Talk:World number 1 ranked male tennis players/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

→

Archive 9

Wolbo's reversions or edits of Informed Analysis's additions are clearly correct

The additions by Informed Analysis, while interesting to someone like me, are clearly NOT in the WP style or customs. They come across as "original research", a clear no-no at WP, one of which I myself was often guilty many years ago when most of the tennis articles had not yet been started and I was always happy to stick my own opinion into articles, OR they come across as an avid fan's speculation. In either case, Wolbo is correct to delete them. Hayford Peirce (talk) 18:55, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

This is all very confusing. In November and December 2017 and January 2018, I typed 4 or 5 different questions and proposals on this talk page (The contents of the talk page from before yesterday have now been removed/archived). The questions/proposals I typed were about adding more details so it was clear why the No. 1 player was ranked ahead of the No. 2 player and the No. 2 ahead of the No. 3. In some cases, just listing the winners and finalists of the 4 slams and the ATP finals would not clearly show why a certain player was ranked higher (i.e. 2016 Murray over Djokovic; Murray at No. 2 ahead of Federer in 2015; Roddick ahead of Federer in 2003;in 1998 the top 5 players were ultra-close to each other; I can go on and on). If text does not explain these things, then what is the purposes of it?

I also asked if anyone objected to me removing certain tournaments that were listed for 20 years (U.S. Pro) even after they were no longer important and then adding ones aside from the slams, that were very important. At that time, Fyunkd generally agreed with what I was doing and Wolbo did not voice any real opposition; neiher did anyone else.

If people go back to the version of this article before I made any changes, 00:32, 12 November 2017, you will see that the various years, especially if you compared the 2000s to the 70s or 80s have vastly different types of information presented. Even one year next to another was very different. Usually in the late 1990s and 2000s, the rankings of the top 4 or 5 players were listed - for the most part, that is what I did for every year since the Open Era, except in cases where a tennis player won a major but was not in the top 4 or 5. Then I still stated his ranking, because I am sure people would wonder "oh this guy won the French, but what is his ranking???". I guess I did the same for a player that was a finalist in only one major but was lower in the top 10.

If you look back from 1968-1971, there are rankings of various panels listed, usually up to No. 10. The original author of this article had all that information available to him, and one of the books listed as sources for the article probably has the information in them, but most of the books are no longer able to be obtained! But that information is important info, now no longer available anywhere else, maybe in the world!! All of the rankings listed for various tennis authorities (experts, journalist, magazines) up to the 1990s were entered by the author but can probably not be found again to be exactly reference. For 1977, when someone else insisted that Vilas be co-listed as No. 1 I did exhaustive research to try to find published references to all the authorities who ranked Borg No. 1 while the other person found references to Vilas as No. 1. It would be virtually impossible to do this for all the sources for all the various years. It would be a shame to delete all this stuff. Plus, certain years in the pre-Open era have vastly more detail that other years - is that extra detail going to be cut-out by Wolbo???

As far as the level of detail for the last 30 years or so, if info says that Edberg is No. 2 for the year and he won the Australian, I immediately wonder how he did at the other majors. In the pre-November 2017 format, unless he made the finals, you would not know, so I added that in for the top 2 or 3 guys most years, especially if the No. 2 was close to the no. 1 or No. 2 close to No. 3. And I added head to heads, as that was something that was already in the document for most of the 1970s and for certain select other years. All of this information is simply from the ATP website or in some cases from the various Bud Collins Encylopedias (which I added a reference to - I have one myself and I found two earlier versions at the Reference Library were I live). In some years, the pre-November format had said that, for example, Arthur Ash won the Pacific Open and the LA Open; well did those events even matter? So I looked up if they were ranked as top level events and how many top 10 players were present. This information was given for some years, but not for others, so I did it for all of them, up until the 1990s, where the Masters (Big 9) all became recognized as mostly equal. Obviously, the Australian was not important until the late 80s (and was worth less points) so that is made clear). Plus, there were 2 or 3 circuits in the 70s and early 80s, so that is explained.

The current information in this document took the information provided by the original author, cut out some of the extraneous stuff, and added details comparable to what some years already had, so it was all consistent! The sources of much of it are listed and the rest is from the ATP website. All the articles on tennis and various players simply say "Source: ATP website" for all their statistics. One of the edits by Wolbo proposed to take out the winner of Wimbledon in 2013 (Murray) because he wasn't in the top 2, and not tell us how the No. 1 and 2 players did at that event. Preposterous!! And the removal of all this excellent information on the whim of Wolbo who suddenly a year later seems to have time on his hands would be preposterous.Informed analysis (talk) 20:40, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Purpose of Summary

It appears that we need to establish a policy for the summary sections. In the header to the article, it states clearly that the purpose of the summary is to explain why the TWO top ranked players were so chosen. Period. It does not say that other important information of the year relating to other players should also be included. So what is the policy? Do we continue to give a nod to the other important players of the year who did not make the top two selection for this Wikipedia article? Or do we systematically exclude information about other players who were not chosen as the top two by this particular article? Needless to say, there appears to be an impasse at the present time.Tennisedu (talk) 02:40, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

A decision needs to be made on this issue. Either only those ranked 1 and 2 listed or additional players also but NOT a mixture of both. Personally I think this page is too long. One way of solving this could just be to write player's name, titles won, opponents beaten to win titles, rather than a narrative structure. Arguments could be made either way on 1+2 or 1+2 plus additional players. Tennishistory1877 (talk) 22:39, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

