Talk:Top ten ranked male tennis players (1912–1972)

Top what?

Top what?

This page needs to specify that it has a minimum listing requirement. We already have a world number 1 players article. I think the minimum should be 8 for a top 10 page. This page needs to separate the full from the partial ranking lists. Tennishistory1877 (talk) 20:11, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for your additions of pro rankings (keep them coming). Yes, we do need to specify a threshold. I've been too consumed by compiling the lists initially to worry about the details and formatting, but we can now. Minimum top 7 in my opinion. Top 8 would be the upper limit for the lower bound as I want the Bowers rankings. Sod25 (talk) 20:33, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

I would agree to top 7, but it should be no lower. I listed 1954 IPTA. Although only 3 are listed, this was 100% a top 10 ranking. I will continue to look for a fuller citation for this. I am liking the page anyway. Tennishistory1877 (talk) 20:42, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

7 it is then. I'm not fussed about incomplete rankings at this stage. You can put "(incomplete)" as I did for Potter's 1953, to make it clear for readers. Sod25 (talk) 21:21, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

There is no doubt that at least 7 exist for the 1962 UPI ranking, so it should stand while research is being done. Seven seems to chosen only to allow your favourite Bowers lists. That is a biased number, designed to allow a particular author.Tennisedu (talk) 04:27, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

Tie formatting

Instead of back-and-forth reverting, let's figure out the formatting for ties here, and then I can implement the choice across the four pages in one go. There are several 3-way ties as a worst-case scenario, so let's compare them:

Option 1	Option 2	Option 3	Option 4
J. Drobný T. Trabert K. Rosewall V. Seixas R. Hartwig M. Rose L. Hoad B. Patty A. Larsen E. Morea & H. Richardson & S. Davidson	1. J. Drobný 2. T. Trabert 3. K. Rosewall 4. V. Seixas 5. R. Hartwig 6. M. Rose 7. L. Hoad 8. B. Patty 9. A. Larsen =10. E. Morea =10. H. Richardson =10. S. Davidson	J. Drobný T. Trabert K. Rosewall V. Seixas R. Hartwig M. Rose L. Hoad B. Patty A. Larsen E. Morea H. Richardson S. Davidson	J. Drobný T. Trabert K. Rosewall V. Seixas R. Hartwig M. Rose L. Hoad B. Patty A. Larsen = E. Morea = H. Richardson = S. Davidson

What is your preference? Sod25 (talk) 20:33, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

My preference is for the first or third option. The second option ruins the look of the page and squashes the text and means there is no direct comparison with other rankings. Tennishistory1877 (talk) 20:38, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

Having just previewed the page with option 3 implemented across the board, it's not a good solution as you can't tell from a glance that the players are ranked equally. Option 1 is a non-starter as it too ruins the look of the page and simply isn't feasible on e.g. Top ten ranked female tennis players#1981, which is already excessively wide. The best solution would have the equal signs so it's obvious the players are ranked co-equally, but have the same formatting as if #s were used, i.e. the rows not squashed and the numbers aligned. I'll find a solution for that next. Sod25 (talk) 21:19, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

Option 2 is the worst by far. There are only 10 names normally (unless a tie for 10th, which is OK to use option 3). Therefore it should be possible to space like the non-tied lists. Tennishistory1877 (talk) 22:04, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

What about option 4? Sod25 (talk) 11:51, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

Looks good. Tennishistory1877 (talk) 12:17, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

I am liking the page formatting a lot more now. Tennishistory1877 (talk) 22:00, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

1962 UPI Pro Ranking

Tennishistory1877, where did you get the idea that this poll only ranks three players? The newspsper report clearly ranks five, and there are surely more than that. "LEW HOAD MR. TENNIS BOSTON, Tuesday (A.A. P.). - Lew Hoad has been named the top tennis player of 1962 in a poll by 85 sports editors in the United States, United Press International re- ported to-day. The Australian star finished with a winning 74 per cent. Two other Australians, Rod Laver and Ken Rosewall ended second and third with percentages of 72 and 55 re- spectively. Pancho Segura with 43 per cent was fourth and Alex Almedo fifth with 28 per cent." So we have 1) Hoad 2) Laver 3) Rosewall 4) Segura 5) Olmedo.Tennisedu (talk) 03:37, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

I didnt have the idea the UPI poll ranked 3 players, I had the idea it ranked 5 because thats what it says. This is below the minimum of 7. Thats the poll that doesnt take into account any of the tennis that occured in 1962 for anyone new to it. Tennishistory1877 (talk) 03:59, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

There are other rankings with less than five standing here waiting for completion, and there were certainly more than five on the 1962 UPI poll, the best poll of its era in terms of process. It should stand, just as the other incomplete rankings are standing. You cannot simply change the rules to your own liking.Tennisedu (talk) 04:14, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

There is only 1 incomplete ranking, the 1954 International Professional Tennis Association by March. We know March's rankings always contained 10 players. I will continue to look for the full list of 10 names. Tennishistory1877 (talk) 04:17, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

We agreed on 7. That is Sod25 and me. You were the one who was always arguing for a full ranking list (unless it is your farcical poll that is). Tennishistory1877 (talk) 04:18, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

There are more than two editors working on these tennis articles. Seven is arbitrary, there is no reason to claim that the 1954 should stand because it is being researched, while all other incomplete rankings being researched should be removed.Tennisedu (talk) 04:21, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

