you do the same. Goodnight. Tennishistory1877 (talk) 02:29, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

No chance at all of that. Zero. I had thought originally about pitying you but I can see it's more than that with you. You can't help but say mean things to me and there's not much I can do with that. It simply might be best not to directly converse or interact at all with each other. Then no one has to read this stuff anymore. Fyunck(click) (talk) 02:46, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

I did have some sleep, but I see you continued on the offensive in the mean time. I think it would be best if we dont interact at all. I dont wish to speak to editors that use the sort of language that you did outlined above. The accusations and paranoia are very tiresome also (even if they are driven by insecurity) and I have had enough of them. As for others reading this, as far as I am concerned this whole thread can be removed, as lots of it is off topic, its unconstructive, way too long and full of personal insults. Have the last word if you want, but this is mine. Tennishistory1877 (talk) 09:36, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

Hi, me again. It seems it has gotten personal for some of you and it's a shame. It's distracting us from real issues. We all want great page.

However for the time being I admit I don't understand the purpose and logic of this page. I have a million dollars question: 1. is the purpose of this page to do authentic research and try to determine the true #1 for every season in history... or the purpose of this page is 2. to quote all relevant sources, with the extra emphasis on official organisations and then list all year-end #1 players, bolding the years in which all major sources are in agreement? I think the purpose of this page should be 2. Using this logic, Djokovic 2020 can not be bold since he lacks ITF award, just as Nadal 2013 can't be bold lacking ITF award. However if we took 1. approach, you could definitely have 2020 Djokovic in bold and Nadal 2013 in bold as they're the "true" #1 for those particular season. But I don't like #1 approach. That would require we determine definite year end #1 player for each season in history, and it would require authentic research/decision process and imo that's beyond the scope of this page. I think this page should be about approach number 2.

This is a great page, there has been a lot of work put into it, and lots of efforts behind it, and lots of sources are quoted so the material here is top stuff. Credit for all of you who made it. However the conclusions are messy and sometimes unclear, not just for this Djokovic 2020 ie ATP/ITF dilemma but also for earlier eras. It can all be sorted out fairly easily, but you need to apply consistent logic and uniform criteria. For example in the final table R.Doherty is listed as a 5-time year-end number 1, while you can count his name only 4 times when you scroll over the years. Why? I think this is wrong and makes the page look as rubbish, which is sad because it's a good page otherwise.

My final argument, I think we actually have 3 official sources. ITF world champion (1978-present), ATP Player of the year (1975-present) but also ATP seeding rankings (1973-present). I know the issues with it, but if you tell me the rankings never mattered, or were just for seeding purpose, fine, but they do matter now, how is it logical to consider them for 2021 but not for 1974? Especially considering those rankings are nowadays tied to ATP player of the year so it basically means the ATP Player of the year is effectively "abolished", and now is just a byproduct of the rankings and in a way, we are in the same situation as in pre-1975 regarding ATP. So if you say e.g. 1973 ATP rankings is worth shit, then ATP rankings 2021 is also shit. So I think in this modern age, we ought to have 3 columns, with undisputed/bold player being the one in all 3 columns post 1978, for the period in which all 3 sources exist. It won't take anything away from anyone, the total count of seasons at #1 is what matters, not how many of them is in bold. So it shouldn't upset fans of any player.

Check this. https://ibb.co/wyC2SMj I am just trying to apply some uniform logic.

93.140.170.64 (talk) 11:37, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

You get respect from me for following this thread at all, its so long, convoluted and full of personal animosity, I think most would give up in despair! Yes I agree with a lot of what you said, not the three columns, but much of the rest. I agree that its the inconsistent approach in isolated years that mean the whole article is vulnerable to ridicule, which is a shame, as I feel overall its a good article. There definately needs to be a systemised approach pre-1973, as I have argued, but agreeing it may not be easy. I will look at R. Doherty and change that in line with the sources if required. I havent worked on the pre-1913 section much. Tennishistory1877 (talk) 11:33, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for your kind words, and I just want to explain my position on the 3 columns thing. I don't advocate changing the look of this page to insert some kind of columns, I am only saying that in this modern age we have "3 columns to consider" for each season and so we should list as co-#1 anyone who gets mentioned in either of the so called "columns", whether it's 1. ITF World Champion, 2. ATP Player of the Year or 3. ATP rankings. And whoever has all 3 mentions, gets a bold year. Other criteria such as magazines, Laureas award etc should be listed as trivia but without effect on bold vs non-bold status.

I understand many disagree and outright reject the ATP rankings, but I fail to grasp the logic of that. First of all, just think about bizarreness of such proposal? Here we are, listing number 1 players in the world, while ignoring the ATP computer world #1? Come on, it's utterly bizarre imo.

I know some have issues with ATP formula or ATP rankings being historically used for seeding purposes, but consider this. For 2021 and it has been the case for several years now (can someone tell me since when exactly), ATP rankings is what determines who gets ATP Player of the Year, meaning the proverbial column #2, The ATP player of the year is de facto rendered useless since it's nowadays given automatically to the computer best ranked player. The ATP Player of the Year column mattered a lot in the period of 1975- up until few years ago. It doesn't matter now.

Likewise, the ATP computer rankings today don't merely matter a lot, the ATP computer rankings is actually the only thing that matters, regarding the ATP, right? It doesn't matter their formula is far from perfect, e.g. Djokovic nearly won Grand Slam this season yet could end up without ATP #1. The fact their formula is kinda shitty doesn't change a thing. They're the authority. And likewise, the fact their formula might have been even shittier in the 1970s, also changes nothing. They were the authority back then. Just the authority that kinda reserved the right to auto-correct themselves by awarding ATP Player of the year. They don't feel that need any more, so instead of abolishing ATP PoY they tied it to ATP rankings. But the award is effectively abolished. So we don't have a strict continuity here anymore.

If you want to base your best ATP player merely on ATP Player of the year, then you're finding yourself in trouble, since that award is not given anymore to a chosen player, like the ITW award is given, rather it's given automatically to ATP computer #1 ranked guy. That changes everything, meaning the ATP player of the year has stopped being what it was. ATP player of the year in 2021 is not the same as ATP player of the year in 1975. The ATP Player of the year in 2021, today, is basically the same as ATP computer #1 in 1975. So the logical thing would be to list all these 3, ITF World Chdmpion, ATP Player of the Year and ATP computer rankings.

Now if you insist on having only 2 columes (ITF and ATP), it's a very complex thing to pick what is actually ATP #1 in a given year? To find out the ATP best player, for 1973, 1974 you're using ATP computer rankings which was based on some formula of theirs, and then from 1975-onwards you place more emphasis on ATP Player of the year which is a decision based award, and then few years ago since ATP Player of the Year has been tied to ATP rankings, you're effectively returning to pre-1975 situation?

But if we accept computer rankings for 2021, and we have accepted it for 1973-1974, why don't we accept it for entire period, as simily one of the columns?

Again, this is how I view it logically.

https://ibb.co/wyC2SMj

93.140.170.64 (talk) 12:29, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

All ATP point ranking, players of the year and ITF champions are listed, as of yesterday (and unanimous years are in bold). Just a thought, but have you considered getting a registered id? Its free, a simple process and is easier to identify the editor. I think this page would benefit from more editors like you. Tennishistory1877 (talk) 12:46, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

Oh, I haven't seen the page since yesterday. It looks fantastic right now, the modern period is exactly how it should be imo, applying consistent criteria. The 3 official sources (ITF, ATP PoY and ATP #1), also denoting the year in which ATP PoY and ATP #1 are merged, thus leaving us with only 2 official criteria (ITF and ATP). Consequently Connors is listed with 6 year-end #1 (1 bold and 5 shared), Borg with 5 (2+3), Lendl 5 (3+2), McEnroe 4 (3+1) etc. I think it's the most accurate approach.

Vilas 1977 makes sense too. The sources arguing his case are unofficial but there is vast number of them, and besides, there was no ITF award in 1977, it only started in 1978. ITF would have given their award to him 99.99%. So in his case, the inclusion of unofficial sources makes sense as it's pre-1978 regarding ITF. And the ITF "unofficially" declared him #1 for 1977 anyway by metioning it in his hall of fame inscription so it's semi-official if someone wants to nitpick. Great job overall.

Same criteria could be applied for earlier eras, of which I know little, but just being consistent perhaps it's best to list as co-#1 both amateur and pro players? I mean why not just separately list #1 amateur and #1 pro anyway by default, consistently, and just denote who is #1 amateur and who is #1 pro, no need to obsessively try to determine overall #1 in a given season.

Even if the old ie contemporary sources tried to do that, no need to follow their approach in mixing apples and oranges. Their opinions on who was the best amateur or who was the best pro should matter, of course, but we shouldn't follow it entirely and mix both categories at all costs to get undisputed (bold) player during amateur-pro division.

That's right, no undisputed (bold) year-end #1 during amateur-pro division.

E.g. we know Budge conquered the world in 1938, but imo he should still be co-#1 with the leading pro player. The tours were separate back then and it's just a fact that you simply can never know with absolute certainty who would have been victorious or more successful in a hypothetical match-up, or who was the better all year round, whether it was leading amateur or leading pro. Even though you can guess, in the 30s probably amateur #1, in the 60s likely pro #1. But the tours were separate and that means they're incomparable.

Considering Budge won Grand Slam in 1938 I'm aware it's kinda sacrilegious to claim he should not be in bold, and to have him sharing year with #1 pro player, but all I'm trying to do here is be consistent. It's one thing when various panels, journalists etc of that era, rank players who have competed against each other, and then determine the best amateur or best pro, but it's completely different when they try to determine overall #1 for the amateur-pro era period. It's like using an orb. Meaningless.

So I know it might sound strange, to have Budge 1938 not in bold or to have Laver 1962 not in bold, but my reasoning is that there was another co-existing tour at the time. In the same way, Rosewall 1963 or Laver 1967 who won pro slam, won't be in bold either, even though by the 1960s leading pros were the best players in world.

But we have to use this approach.

Otherwise if you claim "Budge was the best in 1938" and then "1960s pros were the best in the world and so 1967 Laver is bold too", first of all, you would be required to state a cut-off season, when exactly have pros surpassed amateurs? And secondly if you did that (probably cca 1948) it's just an opinion. It's probably a correct one, to have Budge 1938 in bold, and Laver 1962 not in bold, but have Laver bold in 1967.

However,that being an opinion, it's no different than saying "Nadal was true #1 in 2013". If we do that, we (you or this page) are engaging in determining the true number 1 which is not what this page should be should be doing. So listing separate #1 for amateur and pro era, and have them non-bold, since the tours were separate is what I feel is most logical. Just as when there's a conflict between ITF/ATP in this era.

It's nothing against Budge, just as having Djokovic 2020 in non-bold is nothing against Djokovic. Budge can't be in bold in 1938 because there was co-existing tour at the time, same as Djokovic 2020 can't be in bold without ITF award.

Thank you again for your words, I haven't really considered registering, I never intended to write here as I'm unfamiliar with editing process, I would be of no use, I was simply interested in all-time #1 and the logic behind this page. It had/has a lot of info but it felt it's contradictory at times so I asked questions here and offered my opinion. If you feel having an ID would make it easier for me to debate/discuss matters here (it probably would) I might get one. Cheers. :)

93.140.170.64 (talk) 15:12, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

@Tennis History1877...Three columns / listing three sources is not at all required. Better there will be only two listings. It is always ATP Champion and ITF Champion. Award from these sources are based on judgement. It should not be based on points. I have already explained about points.. eg. Draw sizes different but all masters have same 1000 points. If ATP decides based on their year-end points, that is their prerogative (not involving judgement). My point is even they were giving points and player of the year, then also we should consider only ATP Player of year. Let us points stuff separately. It can be 24 month, 12 months, ATP race, week based etc..Let it be and respect if they choose points based or not based on points etc. For previous years also, consider only ATP player of year and ITF Champion...By the way, what is the consensus for year 2020...It is kept bold for Djokovic by some editors and reverting every time that there is no consensus...Really need contribution... Is the main page about approach 1 or 2...I agree that bold or unbold should be based on ATP Champion (not exactly based on mechanical but whatever 24/12 months ATP decides) and ITF Champion. Rest all sources do not matter as explained in my previous talk discussion. @ForzaUV @Fyunck@Spl contributor..need your intervention and final call on 2020 (way before 2021 ends)... Krmohan (talk) 15:17, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

This is all from 1973. Pre-1973, it is better to agree on a system rather than every editor using their own wisdom and judgement for changing/revising the statements. Post 1973, it is very simple, logical and basics to consider ATP Champ and ITF champ (two sources based on their own criteria/judgement). No magazines.. Actually, I am not seeing many contributors only one or two new users. Request registration of other user as well. Krmohan (talk) 15:31, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

The system is 2 sources from 1990. This has been thoroughly discussed already. I have already explained to you, as have other members that there is no consensus for 2020 to be unbold. This page could do with more contributors, as could many wikipedia tennis history pages. Tennishistory1877 (talk) 15:43, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

ATP Points leader is unnecessary. Make Nadal and Djokovic names unbold for 2013. Djokovic name unbold for 2020 with (ATP)... Krmohan (talk) 15:47, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

Instead of 1990, it is better from 1973. No need of ATP points leader..It's ATP prerogative is declaring ATP player of year...Ranking average, best of 24, best of 12 etc unless ATP judges based on particular ranking based. For 2020, it is already explained to you. Consensus has to be for Bold or not. Not the other way round ITF being silent. It is very simple... Krmohan (talk) 15:54, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

Ranking for ATP is to run the tour and for us to do research. Not for awarding separately. Ranking system can be bettered and bettered to reflect the players performance. At one point of time, ATP thought 12 month ranking is the best (or thinking saturated) and it can directly and automatically reflect ATP player of year. That's why these are merged. May be in future they may think best of 24 month truly reflects ATP player of year (like for 2020). We do not have to separately list ATP Point leader as additional champ. If it is corroborated/ endorsed by ATP, it is fine. He will be ATP Champ. No need of separate listing of ATP points leader from 1973 onwards....You are adding saying that ATP is contradicting. It is just our thinking (contradicting). Hope u are getting my view... Krmohan (talk) 16:11, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

I wish if everyone posting here would first state their view and state their opinion on the purpose of this page. It would make the discussion a lot more simple and clear. Let's first discuss what is the goal. As I already asked, do you believe the purpose of this page should be 1. determining "true #1" for each and every season? Should we do that? If that's your view, then you can have Djokovic 2020 bold, you can have Nadal 2013 bold, you can have Connors 1982 bold, they're probably the consensus #1 players for those years, but you're opening all sorts of cans of worms since picking your preferred #1 player for a given year amounts to stating your opinions and imposing them. Are our own opinions that important? Basically you'd be cherrypicking awards in different years such as "we'll take ITF for Connors in 1982 but we won't take ITF for Djokovic in 2013". It's absurd approach. And what happens when that consensus is missing? You will revert to "shared years" concept so in some years you'd push for absolute #1 while in some seasons you'd allow for shared years, which is logically inconsistent. You'd also find yourself facing impossible dilemmas when it comes to amateur/open era split. So I vote strong NO if my vote matters at all.

I believe that this page should not be about opinions (at least not our own opinions). The purpose of this page should be 2. listing all relevant sources and bolding only absolutely undisputed seasons/years. I think this is logically consistent and uniform. We just need to agree upon relevant sources. I say the relevant sources are those from official organisations. The modern official sources are of course 1. ATP rankings (1973-present), ATP PoY (1975-1989) and ITF (1978-present). Djokovic in 2020 doesn't hold all 3, he lacks ITF so no bold just as Nadal doesn't hold all 3 in 2013. This is modern era so you really need to have all 2 (3) awards to have bold year.

As for ATP PoY, the ATP PoY still officially exists, but it effectively ended in 1989. If you think logically about ATP PoY, ever since it's been decided that it goes automatically to computer #1, it lost its meaning as a unique award, but due to historical importance and the fact it was different from ATP rankings in the 1975-1989 period, we should list it for that period. Otherwise it's just ITF and ATP.

For the period before the existence of these 2 (3) official awards, which is everything prior to 1978, using unofficial sources in addition is common sense approach. So Vilas 1977 joins the discussion, but I would also argue Newcombe 1973 should too. I know Tingay is not official source, but where's the logic in using Tingay e.g. for the 1972, yet ignoring him in 1973? If he's good in e.g. 1972, he's good in 1973 too.

He's either accepted as a source for all years, or for none. So unofficial sources should be consulted all the way until 1978, until he have this modern construct run by ITF and ATP. That enables us to justify Vilas inclusion in 1977. And from 1978 on, ITF and ATP take over completely, issuing 3 awards per year. In 1990, ATP PoY is attached to ATP rankings so it's only ITF and ATP from then on.

And don't be so upset over bold and non-bold seasons, it's not really that important nor it degrades any player. It's just a descriptor of an era/season. Laver is arguably the goat, but he too can't have more than 2 bold years (1968 and 1969). His 1970 in open era was split with Rosewall/Newcombe and before 1968, the tour itself was split, there were two tours so impossible for him to be undisputed/bold. It's possible only if we do cherrypicking or flip-flopping such as "we'll take amateur 1962, but then we'll jump to take pro 1967". But that's not serious.

Or perhaps you unilaterally decided that "pro tour is superior to amateur tour"? But isn't that an opinion? And where do you draw a line? Emerson 3 slam season in 1964 is ignored, because the pros are superior, but Budge 1938, an amateur is #1? So where is the line and what is the criteria? What is the season in which pros became superior to amateurs and who proved it? There is no proof of that, it's just our opinion and therefore worthless. As I said, this page shouldn't be about us determining sruff. Just as we can't determine that 2013 ATP #1 Nadal is superior to ITF #1 Djokovic, we have to lost both, similarly it's not our job to determine which tour was superior, pros or amateurs. It shifted over the years, pros becoming better and better, but we can't pinpoint exact moment in which pros actually became better nor we can claim anything with certainty. Not even panels or journalists of that era who rated players could have done that. It's absurd to rate players who haven't met and couldn't ever meet since they played on separate tours. I'm offering simple and logical solution, list both amateurs and pros separetly and have no one in bold. The tours were different, separated so why would there be undisputed/bold #1 player in those years when there wasn't even a single undisputed tour.