As I answered someone on my talk page... The info is great but as an article gets longer and longer it becomes harder and harder to discern why No. 1 and No. 2 got to be No. 1 and No. 2. Maybe a different article with those facts would be good for the pros, but this article is already gigantic and when a tiny section claims Laver is 1 and Rosewall is 2, that tiny box to the right is best just to say what Laver and Rosewall won and lost. That gets crushed and buried if you also have 5 other players wins and losses. I like reading about all the big events that are in those boxes but most readers will not, and many editors here do not, and we need to cater to the general populous of wikipedia readers. That's what is most important... our readers. So I'm mixed on the solution but we should probably consider a different article for that info. That detail is still there in the history of this article's edits. It would almost be better suited to a place like was done for 1990 in tennis. Then in the boxes at this article we could simply add a link to the article that has all the info instead of trying to cram it all into a tiny box. Fyunck(click) (talk) 00:41, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

I like Fyunck's suggestion, the idea of doing a complete run-down for each year explodes the boundaries of this article. Why not do an article for each year in tennis? There surely appears to be more than enough information to fill out an article for each year.Tennisedu (talk) 05:06, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

If you look at the bottom of the 1990 page I linked, we already have that started. Years like 1929 have already been done. Then the boxes on this article can be highly summerized with a link to the appropriate page for more info. Fyunck(click) (talk) 05:15, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

[Here is some discussion on this issue which somehow was started by "Informed analysis" in my talk box, for reasons unknown to me, I have moved it.here where.it.belongs]Tennisedu (talk) 05:25, 4 September 2020 (UTC)................................................................................Hello - your correcting incorrect information from the pre-open era is obviously great. I guess the original author from 12 or 15 years ago got those things wrong. However, if you only want the top 2 players listed for every year, why do you not create a new article just doing that? All the valuable information in here for all the years since 1968 (written by me) is appreciated by many people and it would be a shame to just have it deleted to fit the narrow statement at the start of the article. Before I wrote the revised 1968 onward text for every year the winners of all the 4 slams and the year-ends were always given as was if a player won 5 of the top tier events. However, it was never clear how a guy who won a major was not in the top 2 or 3 unless the winnings of the No 2 or 3 guy were given and compared to that one-winning major guy who might have only ranked 6 or 7 for the year. Informed analysis (talk) 05:26, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

Hello Informed Analysis...You have come into this discussion rather late. It appears to be the consensus for this article that only the top 2 players, or at least the players listed on the left column, should be discussed in the section. We have had quite an extended review of this, and this is the current policy. I will have to remove the material you restored unless we can get some kind of consensus allowing more than the listed players into the discussion. I hope that you understand this. I would like to add more material myself, but those are the current rules.Tennisedu (talk) 05:33, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

Hello Informed Analysis. As far as I am aware no consensus has been reached either way. I don't have strong opinions either way, though I think this article should be shortened if possible (perhaps writing eveything as briefly as possible would help). Maybe discuss this on talk. It should be resolved one way or another, as the article should be consistent. Tennishistory1877 (talk) 07:45, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

Hi Informed Analysis. I tried to restore much of the material deleted by tennisedu, because all of it, pre-OE and OE, was of good quality, and I think in order to evaluate the top two players you need to know who did and did not win all the important events, and how the top players did against each other in H2H, etc. Tennisedu says that there was "an extended review," but on the talk page for the article there is only one post about this issue, by Tennisedu. There was no consensus.

This began when Tennisedu wanted material about Lew Hoad included in 1953 and 1956. Hoad is not listed as #1 or #2 in those years. When Hoad content was removed from 1956, tennisedu began deleting non-#1 and non-#2 players from all years going back to the 1920s, even though it was all good material. When I restored the material he deleted, he restored the Hoad material. As he says above, he would like to add more material about players not #1 or #2 (meaning Hoad, in 1953 and 1956). That's how all this began, and it should be kept in mind when discussing that article on its talk page, if any discussion occurs.

I agree with TennisHistory1877 that, above all, whatever is decided, the article should be consistent. There is a lot of material about players not 1 or 2 remaining in the OE, but almost all of that material has been removed from the pre-OE, and the material was high quality. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Krosero (talk • contribs) 11:07, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

Actually, the Trabert material for 1953 and 1955 was added by someone before the additions I made for Hoad in 1953 and 1956, so that established the precedent for these years. Not sure what the objection is there. The Hoad content for 1956 was deleted due to the "No.1-No.2" rule, which is clearly set out in the header to the article. If someone wants to go beyond 1 or 2, then the introductory header must be changed as well. Otherwise it is nonsense. No one is saying that the deleted material is not "good" material or even interesting material. But it does not fall within the parameters set out by the defining header to the article. Much of the excess material of the Open era has already been removed in line with the parameters of the article, and more will no doubt be removed going forward. Why did you initiate this discussion here instead of the appropriate page? I suggest that any further discussion be carried on under the appropriate list, or if you insist on doing this kind of thing here, I will simply reply to you in the appropriate section.Tennisedu (talk) 05:16, 4 September 2020 (UTC)Tennisedu (talk) 05:25, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

Seperate pages for each year sounds good to me. Rankings sections could be added to the already existing pages ie "1877 mens tour" etc. These would compliment the existing results on these pages well. Tennishistory1877 (talk) 08:26, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

Tennishistory1877, well, it sounds like we have a consensus on this issue, I hope that is all right with everyone. Going forward we can construct new articles on each individual year, for which there already an abundance of material waiting to be included.Tennisedu (talk) 19:32, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

I don't know if we need it to be in the form of "1877 men's tour." Right now the pages are done all together... men's, women's, mixed... as we have at 1931 in tennis. I'm not saying we can't split them up but then those existing articles would also have to be split up to something like "1931 in men's tennis", "1931 in women's tennis", "1931 in mixed doubles tennis." It might be better to keep them together as we have now. Only the winners and runner-up in the event, amateurs and pros, and rankings. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:58, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