Agree with Tennisedu here, the article lists the top 5, but the full poll would have had more than that. It should be listed with "(incomplete)" until a fuller ranking is found. Sod25 (talk) 15:08, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

Then in that case, we have a problem. Many rankings are unknown in length, we could list countless number of other rankings on that basis. This page should be for longer rankings only. Its called Top 10 ranked tennis players, yet is currently nothing like the title describes. Its looking a right mess with all these shorter rankings as it is. If that farcical UPI poll is given space on this page, then the Rosewall self-ranking should also be listed, as this is a top 10 list and a lot more reflective of the tennis that went on in 1962 than the UPI poll (also Rosewall was an official of the IPTPA). Is there any way of listing from the top of the columns rather than that awful centring? The lists should offer a comparison between the different rankings, with the numbers listed parallel to each other. Tennishistory1877 (talk) 17:01, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

All tennis pages are going to have problems if they accept general-sports sources, because that invites the general sports fan's superficial knowledge of tennis onto the page. Tennishistory1877 is right about the UPI poll being farcical and directly contradicting everything we know about the 1962 season. This should be expected when general sports fan are asked about tennis. If you did a poll of general sports editors in 2003 about the top tennis player, and they come up with Roger Federer as #1, when in fact tennis sources go for Roddick that year, then you know the general sports editors probably only know that Federer won Wimbledon and maybe know little about tennis beyond Wimbledon, which is generally the case with general sports fans.

So as a tennis fan, I'd wonder what a general sports poll is doing on a tennis page. Why would a source that explicitly calls itself a general sports editor poll be on a page about tennis rankings?

As I said, the results of the 1962 poll are nonsensical (on the pro side, not the amateur; it was the pro scene that was barely known then, even often by good tennis sources). It can be removed from a page like this on many different counts. But I think we should vote at least on the bare minimum, that a source shouldn't be on this page, or the world number one ranking page, if it explicitly labels itself as non-tennis (such as a football expert making tennis rankings: we don't have anything like that) or as a general-sports source (we do have that in the UPI poll).

I say it that way because in tennis history, especially the farther we go back, a lot of sources are anonymous. Heck even the great Allison Danzig, a giant of tennis journalism, published his early articles anonymously. So I don't want to open these pages up to endless debates about sources with charges such as, "this is anonymous, and its rankings are wrong," or, "this particular expert doesn't know what he's talking about." I'm just saying it would be a very healthy and necessary step to exclude sources that are explicitly labeled either as a non-tennis source (ie, that hypothetical football writer) or as general-sports (UPI poll).

And I'd say such sources should be excluded even if they happened to coincide with expert tennis rankings. If general sports editors were to have chosen Roddick in 2003, or Rosewall in 1962 as top pro, what value does that add to a tennis page? It just shows that, at best, the general sports fan can give a superficial imprimatur to tennis rankings from more knowledgeable sources. That's the best case scenario. Worse-case scenario, you're inviting in the general-sports fan's understanding of tennis events, on a tennis page, with potentially farcical results, as in this UPI case.

You're going to have this problem again with the UPI poll, especially if more tennis pages are created about the old pros. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Krosero (talk • contribs) 17:59, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

British Lawn Tennis used to conduct polls of their readers; in 1961 for example, they chose 10 amateurs and 12 pros. I've never seen these polls on any tennis rankings pages, and I haven't had a problem with that, because generally I push for rigor about sources. But any of these BLT tennis fans, actual subscribers to BLT magazine, would have known far more about tennis than the general sports editor.Krosero (talk) 18:21, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

Yes I agree Krosero. And the UPI poll is the most inaccurate ranking on the page by far because it was made by people who knew nothing about what went on. Rosewall was by far the top pro in 1962 (it wasnt close). Tennishistory1877 (talk) 19:25, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

It's a tough one. My initial feeling is that these pages should be a catch-all for every ranking out there, so researchers can choose for themselves which sources' opinions they value. British Lawn Tennis readers' polls are already included on the women's page, e.g. for 1957. They do seem very accurate, so I would want them on the men's page if found. Rosewall's top 10 ranking should definitely be added, as players' rankings give insight into how they viewed their competition, so please add his and any other player's rankings in McCauley, Tennishistory1877. I would vote against inclusion of sources that aren't actually rankings. The UPI poll is unclear to me on that basis - how did Hoad end up with "74 percent", Laver "72 percent" and Rosewall "55 percent" [1]... "74/72/55 percent" of what?

I don't know how the calculations were done. The BLT polls, as you say, may be accurate, but this 1962 is easily the most inaccurate of all the rankings listed on these pages. I understand the impulse to have catch-all pages and I lean in that direction myself because that's one of the purposes of any encyclopedia, but other criteria include accuracy, neutral point of view, undue weight to questionable or questionably sourced views, etc., and the criteria I feel is most critical here is that this poll is a general-sports point of view, on a tennis page. That's undue weight, non-neutral, inaccurate, all at once.

This poll picks a player for 1962 who is not even close to #1 according to any other tennis source we can find and according to all the stats that researchers have found for the year; it was not close and there is no evidence that sources from within the tennis world, then or now, thought Hoad was in the running. So including it is for me the very definition of undue weight to a point of view from a non-tennis source that goes against all tennis sources and knowledge about that year.