93.140.170.64 (talk) 18:54, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

ATP Lead points do not have any relevance until ATP decides to attach high ranking holder to its ATP PoY..This is just not contradicting but one is just taking care of two sources (one ranking and other judgement). But ATP as a source is only one, that is its PoY. We are not going for first approach but only second approach. If it is by first approach, then u should do research and formulate one ranking calculation method or define system by which we should have world no 1. Practically, it is not being done in this page. The page by its working philosophy is following second approach. Hope there is an alignment. I have already explained ATP is the source for award but not it's year-end ranking. As per your approach, for a particular period (1973_1989), define which sources to be considered and make World no.1 automatically if all the sources are directing to one player. But it is absurd to consider two mechanisms from one ATP source ATP as two. Sources are ATP, ITF etc. Source is not ATP Year-end rankings as well as ATP PoY. Just confounding confusion..No value addition for the merit of World No.1. Many of other sources simply go by ATP and ITF. You may consider it as an additional source but not exactly. When ATP declared No.1 by auto ranking and awarding PoY separately, you just say ATP is contradicting its own no.1. But they know that their no.1 ranking is for seeding. When they decides that when it is perfect, no separate PoY...From 1973 onwards it's about ATP PoY and/or ITF etc. In fact only two sources ATP and/or ITF to make it simple from 1973 onwards. Just creating additional pseudo sources are being created from two governing bodies. That's all..1975 is Arthur ash..1976 is Borg. Krmohan (talk) 18:54, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

Yes agreed, they should not be designated as BOLD by default. They are separate tours... Krmohan (talk) 19:04, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

I'm glad this page is following second approach. And I'm glad there's an agreement regarding official organisations ITF/ATP being paramount in determining #1. ;) However, I'm not sure why do you insist on ATP being "one source" and therefore require of us that we pick just 1 name from that source? As I said, if we follow second approach, which we agreed upon here, it's not up to us (this page) to choose or determine anything. The purpose of this page is to list stuff, not pick what's more valuable, prestigious or superior.

It's not our fault that ATP messed up over the years and used two different mechanism. "Our job" is to list those two here independently. The ATP rankings (1973-present) and PoY, a committee decision (1975-1989) are those two mechanisms. We know that using ATP rankings only would be problematic due to occasional conflicting committe decision (PoY 1975-1989). But using PoY only would be equally, if not more problematic. PoY still exist nowadys so you could argue it's the top award, but it's only in name. In reality PoY is a formality, being attached to ranking since 1990. So if you use PoY as main criteria for ATP in the entire 1975-present period, you're using committee based decision for 1975-1989 and then rankings for 1990-present.

It's horrible inconsistency. The logical solution is to list both rankings (1973-present) and committee decision for era in which it existed (1975-1989 PoY). ATP used two criteria/mechanism over the years and we simply take note of that on this page. 93.140.170.64 (talk) 21:16, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

My point is like this. Yes, it is horrible inconsistency if you make 2 to 3 listings from each source. It is really absurd. Let me take example of year 2020. 2020 is yesteryear and if you understand this difficult year, you can trace back to the history and fundamentally seek answers for every year. As per your criteria, hypothetically you have 5 listings from two sources (ATP and ITF). For ATP, the listings are three PoY, ATP Year-end rating based on Best of 24 month, ATP Partial season 2020 points. But for ATP Source champion award, it is only one as by their wisdom and judgement, they have only taken into account for PoY is Best of 24 month year-end ranking. So far as ATP source concerned PoY is Djokovic (for your information, PoY exists all the time, only ranking system evolves and changes from 5000 to 10000 points, average to best of 24 etc etc etc). From ITF source, there could be two listings (hypothetically) one their committee decision and other their criteria. Their criteria says avg performance of Grandslams+ YEC+ (OLY+ Davis Cup). Now AO, FO, USO, YEC (Djokovic ...W,F, DQ,SFs and Nadal ...QFs, W, DNP, SFs and Thiem ...F,QF,W,F)..But since ITF judgement is not to award any player as their champ by being SILENT eventhough Thiem has best performance). Are you listing two from ITF source... Definitely not...Are you listing three from ATP source. Definitely not. So, it is two sources (PoY and World champion) by respecting two big sources decision/judgement. Otherwise you are partially doing first approach and partially second approach. Actually, I have proposed last column title like this in the page "Sources, Payers performance and Rankings". Year end rankings is not a source. ATP is a source but should be written under rankings head as ATP year-end or revised rankings etc...Hope it is understood.... Krmohan (talk) 04:46, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

I've read what you wrote couple of times and I have to say that I don't think you understand what's the problem with PoY. You are "informing" me, telling me: "for your information, PoY exists all the time, only ranking system evolves and changes from 5000 to 10000 points, average to best of 24 etc etc etc” which shows you don't understand the issue here.

I know that PoY officially still exists, but it seems to me you'd don't understand that minor tweaks within ranking system (e.g. doubling the pts in 2009) have nothing to do with PoY. What you described is a modification within ranking formula. PoY is something else.

The probleem with PoY is that while still exists officially, it ceased to exist in its original form. PoY was a committee decision (1975-1989) just as ITF WC (1978-present) is a committee decision. And ATP rankings (1973-present) is a formula based mechanism. Ever since 1990 PoY is attached to rankings so from that year on, PoY has become a formality. PoY=rankings. So it's not PoY that determines #1 guy in ATP, it's the ATP rankings. Cause and effect. Chicken or the egg.

The basic fact of the reality is that there have been 2 mechanism by ATP (committee and rankings) and 1 mechanism by ITF (committee) over the years. Those are 3 decisions by 2 official organisations.

So I don't understand why you discuss "hypothetical" 5 decisions in 2020? In 2020 we had 1 decision.

ITF never published rankings so you can't claim Thiem "won" anything or would have won anything. ITF only usees committe decision. In 2020 they stayed silent. If they thought Thiem was best, they would have said so. They didn't. So 0 decisions from them.

And ATP rankings were topped by Djokovic (who btw topped the race as well so no point discussing 24-month ranking controversy). The fact he was awarded PoY was a formality. It goes automatically to #1 ranked guy. That's what you don't understand, PoY has been irrelevant stuff from 1990. So why does it matter "if there could have been 5 decisions"? We care about decisions that happened, and we list them here. We don't fantasize about hypothetical decisions that might have happened. And we certainly don't choose which award or decision is more worthy. In 2020 there was only 1 decision by official organisation (ATP rankings). In 1982 there have been three decisions by 2 official organisations (ATP rankings, the ATP committe (ATP PoY) and ITF WC). So in 1982 we list 3.

I thought there was an agreement here that it's not our job to pick, choose or determine true #1, superior awards, or superior tours? The purpose of this page is to simply list all sources. When there is 1 source (2020) we list 1 source. When there are 3 sources (1982) we list 3 sources. ATP, one organisation, can provide us with 2 decisions. That's nothing controversial. Just look at doubles ranking? You can have individual #1 doubles player and you can also have #1 ranked doubles team. Those are likewise 2 decisions for doubles category. But they co-exist side by side.

If you insist we accept only 1 decision per organisation, you're beaaking the previous agreement, and you're engaging in choosing, determining and imposing an opinion and asking us to have an opinion on which award is superior, which mechanism from ATP to choose, who is true #1 etc. I thought we said we only list sources here?

ATP usees rankings (1973-present) and it used a committee (1975-1989). So we list those.

93.140.232.71 (talk) 12:46, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

You did not get what I mean. We are aware of all the stuff what u mentioned. The source ATP is taking only one decision (judgement of awarding PoY based on Best of 24 month ranking for 2020). ITF has taken only one decision (being SILENT. Noone deserves Champion award)...I am again emphasizing It is "we" taking/assuming so many decisions on behalf of one source (ATP or ITF). It is ridiculous. Respect the two governing bodies single decision/judgement and go by that. If both sources indicate one player, he is no.1. Otherwise do research and develop one ranking/mechanism/system (not consensus by so called editors), by which system can decide world no.1 using all these so called decisions/ listings which is your first approach. There is no need of taking more than one judgement from one big source. It is as simple as that for your second approach. Hope u got it..... Krmohan (talk) 14:03, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

So obviously you want to be the final arbiter and deciede "on exact number of sources"? That's choosing, picking, determining. Not what this page is supposed to be about. This page is about listing sources.

Who are you, or any of us here, to choose to ignore stuff from ATP, whether it's the computer rankings of their committee decision? We have no right to do that.

If during certain period, ATP published 2 competing/conflicting/parallel ratings, it's not up to us to choose 1 of them, but to list both of them here. 93.140.232.71 (talk) 14:25, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

That is what is said. You do listing, research and arrive at some system for World no.1 for pre1973. Who are u to say that ATP competing/conflicting/parallel ratings. Back then It is PoY, not ranking which is used for seeding. Now it is PoY with best of 12 month ranking. It is We putting Pesudo possition by our own wisdom and thinking. The sources are very clear about their champions. When to separate, merge decision and ranking. For the recent years, U do not have to drill down at all. Just rely on the big sources. For the back history, develop system or mechanism rather than listing exercise... Krmohan (talk) 14:45, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

You guys have written History and into a deep dive on "Why Djokovic is undisputed No.1 in 2020". All the answers are towards Djokovic's ATP No.1 position by one source ATP. In fact, the year 2020 is ultimately a partial season. The question is more about the year than the player in my view. Ultimately it is all about player performance in the partial season (whether ATP gives based on 24 months or ITF is silent). Talk all about big sources, listing of other sources, system, ranking mechanism, players performance....but it simply doesn't justify the year affected by pandemic. Several tournaments not played, several players not participated in the few tournaments played.. Some guys wrote that 2020 is very difficult etc etc. It is relatively simpler than the history for awarding World no.1. 2020 is not BOLD. Several arguments, one may think consensus....ITF silence means Thiem can not be Co No.1 and the same way, Djokovic can not be bold by ATP's 24 month ranking for the half of the year. I agree with most of your views. One can not justify player(s) performance in the partial season by declaration of only one source (ATP). But if you only consider consensus for World No.1, I would also agree to unbold Djokovic, but not to add Thiem as Co No.1. Ultimately, 2020 is not truly reflected in this page as of now, if it is left as it is. Cheers..... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.171.221.91 (talk) 17:06, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

Please register yourself. Got your point to unbold if the season is partial... agreed but this is what discussed... Krmohan (talk) 01:24, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

@ForzaUV, @Fyunck @tennishistory1877 @spl contributions I understand that there is a consensus to make Djokovic to be unbold and not to add Thiem for the partial season of 2020. Let me know regarding this. The year will be BOLD for a player without another player regarded as Co No.1 d and/or the season played without any disruption. Hope this makes sense for consensus.... Krmohan (talk) 10:22, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

@ForzaUV, @Fyunck @tennishistory1877 @spl contributions We have been waiting for the consensus on the partial year 2020. Let us know if RfC is published...Need to have more contributions.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Krmohan (talk • contribs) 18:02, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

1945

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

1973 situation

Hello. I would like clarification for 1973. Why isn't Newcombe recognized as co-#1 with Nastase?

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

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

Tingay otoh proclaimed Newcombe as #1 in 1973.

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

Has the guy lost his mojo between 1972 and 1973?

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

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

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

Consistency?

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

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

Laver situation

I will simply quote intro from Laver's wiki page:

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

I think all wiki articles should be consistent.

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

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

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

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

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

So in both cases it's judgement.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Then apply same criteria to everyone else.

Tennishistory1877 what do you say?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

That's not an analysis or comparison to me.

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

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

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

It's so far-fetched imo.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Proper page would have:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Proposal: replace "Consensus No. 2" column with top ranked amateur column

This article is not called "World top 2 ranked male tennis players", so it should only be for the best player each year. However, claiming that one tour was stronger than another in any given year is likely original research. Therefore, related to the above discussion, I propose removing the "Consensus No. 2" column for all years, which is arbitrarily included anyway (why not "Consensus No. 3/4/5/..." columns?), and replacing it with a top amateur column for the years where there were separate tours. That way, we would include current glaring omissions (e.g. Laver '62), and remove some potential OR regarding "Consensus No. 2"s (as if such a concept is relevant here). None of the current prose would need to be removed, but separate paragraphs discussing each tour would have to be added for each of the relevant years. Sod25 (talk) 14:37, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

Survey

• Support as proposer. Sod25 (talk) 14:37, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
• Support I support this proposal.Tennisedu (talk) 15:37, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose I disagree with this proposal. I am in favour of removal of the world number 2 column however, as this contains original research. Tennishistory1877 (talk) 21:13, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
• Strongly support --Wolbo (talk) 18:20, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
• Support but only to a point. In our tournament articles we include the runner-up, and we have articles and lists on finalists. Why? Because it is human nature to want to know who just missed... who was in second. When we know, I think it is important to list 2nd place (even if it's only in the results summary cell). But I do feel that the No. 1 amateur should be listed through 1967. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:45, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
• Partial support Qwerty284651 (talk) 21:41, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose ForzaUV (talk) 11:26, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

Discussion

I support this idea. This would be a positive improvement on the current situation. Currently, we have a chaos of personal opinions overriding the actual rankings, which undermines the purpose of this article, and this is not a sustainable development. Too many maverick shots on this article. We should refrain from editing into this article our own personal judgments and adhere to the actual rankings, which is what this article is purportedly about.Tennisedu (talk) 15:37, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

"I like the idea of a combined amateur/pro list, I don't like the idea of two separate lists for amateurs and pros." This is a comment made within the past day or so by you tennisedu. I disagree with the suggestion of listing amateur number one. Tennishistory1877 (talk) 17:07, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

Just a few notes about the structuring of the page under this proposal. Firstly, if amateurs are listed post-war (citations for amateur no. 1 were published in Collins), then pros should be listed pre-1927. There were some great pros before 1927 and some were compared very favourably with leading amateurs. But as for rankings, this is opening a can of worms. The Bristol Cup was the top pro event in the early 1920s, but actual citations to say Bristol Cup winners were number one? Kerr and Pettit played in 1889 for the professional championship. Then another pro championship in 1890. But then an 8 year gap. Who is pro number one in this gap? Maybe no one, column is left blank? Some issues to think about. Does the proposer have such rankings in order to implement the changes that they propose? Tennishistory1877 (talk) 00:00, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

It's a can of worms that must be opened for this page to holistically cover the sport's history, in my opinion. Fortunately, the potentially disputed period is not in living memory, so bias should player a lesser role. Yes, we would have both columns for every year there was separate tours, including the pros pre-1927. If there are gaps where there was no pro tour, we should leave the column blank for those years, with a note saying as much. If there are no sources saying a pro was number 1 for a given year, it should be left blank also until one is found. Much better than the current situation, where we have pros and amateurs mixed together and equated in for example 1956, without the sourcing to back it up. Sod25 (talk) 13:30, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

I do understand the argument about not having mixed pro and amateur lists, even if I dont agree with it. I could find sources to say that pros prior to 1927 were fine players, comparing them to amateurs of the time. There were important events prior to 1927. But finding direct sources for number 1 is difficult. This article has, historically not been left blank when there are no number 1 sources for a given year. For a long time there were no. 1 picks with no citations. The pre-1913 section has national rankings, but mostly not international rankings, so there is no world number 1 citation listed. All the article needs to be structured the same. I respect your sincerity in wanting to alter the structure of the article, but the structure should be the same throughout. Its a very long and contentious and complex article and any changes need to be thoroughly thought through. Tennishistory1877 (talk) 15:13, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

Well, what has or has not historically been done in this article shouldn't affect what we do going forward, considering the article is currently (and rightly) tagged as having multiple issues. If there is no source saying so-and-so is the number 1 for years where there were competing amateur or pro tours (e.g. Europe vs USA), then the "Consensus world No. 1" cells should be empty, or simply have "No consensus". We can still (and should) have the summaries of the top players/results in the "Source of ranking and tournament results summary" column, however. It's simply unencyclopaedic for Wikipedia to authoritatively list players as the "Consensus world No. 1" without a single source saying as much. If that means most of the first 50 years is just "No consensus", then so be it - the sport was in its infancy and our modern, tidy notion of a world No. 1 hadn't been invented yet. Same for the early pros. We can list the top names/results (e.g. Bristol Cup), but not list a player as the number one without adequate sourcing to do so. Sod25 (talk) 22:41, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

Now this I strongly agree with. And most of all I agree with "It's simply unencyclopaedic for Wikipedia to authoritatively list players as the "Consensus world No. 1" without a single source saying as much." As outlined below, I recommend removing the number 1 and 2 columns from the pre-1913 section. This is full of national rankings mainly. This would solve the problem of sporadic pro play in these years also. Just list the sources but no number 1 and 2 columns before 1913. Tennishistory1877 (talk) 23:14, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

May I say something? If you say there was pro #1 in 1889 and 1890, and then no one was #1 for another 8 years, why is that a problem for the rankings? List those who satisfy criteria. If no one has any claims for pro #1, leave it empty? I mean had COVID cancelled entire season, we would have no one as #1 and it wouldn't have been a problem. Ricardo 93.141.239.209 (talk) 09:49, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

Yes Ricardo, that could be done leaving years blank as I suggested, though there would be large gaps. What most concerns me are years where there was play but no number 1 citations. Tennishistory1877 (talk) 10:38, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

Ricardo here.