Yes that sounds fine to me Fyunck, what you have suggested seems to now have a consensus. Tennisedu told Informed analysis he had a consensus when none had been reached. Tennishistory1877 (talk) 20:05, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

As a point of order, a discussion should be allowed to run for some time before establishing a consensus so that editors have sufficient opportunity to participate. As a rule of thumb I would say it should run at least a week unless the consensus is so obvious that it can be called sooner.--Wolbo (talk) 20:14, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

Well, one thing we have already had for years and years is templates and articles for two items: "xxxx Men's Tennis tour" and "xxxx in tennis", with xxxx being the year. That is longstanding consensus for anyone to create. You can see examples at 1877 Men's Tennis tour or 1931 in tennis. We have full templates at the bottom of those pages that link to each of those seasons. Most of those seasons have not yet been created but some have. I think the only suggestion (and what this discussion is all about) is do we try and keep the "source of ranking" box minimal here... just the info about No. 1 and No. 2... with a link to the proper page that has all the info where our readers can see everything if they so desire. It seems that the only question is how to link the article in the "source of ranking" box. Do we put a "see also" link? "For more information see" link? It would likely get added to every single box so it needs to be short and to the point. Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:44, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

My point isn't about the content of the discussion, just indicating we should allow editors time to give their views before concluding the discussion. It's only really run for less than 24 hours. --Wolbo (talk) 20:56, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

Agreed. Fyunck(click) (talk) 21:03, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

Yes Wolbo, sufficient time should be given for people to contribute to this discussion before its considered closed. I think all the articles would benefit from brief statements. Player A won (tours/tournament names listed), Player B won (tours/tournament names listed), Journalist A ranked Player A no. 1, Journalist B ranked Player B no. 1 etc. Tennishistory1877 (talk) 21:08, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

I like the 1931 in tennis etc. pages because the information is listed in table form rather than narrative form. Tennishistory1877 (talk) 21:12, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

I have received some more material from InformedAnalysis in my own personal Talk page area, which does NOT belong there, and so I am moving it here. It appears to me that he is not interested in a serious discussion, but is simply protesting to me about the state of the world or something which he regards as important. I am not going to respond to him, and I hope that he will stop making further remarks to me about this issue.Tennisedu (talk) 04:45, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

No 1 male tennis players - why don't you write your own article instead of destroying the excellent work of the original author of 15 years ago and myself 2 years ago. The goal of wikipedia is to create - add new useful info; not destroy by taking useful information out. You should feel really good about yourself. Informed analysis (talk) 01:34, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

I think probably Informed analysis may not be accustomed to how wikipedia talk works. I have some sympathy with him, as he has spent time and effort on the page (his edits appear to have been well sourced and are unbiased) and he is seeing his efforts going to waste. The large scale reduction of the page by tennisedu was done before any consensus was reached on the issue. However, in a few days time when a final consensus is reached (if it is), then Informed analysis will just have to accept it. Tennishistory1877 (talk) 09:45, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

I have sympathy, too, and I liked the material. Much of it has been here for years, which I noted when I attempted to restore it (yet tennisedu proceeded to delete), and I've actually been using it for years in my own research; the length never was a problem for me. I think the material should not be deleted, but if it's deleted here and restored in the suggested year-by-year articles, then I won't vote against deleting it here. And I think the proposal to make those new articles in table form is a good idea and will go a long way to prevent those articles from bloating like this one has.Krosero (talk) 12:23, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

In this case I believe Tennisedu followed my edits on removing players who are not No. 1 or No. 2 from the field 'Source of ranking'. Prior consensus is not required for major edits, per WP:BOLD, but an editor should of course use proper judgement when making significant edits and carefully consider what the article is or should be about. --Wolbo (talk) 12:32, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

Other aspects and issues

I have always been in two minds about this article. It is clearly a labor of love and has interesting content on tennis history but from the beginning it is had, and to an extent still has, a number of significant flaws that make it a poor encyclopedic article. To name some shortcomings: insufficient sourcing and use of inline citations, use of non-reliable self-published sources, use of non-contemporary sources, lack of clear criteria and definition on what we regard as (reliable) rankings, subjective points of view, conjecture, original research, specifically synthesis of published material, out of scope content and editorializing. These issues have only partially been addressed. Also, I have always wondered why we include No. 2 players in an article on No. 1 players while at the same time we almost completely ignore 40 years of well-known No. 1 amateur rankings. In this case the book simply does not match the cover. There is a lot of work to be done to improve this article and hopefully this discussion will contribute to that.--Wolbo (talk) 12:32, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

I think that's a reasonable list of issues remaining with the material/article. Not sure how much time I will have to contribute to the discussion but it's a good list to work with. I've always wondered myself about the sourcing in particular. Sources can be named, but putting them into the already-crammed boxes, and having back-and-forth edits within those boxes, always seemed problematic. So whatever is done, concision should very much be a priority.Krosero (talk) 12:48, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

I think insufficient citations listed rather than the sourcing may have been the problem. The reason amateur rankings are largely ignored is that the top amateurs were significantly behind the top pros and in shortening the article only the best players are listed so amateurs are excluded. I do understand many of the issues you have with this article Wolbo, and I share many of them. I think the suggestions made by fyunck may well be the answer. Tennishistory1877 (talk) 12:58, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

With respect to the question of why there are two players listed, rather than just one, I think that the nature of these selections indicates just why that is. In some years you have two players listed as No. 1, and in many other years it is not clear on exactly who deserves the number one ranking. Some years list several players into the two slots, one year has four players listed. I presume that whoever made these choices for No. 1 and No. 2 (and by the way, who did make these choices? just reading this article, it is not clear to me exactly how this was accomplished), understood that this is a very subjective process, at best. So often there is not a clear No. 1, so it is probably better to pick two, and hope that the best player has been captured in the listings.Tennisedu (talk) 15:44, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