I normally would try for compromise between differing positions on all subjects, and there are many rankings here that I feel are wrong, even clearly wrong, but still arguable, so I feel they belong here. But I've studied this era very closely and this particular ranking, for me it's clear that it crosses multiple lines and ought to be removed from both this page and the world ranking page.Krosero (talk) 15:29, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

Having found more sources for this poll now, the 85 sports editors were it seems asked for their top 5 pros of the year, and the percentages are what proportion of them included each player in their top 5 [2]. That the percentages are so low for players who were obviously top 5 shows how little many of the editors knew about tennis. They were also asked for "top all-time football team", "top pro team of 1962", "top pro athlete of 1962" [3]. So the poll is only top 5, and shouldn't be included on this page.

I'm also strongly against inclusion of it on the number 1 page now. A proper combined ranking usually assigns 10 points for first place down to 1 point for 10th place, adds up all the points for the players from all the rankings combined, and then orders the players by the number of points they received. This is the method used for all the other combined rankings shown on these pages. All we know from the methodology apparently used for this poll, however, is that Hoad was put in the top 5 the most times, not that he was put as No. 1 the most times. As such, it should be removed from the No. 1 page, leaving just Rosewall for 1962. Sod25 (talk) 16:27, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

Thats interesting what you say about the methodology of the poll. If what you say is true, that is a terrible method to use. I agree about removal. Tennishistory1877 (talk) 18:06, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

This 1962 Poll should not be removed from another article without discussing matters on the Talk page for THAT article, not some other article, which I have just seen now. Ridiculous.Tennisedu (talk) 04:01, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

Just looking at the link provided for this 1962 UPI editors poll, it seems to be that each editor was asked to name their choice of the Top 5 tennis players, pro or amateur, for the year, and apparently including the 1963 Australian tour, which surely influenced the results. Then the percentage of each player's name being mentioned on the 85 lists of top five players were used to rank the players. The sports editors may not have been tennis experts, but they would probably be aware of headline achievements. The big surprise is the third place showing of Rosewall, not sure why Rosewall would be third, unless the editors were concentrating on the Australian tour as a sort of year-end event. Just because we don't like the outcome of a poll, the methodology may not be defective. It shows, apparently, that Rosewall did not get enough newspaper headlines in 1962 to make an impression on the sports editors. The old pro tour was seriously under-reported. The 85 editors seem to have made reasonable choices on those other questions, the Packers were a logical choice.Tennisedu (talk) 04:40, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

The methodology is defective for finding a No. 1. All we know from this poll is that Hoad was in the editors' top 5s the most times. It could be that he was put as No. 5 in all the 74% of the 85 editors' top 5s. We just don't know, and therefore it cannot be used as a source for Hoad being No. 1 that year. Sod25 (talk) 07:22, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

We know more than that, we know that Rosewall was only Top 5 for 55% of the sports editors, presumably this would be UPI American sports editors, who would not see much about Wembley, or Roland Garros. So Rosewall did not get as much recognition in the American press as he did from, say, the London Times. This is a press poll, with some limited scope. Just as bad as those USPLTA rankings which only looked at the U.S. Pro to make a ranking, or the Jack March rankings which looked at Cleveland only. Rosewall's self-ranking should not be reinstated because in 1962 Trabert was tour manager and would release ranking information on the tour, Rosewall did that for 1964, this was a little too soon for Rosewall in that role.Tennisedu (talk) 13:51, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

Cleveland was a major tournament. Hoad won nothing that could be described as a major tournament in 1962. The faulty methodology in the poll speaks volumes as to why it was so far removed from the reality of the events that occured in 1962. Tennishistory1877 (talk) 14:01, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

Cleveland was not a major tournament in the late fifties, Kramer was not able to provide a representative field for Cleveland at that point in the annual pro calendar. And those USPLTA rankings completely ignored Wembley and Roland Garros results, just as the 1962 UPI poll did. Both ridiculous from our perspective.Tennisedu (talk) 14:23, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

Cleveland was a major tournament in the late 1950s (I know in your fantasy world it may not be). Tennishistory1877 (talk) 14:30, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

A perennial weak-field event should not be regarded as a major, and the ranking of a weak event should not be applied to the full field of pros. The comparison between the USPLTA rankings of the early fifties and the 1962 UPI poll is an appropriate one. But suggesting that Rosewall was the pro tour official responsible for issuing rankings in 1962 is clearly counter-factual and fantastic.Tennisedu (talk) 14:48, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

Rosewall was an official of the IPTPA. Rosewall issued rankings in 1962. Two factual statements. The comparisons you make are absurd. Tennishistory1877 (talk) 16:07, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

This poll fails more than one criteria and for me the chief difference with the USPTA rankings is that the UPI poll is a general-sports source. Whatever the failings of the USPTA, they knew tennis. You ask general sports sources their opinions on tennis, well then accuracy about tennis, knowledgeability about tennis -- the criteria listed above by the other editors in this discussion alone -- are no longer significant criteria. They can't be significant criteria any longer, because general-sports sources don't know tennis. It's one thing for a source like USPTA to focus on only certain events; but superficial followers of the sport are more than likely to focus only on what they know, which is ignorance. Something else entirely. USPTA can set aside other tennis events for their reasons but they surely at least were aware of those events; that cannot be said for a source that explicitly labels itself as a general-sports source.Krosero (talk) 16:35, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