Another question, why should this page include #1 pro players before 1927? Does that even exist? I am aware of the fact that there have been pros way before 1927, and some players were pros from their begginigs and never played in slams e.g. Nüsslein who as a very young man was banned by German tennis federation for giving tennis lessons and getting paid. So yes, there have been "pros" way before 1927 but was there a pro tour? I don't think so. And can you e.g. have ATP #1 before ATP tour was formed? Obviously not. This page states that first pro tour was conceived in the US in 1927. https://lastwordonsports.com/tennis/2018/05/04/a-brief-history-of-tennis-before-the-open-era/amp/

"Tilden and Lenglen became the first great global tennis stars, and such was their popularity that others inevitably attempted to cash in on it. The first successful attempt was the foundation of the first professional tennis tour, in the US in 1927, by Charles C. Pyle." Unless there is a tour in whatever sense, can there be a #1? It's a question, I don't hold strong opinion on this, but overall, 1927 seems like a convenient cut off point for the birth of pro era. My reasoning is this. Nüsslein being banned by German tennis federation for giving tennis lessons was a punishment (yeah yeah unjust from today's perspective) but still a punishment. It's like modern players being banned over doing doping these days or for fixing matches. It's an exclusion from the game. So the fact Nüsslein or some other players were excluded from tennis community doesn't translate to them automatically being on some sort of "pro tour", does it? Pro tour first had to be formed for competitions there to begin and players had to join it. And since pro tour was conceived in 1927...

I would definitely like to point to this rather murky concept of "pro". Being banned by national tennis federation for earning money by giving tennis lessons or playing for money elsewhere is not the same level of "pro status" as when you e.g. sign some professional contract to play in pro tour. In the first case, player is simply banned, and labeled as a pro, with the word "pro" almost being used as a slur. He's then forced to resort to giving tennis lessons or competing in pro tournaments which at time were probably just tournaments for banned players. Place they could compete? This guy is more like a freelancer? OTOH signing a professional contract imo is the true becoming of a professional player participating in a pro tour. Such players have obligations. So on a path to professionalism, merely being banned by tennis federation and denied amateur status is not the tipping point imo. It's just a banned player, like banned over doping nowadys. The tipping point in turning pro is signing pro contract and joining the pro tour. Such players are part of pro tour and pro tour has its #1. Just drawing your attention to this issue. Ricardo 93.141.239.209 (talk) 17:32, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

Kerr and Pettit were two of the original pros in the 1880s. "The professional match between the champion of Ireland, George Kerr, and Tom Pettit, the American professional, to which all people interested in tennis have looked forward so long, came off this morning at the Casino in Newport." This is a description of one of the 1889 pro championship matches in The Boston Transcript, August 29, 1889. They played again in 1890. Hans Nusslein was banned over receiving a pair of trousers, or so the story goes! I disagree entirely with your comparison to modern banning offences. Many of the pros taught because they needed the money. As for tours, there was hardly an amateur "tour" in the early years, but players are still listed for number 1 in those years. Tennishistory1877 (talk) 20:58, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

Have proposed this before. Support it as it addresses one of the main shortcomings of the article. Removing the No. 2 rankings (which are not the topic of the article and are even more heavily based on original research) and replacing it for the pre-open era with a ranking list for the amateurs would be a) more in line with the article scope and title, b) much easier to reliably source and c) would get rid of the apples (amateurs) and oranges (pros) comparison for which very few reliable sources exist. It would also be more informative for our readers by explaining that different No. 1 rankings coexisted. High time to make this change.--Wolbo (talk) 22:31, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

Fyunck(click) makes a fair point about showing the runner-up in sports which does indeed frequently occur. In my view there is a difference in context though between showing a runner-up in a final between two teams or players and showing a No. 2 in a ranking. In a final between teams or players, like a tennis tournament final or the Superbowl final or the baseball World Series it is more natural to show the runner-up because by definition there are only two entities involved, and they compete against each other, but this does not apply in the same sense to a ranking. I do think it is a good idea to show the top 3 ranked players, if available, in the 'source of ranking' field to provide context for our readers.--Wolbo (talk) 22:45, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

As I said, listing the 1 and 2, or 1-3 players in the source section is good enough for me. Then you could have the two columns used for pro No. 1 in column one, and amateur No. 1 in column two.[User:Fyunck(click)|Fyunck(click)]] (talk) 00:36, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

Let me clear on this. Although I propose removal of number 1 and 2 ranking sections pre-1913 and would agree to remove the entire section, I would only agree to this if a new article was created "National rankings prior to 1913" and the sources added. Either that or clearly marked national rankings in numbers 1 and 2 columns prior to 1913, not international. No way will I agree to Karoly's research being removed from wikipedia entirely. There was no international federation prior to 1913 and not sufficient international play for international rankings (those in this section are very sparse and mostly modern inventions). Tennishistory1877 (talk) 01:03, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

I especially like this idea for the rankings being kept only if there is a good list available created by someone who is actually identified and is competent to create a list. If there are some years with no list available, leave a gap. But we should leave the historical summaries which we already have on the right hand column, which give the readers a good summary of what happened during the year, and if there are gaps, the reader can draw their own conclusions about who deserves the No. 1 slot. We should not be drawing our own conclusions about who is No. 1. And if two good lists exist for one year with different no. 1 players, then list two number ones for that year. We have done something like this already.Tennisedu (talk) 23:56, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

Disagree with tennisedu's cherry-picking. This should be about removing bias, not adding more. Tennishistory1877 (talk) 00:05, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

Ricardo here. With 2 counts. 1. Regarding start of pro (and amateur tour)... I may be wrong but I think we don't need some "specific proof" over the start of amateur tour. The amateur tour is the default tour, original tennis, it started once Wimbledon started and it expanded quickly afterwards. Other championships followed Wimbledon rules thus acknowledging its relevance in the birth of the game. Almost all the championships that followed took same/similar names such as Irish Championships, US, Victorian, Northern etc signaling their purported intent of being localized championships in various places. The pattern is clear. So I would argue the amateur tour exists since tennis began in 1877. Even wikipedia acknowledges it: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1877_Men's_Tennis_tour There were no "pros" in 1877 so it's logical to assume that the original tennis tour is the amateur tour. Pro tour developed later and is something else. To have a pro tour you need to have contracted players who played against each other imo. Do we have that before 1927? My point is, just because someone was banned by national federation and had its amateur status revoked or deemed being professional, e.g. taking money for giving tennis lessons, it doesn't mean he was part of pro tennis tour. He was indeed disgraced and ostracized from the only tour which existed at the time and thus the example is very similar to doping bans today. 2. I think it's nice to have #2 players in this article because everyone loves to see runner ups, e.g. page about Grad Slam lists players who came up short winning first 3 slams in a season, so I'd prefer #2 section stayed here. However, the word "consesus", whether #1 or #2, we could do without it. Imo, it's what's causing all these problems in the first place. Consesus #1 would mean only #1 players with bold seasons, right? And that's the crux of the issue. With the word consesus you're admitting the goal was to determine the true #1 in each season.Ricardo 93.143.82.3 (talk) 00:00, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

My main concern about the number 2 column is the original research (number 2s lacking supporting evidence). The original research is by far my main concern with the whole article. I like some suggestions by the proposer on this issue, however. Tennishistory1877 (talk) 00:11, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

Cherry-picking is still a problem here, using only one source such as Collins is not only restrictive but constitutes cherry-picking. I think that we should decide on some ground rules, however, as to what constitutes a suitable ranking list and if an unidentified expert is sufficient for a ranking. I say "no" to the latter idea, no ranking should be credited if the ranking authority is not identified. That goes beyond ridiculous. And that is where we have had some problems.Tennisedu (talk) 00:48, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

The comparison and weighting of the various sources and what does or does not constitute cherry-picking is a topic for another day. Let's please stick to this specific proposal. It has two parts:

1. Removal of "Consensus No. 2" column: Opposed so far only by Ricardo on niceness grounds and because "everyone loves to see runner ups", but that argument has been addressed by Wolbo in that the runners-up will still be listed in the "Source of ranking and tournament results summary" column.
2. Addition of amateur No. 1 column pre-1968 (and pros pre-1927): Opposed so far only by Tennishistory1877.

The discussion around when the pro/amateur tours started (Ricardo's "count" 1) only becomes relevant if we accept part two of my proposal. We need a consensus first. Let's get the opinions on my proposal of the remaining editors who've commented on this page in the past two years: @ForzaUV, @Krmohan, @Krosero, @Sportsfan77777, @Somnifuguist, @Tvx1, so we're not leaving anybody out. Sod25 (talk) 01:50, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

• Too important an article for just those listed editors. I plopped this link on the main Tennis Project talk page to make sure no one gets caught off guard. Fyunck(click) (talk) 02:12, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
• Do non-registered IP users even have a vote? Tennishistory1877 (talk) 09:42, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

  It's a long discussion here and I have not read absolutely everything. But I'd support removing the No. 2 player column and then dividing the pre-1968 period into pro and amateur #1s. It's a tough call for me because after a certain point, especially closer to the Open Era, the top pros were far better players than the top amateurs, and everyone knew it. And this can be sourced to the time period: we can find many sources stating that the top pros were better. I'm not talking about original research or editor judgment: this can be sourced to the time period and was an important reality in the sport: the top pros were better players than the top amateurs, after a certain point. But it wasn't always true. Not in every decade, not in every year. That's where the gray area comes in, and debates continue.

  I concede that to keep the article as objective as possible, it looks like listing a #1 pro and a #1 amateur side by side is the simplest way, involving the least amount of debate among editors.

  I don't know why the table heading needs to specify that the #1 is "consensus." I don't recall that word being there before. That word seems like a magnet for editor-wars about who was "really" "truly" "indisputably" "worthily" number one.Krosero (talk) 15:52, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

  I am happy to see that there is general agreement to support the idea of separate pro and amateur No. 1 lists. It really is impossible to combine the two into our own joint list, there was a complete lack of interplay between the pro and amateur tours. However, there was rarely an official points system for either pro or amateur years, the pros only had point systems in 1946, 1959, 1960, 1964, 1965, 1966, 1967, 1968, and had pro world championship tours designed to determine an official ranking order for the top pros in 1942, 1954, 1961, and 1963. The legitimate pro ranking lists, where the ranking authority is identified, were produced only on an irregular basis. The amateurs had greater regularity, with Olliff and Tingay and L'Equipe and Tennis de France providing regular annual ranking lists. We will need eventually to establish some basic tests as to the minimum requirements for authoritative ranking lists to sort the wheat from the chaff.Tennisedu (talk) 16:20, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

  This is very difficult issue. It's possible that in some years, some person or some media entity compiled great rankings, but did not do the same in other years. So despite me thinking it's a shame to not use it, I would vote not to accept such one-off rankings. For the pre-modern era (pre 1978) if you need rankings I would make a rule to accept as a legit source only those sources who are known to have published minimum 10 year-end #1 rankings? I assume Tennis France or Tingay or Collins would qualify. Other rankings, even if done wonderfully, but on a one-off basis, should not be be considered legit assuming they lack tradition. I would put them in rightmost column as trivia and info but they shouldn't affect year-end #1. Ricardo 93.143.82.3 (talk) 20:52, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

  I am sorry, but I dont think you fully understand this article Ricardo (which is not surprising, as its a complex article). Tennishistory1877 (talk) 21:32, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

I just hope amateurs will be listed in column one (left) the whole time. If it's otherwise it won't be fair. I would hate to see amateur #1 Wilding in 1913 and amatuer #1 Budge in 1938 being in leftmost column, but by the 1962 amateur #1 Laver to find himself in right colum while #1 pro Rosewall suddenly occupying leftmost column. That would openly signal to the readers that "pros are the true #1" and it would show bias. Shouldn't happen. The amatuer tennis should be in first (left) column, not because it's superior, but because it's lasted longer. So amatuer #1 in the same column for the entire period until 1968. Ricardo 93.143.82.3 (talk) 20:32, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

Diagree Ricardo. The proposal says the second column and thats where the amateur rankings should be if the proposal is approved. We are already discussing changes to the pre-1913 section anyway. Tennishistory1877 (talk) 21:26, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

So you're planning on having amateurs in left column and then at some point "switch" them to right column, and put pros in left column, effectively signaling that "pros have take over"? It feels as kmposing personal opinion by using graphical design, a covert message. I feel amateurs should be in same column the whole time whether it's the right or left one. Logically it should be the left one since we always first fill in the stuff from the left and amateurs have the tradition and prestige. Let's face it, even if pros were arguably better by the late 1960s (unprovable), they weren't better the whole time while the amatuer tour had the tradition and prestige the whole time. I would not switch on switch places for amatuers/pros at some arbitrary point. I'm afraid it might influence the reader's subconscious perception. As for pre-1913, it would be a shame to remove everything in the article. Tennis started in 1877, kinda silly to remove all rankings for the first 36 years, even if they're only national rankings. No need for separate article, pre-1913 stuff can stay here labeled as national and not counted. But btw, I'm ok with listing both UK and US #1 amatuers side by side. That's not a flaw of ours, it's actually accurate reflection of tennis history. Ricardo 93.143.82.3 (talk) 21:57, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

The proposal is for second column amateurs throughout with no switch date (I agree with the second column part). A range of options are being discussed on the other talk thread for 1877-1912. Tennishistory1877 (talk) 22:16, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

It's much more aesthetically pleasing if amatuers are the leftmost column. They're also the more relevant tour anyway, broader, deeper, bigger, with longer tradition. And if you want to nitpick, it's the amatuer tour that went open, allowing pros to return. So amatuer tour has primacy. If you like, just as the Queen has primacy over British prime minister, despite him wielding more political power, she comes first in honour. So does amatuer tour. Ricardo 93.143.82.3 (talk) 22:29, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

I am British, Ricardo, and am very amused at your analogy. Tennishistory1877 (talk) 22:40, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

Just an observation here on the No. 2 players, part of the reason why there was support for listing a No. 2 is that in many years the difference between No. 1 and No. 2 was very slight, and so slight that it is not easy to distinguish. By putting in a No. 2, there is acknowledgement of another name worth mentioning in the discussion. If you look over the No. 2's on this article list, many of them could raise some claim to being joint No. 1. Adding a No. 2 covers more of the bases and acknowledges a strong year.Tennisedu (talk) 02:52, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

If that was the purpose it should definitely be removed? Apparently sometimes consensus #2 was anyone with a miniscule claim to #1, and sometimes consesus #2 was solid #2 for the year, but with zero claims to #1? Seems messy. I think you should first pick/vote for respectable sources. Of course all official organisations and their lists (ATP, ITF, PoY and pro tour rankings are considered by default) and before modern era (pre 1978) you should also factor in respected journalists and media who are known to have compiled at least 10 year-end rankings, thus proving they're seriously in the business. Then, once you've sorted out sources, all players with at least one mention by respectable source can claim #1 for the year and if there are more, it's a shared year. I can wait for this to be finished, I'm interested in final table. Ricardo 93.140.190.224 (talk) 10:29, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

Under your "system", Ricardo, in the pre-open era there would be no pro rankings apart from those issued by Ray Bowers (made many years after the events took place) and no pro rankings at all from 1946-67. Tennishistory1877 (talk) 11:05, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

Really? What about IPTPA pro rankings or other journalists? The page lists them. But even if true, one respectable source should be enough. People who compiled more than one annual rankings are more trustworthy and more likely to apply same criteria than some sources compiling one-off rankings. It doesn't have to be 10 year-end rankings, you can reduce the criteria to 7 or 5. But those who compiled just one rankings could often be biased and their methodology is unlikely to match the methodology of other authors. Ricardo 93.140.190.224 (talk) 11:58, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

Yes really. Try looking. Norris McWhirter, a guy behind the Guinness book of records, one of the few totally unbiased observers, one ranking listed on this page. Tennishistory1877 (talk) 12:04, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

I second Fyunck's proposal about having the No. 1 amateur listed through 1967, after which the Open era began. Qwerty284651 (talk) 13:27, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

• Partial support. I seldom visit this page and on first glance I can say this. I suggest we make up our minds on who is ranked number 1 for each season, instead of having ITF and ATP ranked players. That's one thing. Move the no. 2 players column to a new page, designated exclussively for year-end no. 2 players. And do some other cleanup in the page. Qwerty284651 (talk) 21:41, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

  Horrible proposal. We should do totally opposite from this. Who is or isn't year-end #2 is not a material for standalone page, just as "silver medalists at the Olympics" isn't such material. There's a basis for year-end runner ups (#2) to stay but if they don't stay, it makes no sense to create another page. Secondly proposal that "we should make up our mind on who is #1 for a given year" is a disastrous. It makes me so sad to read such proposals. It's very wrong from us to determine #1. Ricardo 93.140.190.224 (talk) 10:36, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

  While it makes you said to reach proposals such as mine, i stand by my words, although it would have sounded better, if worded properly. My question is why do we have both ITF and ATP year-end number 1's listed in the first column, in the first place. Yes, it is to include both, from what the scope of the article is. But opting via consensus for one of the two, will automatically determine the number 2 ranked player and thus solve the number 2 column problem, wherein 2 players as listed, as well, because of, apparently, a consensus could not have been reach about which to include. Qwerty284651 (talk) 13:24, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