The organizations and ranking sources made the choices. We just filled in what the players actually won. Usually it was unanimous, sometimes it was by a lot of sourced weight in favor. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:21, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

Understood that there were often existing ranking lists put out by tennis writers and organizations, but what was the actual process of choosing these names for this article? I know that everyone feels that the choices are obvious, but usually there are some conflicts in the sources, and I do not doubt that editors would have some conflicting opinions on who the obvious choice would be. In some years for this article there are two or even three or more names chosen for the two positions. Is there a location where these names were actually discussed and chosen? I do not see anything listed in the article.Tennisedu (talk) 14:18, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

I agree that as it stands this article contains far too much WP:SYNTHESIS and is severely lacking in in-line referencing. Ideally, we should just link to the players' season articles for the relevant years (which should all be notable per our guidelines), and move our summaries of their seasons to there. Currently, we only have season articles for the Big Four, but having already-written summaries would make the others easy to start at least. Information on consensus runners-up is out of the scope of this article and should be removed completely and again shifted to those players' articles/their season articles (if notable). Where sources conflict on who was the best in a given year, only material from references directly comparing the seasons of the players in question should be kept. Every source for every year needs a full citation. Enacting these changes would render the article a lot clearer and more encyclopaedic. Calbow (talk) 20:06, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

Calbow, the inclusion of a No. 2 has created a lot of the problems with this article. Not only is it out of scope, both regarding the article title and the lead, but it is even more subjective and poorly sourced than the No. 1 ranking. Have long felt that the article would be better served by replacing the No. 2 column with separate columns for the No. 1 ranked amateur and the No. 1 ranked professional player. This would be much more in line with the article scope and, as it is easier to source, would also address issues with original research (synthesis) and subjectivity which are core issues with this article. There would still be room to list multiple (amateur and professional) players if reliable sources do not show a consensus No. 1 ranking.--Wolbo (talk) 21:28, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

Wolbo: I agree that separation between amateur/pro rankings is needed. Laver won a calendar-year Grand Slam in 1962 and yet isn't even mentioned for that year in the current format. Somnifuguist (talk) 14:21, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Years Without Rankings

Just looking at the headers to this article, it is stated that these rankings take into consideration rankings made by contemporary observers, and also created decades later by retrospective rankings. However, it appears that in at least four years (1947, 1949, 1954, 1957) there are no rankings, either contemporary or retrospective, referred to in the article. There do not appear to be any available rankings for these years, either at the time or later. I assume, therefore, that the editors have attempted to produce their own rankings for these years. Is that correct? If so, should this not be noted in the introductory heading?Tennisedu (talk) 23:30, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

We have newspapers saying that Gonzales was the best player in the world in 1957. We have "the Concise History of Tennis" also ranking Gonzales as number one in 1957. That was the only quick check I did. Just wondering, is there any other decade you like to edit? It seems like I'm always witnessing a lot of squabbles about Pancho Gonzales and Lew Hoad with your edits and multiple other editors. Gonzales's achievements seem always to take diminishing hits from you while Lew Hoad you scramble to find the nearest pedestal to put him on. Maybe I'm wrong about this but it sure seems like that's what I'm always running into. Fyunck(click) (talk) 00:03, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

A brief reference in a contemporary newspaper about who is thought to be the greatest is not exactly an annual ranking of players, and I presume that is why we have no reference in the 1957 space to this newspaper statement you found. If you think that it is worth citing, please add it, right now there is absolutely nothing for 1957. The "Concise History of Tennis" is not cited in the article, either. Take a look at 1947 and 1949, nothing to do with Hoad, not involved in those years....too young. But we have no rankings for 1947 and 1949, as I pointed out above. I guess for 1947 and 1949 we are just going on what the editors put in there? That was my point, Fyunck, nothing to do with Gonzales or Hoad.Tennisedu (talk) 03:40, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

Quite often with the pros, those newspapers are all we have to go on as far as ranking the No. 1 players of the year. It's not the best, but it's the best we have. You are correct that it should be in the article so I will see what I can dig up. Some, like 1947 and 1954, are no brainers. But others like 1949 are a tougher call. Fyunck(click) (talk) 05:47, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

I don't think 1947 is a no-brainer. With several players very close 1947 is tough to call. I am happy to go with the current rankings listed on this page. I think we achieve as much with common sense consensus editing when it comes to a page like this, which for pre-open era has a mixture of sources from a ranking list of 1 up to a ranking list of 10 (and a few years with no pro rankings sources). Tennishistory1877 (talk) 17:03, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

I agree that common sense consensus editing is appropriate for this article, and, in fact, we have no other choice but to do that for 1947, 1949, 1954, 1957 as well as other years for which there is no real contemporary or even retrospective annual ranking available for the pro tennis scene. However, why on earth do we not simply point out to the readers what we are doing, and stop pretending that there is some ranking written in stone from which we are getting these rankings? Let's tell the readers what we are doing, using consensus rankings of the editors to fill in missing rankings, and even choosing to over-ride existing rankings if they make no sense. Because that is what is actually taking place. How about it? Does that make sense, Fyunck? Tennisedu (talk) 00:47, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

There is no ranking written in stone for any year pre-ATP. And even through the 1990s they weren't written in stone since the point based rankings were never intended to count for year-end champions. They were rankings given out by journalists and former players. Look at college football during those same years. There was no playoff and it's why at the end of the season it was called the "mythical college football champion." You make it sound like many years there was some formal banquet that the president of the United States attended that honored the year-end No. 1. It was all subjective based on the observations of writers and former players. And those opinions varied on occasion. Fyunck(click) (talk) 04:50, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