Rosewall was not the tour director in 1962, Rosewall did not issue the official tour rankings for 1962, he issued his own personal rankings. It is really fantastic to argue that somehow these Rosewall rankings were a product of the tour. A concoction contrary to the facts. As far as rankings for the UPI are concerned, it makes no difference exactly WHY the USPLTA in the early fifties and the UPI poll of 1962 chose to restrict their focus of ranking, the only thing that counts is that they DID, in fact, restrict the focus of their ranking lists. To suggest that newspaper sports editors who selected which tennis news would be printed in their local papers did not get any information about the world of tennis is a gross exaggeration. They simply chose to ignore the main pro events in Europe such as Wembley and Roland Garros. The USPLTA in the fifties did exactly the same thing, they ignored the European results, it was an established tradition for American rankings, and no surprise. Sports editors for newspapers are not "fans" or unaware of the sports news, they just select those items which they believe are of interest to their local market. My grandfather published a small town newspaper, and he selected himself which items to print. The UPI had a source of pro tennis reports, and made them available to local newspapers through a wire feed. The local papers chose which items they thought would be interesting for local markets. And why you chose to have this discussion here instead of the appropriate Talk page, is another issue which requires some explanation, the 1962 UPI poll has nothing to do with this page. Tennisedu (talk) 17:34, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

"Rosewall was not the tour director in 1962, Rosewall did not issue the official tour rankings for 1962, he issued his own personal rankings. It is really fantastic to argue that somehow these Rosewall rankings were a product of the tour." No one has said that Rosewall's 1962 rankings were "The official rankings of the IPTPA as issued by Ken Rosewall" and I am getting very tired of you repeating the accusation that they did. Stop now! Tennishistory1877 (talk) 17:59, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

Good, we are agreed that Rosewall's list is not an official list for the tour, it was his own personal ranking and SELF-ranking, and therefore is outside the barriers of acceptability. Please do not raise this issue again, stop now.Tennisedu (talk) 18:05, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

You are the one who has gone on and on about the Rosewall self-ranking, including creating fantasies about what people think about it. I am not so bothered about it myself. Tennishistory1877 (talk) 20:52, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

The fact is that we don't know the distribution of the rankings for the players. Here's an extreme situation that could be true: Laver was put as #1 in 72% of the rankings, and not included in 28%. Hoad was put as #5 in 74% of the rankings, and not included in 26%. This fits with all we know from the poll (the %s). Has Hoad really been higher ranked by the editors in this situation? Obviously not, but as he was included the highest % of times he "tops" the poll. You can try and justify the result but because the poll's outcome tells us nothing about the distribution of the rankings, it cannot be used to justify Hoad's being #1 for that year.

Rosewall's self-ranking should be included because 1) it is top 10 (>=7), and 2) we 100% know that he ranked the players in that order. Those are the only two criteria for this page, and the UPI poll fails both. Sod25 (talk) 18:23, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

Self-rankings have been excluded from our lists. Or else we put Budge's list back in for 1938. But you are right that we do not know the details of the 1962 UPI ranking, but then, we do not know the details of the USPLTA ranking, either, who made those USPLTA lists, what was the system of ranking? We can only guess, as with the UPI. Those do not provide grounds for judgment. The idea that sports editors of newspapers were not aware of tennis results is a preposterous suggestion, they reviewed tennis articles regularly. That was the criterion for excluding the UPI ranking, and now we are looking elsewhere to try and justify the exclusion. Sorry, that is not research. We need to know the details before jumping to conclusions.Tennisedu (talk) 18:34, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

Budge's 1938 ranking is already included on this page, see #1938. It's been agreed that self-No. 1 rankings aren't included on the No. 1 page, which is reasonable. It is true that we don't know the details for the USPLTA lists, but they are rankings from a single source, not combined rankings where a bad methodology can mean that the resultant list doesn't accurately reflect the individual rankings, as is the case with the UPI's methodology. And the USPLTA rankings are top 10. No, my criteria for exclusion/inclusion have not changed, actually, and if you recall I initially supported inclusion of this poll until I found more info on the methodology, so I am not biased in either direction. Sod25 (talk) 18:52, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

You are unbiased, Sod25, just as Krosero and I are unbiased. Unfortunately the same can not be said of someone else, who got yet another warning about violating Neutral point of view only yesterday. Tennishistory1877 (talk) 20:59, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

Budge did not rank himself. Warning over what? I am still trying to find out. If some editor wants to "issue a warning", then I would appreciate it if they would specify the edit which is upsetting them. Otherwise it has no meaning.Tennisedu (talk) 21:55, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

The edit was specified by the editor in his warning. There has been a long list of NPOV reverts on your edits on the Hoad page. Tennishistory1877 (talk) 22:05, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

No, I asked for a specification of which other edits were being referred to, no response, just "edits unspecified", which is nothing. I make a lot of edits on many articles, so I need some specification of an edit which causes another editor to be upset. I have recently added material to the Hoad, Williams and other pages, which this editor did not complain about, so I have no idea. By the way, Budge did NOT rank himself, so for 1962 we have a situation unique in the history of tennis.Tennisedu (talk) 23:21, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