So with this proposal the player who wasn’t considered a top 2 player by the contemporary pundits and the people of that time would get acknowledged to be a top player and almost equal to the #1 but the #2 wouldn’t? This is like Shang who is the top junior player in 2021 getting his name listed next to Djokovic while Medvedev doesn’t, makes no sense at all. I understand it’s not the same as the gap in level wasn’t that huge between the amateurs and pros as it is between pros and juniors in 2021 but still the point stands, there was a gap, pundits knew it, people knew it and most likely the players themselves knew it as well. Who are we to question that 50 years later? Also, the structure of this article would change completely with this proposal, for now the results summary is for the top 2 players but if it’s going to be about the top pro and top amateur in a given year then every results summary should be rewritten and be about those two players, same with the statistics section, we would need a table for pros and another one for amateurs. We don’t need any of that. Fyunck(click), suggested we list the top amateur next to the top pro and the #2 get only a mention in the results summary, but what should be done is the opposite, we keep the list of #2s and we mention the top amateur in the result summary. Let’s not forget for many years the difference between #1 and #2 was insignificant and one could easily see #2 as the one with the better year (Fed 2017 for example) so let’s not make a mess out of this article. ForzaUV (talk) 11:26, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

I wish you would explain to us how are you planing to prove that the pros were superior considering two tours were concurrent? How do you prove that #1 amatuer Budge in 1938 is the best in the world and pros are inferior but then fully opposite amatuer #1 Laver in 1962 is inferior. What kind of orb do you use? Show us. If you say Collins or someone else said so, please tell us what orb did he use to come up with his conclusions when comparing players who never met in a given year. Also do you approve of removing all the amatuer slams from all-time slam rankings that e.g. Laver or Emerson won in the 1960s? You want to remove year-end-#1 they achieved in amatuer ranks, so why not remove their amatuer slams? Ricardo 93.140.190.224 (talk) 11:41, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

After 1948 there was clear superiority of pros over amateurs, a constant flow of top amateurs turning pro and all losing world series or tournament series to established pros. Before 1948 there is considerable doubt as to the superiority of pros (particularly prior to 1939) and for these years I would agree to separate amateur and pro rankings. And ForzaUV makes many correct points. Tennishistory1877 (talk) 11:51, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

What is clear to you, might not be clear to someone else. Rosewall dominating Laver in 1963, and doing so on wood, where Laver was largely a rookie doesn't make it clear in any way that Rosewall was better than Laver year in 1962, a year in which they never met and on a largely grass tour. It's a huge extrapolation. Why just can't we recognize the complex, largely divided history of tennis. Two tours, two #1s. We don't need someone here telling us what to think or telling us who was superior #1 among two players who never played against each other. Should we also have asterisks and annotations placed next to Emerson's slam wins that we know they're "worthless". Ricardo 93.140.190.224 (talk) 12:05, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

"What is clear to you, might not be clear to someone else." That is why we are having a vote! "Should we also have asterisks and annotations placed next to Emerson's slam wins that we know they're "worthless". What an absurd comment. Tennishistory1877 (talk) 12:28, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

You say it's absurd comment but this article is doing that very absurd thing to year-end #1 Laver achieved, completely ignoring it. OTOH his or Emerson's amatuer slams are legit counted in all-time slam lists, and also in all-time majors list, but for some reason year-end #1 isn't counted in totality in this page. So it's a problematic discrepancy. If Laver's 1962 year-end #1 isn't a "true" #1 I'd expect his 1962 Grand Slam to be equally labeled as "not a true Grand Slam". However that is never done, there's no asterisk next to his 1962 Grand Slam and it's left to people alone to judge for themselves the value of his Grand Slam achieved during divided years of tennis. His #1 years should be treated equally. Ricardo 93.140.190.224 (talk) 14:22, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

A couple of editors already answered you, it was the reality then and it can be sourced to the contemporaries of that era, whether they were pundits or players. For two decades before the Open Era, no top amateur was able to finish as #1 in his debut season on the pro tour. The amateurs had to compete with the pros before they were seen as the best and that's all we need to know. I'm not sure what Emerson's slams have to do with what we have here. Emerson won those tournaments, you can find his name on [Australian], [U.S.], [Wimbledon] and [French] official lists and the article we have in Wikipedia is about those tournaments. This article though is about the top player in the world so you can't claim that Laver or any amateur was an equal to Rosewall or Gonzales in 1961 for example when the people of that time never considered or seen them as equals. ForzaUV (talk) 16:19, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

This is not a great level of discussion. Repeating your own talking pts over and over again doesn't answer questions I raised. − I specifically asked what is the tool to determine which tour was superior? If you're going to treat both CYGS winners differently, have amatuer Budge 1938 as world #1 and then amatuer Laver 1962 as inferior to pro Rosewall in that year, what is the tool to make such judgement. Name it and let's see if it can satisfy encyclopedia criteria. I'm raising my objection in good faith stating that it's impossible to rank players from different tours side by side, players who played in different tours and who have never met in a given year. Not you, nor Tingay nor anyone can claim he can know with certainty who would have won or who would have been better had both had chance to play side by side. That's akin to ranking Pete Sampras as #125 in the world for 2021. He didn't play this tour but I'm sure you could find a place for him. He'd still have a solid serve, probably could do a bit better than Karlovic so yeah, let's rank him #125 for 2021. If you think this is stupid, I think the same about comparing amateurs and pros. The tennis was split, tours were split, and each tour has its #1. The argument that Rosewall dominated Laver in 1963 and was therefore better than him in 1962 when they never met, simply escapes me and I have hard time accepting someome could even raise it in good faith. Ricardo 93.140.190.224 (talk) 16:49, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

1962 is not a simple issue as to No. 1. There actually was a combined pro/amateur ranking for 1962 compiled by UPI of 85 sports editors at the end of January 1963 applied to the 1962 year. And that poll rated Laver No. 2 and Rosewall No. 3. Now, you might ask, how did they come to this conclusion? By using the January Australian tour as an end-of-year event for 1962, and rating Laver's performance on the Australian tour above Rosewall's. Laver and Rosewall split the best-of-five set matches 2-2 on that tour, with Laver winning the Kooyong and Adelaide matches, the Adelaide match being very one-sided for Laver. That apparently was enough to give Laver the No. 2 spot over Rosewall. Now, some editors here have erupted in protest against this poll ranking, but you have to try and look at each ranking result on its own terms, look at what time frame was being used, which criteria were being applied. Usually some sense can be made out of them. But the main point is that we cannot jump to conclusions about what would have happened in an open tennis world which never existed, that is anti-historical and fictional.Tennisedu (talk) 18:27, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

The reason tennisedu is so fixated on this poll, is because it ranks Lew Hoad number 1. Tennishistory1877 (talk) 20:43, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

No one is "fixated" on this poll, but it is pertinent to the subject of Laver and Rosewall in 1962. Try and exercise a little self-control and keep yourself on topic.Tennisedu (talk) 20:14, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

"The reason tennisedu is so fixated on this poll, is because it ranks Lew Hoad number 1." True, and yet it's a poll of general sports editors, who probably knew only the basics of the amateur tennis world and next to nothing about the pro tour, with the possible exception of the Kramer Cup. That (team) event had some general name recognition in the sports world because even the casual follower of tennis generally knew that Jack Kramer barnstormed with pros; so his team event, the Jack Kramer Cup, got good publicity in 1962 (unlike most pro events which still suffered from relatively poor press coverage), and Hoad did very well in the Kramer Cup, winning his team matches. But Hoad won nothing of significance in terms of tournaments, or tours, in 1962 and was solidly behind Rosewall, which shows you how poorly the general sports writer could judge the pro tennis world. Maybe such writers could get their hands on information about the amateur Grand Slams, but the pro tour, forget it. This was a time when even World Tennis magazine struggled to get the full details of the pro tour. Those details were not always publicized well, unlike the amateur events which had a pre-established publicity machine.

But that's why it makes so little sense to demand that sources for this article be well-known. The pro tour was not covered on the front page of the sports section. The top tennis writers were mostly concerned with amateur events. You have to dig for reports about the pro tour, and you can find them, especially as they're being uploaded to sites like to newspapers.com, but you won't often find them on the front sports page, with the name of a famous tennis writer signed at the bottom. You have to work with the sources you have, and use common sense about it. A poll of general sports editors shouldn't pass muster as a reliable tennis source, and this particular poll is even included in our 1962 row in bold, as one of the sources used to determine #1. It's a "named" source (UPI), so it's not anonymous (yet we have no idea who the tennis writers were, within it); it passes that criteria. But it's a thoroughly dubious source for this type of article -- or for any tennis article, except, frankly, as player trivia. Which just shows that we can't make simple blanket rules about what sources should be.

I'm not even sure how that sports poll came to be in this article. I know I have never tried to remove it, because trying to remove anything that favors Hoad has consistently turned into endless debate, even when it’s only tennisedu arguing for Hoad. Our editing process when it comes to Hoad, long ago got broke. But leave that aside for the time being.

This article seems like it will controversial no matter what happens with it. People oppose decisions being made about whether pros or amateurs were better: even though those decisions were being made at the time. Those decisions are a part of the sport's history; the amateur/pro debate about who was better was a constant feature of the sport; and most observers in most years decided that the top pros were indisputably better than the top amateurs. You say we shouldn't decide today who was better. Fine, but it was decided back then, and our article could reflect that somehow.

Choosing, year by year, whether the top pro or top amateur was better, might be controversial to some. Splitting amateurs and pros into two columns would eliminate that controversy. But it would add other controversies, if it means, for example, that we should regard Pancho Gonzalez, not as world number one for eight years, but merely as number one pro, on a level footing with far inferior players like the #1 amateur for 1958, Ashley Cooper.

If the article split into pro/amateur columns, is there a way to do that and acknowledge the impossible-to-ignore reality that the pros became far better than the amateurs?

And if we made those split columns, what effect would that have on other Wiki articles? Is it going to change any other pages about tennis records, and if so, which ones? Krosero (talk) 20:53, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

1. I wish people would stop projecting their ideas and values on "who was superior among players who never met". That's not rankings, it never was, and it never can be. ITF comittee will award World Champion for the year 2021, and trust me, they won't consider David Ferrer to be in the mix. The guy wasn't active on tour this year, he didn't play and so he won't be considered. Nobody in the ITF committe will analyze hypothetical Ferrer-Medvedev and Ferrer-Djokovic matches to determine who's best. They will only focus on matches that happened. So even when past experts did such stuff, analyzing hypotheticals, it was absurd back then just as it would be now, and no different that fortune-telling. Tours were separate and should be treated as such.

2. Why should this article "acknowledge" anyting? I already mentioned this, anticipating these attempts so I asked if other articles and pages "acknowledge" (place asterisk) on Emerson's late 1960s slams which were won in "weak competition"? Is Laver's 1962 Grand Slam labeled as "less worth" than Budge's? Is almost fully boycotted Wimbledon 1973 labeled as less worth? I haven't seen that in any of the pages, so why should that be the case here? Even if such remarks hold truth in some cases, they're unprovable unprovable.

3. "And if we made those split columns, what effect would that have on other Wiki articles?" Well, imo the records would be more consistently portrayed, e.g. Laver's page states that "he was #1 in 9 different seasons", and such info should be clearly visibile on this page. Just as his overall majors mix is (6 amatuer GS + 8 pro slams + 5 open GS) his year-end #1 mix is (2 amateur + 5 pro + 2 open). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rod_Laver — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.140.190.224 (talk) 22:39, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

The point about that 1962 (early 1963) UPI poll of sports editors, who presumably would consult their own tennis writers, is that it appears to be based on actual play between the new pro Laver and the top two pros from 1962. The January Australian tour was used as a sort of end-of-season event to evaluate the relative strengths of the players. Now, that may not be an ideal approach, but at least it is not some guys in armchairs dreaming about who might be the top player among those who have not played even a single set of tennis against each other. There was some actual tennis play to base this ranking on. And the scope of the poll, including 85 different editors, is much more general than simply the whims of one dreaming tennis writer giving an off-the-cuff statement that the top pro must be the greatest. A "true-believer" statement. Better to acknowledge that the players themselves focused on their own pro or amateur tour, and gave little thought to how they would stack up against players on the other tour. In 1962 there was no pro tour, just a series of tournaments with no point system, as far as I have seen. If Krosero can show us a point system for 1962 in the pros, it should be added to the articles for that year.Tennisedu (talk) 02:04, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

@ForzaUV, the problem with what you said is that the top pros were not always considered stronger than the top amateurs, particularly pre-1948. This is outlined already in the article: "In 1938, for instance, when Don Budge won the amateur Grand Slam, it was easy to conclude that Budge was not only the U.S. No. 1 but also the world No. 1 amateur player. It was far more difficult, however, to decide who was the best overall player, amateur or professional, for that year because both Ellsworth Vines and Fred Perry, now professionals, were still at the top of their form." Splitting the pros and amateurs completely removes any such ambiguity or guesswork with respect to comparing these tours. Also, as this article is called "World number 1 ranked male tennis players", it would be more complete and accurate if we list both the world no. 1 ranked pros and world no. 1 ranked amateurs rather than attempting to coalesce the separate available rankings into a unified world ranking as we do currently. If there are some sources which do list unified rankings however, we can still detail them in the sources/rankings column. Your juniors vs pros analogy is not at all apt as the top junior has never been considered even close to equal with the top pros. Shang lost to the world No. 475 just two weeks ago [1]. Splitting the pros and amateurs will also add more context as we will see the interchange between the tours with players who were the top amateurs turning pro and becoming the top pro either immediately (e.g. Budge) or within a couple of years (e.g. Laver). Sod25 (talk) 07:11, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

Have created a setup preview for the 1913–1967 part of the article based on an assumed consensus for replacing the No. 2 column with an amateur No. 1 column and dividing the pros and amateurs in separate columns. There is a request for closure of the article so I will not post this before that is done. Have used the amateur rankings of Wallis Myers, Olliff and Tingay as listed in Bud Collins' History of Tennis encyclopedia. This setup is NOT intended to be the final word on the rankings itself or on the sources to be used, that is an ongoing process, but to provide a preview of what this part of the article will look like and to solicit feedback.--Wolbo (talk) 16:30, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

1877-1912 period

One possible partial resolution to the problems outlined above assuming the article is changed. Regarding pros prior to the 1930s. The resolution only deals with part of the period though. The 1877-1912 period has long bothered me, because the number 1 and 2 conclusions are based on national rankings. International play was rare in the early years, so how can a U. S. number 1 be compared with a British number 1 when there were no international rankings? This is much worse than a mixed list of amateurs and pros. However, I have always been reluctant to remove this section, as the section contains excellent and hard to find research from Karoly Mazak. How about removing the rankings columns entirely from the pre-1913 section? Then no concocted amateur rankings, just a listing of the sources and only when pros played are available sources listed. We still have the issue of pro rankings 1913 until the late 1920s, but this is a much shorter period to contend with and the pros at least played a lot more regularly in these years. Tennishistory1877 (talk) 22:59, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

The original article only contained rankings from 1913 onward as there were no recognized contemporary world rankings before that time. For that reason I have never been in favor of adding "rankings" for the period before 1913. National rankings were available but should in my view not be used because the article is about world rankings. You can indeed not compare a U.S. No. 1 player with a British No. 1 player, at least not before the early years of the 20th century when they sporadically started competing against each other.--Wolbo (talk) 23:43, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

I agree. Tennishistory1877 (talk) 00:16, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

I would not remove the 1877-1912 ratings. Yes they are mostly British rankings (though some are Hall of Fame rankings), but that's where the experts were that wrote the rankings. If anything just be clear about where the sources came from and let readers know they may or may not have used world-wide sources when they were compiled. It is important that these rankings remain as they are sourced and hard to find anywhere else. But it is equally important that our readers understand exactly what they are seeing. The column may need slight wording tweaks to better define the narrowness of geography. Fyunck(click) (talk) 00:36, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

As I said on the other thread, I would definately not remove the sources provided by Karoly from wikipedia. My preference is for the removal of the number 1 and 2 columns. Alternatively, a separate article could be created "National men's tennis rankings 1877-1912". I would be prepared to accept changes to the wording ie UK 1. R. Doherty US 1 Whitman in the column, though this is not my preferred option. Tennishistory1877 (talk) 09:34, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

Why can't the rankings just be split/shared? Mind you, you, the early tennis era is the de facto same thing as with amateur-pro split, group of players playing separately and not meeting. Renshaw never met Sears just as Laver in 1962 never met Rosewall. And we are forced to rank them. For me it should be shared in both cases. 1962 belongs to Laver and Rosewall and 1886 to W.Renshaw and Sears. But if you say you have only national rankings for early tennis era, it would mean we'd have to treat every country as having its own tour? What about German #1 at the time, or French? I get the problem. So it's not just two to urs but potentially many more? In that case how many countries should be considered? If you're oposed to shared years for early tennis era on the basis that there is potentially X number of tours, and if the national rankings are well sourced, it still makes sense to list them, and to have British and US #1 as co-equals and some kind of proto world #1s. And if you are really bothered by them not being international rankings, I propose they could be omitted from final table, the one in which we count year end #1 seasons? But they should still be listed in every year since 1877. So you mention all sources in each year since 1877, but count #1 in final table only post internationalisation of tennis, which is post formation of ITF in 1913 for amateurs and post 1927 for pros? OTOH isn't L.Doherty clear #1 in 1903? Wimbledon, US and International Lawn Tennis Challenge (Davis Cup). So I think using 1913 as the start is a bit too late. Ricardo 93.143.82.3 (talk) 11:29, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

Ricardo, please make your comments use as limited vertical space (and as few newlines) as possible, so others don't have to clean up after you every time you post. Sod25 (talk) 11:53, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

1913 is when the ILTF (ITF) was formed, so a very good starting point. There were occasions when a small number of US players at Wimbledon in the early years and vice versa, but these were sporadic. Actually there were few countries that played tennis in the early years. UK and US rankings are listed, so these are the national rankings we have. If anyone finds other nations then we can list them too, but I dont think we will be deluged with them! Actually ranking different nations as world no. 1 based on no international citations is much worse than a combined pro amateur ranking with citations (there were a steady stream of top amateurs turning pro and playing long world series tours, compared to sporadic top US players entering a few isolated events in Europe and vice versa). In early histories, such as some of Wallis Myers' books, you will see the growth of tennis began to gather momentum around 1909-10. Wallis Myers' books were available free online some years back, along with Parmly Paret's book, but I dont know if they still are. Crowds began to grow at Wimbledon, Worple Road was packed, and they had to think about finding a new venue around the time of world war 1. The US nationals moved from Newport around this time also for similar reasons. The Forest Hills history by Robert Minton goes into detail about this. Tennishistory1877 (talk) 11:52, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

So is the idea to remove the No. 1 ranking column leaving just the results column pre-1913? The inception of the ILTF does seem a fitting starting point for the emergence a "world" number 1.