It always makes me laugh when tennisedu uses the word "official" when talking about the pre-open era pro tour. Talking of consensus editing, there seems to be a consensus among wikipedia editors not to fill pages up with qualifying statements, so could you stop putting them onto pages please, tennisedu? Many thanks. Tennishistory1877 (talk) 12:32, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

Have we not already thrown out the Mazak references for being self-published? That was quite recently, as I recall. What has changed to make Mazak acceptable now, Fyunck? And a passing throwaway remark about someone being the greatest does not qualify as an annual rankings list. We need something more substantial than that. Being the "world champion" is not the same thing as being ranked world no. 1, as I pointed out in referencing those years where the world champion was not the world no. 1. Do you see the difference?Tennisedu (talk) 16:02, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

The point that was made about the rankings not reflecting the results of the pro championship tours remains valid, Tennishistory. I will restate it in a more compact form. The issue of winning the world pro championship tour and ranking world no. 1 are two separate considerations, as can be seen from those years which I cited. There is no need to conflate the two.Tennisedu (talk) 16:08, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

I didn't throw out the Mazek reference. We all know how sketchy the pro rankings and frankly the amateur rankings were pre-Open Era. There was nothing official! Sure, Kramer threw out some point based things bu they were no more official than any newspaper. Kramer hated some of the players and did everything in his power to keep Gonzales off the tour. Newspapers and magazines were the best rankings we have. Are they perfect? No they are not. But piecing those items together and sourcing them are the best we can do. There are newspapers that said Gonzales was the tennis champion from 1954-1960. The Tennis Hall of Fame says he was number 1 for eight years from 1952 to 1960, so it is not some whim of wikipedia editors that has added those details out of their own heads as you seem to keep demanding. To be honest I don't like the insinuation. We use the best sources we have. Some are worse than others and if we find others that are better we throw out the poorer ones. Fyunck(click) (talk) 21:04, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

Those compiling opinion based rankings have a variety of reasons for ranking the players as they do, so lets quit editorialising about those reasons on the pages and just state the facts, tennisedu. Rankings are either valid to use under wikipedia rules or they aren't valid. What is and isn't acceptable as a wikipedia source seems incomprehensible. It seems to me that editors make it up as they go along. What is the difference between Karoly's book and my book? The number of pages? LOL. And how come Ray Bowers is a valid source? Tennishistory1877 (talk) 17:13, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

There may be no easy answer in the abstract, but we did arrive at a consensus for this particular article that Mazak was a self-published work and therefore not a possible source for this article. That was clearly established, and the references to Mazak were removed. I think that we have to move on from that issue, take it as resolved in the manner indicated. If it makes you feel any better, I have my own personal list of rankings, but I would never think of using it as a source document for this particular article. We have to draw the line somewhere. I have not heard back from Fyunck yet on his reasons for suggesting Mazak as a source, I am looking forward to that.Tennisedu (talk) 19:35, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

Your personal rankings list and my book aren't the same. My book has sold worldwide, your list is a personal rankings list. I wouldn't think of using my own personal rankings list of all time greats as a wikipedia source either. I understand about rules being applied for self-published works, even though it means better sources are removed in favour of worse ones. What I don't understand is why Karoly's book (yesterday by fyunck, even though it was previously agreed not to use it) and Bowers (frequently on wikipedia) are used as sources. I have a lot of respect for both Karoly (who I know) and Ray Bowers, but rules should be applied fairly. Tennishistory1877 (talk) 20:10, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

If you'd rather put in the Tennis Hall of Fame as a source for the 50s be my guest. I'd leave the newspaper too. And I'll find some for 1947 and 1949 also. It's a lot of newspapers but I'll dig through them. We have to be open and flexible with the pre-Open Era years and we can't just throw the baby out with the bath water. What I object to is the constant qualifiers being put in to demean certain players or to raise up others. It's really getting old waking up to check wikipedia to see more of that stuff being added by one user and removed by others. Over and over again. Fyunck(click) (talk) 21:15, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

I log in every morning and remove the qualifying statements that have accumulated overnight, fyunck! If I could wish anything regarding rankings, it would be that the Hall of fame would create a comprehensive list (instead of just mentioning rankings on some profiles). I dislike a lot of contemporary ranking lists for the old pro tour, because they were written with organisations with a particular agenda. Rankings are very imperfect anyway and particularly decades ago. I prefer a list of major titles won (even if we can debate which events were majors). The annual world pro championship tour was huge and for virtually every year I would rank the winner my no. 1. Tennishistory1877 (talk) 21:32, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

Well, I agree that we have to be consistent, so the Mazak having been already removed should be followed up on. Sorry to have to add inconvenient data, but that is how history gets written. Sometimes the myths of history fail to align with facts. And if you will notice, Tennishistory, the world pro championship winners between 1950 and 1961 do not always line up with the number one in the rankings on this article. Often there are "co" number ones, or as in 1961 Gonzales won the world pro championship but is ranked no. 2 here.Tennisedu (talk) 22:33, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

I said in my own personal list I would rank most of the tour winners no. 1. This isn't my personal list! And if you recall, tennisedu, I said I was happy to go with the list order as it currently stands. Tennishistory1877 (talk) 23:33, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

Well, the article pretty much goes right with your tour winners. From 1946-1960 each tour winner is ranked number 1. A lot of tours stretched from one year to the next and 52 and 55 didn't really have a tour, but every year here ranks the tour winner at the top. It stops with 1961 where Gonzales wins the pro tour yet is ranked No. 2. Fyunck(click) (talk) 01:05, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