Post-expand include size

WP:PEIS has been exceeded, meaning the total size of the page once all the templates have been expanded is too large (from all the flags). I'll find a solution to this. Sod25 (talk) 02:26, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

I wondered why the references had gone! Tennishistory1877 (talk) 02:28, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

If there is no way round this problem, I suggest removing Bowers' combined rankings, which are retrospective rankings and often less than 10 players (also his pro lists are already listed). Shorter link descriptions may be another option. I will leave it to you, as you know more about page formatting than I do. Tennishistory1877 (talk) 02:33, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

Have replaced "{{flagicon|..." with "{{flagg|uxxb|..." for all the flags. We're now well under half the limit. Sod25 (talk) 03:22, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

Great. Well done. Tennishistory1877 (talk) 10:57, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

Kramer's rankings 1960

There is something funny about Kramer's ranking lists. The 1960 list is identical to the 1959 list, as if Kramer just reproduced it without examining the contents, and did no new work on creating it. McGregor, as I recall, was no longer a pro in 1960 and played no pro tennis. He was reinstated as an amateur tennis player. So his ranking here is probably not allowable. Also, it appears that Kramer's top 6 ranking spots are unchanged from 1958 to 1959 to 1960. It looks like Kramer did not do any work on adjusting his rankings for those three years. I am not sure that these rankings should be included.Tennisedu (talk) 04:06, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

These were tour director Kramer's rankings. It just shows how much the Ampol series may be overrated by one editor. Kramer's low listing of Hoad in 1959 is reflected also in the 1959 L'Équipe rankings. Tennishistory1877 (talk) 10:56, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

That Kramer's 1959 and 1960 rankings are identical is unusual enough that it should be investigated. Can you double check McCauley, and can we find original newspaper records for those rankings? Sod25 (talk) 20:20, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

Sure, I will double check sources if you like. Tennishistory1877 (talk) 21:16, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

McCauley says Kramer's 1960 rankings were identical to those of 1959. Tennishistory1877 (talk) 22:22, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

"says" as in mentions/discusses that Kramer ranked the players the same, or "says" as in lists two identical rankings for those years? If it's the latter, it's possible that McCauley himself accidentally got mixed up and put the same ranking twice, when Kramer actually published two different rankings. Sod25 (talk) 23:08, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

"Jack Kramer's annual Pro rankings published at the year-end were identical in every aspect to those of 1959". McCauley, p. 104. Tennishistory1877 (talk) 23:11, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

Interesting. Based on what you know of the pro tour in 1960, is that ranking reasonable, or was Kramer perhaps just being lazy and thought no one would notice if he republished the same ranking? Sod25 (talk) 23:17, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

Difficult to say. 1959 there was a tournament series, yet Kramer disregarded that series when making his rankings. 1960 there was a tournament series and final results werent published, though Rosewall was in front. The tournament series (which were a regular feature of the pro tour in its final years) were always underreported and tables are hard to find. What was Kramer trying to do with his rankings in 1959-60? Re-affirm the importance of the World Series perhaps? Yet Hoad was second in the 1959 World Series and Kramer has him lower! Maybe the rankings largely took into account Wembley, where Hoad lost early. There were World series tours until 1963 (except 1962). Also, why did Kramer only produce rankings from 1958-60? There are a lot of questions I wish I could ask Kramer about the structuring and reporting of the pro tour! Unfortunately he is no longer alive. Tennishistory1877 (talk) 01:24, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

From the little I know about the pro tour, they seem to have largely made things up as they went along. The good thing about this page is that we are discovering (or re-discovering in this case) these inconsistencies, and exposing biases in certain authorities (e.g. Hopman's inflated rankings of Australians), that otherwise might not be noticed when viewing the rankings in isolation. Sod25 (talk) 00:07, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

Harry Hopman opposed open tennis and hated the pros. He turned on his Australian Davis Cup players when they turned pro. Even among his squads he always had favourites (he never liked Rosewall for instance). The idea that Hopman's rankings are unbiased is laughable. Hopman is one of my least favourite people in tennis history (though I give him credit for installing discipline and a physical fitness regime for his squads). Kramer detested Hopman too. Tennishistory1877 (talk) 00:22, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

Yes, every source has biases. Australian readers who only had access to Hopman's rankings wouldn't have seen how biased he was, however. Likewise for Italian readers who wouldn't have seen how out of sync Tommasi's rankings were with the other major authorities. All that is laid bare in these articles. Sod25 (talk) 02:07, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

It is noticeable that these differences occur in split years. For instance, Tommasi chose Wilander in 1983, a year when McEnroe and Wilander each won one major title. 1984 everyone chose McEnroe because he had a dominant year. What I like about these side-by-side comparisons in these articles is the differences are shown right down the list. Tennishistory1877 (talk) 10:36, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

The 1959 points list was set up by Kramer himself, and he only stopped issuing information on it after the L.A. Masters, after which he kept silent about it. He obviously did not like the outcome of the points series, and issued his own rankings, which were identical in the top six places for three years in a row. Kramer obviously did not pay any attention to 1960 results when he reissued the 1959 rankings, he still has McGregor on the list, when McGregor was no longer playing pro tennis. A classic mistake, showing that Kramer did not bother to consider his rankings anew for each year. These are not really rankings.Tennisedu (talk) 06:40, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