Unrelated, but what does "scratch" mean in in this ranking from 1896: "1. W. Baddeley scratch 2. Mahony". Also the repeated source "The Lawn Tennis classification of British players (in alphabetical order, foreign and covered court tournaments were not taken into account)" is confusing: firstly, is that referring to Lawn Tennis (1889) from the "Further reading" section, and secondly, does that title mean again in 1896 for example that Baddeley and Mahoney were considered equal but just listed alphabetically? If so, why would they both not have been put in the Number 1 column? Sod25 (talk) 00:12, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

Yes I agree, Sod25. Scratch is a term often used in the early years to refer to handicapping. For example Pettit the professional beat Sears the amateur in two routine sets in a match in 1887, but Sears "gave his opponent half-15". https://www.newspapers.com/image/466396144/ Many of the early sources on this page were sourced by Karoly Mazak. He undertook library research to find them. Tennishistory1877 (talk) 10:23, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

Thanks. It would be good to add that definition to Glossary of tennis terms#S, and link it where it is used, because most readers probably don't know it. Sod25 (talk) 23:38, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

No problem. Add this to the glossary of terms by all means and use my source as an example if you wish. I am sure in a few club matches handicapping is still used, but its not something that has been used for top echelon tournaments for many years. In the early years, though, there were many handicap tournaments. Tennishistory1877 (talk) 23:47, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

Actually we would not leave it blank, but the header would need a symbol and explanation that the listing heavily leans towards British players since that is the source of most of the rankings. Of course if there are American rankings for that time period those would need to be included also, just like we would do with Pro vs Amateur. And remember, self-published works aren't banned in any way from being used on Wikipedia as a source. We certainly want other sources if possible and we should scrutinize them to make sure they are from someone respectable. It's not like we are going to make a article top British players or top American player pre-1912. They would go here but make darned sure our readers understand the situation. Fyunck(click) (talk) 22:47, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

Actually I think the consensus is leaning towards removal of the ranking columns entirely pre-1913 (but not any of the research). This is what I would wish, ForzaUV tried to do this earlier and Wolbo told him to wait until the outcome of this thread, which seems fair. What we have are rankings for separate nations (actually in terms of national rankings these are very good sources). Karoly listed the original sources, so the self-published angle wouldnt come into it. We had the debate about self-published sources last year and I listed a magazine review. It seems to be a very controversial subject, with one editor removing these sources and others wanting them to remain. I let the matter rest, because I didnt want to keep creating conflict on this issue, but I wasnt at all happy about it and the implementation of the rule does not seem consistent (or fair). Tennishistory1877 (talk) 23:30, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

ForzaUV collapsed (hid) the entire pre-1913 section [2], seemingly with the intent of removing it completely. Sod25 (talk) 00:11, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

Oh sorry, my mistake, I thought ForzaUV collapsed the ranking columns only. I only saw the page after Wolbo reverted it back and tried to deduce from the edit summary what ForzaUV had done. Pre-1913 could be removed and placed on a separate page, or it could also be listed on this page without the ranking columns, either is fine with me. Tennishistory1877 (talk) 00:36, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

FYI, anything about the complete removal of a section of one of our most important articles really needs an rfc and a notice on the Tennis Project talk page. It's too important to not get everyone involved. Fyunck(click) (talk) 01:41, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

I am strongly opposed to the idea, but was just giving my interpretation of the edit. Don't think a formal RFC with outside opinions is needed as we've had 11 different tennis editors comment on this page in the past few days which should be enough to find consensus. I'll start a vote. Sod25 (talk) 03:58, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

I would be happy just for the ranking columns to be removed if thats easier. If a full RfC is needed then fine. Tennishistory1877 (talk) 09:07, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

What should we do about the pre-1913 rankings?

Major concerns have been raised about the early years (1877 to the formation of the ILTF in 1913) covered in this article, namely that as Tennishistory1877 put it: "number 1 and 2 conclusions are based on national rankings. International play was rare in the early years, so how can a U. S. number 1 be compared with a British number 1 when there were no international rankings". How should we address this?

• Option 1: Remove the ranking columns, leaving just the results overview/sources column. The various separate British/U.S./other ranking lists and sourcing would all be kept in there, but no WP:SYNTH or WP:OR would be needed to equate/compare the separate tours to find unified "World" No. 1s if there isn't sufficient sourcing to do so.
• Option 2: Keep the ranking columns, but leave them blank when there is no source explicitly calling a player the World No. 1 for the years when there were isolated regional tours.
• Option 3: Replace the World No. 1 column with European No. 1, US No. 1, (and potentially other) columns.
• Option 3a: Replace the World No. 1 column with Regional No. 1 column. Enter all players with sources for No. 1 or best player.
• Option 4: Status quo, but don't count pre-1913 players in the statistics section.
• Option 5: Split off the section to a separate page, e.g. "National men's tennis rankings 1877-1912".
• Option 6: Remove the section entirely from Wikipedia.
• Option 7: Do nothing.

Notifying @Tennisedu, @Fyunck(click), @Tennishistory1877, @Krosero, @Tvx1, @ForzaUV, @Wolbo, @Qwerty284651, @Krmohan, as this might otherwise go unnoticed in this monstrous talk page. Sod25 (talk) 03:58, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

Survey (1877-1912)

• Option 1: Keeping a single page, but letting readers decide for themselves who was best for those early years by giving them the relevant national rankings and tournament results without unencyclopedically and ahistorically synthesizing this information seems to be the optimal solution. 2 as a second preference. Sod25 (talk) 03:58, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
• If these are the only choices I would go with Option 3a. There is world No. 1 backing for some of those years so we need to keep those regardless. Fyunck(click) (talk) 05:36, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

  I tried to be exhaustive. Feel free to add an option if you have a different idea. Sod25 (talk) 06:35, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

• Only Davis Cup provided significant international play before 1913, but not every nation was involved. I am tempted to suggest Option 1, not just for pre-1913, but for post 1913. There were many years without a clear and inarguable No. 1. Some of the debates around many years in these Talk page testify to that. Even when clear ranking lists exist, some editors are not satisfied with them.Tennisedu (talk) 06:24, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

  What??? Then we might need to rename or remove the article since this page was created to show the best player of the year. Without it why would this article even exist? It's one thing to show the best amateur and the best professional of a year (with some multiples) but to remove all rankings pre 1913 and post 1913 sounds way out there. Clarification is much better than removal of content. Fyunck(click) (talk) 07:25, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

  I am afraid tennisedu may be right. Its a shame as I like the ranking columns from 1913 onwards and at the moment (despite my concerns in a few isolated years) the conclusions are good. But this article may not meet the synthesis criteria listed here [[3]] Tennishistory1877 (talk) 09:26, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

  The article title however claims we’re showing who was number one on a hypthotetical "world ranking", not the subjective best player of the year.Tvx1 19:31, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

• Option 1: I agree with Sod25. Option 5 as a second option. Tennishistory1877 (talk) 12:59, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
• Option 5 or 6: The title of the article tells us everything we need to know to determine that this section should not be part of this article (or vice versa that the title needs to be adapted). Having a mismatch between the article title and content, as well as between the title and the lead, has been a significant deficiency for far too long and needs to be addressed.--Wolbo (talk) 12:31, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
• Option 1 for me, both pre-1913 and post-1913. It would do much to decrease the subjectivity in our editor debates. We would still debate what to include in the description box, but that's business as usual. As for removing the pre-1913 section, it shouldn't be deleted entirely, but it can be made its own article, or it can stay. I think it can stay without a problem. If the pre-1913 rankings are limited in the sense that many of them are national, okay, but throughout the pre-Open Era we have limited rankings, usually because they're limited to amateurs or limited to pros. We have SOME rankings that purport to be "world" rankings, in keeping with the title of this article -- but most of them really are not. Not until pros joined amateurs did ranking bodies look consistently at the whole world of tennis. So I'd say, keep the pre-1913, or make it its own article, but in all articles let's remove the #1 and #2 columns. Krosero (talk) 13:24, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
• Option 1: I prefer for the section to stay with its content collapsed, but it could be moved to a new article. The ranking columns should also be removed for post 1913 through 1967, the more I think about it the more it makes sense so I have to say that I fully agree with @Tennisedu, @Tennishistory1877, @Krosero and @Tvx1 here. No ranking columns before the Open Era, only a results summary for the top 2 players in the pro tour and the top amateur player(s). ForzaUV (talk) 15:34, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

  The survey is about the pre-1913 rankings and the options relating to that. It is NOT about the post 1913 period so don't convolute the survey and discussion by voting for something that is not on the menu. It is pointless. This is apart from the fact that removing ranking columns for the entire pre-1967 period would simply turn the article into World number 1 ranked male tennis players in the Open Era, an entirely different article.--Wolbo (talk) 15:54, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

  And I shouldn't be for the Open Era. It should be limited to when an official World Ranking was introduced. 1975 for men.Tvx1 19:33, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

• Option 6 This section violates so many policies that it just cannot be kept. It's all the personal synthesis of whomever wrote this. Some the Number One ranked players in this section don't even match the quoted source (e.g. 1898). There is a sub-section of the history of the rankings section which can adequately deal with whatever encyclopedic information there is for pre-1913.Tvx1 19:40, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

Further discussion

Don't we already have a couple of these surveys going? Shouldn't we finish one before moving on? Fyunck(click) (talk) 04:16, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

Only one that I was aware of. This question was already being discussed, so it shouldn't increase the mental burden that much to vote on it now. Sod25 (talk) 04:27, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

@Wolbo, Fair enough. No need to discuss post 1913 in this section but one last thing I have to say is that I disagree the article would turn the article into an Open Era list, we would keep the results and summaries for the pre-Open era years and let the readers decide for themselves who were the "world" #1s in all of those years. There were two active tours played concurrently and it's not up to the editors to decide who should be listed or not in those columns. For me I rate #1 and #2 pros higher than #1 amateur, some editors believe the #1 pro is equal to the #1 amateur and both are rated higher than #2 pro, and there are probably others who believe that some #1 amateurs were better than the pro players, we just don't know and there should be no ranking columns for the pre-open era years. ForzaUV (talk) 16:55, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

Perhaps a change in title for this article in line with Option 1 could be World Number 1 Rankings for Male Tennis Players, because we would be including the known ranking material which has been found by the above editors over the recent years, it's not as if we are abandoning the ranking material. This proposed change in title would put the emphasis on the rankings rather than on the particular players, which is a change for the better. I know that this section is about pre-1913, but the same principles could apply elsewhere. Tennisedu (talk) 18:26, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

The problem is that the emphasis shouldn't exist. This article is already fundamentally flawed because of an undue emphasis on pure hypothetical world rankings. There were nothing that even resembled formal World Rankings prior to 1975. Only opinions of journalists. The personal opinion of a British journalist of who were the best players in a particular year is not a "world ranking". The personal opinion of an American journalist of who were the best players in a particular year is not a "world ranking". "World" has nothing to do with it. Not the world's view at all.Tvx1 19:45, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

They were for college football. Opinions of journalists. Those journalist rankings can be better than points to be sure. Effectively it is the "best player in the world" as opposed to a point by point ranking, but it's the same thing. #1 ranked Notre Dame tied #2 ranked Michigan State in 1966. Who's #1 now? By point ranking...no. By authorities...no. By the press...yes By the coaches...yes. This type of ranking has gone on for hundreds of years, and tennis is no different. If it gets in print we use it. If there is more than one we use both. Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:19, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

A subjective order of the best players according to journalists, yes. Formal rankings, not they’re not. The issue is not that the sources are being used, but are being grosely misrepresented to the readers. Most presented sources don’t claim a “world ranking no.1” at all and there is far too much cherry-picking of the sources. Not to mention all the editor synthesis.Tvx1 22:58, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

Yes, the actual content of the article is "World number 1/Top male tennis player by year". Of the 26 players who've *officially been ranked world number 1* by the ATP, 7 (Safin, Rios, Muster, Ferrero, Kafelnikov, Moya and Rafter) are never listed here in the number 1 column, so the title and section heading #List of No. 1 and No. 2 ranked players do not accurately represent the information presented. We should change them so they do. Sod25 (talk) 21:07, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

That's because the column is for year-end No. 1. Fyunck(click) (talk) 22:39, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

Fyunck, your point is fine with respect to the ranking decisions of people in the sport, we could report the rankings made by others. But we cannot make rankings ourselves, that crosses the line into original research. Tennishistory1877 pointed that out above. As soon as we start making choices, we enter into forbidden territory. But if people in the game of tennis made some rankings, we can report that. If there are multiple rankings, we cannot choose among them as to which one is to be respected and which is to be discarded, that is also original research. Once we get into the 1930's, there are often two or three ranking lists per year, and we cannot choose among them without crossing the line of forbidden work. This issue does not end in 1967, there remain the same issues in the Open era. I would say, let's just report the rankings which were made, and not choose among them.Tennisedu (talk) 21:17, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

And that I have never had a problem with. However, wikipedia has always been open as to which sources are most relevant to a situation. Just because Piedmont North Dakota issues a ranking doesn't mean it belongs in the article. We use the top three or four sources unless only lesser sources are available. But we put in what they say, not what we say. Fyunck(click) (talk) 22:39, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

You keep talking about what is and isnt wikipedia policy, fyunck, but it doesnt tally with what wikipedia policy articles say. Earlier you reacted with surprise at what tennisedu said. This is your response. " What??? Then we might need to rename or remove the article since this page was created to show the best player of the year. Without it why would this article even exist? It's one thing to show the best amateur and the best professional of a year (with some multiples) but to remove all rankings pre 1913 and post 1913 sounds way out there. Clarification is much better than removal of content." This is just one of the things the wikipedia article says: "Editors should not compare statistics from sources that use different methodologies." This article does that all the time pre-1973. There are all sorts of methodologies used in the different rankings on this page, but the rankings are compared (using whatever agreed system) and a consensus ranking is listed in the column. Tennishistory1877 (talk) 23:12, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

@Tennishistory1877: You told me you would drop interacting with me completely and I expect you to carry that out. Leave me alone...We are done on Wikipedia. Fyunck(click) (talk) 23:38, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

And who judges what are “the top three or four sources”? On what basis is their opinion declared ”the world ranking” by the editors of this article?? Why are the views of British and American press more important than those of the rest of the world??? What makes their opinion a ”world ranking” in any way???? This entire premise is pure and utter original research.Tvx1 23:08, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

Obviously editors have to agree on those sources. Maybe you'd like an example on what was ruled on here at wikipedia in the past. I assume you feel like the ATP or ITF are authoritative sources? Guess what, they are for some things but not for how a tennis player spells their name. They are banned per huge rfc from use for how a player registers their name in tennis. That was decided on by editors just as we'd have to do here. Not all sources are the same nor are they given the same weight. That has always been the case at wikipedia. Fyunck(click) (talk) 23:45, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

"The top three or four sources" for pre-open era pro tour rankings? This idea is absolutely farcical. Tennishistory1877 (talk) 23:20, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

Exactly what I said.Tvx1 23:30, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

The whole premise that we or the reader needs to decide who was the best in a certain year is false. It is exactly to avoid such a subjective comparison that we have this proposal to list both the amateur and pro No. 1 ranked player according to reliable sources. We present them matter-of-factly beside each other and that is it. We don't have to judge between them or determine which player was the best. Such a discussion, while interesting, is suited for a forum but not for an encyclopedic article. But doing away entirely with ranking lists for the pre-open era is throwing out the baby with the bathwater and basically leaves us with an open era ranking list. Given the history and intent of this article that makes no sense to me.--Wolbo (talk) 22:54, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

No one is suggesting that we do not report the ranking lists which were made by those in the sport or who covered the sport. We are simply saying that we cannot make our own ranking list. If there are several ranking lists per year, we should simply report those lists. Those lists did not always agree on the number one player for the year. In some years, there was no ranking list at all, just some discussion in the media. Trying to compose or create a merged ranking choice or choices is beyond our boundaries. We currently have a good researched set of rankings for each year in the old pro circuit, so all that remains to do is the same thing for the amateur circuit. The amateur circuit also had multiple ranking lists per year, so we should not be choosing our own number one player, but simply report the rankings which were made for that year. Anything further constitutes original research and is over the line. The Open era has the same problems as the pre-Open era, with some disagreement among ranking lists. There is no escaping this issue in 1968. Or even 1977.Tennisedu (talk) 23:19, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

Its not a question of whether it makes sense or not Wolbo. Its about what the wikipedia policy articles say. Tennishistory1877 (talk) 23:31, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

I do not know which specific policy you are referring to but the new setup would be significantly better in terms of any relevant policy that I can think of when compared to the current version. That is an important but also necessary step forward. Remember this article has rightly been tagged as original research for years now and for that reason alone it has to change.--Wolbo (talk) 06:37, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

Original research policy article "Editors should not compare statistics from sources that use different methodologies." This article does that all the time pre-1973. There are all sorts of methodologies used in the different rankings on this page, but the rankings are compared (using whatever agreed system) and a consensus ranking is listed in the column. I agree with you and another editor about wanting to keep the columns after 1913, but the wikipedia policies suggest (as the page is structured now) otherwise. I realise wikipedia policies can sometimes be confusing and contradictory, but the line I quoted seems quite clear. Tennishistory1877 (talk) 09:30, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