The idea that tour winners automatically get number one spot does not seem to have been accepted by the contemporary annual rankings, and, no, I don't think that we can simply write that off to their supposed inadequate powers of reason. They were actually on the site of these events, and may have known something that we don't. Fyunck, our list here does not automatically take the tour winners at no. 1, there are a lot of co-no. 1 years. Take a look at 1960, where Gonzales won the world championship tour, beat Rosewall 20 to 5 on the season, and yet shares the no. 1 spot with Ken...go figure.Tennisedu (talk) 04:32, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

The list does take the tour winners at number one... yes there are some co-winners, but the tour winners are mostly number one. Gonzalez won the short tour that ended in June. But Rosewall won the French Pro Slam, and the Wembley Pro Slam, and the Australian Pro with Gonzales pretty much playing nothing else. Those things happen sometimes. If it was the 40s 50s or 60s and two players split two majors but player A beats player B the four times they played, the historians and newspaper experts would have given the crown to player A or at worst a two player tie for year-end champion. Since the 1990s that doesn't happen since it's all points now. But mostly the contemporary rankings concur with the pro tour winners. Fyunck(click) (talk) 06:29, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

I think we know a lot more than contemporary rankings compilers, tennisedu. We know all (or most) of the results and we can rank players without having an agenda to promote winners of certain events. Above all, its the results that should guide us. Yes, the list largely goes with tour winners post-war fyunck, though there are some co-number 1s I would personally not rank as co-no.1 (like Sedgman in 1953 and Rosewall in 1960), but I am prepared to accept. Gonzales won the 1960 tour featuring Rosewall easily, 20-5 says it all. I found a lot of results for 1947 in 2019. My personal opinion is Budge was no.1 in 1947, based on him winning a short European tour v Riggs in early 1947 and a slightly longer one in the summer. One of the least known facts in tennis is that Budge, for a short period after the war, was probably the best pro, but Riggs got lucky. In the 1946 tour Budge was out of form having not played regularly in wartime and trying to play top flight tennis again after a wartime injury. He had a terrible start to the tour but came back and dominated Riggs in the last half of the tour and very nearly won it (just losing by 2 matches). Then in 1947, Budge beat Riggs in the Euro tours, but Riggs beat Budge in the US Pro final. Budge's resurgence didnt last long but it was significant. Tennishistory1877 (talk) 10:30, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

I will source the individual match reports for Riggs Kovacs (the deciding match is already listed). Up to 5-5 the match reports are on newspapers.com. If you want the summer 1947 tour results Budge v Riggs you will have to buy my book, as a lot of that isnt online and I have newspaper match reports sent to me from libraries. I took considerable time researching that tour. Tennishistory1877 (talk) 11:13, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Summary of 1947. Kovacs won tournaments at Buffalo (over Riggs), Rochester, Troy and US Pro claycourt at Miami. Kovacs also beat Riggs on their US tour 6-5. Riggs won tournaments at Philadelphia (over Kovacs and Budge) in March and the biggest event, the US Pro (over Kovacs and Budge). Riggs also beat Budge in the South Africa tour in the late part of 1946 and early part of 1947. Budge won two European tours against Riggs (the earlier tour was quite short). Riggs led Kramer 2-1 on their 1947-48 tour by end of 1947. Kramer had won Wimbledon and US championships in the amateurs before turning pro. Who was the best for 1947? I would say it was very close. Tennishistory1877 (talk) 18:50, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

The title of this section says it all..."Years Without Rankings", we are creating our own rankings here, not bound or influenced by any rankings for 1947, because they don't exist. And it is clear to anyone reading the rankings that do exist for the period from 1950-1962 that the winners of the big tournaments were given as much credit as the winners of the long pro tours, that was simply how they looked at it at that time. The elevation of the pro tours to mythical status is a product of retrospective assessment, with later writers impressed by the sheer numbers of matches in the world pro championship tours. But those tours, as Kramer pointed out, were largely created as commercial ventures, sometimes referred to as "exhibitions" in the press, and were largely determined by injuries rather than by tennis skill. Major tournaments offered a chance to see the players try their best against each other with their best game, not trying to pace their effort over a long series to avoid injury. I prefer to look at the shorter tours of 10 to 20 matches, which shows both players at full power. That is why I would give weight to Kovacs' 1947 tour win over Riggs. And Kovacs for once played his best tennis in a big deciding match to beat Riggs at Lynchburg. Kramer's year in 1947 is, I believe, overrated because of a relatively weak field that year in the majors. Tom Brown was a fine player, but could never challenge Kramer. I would say the same about Budge's year in 1938, the field missing von Cramm, Vines, Perry, and Budge never meeting Riggs during his Grand Slam run. The toughest potential opponents for both were unavailable or in the pro ranks. And Kramer never did learn how to play against Kovacs, losing their head-to-head something like 14 to 3. I vote for Kovacs as joint number one for 1947. Riggs had foot trouble? That comes with the territory. Budge was playing injured in the 1946 tour against Riggs.Tennisedu (talk) 01:53, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