But the under-reporting has nothing to do with the 1959 point system specifically, which was not decided until the end of the year anyway. Why did Kramer "keep silent" about the later point systems too? One thing I would ask Kramer is about his relationship with the press. How was it that the world series winner was announced everywhere as "world champion", yet the point systems were not properly reported? Tennishistory1877 (talk) 10:44, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

Seagram's

The news article for the 1968 Seagram's ranking says: "The 44th annual World rankings were announced today [...] The World Rankings were first established in 1914 and have been continuous ever since, with the exception only of the war years". This is complete nonsense, right? Sod25 (talk) 01:55, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

Absolutely not. Those rankings were done every year, I think by Edward C Potter (Ned), tennis historian, writer, and US Lawn Tennis executive. They were published by World Tennis Magazine when it was established (I think in the early 50s), before that for "The Racquet Magazine", but he did those for decades before. 1914 sounds about right since he played tennis at the US Championships in 1901 and lived till he was older than dirt. Fyunck(click) (talk) 07:35, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for your opinion. The 1968 "Seagram's" ranking was a combined ranking from an international panel of 15 experts (not including Potter), compiled by Joseph McCauley for indeed World Tennis. While we have rankings listed on this page going back to 1913, including most of Potter's thru 1965 (from which time McCauley took over at World Tennis), and several other panel rankings in e.g. 1954, I've seen no evidence of a yearly panel ranking with trophies handed out except for this one year (and at this point I've exhaustively searched several newspaper archives for rankings). Potter started tennis journalism in 1928 [4], and the first issue of World Tennis was published in 1953 [5], so the only way to get 44 years of rankings going back to 1914 is by including rankings by several different authorities working for various different publications, i.e. not one unified "World Ranking" (proper noun) as the article made it seem. It appears to me that Seagram's wanted to make the World Tennis ranking they were sponsoring seem more official, and so hyped it up with PR spin and an invented history. As a combined ranking of top international tennis journalists, it is however a very credible ranking for that year. Sod25 (talk) 08:45, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

I don't think it was invented at all. The rankings weren't always done by the same sources, and by individuals instead of panels, but those world rankings are what Seagrams was talking about. I've come across them multiple times in newspapers clippings. In 1963 newspapers it says it was the first time in eight years that an American was atop the World tennis Rankings. In 1950 the World Tennis Rankings was done by American Lawn Tennis Magazine. So the magazines switched around but since 1914 there was always a World Tennis Ranking (except during ww2). Fyunck(click) (talk) 09:34, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

I've looked through all the American Lawn Tennis magazines up to 1923, and the only rankings they published/discussed in that period were the USNLTA national rankings, and occasionally Wallis Myers'. Whose rankings they are including to go back to 1914 I would like to know, but to combine numerous sources and ranking authorities under one umbrella to call the 1968 ranking "the 44th annual World Tennis Rankings" as if they were official is nonsense. There were many sources publishing rankings from 1914 to 1968, each holding a certain weight but none considered absolutely official or sacrosanct. I'm extremely doubtful that the term "World Tennis Ranking" was used in the 1910s and 1920s, or that you can find another year where Potter's or whoever's ranking is called "the Nth World Tennis Ranking". Back then they tended to use "World's First Ten", but it was never "the World First Ten", it was always "so-and-so's World First Ten". Sod25 (talk) 19:07, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

The nth World Tennis Rankings, maybe not. I haven't checked. "The World Tennis Rankings" you will find published in newspapers. You will find things like "no American has been atop the World Tennis Rankings in eight years", or "the first time in so many years that a Brit has been on top of the World Tennis Rankings." As things get more popular they make it a bigger shindig. That happens today as well as way back then. When Seagrams became the sponsor of course they wanted it to ring out louder than the year before. Probably more money bonus and larger trophies, naming that it was the 44th annual... stuff like that. 1968 might have been Superbowl III but there was no Superbowl I or Superbowl II. But it got huge as did the advertising. Fyunck(click) (talk) 00:47, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

Search engine listings for this page

I notice this page does not appear on google yet when I type in the words of the title. Maybe it will take a bit of time before people become aware of it and other sites link to it. Tennishistory1877 (talk) 19:37, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

Yes it doesn't appear to have been indexed yet. There are a lot of tennis ranking pages online that would be vying for position on the search results, but these pages should rise near the top as more links are made to them. Sod25 (talk) 21:03, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

Any improvement so far?Tennisedu (talk) 04:29, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

I dont think so. It may take time. Tennishistory1877 (talk) 09:06, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

McCauley

Tennishistory1877, can you please add the Rosewall 1962 ranking, and double check and add the 1964 ranking mentioned here from McCauley [6]? Sod25 (talk) 21:00, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

I used that forum for a short time. Tennisedu still posts there. Ranking added. Tennishistory1877 (talk) 21:48, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

Thanks. I don't post on tennis fora, but they can be a good starting point for finding info, particularly tennisforum.com for women's tennis history. Can you add Rosewall's 1962 ranking? Sod25 (talk) 22:08, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

Yes I will do. I am not a big fan of group tennis chats, either on the talk pages here or on the forum we were discussing, but at least on here the discussions (hopefully) lead to a resolution. Research is what I enjoy (and particularly tennis research). Tennishistory1877 (talk) 22:16, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