Then we shouldn't compare the rankings. If sources aren't unanimous for a given year, then we should list every player who was ranked number 1 by a source for that year in the number 1 column(s). We don't need to remove the column or all pre-1973 years to fix the WP:OR issues. Sod25 (talk) 09:48, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

I suggested something along these lines as a possible option some weeks (or may have been months) ago. A simple listing in the rankings column each year (ie Pancho Gonzales 2 sources, Ken Rosewall 3 sources, etc.) It doesnt attempt to choose number 1, just lists all players with citations. Tennishistory1877 (talk) 09:58, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

That still would be original research, since we claim them to be no. 1 on a “world ranking” for the relevant your while the sources do not claim a “world ranking” at all.Tvx1 12:28, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

You don’t avoid the comparison by presenting the names of the top pro and top amateur players next to each other, you actually mislead the readers into thinking that best player of the year was one of those two players when in reality this was not the case. Now if we list in the first column the top 2–3 pro players and in the second column the top 2–3 amateurs, it would be acceptable to keep the columns maybe but listing only one name we choose from multiple sources is the definition of original research. ForzaUV (talk) 00:01, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

Just to clarify, in this setup with a separate amateur and pro No. 1 list we can still list multiple players as co-No. 1 if that is what the reliable sources indicate. Just like we have done in the article until now. But we do not list the top 2-3 players, only No. 1 listed players.--Wolbo (talk) 06:17, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

Yes. And the statement "listing only one name we choose from multiple sources is the definition of original research" is most applicable to the article as it stands currently. Splitting the pro/amateur results will only improve the situation by removing a major source of WP:OR in the comparison of the two disjoint tours. Same with removing the number 1 column pre-1913 when there were only really national rankings. We should at least attempt to salvage the post-1913 rankings rather than prematurely deciding to throw them out altogether. Sod25 (talk) 10:06, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

We have not been doing that up to now, sometimes we list players as No. 1 who are not No. 1 on any ranking list. Some players ranked No. 1 on a list do not get picked by us as No. 1 because we downgrade the list. Some years we have no ranking list. And some ranking lists are more believable than others. How do we determine which ranking lists are "reliable" enough to satisfy our requirements? This all requires us to exercise our own personal judgment, and that constitutes original work. When we start making judgment calls, we are outside the boundaries. Better to simply report the ranking lists which actually exist, and it is obvious from them who is listed at No. 1 on those lists, anyone can read that in about two seconds. Completely unnecessary and redundant to extract No 1 names from the lists, if those lists exist, and retread them on another column. I doubt that there is room on the page for more than two columns, one for pros and another for amateurs. By extracting names and listing them in a separate column, we are giving our endorsement to those names, something which we want to avoid doing. Tennisedu (talk) 06:41, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

We do? If we find sources for players as being the best of the year, that's what we use. Which players have no one saying they were the best of the year be it a ranking or player of the year, or words of experts? Fyunck(click) (talk) 08:24, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

Agree that we should list all players who were assigned a number 1 rank by a source (not "Most Popular" or "Sportsman of the year", but actual performance-based rankings) in the number 1 column, rather than weighting the sources ourselves to pick the "true" number 1. Extracting the number 1(s) and putting them in a separate number 1 column allows readers to skim the list rather than have to parse each of the very dense yearly summaries to find it themselves, which shouldn't be discounted in such a long article. Sod25 (talk) 10:16, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

That is where we have been having problems, determining which players qualify for a No 1 ranking, 1953 being a prime example. Two ranking lists that year, naming Gonzales and Sedgman as No 1's, but for Kramer only a passing reference without any list. Yet we argued over whether there should be any other No. 1 besides Kramer! Your proposed system breaks down very quickly. It requires debate and judgment. Then we invoke words like "arriving at a consensus" to choose which names qualify, whatever that means. That puts us outside our boundaries, and we end up using our own judgment to select No. 1 players. By listing the rankings themselves, we have done our job, we would provide the reader with the No. 1 players which were actually named in ranking lists, taking about two seconds to read, and if they disagree, that is their right. It is redundant and unnecessary for us to retread those names in another column, which requires judgment calls on our part, and which we do not have space to do anyway. Sod25, we have already separated the "Rankings" sections from the "Summaries" into separate areas, very easy to check the rankings area.Tennisedu (talk) 15:03, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

That is where we may be having problems and we will continue to have problems if you insist on only including specific ranking lists. Other experts do exist and the press exists as to who the best player in the world is. That may not work in the 21st century, but it certainly works in 1953. It was used by the amateurs as well. We would list them all as opposed to using our judgment. We would use sports experts, the Hall of Fame, ranking lists, whatever we can get our hands on. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:10, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

The issue of which rankings we (should) use already exists now and is independent of the proposals currently in discussion. Therefore it would be best to separate this discussion into its own thread.--Wolbo (talk) 19:19, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

The issue of which types of rankings are allowable as sources is inseparable from the creation of a No. 1 column, it is the basic stumbling block to having a No. 1 column. Fyunck, the system has not worked for 1953 or for other years, because there is debate not just about using passing references in newspapers, but also about whether full-blown and expert ranking lists themselves should be allowed to be referenced, some editors are adamant that even the ranking lists should be excluded. I don't know where you think this system has worked smoothly, it clearly has not. And it always requires personal judgment by ourselves as to which sources should be allowed as legitimate. The only non-judgmental system is to use the rankings sections we have already assembled as the fulfillment of the rankings requirements, and adding a second column for rankings is redundant and unnecessary. Why should we bother adding another column for rankings when we already have one?. I would recommend that we remove the No. 2 or lower rankings from the "Rankings" sections, and that would give us exactly what you are asking for, no need to create another column to recycle the same material. The current Rankings areas have the added advantage of identifying the rankings sources which is helpful to the reader in evaluating the quality of the ranking. We should not be evaluating the quality of the ranking sources ourselves, that goes beyond our boundaries.Tennisedu (talk) 21:00, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

Then we will always disagree. It can work just fine, even for 1953. If we find sources for who was the best pro in 1953 they all go in column one. If we find sources for who was the best Amateur for 1953 they all go in column two. No issues, no judgements. And all of wikipedia has always had to make judgements on quality of sources. That isn't localized to only tennis project. That is everywhere here. If this gets limited to only specified ranking lists I would disagree vehemently and that limit could easily be a POV violation and not allowed. Fyunck(click) (talk) 23:22, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

Fyunck, in case you haven't noticed, what I am proposing is essentially the same thing that you seem to be proposing, use the current "Rankings" material, drop the references to No. 2 and lower, include the citations on sources. No one has a problem with that. It is when we start endorsing the names without giving the citations as to source that we cross the line into personal judgments. We do not need two rankings columns, that is not necessary at all. We can list the number ones together with their source citations, just as they are found in the current "Rankings" material. Where do you disagree with that? It gives you everything you are asking for.Tennisedu (talk) 01:46, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

That would be fine as stated. I thought you meant something else... sorry. Leave all as is with the ranking in column one. Leave all as is with the sourcing sections. Dump everything in the number two column and insert any No. 1 amateurs in that column, making sure to add the amateur sources in the source section. And obviously after 1967 we would only have one No. 1 column, not two, and we would remove the current No. 2 column. If that is what you are proposing then I'm on board. Fyunck(click) (talk) 02:03, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

We seem to be making progress here. The problem with the current article is that the No. 1 players names on the left column are STAND-ALONE names without any citation as to source rankings. That means that they represent the endorsement as No. 1 BY THIS ARTICLE and the editors of this article, which is original research. The problem would be solved if the names of the No. 1 players were tied to citations of the source rankings from which they are drawn. As it now stands, these names appear to be the product of the article itself, rather than drawn from a source. That is where we need to correct our article, in my view. The names for No. 1 player need to be cited as to their ranking source. Then it is not the article itself standing behind those names. The names of No. 1 players can be easily merged with the "Rankings" sections and the citations provided in the "Rankings" sections. We should not have stand-alone names for No. 1, but everything should be linked to a source ranking. In the lead to this article it states that there is a LISTING only of "the tennis ranking authorities who provided the annual rankings on which the listed rankings are based", but the names of the No. 1 players are not linked by citation with the sources from which they were drawn. That is the crucial error in the design of this article. If we fix this flaw, the article should be fine. And it is extremely easy to fix, the linkages are already there in the article.Tennisedu (talk) 03:36, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

Then I'm confused. It looks like all the No. 1 players have their sources in the source column. That's all we need. If the sources for the No. 1/best players is in the sources section it's all good. Fyunck(click) (talk) 06:06, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

Having proper wiki citations attached to the names in the Number 1 (left) column would be a definite improvement that I don't think anyone would disagree with. Removing the column itself would degrade the article and as I said make it harder to read. There is no need to merge the columns to do this. Sod25 (talk) 06:07, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

Fyunck, the failure to have the players' names linked to their ranking sources has caused unending trouble on this article, huge trouble. A real can of worms. It has caused enormous confusion, and the belief, which is understandable, that these names are not tied to any particular ranking source, but are products of the editors of this article. The editors believed that they were responsible to find support for the correct No 1 names. That has caused tremendous argumentative debate and judgmental decisions about who should be on the list of No. 1 players. All of that turmoil could be avoided by giving citations to the No. 1 players as to their respective ranking sources. There should be no problem in doing this and rescuing this article. If the No. 1 player names are the product of their own source rankings, as you claim, then let us make that clear and attach a citation to the source ranking, and end the confusion. Do you have a problem with this approach? I am not sure that I hear you objecting to it. As far as merging the columns, if the ranking sources were attached by citations to the No. 1 player names, there would be no need for the "Rankings" area under the summary, and it could be removed. Save space.Tennisedu (talk) 06:54, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

With that reasoning we could also do away completely with the "Source of ranking and tournament results summary." Why would we need that column when a simple link next to the player would do? Remember also that a ranking of 1-3 is also proposed for the ranking and results cells. Fyunck(click) (talk) 08:22, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

Ricardo here. I don't feel we should be so critical of pre-1913 rankings or any periods for that matter. I think the main purpose of this page is to mention anyone who ever had reasonable claims to being best in the world in a given year. There is no doubt that Spencer Gore has solid claims in 1877 so I think it's doing more harm than good to this page if Spencer Gore is not mentioned for 1877 one way or another. If you're going to exclude players or periods, you could find yourself excluding almost every era. I know some are kinda mesmerized by the title of this page, "world #1" thinking it's about singular most accomplished (or best) player in a given year, but strictly speaking, we don't have that until open era, and arguably even latter, because with those partial 1970s bans of players (e.g. Connors at FO) even that alone affects the tour, affects the rankings, is not a level-playing field, not everyone could have competed vs everyone and it was a mini-split within the game. And I don't need to mention far greater amateur-pro split. So when you think about excluding stuff, think wisely. I would want this page to be the place where readers could find as much data as possible about past rankings, with many beatiful citations. So I would list as much as possible, of all sources. The far more important question is what should enter statitistics and final table. We need to have consistent crtiteria there. In final table, I would count only players who topped (or co-topped) certain well known and established tour. I would not have "pros" before 1927 because there were no pro tours back then. As for amateurs, creation of ILTF in 1913 is without a doubt beggining of official amateur tour. But I would also argue amateur tour exists since 1877, so I would try to keep those rankings but not count them in final table if that is your proposal. But erase/delete nothing. Btw, regarding amatuer/pro split. I am quoting something from this page: " in the course of 1953 Lance Tingay wrote that it was very difficult to establish a hierarchy because Gonzales hadn't still met one of the top pros. Kramer retired on July 9 and never met Gonzales that year and Gonzales met Segura and Sedgman for the first time of the year only in November.". I can only say lol to this. So Tingay admits it's "difficult" to rate two pro players who haven't met or rate another two who have met only near year-end, despite them playing in the same tour? But some editors here still think it's ok to rate amateurs and pros together who never met? They have to be listed separately. No question. Ricardo 93.140.225.100 (talk) 13:34, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

What should be in an article is first and foremost defined by the article title. The lead should further expand on the title but should not differ from or contradict it which is one of the design flaws of this article. The article title makes clear that the purpose of this article is not to "mention anyone who ever had reasonable claims to being best in the world" but to mention those male players who had a world no. 1 ranking. From that it follows that we should not include years when no world ranking existed. Regarding your point of listing amateurs and pros separately there seems to be broad consensus for that, so unless the discussion takes a different turn that is what will likely happen.--Wolbo (talk) 14:35, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

Just to further the point by Wolbo, there is indeed a basic disconnect between the title of this article, which focuses on No. 1 rankings, and the lead, which defines the scope of the article as "a year-by-year listing of the male tennis players who were, at the end of each calendar year generally considered to be the best overall for that entire calendar year. " It is that "generally considered" term which has given rise to the confusion and endless debate and judgment calls by the editors over which names should be included on the No. 1 player list. Wolbo is right, we have to resolve that disconnect between the title of this article and the lead. I would continue to emphasize that a resolution would involve, first, removing the phrase "generally considered" from the lead, and replacing it with "were ranked by [contemporary] ranking sources", which would end that source of confusion. And further, we should definitely require a citation link for the No. 1 player names to their respective ranking sources, so that no one will be confused into thinking that this list of No 1 names is the product of the judgment by editors of this article.Tennisedu (talk) 16:46, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

Yes, that was exactly what I was referring to with "design flaw" and it has hindered this article for a long time. The article title and lead are two circles of a Venn diagram which logically largely overlap but are not the same. The lead is broader, less well-defined and more subjective than the title. Agree that the lead should be adapted unless there is a consensus that the title should be changed but I do not see that happening. Also agree that every No. 1 listed should be sourced, although to me it would be fine if the citations are placed in the text, but that is a basic requirement for all wiki articles. Nothing special--Wolbo (talk) 17:26, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

But articles around wikipedia do touch on peripheral topics, especially when there is no better place to put it. Sure we can have a separate article on the 1877-1913 champions, but its best place is here with the proper section title. And we absolutely don't just want contemporary sources.... we want all sources. If someone writes a book that gets properly published that ranks every singles player from 1877, of course we would include those rankings. We could certainly remove the word "generally" but I still think it fits for most years. And I think you are being a stickler on the title of the article. Most readers will look at that and "this was the best player in the world" in a particular year. Do we make a separate "Best yearly male singles tennis player" article? We surely can, but 95% of it would be right here. Ranked does not mean "ranking list", it can mean an expert ranked them the best player with no list given. If the hang-up is really going to be 100% exact meaning of words with no leeway then we need to change the title of this article so that it better fits the contents. The word "ranked" in the title is a huge problem it seems for some here... simply drop it. For 20 years the ATP didn't use their own ranking to signify the No. 1 player in the world... they used the player of the year award to do that. The ITF does the same. So ranked is a problem even then and now. Readers want to know who the best player was in a given year going back to the beginning. Fyunck(click) (talk) 17:03, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

Fyunck, you are opening that can of worms again, with confusion over the rankings. This article is not about "who was generally considered the best player" by contemporary sources and later histories of the sport and passing references in newspapers which do not even identify the expert who made the ranking. There is no possible answer to "who was the best player in the world". That is an invitation to chaos, and it surely brings in endless personal judgments by the editors. And there is no resolution to the issues you are inserting here, just an endless debate among the editors. This article title does not try to bite off more than it can chew, just reporting the ranking results which actually occurred, not borrowing trouble by trying to get the editors into a debate to resolve the unresolvable. That is self-inflicted disaster, as we have already seen on these pages. Simply listing the rankings which actually occurred is a big enough job for this article, we should not be trying to solve the problems of the world here. This article is supposed to be about rankings. The topic of "who was the best and greatest" player is a subject for another article, or rather blog site, where personal opinions can be indulged. Tennisedu (talk) 17:23, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

Then we have a problem here. We need to remove all ATP player of the year awards, all ITF awards, all Tingay lists, all Wallis Meyer lists, etc... Then we need to go to the mythical college football article that lists champions and get them all removed prior to a playoff. Removing those items are a bigger can of worms than the other way around and would be a disaster for the article. You seem to be using a very narrow definition of the word "highest ranked" as opposed to a dictionary definition was is much broader and means things like best or first. If it's causing problems the we need to dump that word or create a separate article for players sourced as the best of the year. I thought you said above that we actually agreed with each other on the article being left as is with column two removed and the sources being shifted from one column to the other. It sure doesn't sound like it. Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:00, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

This article is about rankings, those rankings are based on performance over a year, they are not related to determining "the best and greatest", which is an unanswerable question. Of course we can still use the ATP list and the college ranking lists, but they have to be understood for what they were. Rankings of performance for one year. They were not trying to solve the unsolvable and straighten out the world. The solutions I suggested involved making a clear citation link for the No. 1 names to the ranking source from which they were drawn. That way, the context is clear, and people are not confused into thinking that these names are chiseled in stone as "the greatest and best". And then the editors get blamed for pushing their own ideas of who was the best and greatest. That is not what rankings show.Tennisedu (talk) 18:24, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

Adding citations is not a "solution", it is a bog-standard verifiability requirement for all wiki content that can be contested. Mind you, the article is now already much better sourced than a few years ago. That process just needs to continue until all rankings are sourced. Also, please don't use bold, it is considered poor form.--Wolbo (talk) 18:51, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

Don't see a need to remove "ATP player of the year awards, all ITF awards, all Tingay lists, all Wallis Meyer lists". They are all valid sources in terms of rankings. An ITF award or ATP player of the year may not explicitly show a ranking list but it is clear they are based on a ranking of players in order to decide on the award. If the amateur No. 1s will be added, as seems to be the case, the sourcing is in my view straightforward. The yearly ranking lists from Wallis Myers, Olliff and Tingay are widely seen as the gold standard. Sourcing the amateurs will be easier than sourcing the pros.--Wolbo (talk) 18:45, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