That is completely untrue that the annual tour wasn't regarded as a big event at the time. There are many newspaper articles that show that it was. For years the winner of the tour was frequently referred to as world champion. For the players, for many years playing in that tour meant sink or swim as regards being able to make a living from pro tennis. Look at Gonzales, after losing the tour to Kramer, he only played part-time and ran a shop! If the rankings were written by the PLTA and there were tournaments that lots of the PLTA players played in (ie US Pro), there is going to be bias towards those tournaments. McCauley says of 1950 PLTA rankings "It is difficult to understand how the following rankings were arrived at: 1 Segura, 2 Kramer" etc. We can debate the pros and cons of tours verses tournaments, certainly in the open era tournaments are regarded as the superior format. However, no way have the tours been given some mythical status by modern historians. This is another of your fantasies, tennisedu. Hoad didnt win the annual world tour so you think up ways of downgrading it. Yes foot trouble comes with the territory, players played with injuries all the time. They didn't have the luxury of modern multi-millionaire players of being able to take a year off to recover from an operation. If I were to choose a ranking for 1947, I would say it was difficult. My personal choice is Budge for no. 1, but I think Budge, Kovacs and Riggs were all in the frame, probably Kramer too. After all, Kramer was the last rookie pro to win the annual tour, so an argument could be made that his level of play was no. 1 in 1947, as it was good enough to thrash Riggs in 1948. Or did Kramer improve whilst playing Riggs, Kramer claimed so in his autobiography. The early matches were close and then he worked out a way to play Riggs. 1947 is the most difficult post-war year to find a clear ranking. Tennishistory1877 (talk) 11:54, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

Well, of course, Kramer would supply the newspapers with puff about how important the world pro tour was, that was his bread and butter. But the experts who constructed the contemporary rankings did not give huge weight to those "exhibition" tours. The very term "world champion" was not a ranking at all, just a title. The USPLTA did NOT participate in the Cleveland event in 1952, so your point is wrong about them being biased in that year's rankings. McCauley? Not a contemporary observer at all, writing about forty years or more after the tours. And McCauley certainly would not know how those rankings were arrived at. Our personal estimates about Gonzales or Hoad have nothing to do with this, as you should realize by now.Tennisedu (talk) 14:33, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

You seem to be forgetting that I draw nearly all my references from contemporary articles. I never said "world champion" was a ranking, but its an important title and was not invented by Kramer, it goes back to the 1930s. McCauley has done a lot of contemporary research. Something I find with all those that have done a lot of contemporary research is that we all rate the annual pro tours very highly. I have very few personal opinions on the old pro tour that don't very closely align with the facts I find about it (and am always wiling to change those opinions when new facts emerge). All the facts you are presented with on the pro tour you try and twist to suit your narrative, ie your overwhelming obsession with Lew Hoad, which is well known and on wikipedia means your edits are constantly revoked by other editors (and I dont mean just a few times, but again and again and again on an almost daily basis). Tennishistory1877 (talk) 17:18, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

Actually technically speaking the first world champion for pro tennis was in 1889, but the annual world pro tours started in the 1930s. Tennishistory1877 (talk) 17:21, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

Tennishistory, again you miss the reality. All of my edits are supported by contemporary references, something which you seem to have difficulty acknowledging. Some edits by all editors have been removed, in case you have not noticed. That is how we arrive at consensus. Tennisedu (talk) 19:43, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

Sure, every editor reverts other editors from time to time. But just count how many times you have been reverted by all the main editors on here compared to everyone else. Take this thread as an example. Early on we have fyunck criticising your bias towards Hoad. You said "The elevation of the pro tours to mythical status is a product of retrospective assessment, with later writers impressed by the sheer numbers of matches in the world pro championship tours". This is fundamentally untrue. You said "The USPLTA did NOT participate in the Cleveland event in 1952, so your point is wrong about them being biased in that year's rankings." How can the people making the rankings be biased against the annual tour that year?! There was no annual tour in 1952! Keep on trying to justify the unjustifiable in this thread if that gives you pleasure. We all know what your agenda is and you aren't subtle. Tennishistory1877 (talk) 21:07, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

Tennishistory, now there you go again (as a famous President once said). Every editor gets deleted for wrong edits, I have had to do it for others more often than I care to remember. The USPLTA did make the rankings for 1952, let me refer you to this very page for 1952. They did not go with Gonzales, who appears to be the consensus pick among recent rankings. My agenda is to make sure claims are backed up with adequate research and citations. Sometimes that means challenging the accepted wrong perceptions, and discovering information which somehow escaped the standard tennis histories.Tennisedu (talk) 00:58, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

You said "And it is clear to anyone reading the rankings that do exist for the period from 1950-1962 that the winners of the big tournaments were given as much credit as the winners of the long pro tours". I made a point about 1950 about the rankings being made by the PLTA who (as you so frequently point out) authorised (presumably in their "official" lol capacity) the US Pro that year. Then you wrote "The USPLTA did NOT participate in the Cleveland event in 1952, so your point is wrong about them being biased in that year's rankings", which is a stupid remark, when there was no world pro tour in 1952 and I had mentioned 1950. And while you are in the mood for "discovering" things (rather than lying about other people's discoveries), perhaps you can look through the many newspaper articles when players turned pro from the 30s to the 50s. Do they say they intended to turn pro to play in tournaments, or do they mention the annual tour? (References to players turning pro to play in the annual world championship tours are not difficult to find, there are many thousands of them). It seems a fairly obvious thing that if the annual tour often took around half the year to complete and before the late 50s there were few tournaments (and while the tour was going on very few tournaments for those who were not part of the tour) that players would want to be part of that tour. Tennishistory1877 (talk) 11:07, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

As I pointed our above, post-WWII pro tennis made a big deal out of the top tournaments. The 1947 Forest Hills U.S. Pro was designated a world pro championship to decide who would play Kramer in the 1948 tour. In 1948, Riggs made the same suggestion about the U.S. Pro at Forest Hills. So this emphasis on the big tournaments did not begin in 1950. And as the field of pros broadened in the mid-1950's, the importance of the pro tournaments continued to increase. Kramer claimed that his goal was to make the world tour a series of tournaments. It is no surprise that the rankings which did exist take the tournaments into consideration. Rosewall skipped the pro tour in 1960, yet was ranked number one by L'Equipe.Tennisedu (talk) 15:37, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