Robert Roy's rankings for the pros in 1959 appear to be casual in the extreme, he has Kramer ranked No. 7 even though Kramer did not play a lick of tennis in 1959, as far as I know. Not sure that this ranking list is serious.Tennisedu (talk) 18:26, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

What I dont think is serious is this list you put from Anderson, merely replicating the Ampol table. I am not sure Anderson saying there was a point system that decided things constitutes a separate list. Tennishistory1877 (talk) 21:00, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

Anderson's memory is different from the official Ampol list, and he gives his own opinion and his own spin as to the meaning of the Ampol rankings. Those facts make this Anderson ranking his own creation. Same with the Robert Barnes ranking list.Tennisedu (talk) 23:14, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

Barnes released a ranking list (published in World Tennis). Whether he based it on the Ampol list isnt really the point, its reported as Barnes' ranking. Anderson is reporting the Ampol list. Tennishistory1877 (talk) 23:30, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

No, the Anderson list is not the Ampol list, it is Anderson's own recollection of the list, and he got it wrong. It is what Anderson believed was the list, but he got the order wrong, although Anderson believes his own version of the list.Tennisedu (talk) 01:41, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

I have just been through World Tennis magazines of the period and can find no ranking list from Mal Anderson for 1959. I havent read every single article, so if Anderson's ranking list is found in the future then we can of course add it. Tennishistory1877 (talk) 01:43, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

Found it.Tennisedu (talk) 02:10, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

Robert Roy did not produce a serious list. Kramer did not play any tennis that year, as far as I know. Placing Kramer at No. 7 should disqualify the Roy list. Anderson, the Wembley champion, is left off the Roy list while McGregor and Hartwig, who won nothing that year, are included. This is total nonsense. McGregor stopped playing pro tennis mid-way through 1959, I believe, and applied for reinstatement as an amateur. The Jack March list is also weird, he ranks Frank Parker, who did not play any tennis that year which I have seen listed, ahead of the Wembley champion Anderson, completely ridiculous. March also includes Riggs, but not Rose, who was surely playing better than Riggs at this time. March ranks Segura (who did not win an important tournament that year) at No. 3, ahead of Trabert, Rosewall and Sedgman, all three of whom won significant tournaments. Not a serious list. Roy and March are inexpert "experts".Tennisedu (talk) 02:13, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

I'm sorry Tennisedu, but I have to disagree about the Anderson list. While trawling through newspapers looking for rankings, I've found several articles where rankings were misreported. Those erroneous lists don't constitute new rankings by the journalists, and Anderson's misremembrance is no different. He clearly states that it is Kramer's ranking system he is talking about, not his own concoction. Sod25 (talk) 03:52, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

But in fact, it is his own concoction, as he ranks himself higher than the Ampol ranking. That constitutes a new list, regardless of whether or not he remembered correctly. He was trying to recreate the Ampol list some four months after the fact, in April 1960, and his own judgment became involved in it.Tennisedu (talk) 05:11, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

No, it isn't. He doesn't rank himself, or anyone else for that matter - he's describing Kramer's ranking system, which was an objective points-based system. There's zero room for personal judgement in it, and we already know the full outcome of it (and there can only be one outcome). If he had said "Kramer's ranking was X, but I believe so-and-so should have been placed above so-and-so...", then that would be a personal ranking, but he didn't and so it is not. As I said, there are other articles where rankings are misremembered or wrongly transcribed by journalists/typesetters, but they aren't new rankings. Sod25 (talk) 05:45, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

But this constitutes a new ranking, Anderson exercised his own judgment four months after the ranking came out, he forgot the actual ranking and filled in the places by ranking himself higher than the Ampol list had ranked him. Whether or not that is an actual attempt to reconstitute the actual Ampol list, it becomes a self-ranking correction of the Ampol list. Having forgotten the actual Ampol rankings, Anderson did not say, "Sorry, I forget those two rankings", no, he used his own judgment to fill out the list and ranked himself higher. I would not suggest that a self-ranking be included in the anuual No. 1 article, but it is allowable in this article.Tennisedu (talk) 06:06, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

No, it doesn't. There is no indication in the interview that his claiming Kramer ranked him one place higher is a result of his own judgement, rather than a simple misremembering (Occam's razor). Your theory that "he used his own judgment to fill out the list and ranked himself higher" is just that, a theory with zero supporting evidence. All we know from the interview is that he thought Kramer's final ranking had him one place higher than reality, not that he thought he deserved to be one place higher. If he had thought he deserved a higher place, he would have said so rather than pretend Kramer had him higher. Sod25 (talk) 06:42, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

There is no supporting evidence that Anderson "would have" said so. You are just speculating. What we do know is that Anderson placed himself at No. 6 ahead of Segura, which was not the actual ranking result. That is different from the actual Ampol list, and makes it a separate ranking list.Tennisedu (talk) 18:15, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

This is the exact citation from Mal Anderson in World Tennis June 1960 "Last year Kramer established a point system to decide the best players in the world. We played 14 tournaments and got seven points for first, four for second, three for third, two for fourth and one for fifth and sixth place. After the year's play, Lew finished ahead of Pancho. The final ranking was Lew, 1; Pancho, 2; Kenny Rosewall, 3; Sedg, 4; Trab, 5; myself, 6; Segoo, 7; and Coop, 8." This is merely reporting the Ampol series. Anderson doesnt say "this is my ranking list". There is no "Mal Anderson's rankings". Tennishistory1877 (talk) 11:04, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