I agree, but ATP player of the year, ITF... they are NOT rankings. They are valid sources of the best player of the year, but they are not rankings. Saying they are "based on a ranking" of players could be extrapolated for other experts or pro players who say who the best player was. And gold standard is making a judgement on quality of sources. We can't use silver standard rankings? The word ranking needs to go from the title if we use those sources. That is unless we are using a more general dictionary form of the word "ranking", in which case my original argument is still valid. And some start getting to be a stickler on the word rankings as a rankings list, then what about the word "world No. 1." if a ranking list isn't headed by the words "World No. 1" then how do we know it cover the entire world? The ATP calls it year-end No. 1 in the rankings, not "World No. 1". We have to look at our article title in a more general sense or else it needs a serious wording change. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:19, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

The rankings we use in this article are not "world" or general tennis rankings, but rankings for a circuit or tour, a subset of the overall tennis world. That is taken for granted, I think, so no need to raise an issue about it. I would tolerate individual experts or even players rankings, but where I draw the line is when the ranking source or expert is not even identified, then you really have no ranking at all.Tennisedu (talk) 20:27, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

I am a patient man, but I am reaching the end of my patience with this now. There has been an endless exchange of views, when editors have been going round and round in circles and no proper resolution has been reached. There can be no cherry-picking of which pre-open era pro rankings to include on the page and which not to (editors will never agree and there is no way of classifying the many sources). I have also quoted a line from the wikipedia original research policy. If after this lengthy debate I am in doubt about whether wikipedia policies have been followed, I will alert administrators and let them decide whether to remove this page or not. I do not want to return to discussing any of these issues again in the future. Tennishistory1877 (talk) 23:20, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

Please don't make threats. Admins have no unilateral power to delete contested pages, you would have to propose deletion at WP:AFD and any such proposal would fail dramatically. There is no WP:Deadline, so if you're reaching "the end of [your] patience", step away for a while. Sod25 (talk) 00:29, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

No threats have been made. This is a wikipedia article and should therefore conform to wikipedia rules. If I am not satisfied it meets criteria, I will merely turn the decision over to those assigned to make it. It isnt just the past week or so that these same arguments have been going round and round. I have heard these same arguments from certain editors for years. They may get some peverse pleasure from having the same debates again and again and again, but I do not. Tennishistory1877 (talk) 10:09, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

There is no problem with original research IF the names of the No. 1 players are cited as to origin. We have not done that , and that has caused the problem with original research. The solution is simple, just attach citations as to the source of the No. 1 player names. I see no reason not to do this. (Note: I hope that capitalizing the "if" in the previous sentence is within Wiki rules.) But we all know that Tennishistory1877 is "a patient man", as he says. He doesn't have to tell us that. Tennisedu (talk) 00:28, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

Not sure where the votes stand, or what surveys are still active, or even what the surveys encompass. The pre-1913 era, don't delete it, but keep it or move it. The columns pre-1968, my preference is still to remove the first two columns and leave only the main column containing summaries and sources, as I think it's the best option to reduce the subjectivity in our debates. Failing that, my second choice would be Wolbo's original suggestion of replacing the #2 player column with an amateur column. Krosero (talk) 14:10, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

Krosero, the discussion above has moved things along. The idea of removing the first two columns, which a number of us supported, including you and I and Tennishistory1877, has been opposed by several editors. It has been agreed to add an amateur column, no one is opposed to that idea. I have urged that we add citations to the list of No. 1 players to show the ranking sources which ranked them No. 1. Without that change, we are stuck with a problem of original research, if the names just sit without any citation as to source. If that occurs, then the article will remain dysfunctional. Some editors may be resigned to a dysfunctional article. There is a section on changing the lead below, to make it consistent with the title and the contents.Tennisedu (talk) 18:30, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

Actually that's not true about original research. If the source for the ranking is linked in the source section, that doesn't make it original research, and if you magically move that source next to the players name that doesn't magically make it perfectly fine. What moving it next to the players name does is make it clearer that that link goes with that particular player. If some feel that's clearer for our readers, then I can get on board with it. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:32, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

Actually, Fyunck we certainly do have a serious problem with original research if the No. 1 names are not linked to their source rankings, which is the case right now. There are no citations or links on those No 1 names. You can use the finest magnifying glass and not find those citations. Those names are naked and just sitting there, as if you and I had just decided to plunk them there. And that constitutes original research. Now, that is a problem which is easily fixed, and I do not hear anyone objecting to us doing that. So perhaps now we have the outlines of what needs to be done. 1) Add an amateur column. 2) List all players with a No. 1 ranking in the left column. 3) Place citations on the No. 1 names. Are we agreed on these steps? If so, we can start to implement them.Tennisedu (talk) 19:44, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

The links for those names are in the source section. That is not a serious problem by any stretch, as editor Wolbo mentioned. Is it better if the link is next to the name, perhaps, and I have no issue with that. But wikipedia has other tables where a player is listed as having won an event in a column, the player who lost the event in another column, and the score of the event in another column. No sources in those columns. This is perfectly fine because in the final column titled "sources" we list and link the sources. There is no rule we must show the source right next to the player name or it becomes original research. It may work better in this case, but it's not required. Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:14, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

I've requested a formal close of the first proposal discussion by an uninvolved editor at WP:Closure requests#Talk:World number 1 ranked male tennis players#Proposal: replace "Consensus No. 2" column with top ranked amateur column, to settle any doubts about what the consensus is there. Sod25 (talk) 05:52, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

We also have a proposal to fix the lead to bring it into consistency with the title and the contents of the article. The current title is consistent with the contents of the article, but the lead is not consistent with the title or the contents. I propose replacing the lead with the following,

• "World number 1 ranked male tennis players is a year-by-year listing of the male tennis players who were ranked as world No. 1 for the year. The annual source rankings from which the No. 1 players are drawn are also cited with each player name." Tennisedu (talk) 19:49, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

The current title is not really consistent with the contents, but it's probably good enough. Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:14, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

I see your point, Fyunck, but in this particular article the editors and readers have been confused, thinking that the No.1 names were chosen by the editors. That is obvious if you read this discussion above on this Talk page. There was still confusion about how those names were derived. But we will fix that confusion now. Thanks for the OK on the lead. We should probably get started working on this article now.Tennisedu (talk) 20:37, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

Agree with fyunck that placing citations right next to the players' name is not a general solution. Like he says, it's not done on similar Wiki pages, and we can do it, but it's not a game-changer in any way: the third column already tells us which source is picking which player. That third column already contains the citations to those sources (as Wolbo says, we can continue putting in links to sources that don't already have links). So moving those links to the first column(s), just so they can be directly attached to the player name, doesn't change anything of substance, though some may consider it neater. I tend to think it's redundant, if the idea is to put the citation link both in the first column and to keep it in the third column.

So, basically, the third column as it stands already tells us which source is picking which player. No mystery there.

Also agree with tennishistory1877 that sources should not be cherry-picked, and with fyunck that they certainly can't be restricted to ranking lists. There is nothing magically better about ranking lists, as opposed to other kinds of statements (like "top player", or "world champion"). In many years the pro tours featured only a handful of players, which meant that people didn't make top 10 lists; there would have been no sense in it. The World Series, usually featuring a H2H between just two players, was for decades considered the event which, more than any other, produced the world champion and the year's top player; but it involved just two, sometimes four players, and in the early years of the pro game there were hardly more than four pros actively playing at one time. It never became a large number. Sometimes full ranking lists were made, but they were often flawed. You all already know how the amateur ranking bodies termed their ranking lists "world #1"; they didn't say, "These are the top 10 amateurs"; they just said, "These are the top 10 players in the world"; that was their way of saying, following the official line, that pros were not real players. That pros just played exos. Well, even within the pro game there were similar divisions. The USPLTA developed pro tournaments and they made ranking lists, numbered from 1 to 10, tied with ribbons and bows and stamped with an authority's name on it ("USPLTA"); so by the standards being pushed here, it was the perfect ranking authority; but their lists sometimes followed the results of one tournament, the US Pro. One tournament. Let that sink in. One tournament to decide the world's ten best pros. Jack March did the same with his top ten lists; he called his list world rankings, but they were based strictly on his tournament in Cleveland. These are all instances of divisions in the pro game: instances where some pro authorities were saying that certain pros were really only playing "exos" rather than proper tournaments. That was, for example, Jack March's way of saying that Jack Kramer's H2H World Series was just an exo and shouldn't be considered for world rankings.

There were too many divisions within the pro game for us to attempt to make rankings "lists" some kind of definitive guide. What you need is some knowledge of the pro game, and some common sense (that 1962 general sports poll is not a proper source for a tennis page and I will object if it stays and it allows Hoad's name to appear in the first column, as if he had a sensible claim to #1; he was not #1 by any metric in 1962 except the team matches in the Kramer Cup).

That 1953 Tennis de France list that we keep hearing about, is a valid tennis source, of course. We're certainly going to keep it, but I bring it up just to show that it was not necessarily better than other sources we find from 1953. Tennis de France picked Hoad as the top amateur of 1953, which as Carlo Colussi pointed out long ago, was a minority choice, since most sources went with Trabert. Tennis de France picked Sedgman as #1 pro, so obviously they didn't give much credit to Kramer's World Series, but we've seen that certain ranking authorities, like the USPLTA, sometimes treated the World Series as if it were invisible, and that's obviously wrong. The choice of Sedgman, who lost the World Series, as #1 pro for 1953 is not a ridiculous one but it's far from neutral or "objective"; Sedgman himself said at the end of the year that he was the #3 pro, behind Kramer and Segura (Sedgman had a 4-10 record against Segura in the European tour that year).

So what do we do? Tennisedu is pushing for all names that were claimed by anybody to be #1, to be placed into the first column. That would put Hoad into the 1953 amateur column and into the 1962 pro column, so naturally we see where it benefits his idol.

But that was not the original proposal by Wolbo, which is still the proposal I would go with, if we're not going to delete the first two columns entirely: his proposal, if I'm not mistaken, was to make a pro column and an amateur column, with one name in each column as a general rule, but with co-number ones in each column if there was a preponderance of evidence showing that two pros, for example Gonzalez and Hoad in 1959, could not be separated. That is what we've been doing already and it's fine.

But including all player names in the pro and amateur columns who got anybody to push them as #1 for the year is not something I'd vote for. Krosero (talk) 21:07, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

One huge thing here. You should not be making this many changes piecemeal. Copy the article to your sandbox, make the changes, let us see it to make sure it's what we all want, and then replace. Otherwise at any time there will be errors. Fyunck(click) (talk)

I found several other sources recently for 1953 rankings incidentally (both amateur and pro). Personally I actually like the page as it is (apart from a few isolated years). But I wish to conform to wikipedia policies. The 1962 UPI poll is something I have always had major issues with (one of its key elements seems to be that Hoad's success in early 1963 is included). I have researched 1962 quite thoroughly. Rosewall was miles ahead of the other pros that year in every category. And completely agree with krosero on tennisedu's motivations. 1953 was an amateur year where no one was dominant, Hoad was a contender, sometimes chosen but not generally. I have no issue with any of the other Hoad sources apart from that 1962 UPI poll and have no problem with him being listed along with other players with citations in those years if that method of listing is adopted. I believe the UPI poll could be disallowed for several different reasons. Tennishistory1877 (talk) 23:49, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

Agreed too with fyunck about tennisedu's making these changes piecemeal. Even his editing of his own posts multiple times, tends to drive down other editors' remarks on my mobile-phone watchlist. One edit by Wolbo last night was pushed off my mobile-phone watchlist completely because of that. I still found it by going to my laptop, but in general, multiple edits of one's own posts, or making changes to an article piecemeal, makes it harder to scroll through and find everyone's comments.

tennishistory1877, I agree that wiki policies need to be followed, of course, but editor judgment is always used on all wiki pages. That's what we're doing with the 1962 UPI poll, and what we did with 1961, too, when tennisedu took a remark by Gardnar Mulloy that Hoad was the world's best player -- a remark made in July 1961 -- and described it on Hoad's page as Hoad having a "ranking" of #1 for 1961; we removed it.

That's the sort of source-creep that I'm trying to advise against. Without question, no wiki page on any subject can accept all sources uncritically -- and if we can maintain this page by still treating sources like the 1962 UPI poll critically, and not attempting to disallow all and every kind of editor judgment, then I think this page could go forward. "No original research" doesn't mean no editor judgment on sources. And I think everyone here knows, but in case someone doesn't -- original research is allowed on talk pages.

To sum up for myself: first choice is the removal of the first two columns; second choice is Wolbo's original proposal, not to mess with the pro #1s that we have, but simply to add a column for amateur #1s; third choice would be to list in the first two columns all the names that have agreed-upon sources saying that they were top player of the year.

Obviously, whatever the vote is, I'm not going to try to overturn it. Krosero (talk) 00:26, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

Some of the editors here are jumping to wild conclusions about the motivations of others which they have no idea about. A good example of the lack of personal self-control which makes it difficult to edit this page. As I pointed out above, my own first choice is to eliminate the player columns and just stick with the summary/ranking column. There is no need to attempt personal confrontation when we should be seeking agreement. These issues about later years can be addressed when we come to those years. No need to borrow trouble and fan the flames. Perhaps you two complainers could help us go edit this page, now that we have had some agreement about where to proceed. Time to leave the sidelines and get involved. Frankly, I don't care about your own personal opinions on who should be No. 1. We need to give a citation to a source for anything here which is worthwhile, and personal opinions do not fit here. Here is what Tennishistory1877 said below, "I do not want editors to cherry pick pre-open era pro sources", now I seem to hear a different tune from him. Let us try to maintain a consistent approach and not change directions every few minutes. And help out with the editing in a positive way.Tennisedu (talk) 02:43, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

I dont believe in cherry-picking, there is just one source (the UPI poll) that I have always felt shouldnt be here (I have raised the issue before) as it doesnt qualify. There are other Hoad sources I dont particularly like, but would not remove. And as for your self-righteous rant, tennisedu, I have no intention of making mass edits to this page until it has all been agreed. Much as I dislike the round in circles conversations, I am not getting involved in edit warring over the structure of the page. I know how desperate you are to see Hoad's name in the column more times, but please try and control yourself. Tennishistory1877 (talk) 09:46, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

Tennishistory, we do not want any cherry-picking here, as you agreed, and the insertion of your own private opinions about No. 1 choices. Just stick to the facts and use the ranking lists which actually existed. The rules here are not selective for your personal convenience. If you object to the lists, that constitutes POV editing. Personally, I have no interest in your point of view.Tennisedu (talk) 00:30, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

@Tennisedu:You can't leave the article in an unfinished state. I reverted your changes but placed the entire section (with the edits you already did) in your sandbox right here. There you can edit it and we can edit it until it's all corrected. Then we can insert it all at once in the article. You'll need to move every single amateur to column 2 (and remove the A) and only have pros (remove the P) in column 1. If there were no pros that year it'll be blank. Fyunck(click) (talk) 03:47, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

It will take some time because there are some gaps in the citations, some citations are missing in the summaries. That will take time to correct. I have other day jobs to spend time at. Perhaps others can participate in this process. I cannot do it all at once.Tennisedu (talk) 03:55, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

Understood. That's why I posted the link, so that others might help. Cheers. Fyunck(click) (talk) 04:03, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

This revision should be a collaborative editorial project. We have made a good start, but we need involvement from the editors who have expended so much effort in discussing the need for revising this article. We need everyone to participate at this stage of the revision.Tennisedu (talk) 05:06, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

Even though I was opposed to the change to listing amateurs, I will be happy to add sources for amateur number 1s. I am still not entirely certain what has been agreed here. It seems there is a clear majority for removal of the pre-1913 ranking columns, so I see no reason why that shouldnt be a permanent change to the page. Where are we with the post-1913 columns? Tennishistory1877 (talk) 09:49, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

I have altered the pre-1913 section in the sandbox. I believe US rankings are USLTA rankings. These are published in Collins, I will list direct citations. Tennishistory1877 (talk) 11:01, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

Ricardo here. I agree with TennisHistory1877 that I don't understand what has been agreed in the end, but I guess we will see it. I will say the most important thing now. This page should not seek to have multiple #1, but it should allow so if there are valid claims. And valid claims aappear in two forms/shapes. 1. Easy, such as parallel tours (amateurs and pros), and 2. difficult situations, such as unclear #1 within same tour. For this second situation you have to weed out credible vs incredible sources. If winning e.g. Cleveland Pro (example) is enough for #1 so be it. It was settled on court despite bring just one tournament. But for opinions coming from journalists or magazines I propose we accept only those authors who published multiple lists in their career. We need multiple lists. Publishing just one list is simply stirring trouble and sowing division. Who knows what were promotional or financial motives of authors who published just one off-list. Ricardo 93.140.234.213 (talk) 12:06, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

I dont think you understand the complexity of the citations Ricardo. 1973 onwards is much easier in comparison. Tennishistory1877 (talk) 12:14, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

That isn't comforting, 1973 is also very difficult for me to understand. As I asked in my thread, why isn't Newcombe co-#1? 1973 is pre-modern era, not IF award yet, and even no ATP PotY. Yes, there is ATP rankings which says Nastase, but we all know the issue with rankings of that period in particular, but also in general. The fact is, there was no committee award in that year, and being pre-modern period, I think old rules of taking respected authors in consideration should apply for 1973. Tingay said Newcombe was #1, and given the fact that Tingay is very respected and is cited many times, and that Newcombe won Wimbledon, it should hardly be controversial to say that he was also #1, so the year should be shared between Nastase and Newcombe. Check my printable table, it's still work in progress, I am waiting you to complete #1 stats, but what do you think about the structure? Anyone else? https://smallpdf.com/result#r=49512ada8e12f20c0626694678ca753a&t=share-document Ricardo 93.140.138.137 (talk) 18:15, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

You are absolutely correct. Since we are putting all the respected sources instead of cherry picking, Newcombe will also have to put as a No. 1. Obviously with a source. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:44, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

I have no problem listing Newcombe for 1973. 1973-74 is a period before the ITF and ATP player of the year awards, as you say. Its relatively straightforward after that with the official sources. But there is a small overlap period. In some senses there were not really rankings (what we understand that to mean in modern terms) before 1973. Its just a question of listing what we have before then. One thing I have found doing pre-1913 on the sandbox is that there seems very little point in having pro and amateur columns 1913-67. All the information is listed and highlighted in the main column. Having two extra columns just takes up more space and serves little purpose. Tennishistory1877 (talk) 19:59, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

I have finished working on the pre-1913 section in the sandbox (a useful way of altering the article without it being on the article page). Let me know if you have any views on it. Tennishistory1877 (talk) 20:12, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

I think it's much more aesthetically pleasing to have two columns for the period of split within the game. Nadal/Djokovic sharing 2013 could be in one column, but for the period of tour split it's better that they're in two different columns. That way we avoid any implication that they were equal or indiscernible which is the feel you'd get for Nadal/Djokovic in 2013 in one column, playing in the same tour, whereas by having amatuers and pros in different columns the general feel would more be that they're not directly comparable which is accurate. Ricardo 93.140.138.137 (talk) 23:09, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

That's true about the first two columns. They become redundant if we're listing all #1s who have an agreed-upon source. Those names, and sources, are already in the third column. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Krosero (talk • contribs) 20:15, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

I'm also working on the pre-1913 table, but looking to keep the column with a relabel to be clear to our readers. At User:Fyunck(click)/sandbox. If it doesn't stay with the current article it can always be used as a standalone article. The 1914-1967 section absolutely needs two columns for pro/amateur. Fyunck(click) (talk) 23:21, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

My setup for the 1913–1967 part of the article.--Wolbo (talk) 23:47, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

That looks pretty good. However 1914 may need one or two more names added because the sources disagree. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:50, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

Added James Cecil Parke to 1914. We will use this setup for 1913–1967 and add the 1877-912 section from Tennisedu. No sense in doing things twice.--Wolbo (talk) 20:31, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

I am not sure if you are understanding what I am saying Ricardo. Look at the sandbox version, observe the way the names stand out before 1913. This should be replicated from 1913-67 (possibly until 1972). It saves a lot of space getting rid of those no. 1 amateur and no. 1 pro columns (which will list all the same names mentioned in the summary). Tennishistory1877 (talk) 23:20, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

I don't see the need to save the space. There is a lot of space available imo. But whatever, do as you like. I just feel that for the period of tour split there should be two columns, since it makes for a better distinction between two incomparable players, as opposed to some other seasons such as 1990 or 2013 that were shared in the same tour. Ricardo 93.140.138.137 (talk) 23:46, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

The fyunck sandbox does not include the USTA rankings I added to the tennisedu sandbox. Important to add those. Also I made several formatting corrections and listed the players names listed on Hall of fame citations in the tennisedu sandbox. I prefer no no.1 boxes before the open era, but I will not be hugely bothered if they are there. I may be able to find some pro citations before 1927, Wolbo, I will look into it. Tennishistory1877 (talk) 23:56, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

Agree with Krosero about the redundancy of repeating the "Rankings" section of the summary information in the No. 1 player column. We have decided to concentrate on No. 1 players only, so the materials on No. 2 and lower currently in the "Rankings" area of the summary should be removed. That would make the "Rankings" material identical to the No. 1 column. One or the other should be removed as unnecessary and redundant. We should simplify this presentation. If we eliminate the player No 1 column, it would be necessary to expand the Summary material to include the amateur results for the year.Tennisedu (talk) 00:17, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

I agree with tennisedu and krosero. The pre-open era columns use up a lot of space in an already overlong article. As tennisedu says, the columns merely repeat what is already there (without the full citations). The consensus seems to be for their removal. Tennishistory1877 (talk) 09:38, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

Disagree that there is consensus, opinions seem fairly split. Also disagree that the columns are identical, the column source of ranking and tournament results summary expands on the No. 1 listings.--Wolbo (talk) 10:20, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

Well a decision has to be made one way or another. The columns are not identical, but they repeat in summary form what is already listed in the right hand section. Tennishistory1877 (talk) 10:31, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

I'm against the removal of ranking columns for the 1913-1967 period at this stage - having them pulled out separately makes the list digestible at a glance (most readers will want to skim it). Some detail for the runners-up is good, but we won't need justifications for their 2nd placings (e.g. Courier/Stich 1993) with the 2nd place column removed. We should merge the Wolbo and Tennisedu sandboxes now before they diverge irreconcilably. Sod25 (talk) 10:56, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

OK, well that sorts out 1913-67, Sod25, keeping the columns is now the majority opinion. However, a vote was taken on the pre-1913 section and clear consensus was for removal of the columns. The fyunck sandbox looks fairly redundant at the present time, as it contains columns pre-1913, which we agreed not to have in the vote above, and none of the additions and corrections I made to the tennisedu sandbox. Agree on merging tennisedu and Wolbo sandboxes. I dont like the idea of separate sandboxes. I see no reason not to adopt the pre-1913 section changes I made in the tennisedu sandbox. Tennishistory1877 (talk) 11:06, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

I will try and finish my sandbox quickly, there is not much divergence with Wolbo's sandbox. I have had to place "citation needed" notices for the present time until citations can be found.Tennisedu (talk) 18:05, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

However there is nothing wrong with making a separate article with the missing column. We have sourced world champions in several of those years. We can simply put a link to the new 1877-1912 article. But doing away with the column looks better than I had anticipated. ITHF is current, not past tense. The player names need linking. 1914 may need more names listed than just one. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:23, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

I have no problem with the Hall of fame citations being in present tense. There is no need to have another article. Any "world" rankings pre-1913 are retrospective and largely fictional, as the US and British based tournaments were fairly separate back then. How nice to see the original research tag gone. Tennishistory1877 (talk) 20:00, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

I do not like the lack of bold type in the right hand column on the Wolbo sandbox. The bold type is very helpful to draw the reader's eye to the citations. Tennishistory1877 (talk) 22:42, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

Per MOS:BOLD the use of bold should be limited to a few specific situations, most common of which is the article name in the lead. In other cases it is clearly deprecated. Sources should certainly not be in bold. There are probably better ways to display this information for the readers in a clear way and we can experiment with that. We have to look at that anyway as many years, such as 1964, now have a massive wall-of-text that is impenetrable for our readers. I would not mind making some proposals for that but one step at a time.--Wolbo (talk) 23:11, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

The more I look at some of these years in the source of ranking column the more I'm convinced we can and should do better. Now it is often rather confusing. It starts with mentioning sources, then shows a summary of tournament results and then finishes with the sources again. Doesn't appear to be very logical or clear. For the wall-of-text years a split into two paragraphs, rankings in the first paragraph and results in the second, divided by a whitespace line would probably already be a significant improvement in terms of readability. But that can be done after publication. --Wolbo (talk) 23:24, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

Created a quick testcase using the year 1953. Compare it with 1954.--Wolbo (talk) 23:40, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

The summary of sources could be removed at the top of each section, but I can not stress enough the importance of highlighting the names of sources and the player's name they are nominating. It doesnt have to necessarily be in bold, but it needs to be different from the rest of the text. When I scan through the page, I always look at these, I can see instantly if a year has a lot of citations, who is nominated and who isnt and what the sources are. Tennishistory1877 (talk) 23:40, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

I like what you did with 1953, Wolbo, but there must be a way of highlighting the names of sources and player nominations. Is the use of coloured text acceptable? Tennishistory1877 (talk) 23:47, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

I also like Wolbo's spacing for the 1953 summary, makes it much more understandable and readable.Tennisedu (talk) 01:34, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

Have tested using a space between summary and rankings. We now have Gonzales with 11 world No. 1 rankings, and Kramer with seven. We will have to change the records section to reflect these changes.Tennisedu (talk) 18:02, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

Personally I am not too fussed about those no.1 ranking total tables, now there are so many players listed. Tennishistory1877 (talk) 19:53, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

That's what happened in history, Tennishistory1877. Now the tables that have Gonzales winning 2 GS titles and (co-)spending 11 years at #1 in various tours accurately reflect tennis history. Nobody invented anything. It also reveals that Laver's article was incorrect (total 9 years at #1 being most ever). Ricardo 93.141.225.77 (talk) 22:30, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

But there is a difference between number 1 nominations and number 1s, just as there is a difference pre-1973 to after. I think to state someone is number 1 when there may be 1 source in a year contradicted by others on their article is misleading. What they have is a nomination. Also ForzaUV told me he wishes the ranking columns to go 1913-67, that evens it out again. Personally I think they greatly lengthen the article for no purpose. Tennishistory1877 (talk) 23:37, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

If you remove 1913-1967 period then basically nothing is left in this article. That period is certainly most controversial and unknown in tennis history and draws most interest. For example I specifically visited this page to extract #1s for pre-open era period for my printable table, but even pre-1913 seems easier in comparison to 1913-1967 which is really a mess with split tours. At least in pre-1913 experts could focus on Wimbledon and co-focus on US, Irish etc maybe some h2h and come up with a name for #1. Not so during split tours and chaotic pro tour. So this page is most needed for 1913-1967 period for people to get the understanding of the game and its split nature. As for your distaste for "nominations" what makes them so different from 2013? ITF nominated Djokovic, ATP nominated Nadal. Imo all credible nominations should count. My proposal at the end is to have two tables, or better preferably one table but which would enable you to sort out the names in two ways you want, either based on total years at #1, including shared years, or based on undisputed years alone. I've seen those in pages detailing with slam totals. That could satisfy everyone. And why is Newcombe not counted for 1970 in sandox? I can't understand the flip-flopping, Tingay being important one year and then ignored next year. If he's a credible source, he matters for every year. He said Newcombe both in 1970 and 1973. Here is my table, ignore the #1 section and its colours. Rest is more polished. Anything especially wrong here? https://docdroXid/mG0gKEi (Replace the big X with a dot) Ricardo 93.141.225.77 (talk) 00:14, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

Break1

Can we move the 1877–1912 section from the draft to this article? It seems complete. The 1913-1972 still needs a lot of work I think and I'm not sure if the inclusion of the columns for that period has been decided. ForzaUV (talk) 00:10, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

Considering all the sources I can't see not including the columns for pro and amateur in 13-72, but that looks to be going well on Wolbo's draft page. But I agree the 1877-1912 period looks to be finished. It's not my choice but consensus is that it's everyone elses choice. Fyunck(click) (talk) 00:31, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

Yes, I think that we have a consensus to include both pro and amateur for 1913-67, although I am not sure what to do for 1968-1972-1977 onward, that is still a bit murky. Are we now not done for 1913-67? The information content appears to be completely reconciled between Wolbo's ranking list and my own sandbox. I removed the bold type which Wolbo pointed out was not in style. Not sure what else is not finished for that era. We need to format the "Ranking" sections.Tennisedu (talk) 03:49, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

It looks about right. There might always be a tweak or two (isn't there always) but essentially it looks done from 1877-1967. 1968+ right now we'll simply remove column two and figure out if a few others need to be added to No. 1 based on sources (especially in the early years of points). Well done everyone. Fyunck(click) (talk) 05:49, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

I formatted a couple of names in colour in 1953 on Wolbo sandbox. This seems to work well and is a good alternative to bolding. Tennishistory1877 (talk) 09:50, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

Tone of Editing in this Article

The tone of the editing in this article is rapidly deteriorating with a plethora of substandard one-liners being inserted as proposed "rankings". What we want here is not a collection of promotional blurbs, but actual ranking lists. Everything else is substandard and does not conform to the rubric of the article. I would urge the editors to exercise some self-control and not over-burden this article with one-word quotes from random newspapers, sometimes taken out of their actual context. We are capable of something better than that.Tennisedu (talk) 16:01, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

I haven't edited anything, I'm only talking in this section and offering my views. ;)

Ricardo

93.143.108.166 (talk) 16:42, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

I understand that.Tennisedu (talk) 16:47, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

Disagree with the remarks by tennisedu. I havent questioned the inclusion of tennisedu's rankings, some which I consider substandard and inaccurate. Could we stick to what the sources say and leave the bias and point of view pushing behind, thank you tennisedu, you have been warned about this many times. Tennishistory1877 (talk) 17:11, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

There should be an identified ranking expert as the source for a ranking, and failing that, a mere one-line blurb does not constitute an expert ranking. If you think that any rankings which I have cited fail to meet this criterion, then by all means let us remove those as well.Tennisedu (talk) 19:09, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

Disagree with the remarks by tennisedu. Tennishistory1877 (talk) 19:17, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

Disagree, of course I take that for granted. But what is your specific disagreement here?Tennisedu (talk) 00:50, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

Disagreeing for the sake of it just to block another editor is a really poor attitude. Certainly when they actually suggest something that makes sense. Nowhere near productive.Tvx1 16:00, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

Yes indeed, disagreeing for the sake of it is wrong and is not something I would ever do, but expressing an opinion but refusing to go into specifics with an editor who I no longer wish to communicate with is another matter. I suggest you do a little research into the motivations of the poster before you give such firm opinions. Tennishistory1877 (talk) 16:19, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

These are open community discussions. Your arguments for disagreement matter to everyone, not just the editor. iniating the discussion. Disagreement without arguments has no value whatsoever.Tvx1 17:02, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

Tennisedu and I have gone through these arguments again and again. I am tired of repeating myself! I do not want editors to cherry pick pre-open era pro sources (particularly not editors who have such a strong bias towards one player). There is a huge variation of pre-open era sources and they do not easily fit into categories. I have accepted many sources I dont personally like. Many are very imperfect, but thats the way it is. Tennishistory1877 (talk) 17:11, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

1953

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Tournament links

I've linked every draw with an article, and if non-existent, then the tournament edition, and then the just tournament. It would be great if future additions of results did likewise. Couple of things I noticed:

1. "Boston" (mentioned 1897, 1899, 1907-11), held at Longwood Cricket Club, seems important enough that we need an article for it.
2. 1980: "McEnroe won the US Open over Borg and Connors (SFs), 2 of the 8 Super Series he entered (including the U.S. Pro Indoor over Connors) ..." - the draw for the 1980 US Pro Indoor has Connors over McEnroe, and 1980 Grand Prix – Super Series has McEnroe with only 1 title win. --Sod25 (talk) 00:07, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

@Tennisedu do any/which of these refer to the Australian Pro? It was the one tournament I wasn't sure about:

• 1959: "Hoad beat Gonzales to win at Memphis (not included in Ampol series), at Perth in November and at Memorial Drive stadium in Adelaide in December; Hoad also won earlier tournaments at Perth and at Norwood Cricket Oval in Adelaide".
• 1962: "Hoad beat Rosewall in the Adelaide Pro".
• 1963: "(Laver winning at Kooyong and Adelaide)". -- Sod25 (talk) 21:33, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

  We have an article on the Australian Pro, which was not a regular event. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australian_Pro I think that the only ones from your group above is the South Australian Pro in 1959 at Adelaide, and the Western Australian Pro at Perth in 1959.Tennisedu (talk) 21:56, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

  Ok. Which of "at Memorial Drive stadium in Adelaide in December" and "at Norwood Cricket Oval in Adelaide" was the 1959 South Australian Pro?" Sod25 (talk) 22:11, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

• Norwood Cricket Oval. And the Western Australian Pro of 1959 was at the earlier Perth tournament.Tennisedu (talk) 01:35, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

I disagree with bashing of ITF

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

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

Article Title and Lead Revisions

In light of the discussion above, I suggest that we start working on improving the article along the lines indicated. If any editor disagrees with the proposed changes, please make your objections known, and we can look to accommodate other views into the revision. I would suggest that the article title "World number 1 ranked male tennis players" be left unchanged, because the article contents are themselves concentrated on tennis player rankings, consistent with the article title. It has been noted that the lead to the article is inconsistent with the article title and also with the contents of the article. The lead should be changed and brought into conformity with the title and the article. Here is the lead,

"World number 1 ranked male tennis players is a year-by-year listing of the male tennis players who were, at the end of each calendar year generally considered to be the best overall for that entire calendar year. The runner-up for each year is also listed as is a summary of the reasons why both were ranked as such, which includes the performance of the players in major tennis tournaments of the particular year, and the tennis ranking authorities who provided the annual rankings on which the listed rankings are based."

I would suggest that the lead should be changed to the following,

"World number 1 ranked male tennis players is a year-by-year listing of the male tennis players who were, at the end of each calendar year, ranked as world No. 1 for the calendar year. The annual source rankings from which the No. 1 players are drawn are also cited with each player name."

If we decide to maintain the summaries and source descriptions, then they should also be mentioned in the lead. Any response or suggestions are welcome.Tennisedu (talk) 04:56, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

End of the calendar year can not be used as a rule for the pre-open era. It rules out too many rankings (all the main amateur rankings found in Collins encyclopedia made by Tingay etc, would not qualify under this rule). There shouldnt be any limit as to date within each year, but the date the ranking was made should be specified. List all rankings, specify the source and date and what the source says. Provide the readers with all the information and let the readers decide. Tennishistory1877 (talk) 10:17, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

Basically agree with Tennishistory1877. Suggest the following revision of lead,

"World number 1 ranked male tennis players is a year-by-year listing of the male tennis players who were ranked as world No. 1 for the year. The annual source rankings from which the No. 1 players are drawn are also cited with each player name." Tennisedu (talk) 16:01, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

If no one is opposed to these changes, then perhaps we should proceed to implement them. Anyone object?Tennisedu (talk) 19:46, 24 October 2021 (UTC)