Yes. I've removed the ranking. Sod25 (talk) 11:37, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

Your problem here is that Kramer did not finalize his own list, Kramer made two lists. Kramer did not like the Ampol ranking and issued another ranking, with Gonzales at No. 1. So Anderson here is disagreeing with Kramer's final list and exercising his own judgment to disagree with Kramer, that is the context of Anderson's statement in the New Zealand interview in April. We have Kramer's final thoughts here, which Kramer gave in December, and that list is not the Ampol list or any proximity to the Ampol list. So Anderson is striking in a differenet direction by making this statement in April. That constitutes another direction from Kramer's list. The Anderson list should stay because it indicates a direction different from Kramer. I understand that you may not like Anderson's direction, but that is no excuse for removing the Anderson list. Anderson's views for 1959 were much more reasonable than Robert Roy or Jack March.Tennisedu (talk) 15:53, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

I would have no problem if Anderson made a ranking list with those names, but he did not do this. Tennishistory1877 (talk) 16:54, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

True, Anderson did not set out to make his own list, but Anderson did indicate his personal view that the Ampol list was the correct list to which he gave his endorsement.Tennisedu (talk) 16:58, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

At best, you can add ", mentioned by Anderson" to the Ampol ranking's dot point on the No. 1 page. On this page, the duplicated ranking has no place. Like Tennishistory1877, I would have had no issue if Anderson had made his own ranking that year, but he didn't. Sod25 (talk) 17:21, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

There is no supporting evidence that Anderson "misremembered" the final Ampol list, or that he "would have" said something "if" he had misremembered and used his own judgment. That is just speculating. The only thing we do know is that Anderson ranked himself at No. 6, different from the Ampol list. That is enough to constitute a separate ranking order.Tennisedu (talk) 18:19, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

That is utter and complete nonsense, Tennisedu. Anderson said "The final ranking was Lew, 1; Pancho, 2..." etc. Anderson didnt say "the final ranking should have been...", he said "was". This was several months later and Anderson was recalling from memory the final standings. Tennishistory1877 (talk) 19:03, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

Precisely, the only way the text can reasonably be interpreted is that he was recalling the ranking from memory, and therefore any mistake was unintentional. I will be merging Anderson's recollection of Kramer's ranking into Kramer's ranking on the No. 1 page in line with my above suggestion. The attempt to use my own argument against me is a complete fail when there is nothing in the text to suggest Anderson was giving his own interpretation/spin/judgement on Kramer's ranking. Sod25 (talk) 03:23, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

Sod2500, you have apparently confused the two Kramer rankings, Anderson's recollection was the Hoad finished ahead of Gonzales, but you are referring the Anderson recollection to the second Kramer list which is not related to the Ampol ranking. I will correct.Tennisedu (talk) 05:47, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

Sod 25 or Sod2500, whoever you are now, the Anderson statement represents an endorsement of the Ampol rankings, and therefore should be mentioned as a separate point on the annual number one list. Have you got the two Kramer lists straightened out yet?Tennisedu (talk) 06:21, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

Tennishistory1877 and I, together the authors of 98% of this page, disagree that this is Anderson's own ranking. Until you can find others that agree with you, we stick with the status quo ante. I've read hundreds of articles where journalists agree with ("endorse") Wallis Myers' rankings, but they aren't the originators of the rankings so aren't put on this page. Anderson should be treated no differently. Sod25 (talk) 07:09, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

Missing rankings

Remove if found.

• Howard Kinsey 1929 ranking [7]
• Don Budge 1936 combined ranking [8][9]
• L'Auto 1936 combined ranking [10]
• British Lawn Tennis readers' polls (?1957–1967).

Red Notices

What happened to this article? Tennisedu (talk) 05:26, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

Issue with having so many templates on the page after a new edit was made. Can be fixed by clicking this link (as I have) to WP:Purge the server's cache of the article and regenerate it from the Wikitext. Sod25m (talk) 05:55, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

1956 Jack March ranking

The 1956 ranking by Jack March listed on this page and referenced to McCauley has Segura at No. 2 and Sedgman at No. 3. This newspaper lists the top ten "in professional tennis" (no attribution given) with Sedgman No. 2, Segura No. 3, and the rest of the ranking identical to the one listed here for March. Can someone please double check that the list on WIkipedia matches what is written in McCauley, as it seems that the newspaper is referring to the March ranking, and therefore either it or Wikipedia or McCauley is wrong. Thanks. Letcord (talk) 16:31, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

@Tennishistory1877: any help here? Letcord (talk) 02:25, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

I just checked. McCauley lists the Jack March ranking as Sedgman being ahead of Segura. The newspaper lists Segura ahead of Sedgman. McCauley likely made an error, though you did say the newspaper ranking was unattributed. Tennishistory1877 (talk) 10:00, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

@Tennishistory1877: Ok thanks, I've changed that ranking and added a note. The 1951 PLTA ranking sourced to McCauley has 6. Earn, 7. Parker, but this article has that order reversed, so I've done the same thing there as well. The 1964 "Official pro ranking" we have listed has Gonzales at No. 3, but this UPI article says it was Gimeno who finished "officially ranked third". I've also added a note there. Letcord (talk) 00:14, 27 April 2022 (UTC)