In 1947 there was no world pro tour, the US Pro was the biggest tournament and the other tours were only short and were not world championship tours. In the 1960s there was a pro tournament circuit, which is why the world pro tour was eventually no longer required. But for many years everything was geared around the world pro tour. So go and read all those articles about how the players turned pro in order to play the tour instead of making up fantasies about the way it wasn't. Enough said! Tennishistory1877 (talk) 16:42, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

And to get you started, here is a newspaper article from 1957 when your idol Lewis Hoad turned pro. At that stage there was a tournament circuit that was just starting to grow (back in 1955 there had been very few tournaments). It wasn't the all-encompassing tournament circuit of the 1964-67 era. Article says "Essentially, Hoad, the 22-year-old blockbuster who has won Wimbledon twice in a row, was signed to match shots with the swarthy Californian who has just finished cleaning up on Hoad's former Davis Cup partner, Ken Rosewall. Hoad's contract, however, provided for a six-month "warming up" period during which he would play Rosewall, Pancho Segura, and Kramer. He wouldn't take on Gonzales in the 100-match series until next January." So tournaments were warming Hoad up to play Gonzales on the tour. https://www.newspapers.com/newspage/116734828 Tennishistory1877 (talk) 17:32, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

So, nothing you say here challenges what I said above, that tournaments were important in many years before 1964. Starting in 1947, where the one tournament was designated the "world pro championship" by Harris. That's right, a tournament. There were only a few top pros until the mid-50's, but as soon as the top 6 players were all under pro contract, Kramer established a group of major tournaments which formed the basis to expand into a complete world series of 15 tournaments to which ranking points were attached in 1959. Kramer claimed that this was his goal all along, to get a tournament series. And Kramer carried on with that idea in 1960 until the top two players withdrew. And again the 1964 tournament series was Kramer's idea. So nothing you raise above changes the overall trend, which started as early as 1947, when a single major tournament became the world pro championship, rather than a long marathon match series. Now, we are straying away from the subject of this section, "Years without Rankings", so perhaps we should start a new section if you wish to continue this discussion on tournaments vs. tours.Tennisedu (talk) 03:10, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

You seem to be struggling to grasp basic facts (as usual). In 1947 there was no world pro tour. Shall I say it again, as it doesnt seem to be getting through?! In 1947 there was no world pro tour. We have a newspaper article quoted above that makes it patently clear how the world pro tour was regarded verses tournaments in 1957 and 1958. Of course the ideal was to establish a tournament circuit. Tilden started a tournament circuit way back in 1934 that was a failure. Finally in 1964 they had that full tournament circuit (ie a points system to establish the circuit winner with no competing world pro tour). For many years the world pro tour was the main event and was the very reason players turned pro. What more is there to say other than these basic facts about tennis history that you fail to grasp. Tennishistory1877 (talk) 11:06, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

A 1957 newspaper article? What are the contents? because they are certainly not on display above. That is a worthless reference to me, and I doubt that the 1957 article contains a pro rankings list, although I should refrain from speculating until the contents of the article are apparent. But my point remains unchallenged by you, that the world pro championship of 1947 was DESIGNATED (not speculated about in a newspaper) by the promoter, Harris, to be ONE SINGLE TOURNAMENT, something which did not happen before 1947....things were changing as the pro tournaments acquired greater stature. The pros rarely played Forest Hills for the U.S. Pro before 1942. In 1948, Riggs claimed that the Forest Hills tournament should be regarded as the real world pro championship, so 1947 was not a one-time occurrence. Take a look at newsreels for 1958, where the Forest Hills TOC is touted as the world pro championship. The biggest pro tournaments had that kind of impact in the 1950's. This was something new in pro tennis. Now, if you want to continue this discussion, I recommend that we start a new section, because this extends beyond the section on rankings.Tennisedu (talk) 20:54, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

https://www.newspapers.com/newspage/116734828/ Click where it says OCR and the contents of the article become visible. The relevant text is about half way down the page. In some ways I actually pity you, your obsession with Hoad seems to be a kind of illness that means you are unable to see the truth of how things were. I do not wish to continue this discussion because there is no point. But it was important for me to emphasise the status of the world championship tour. Tennishistory1877 (talk) 21:37, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

All I see from your link is a reference to register for a subscription....sorry, that does nothing, it is not helpful to me at all. I think that I have already made the relevant points on this matter above, where I showed how the pro tournaments became of great importance in the pro rankings.....sorry that we could not agree on this. The more I read about the marathon pro tours, the less decisive they seem to be, especially in 1959 where the winner lost the premier series.Tennisedu (talk) 23:10, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

https://www.newspapers.com/newspage/116734828/

Show Page 23 article text (OCR)

Click where it says OCR. Tennishistory1877 (talk) 23:47, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

https://fultonhistory.com/highlighter/highlight-for-xml?altUrl=https%3A%2F%2Ffultonhistory.com%2FNewspapers%252021%2FBuffalo%2520NY%2520Courier%2520Express%2FBuffalo%2520NY%2520Courier%2520Express%25201957%2FBuffalo%2520NY%2520Courier%2520Express%25201957%2520-%25209087.pdf%23xml%3Dhttps%3A%2F%2Ffultonhistory.com%2FdtSearch%2Fdtisapi6.dll%3Fcmd%3Dgetpdfhits%26u%3Dea0e237%26DocId%3D1833949%26Index%3DZ%253a%255cDISK%2520V%26HitCount%3D7%26hits%3Db61%2Bb62%2Bb63%2Bb64%2Bb65%2Bb66%2Bb67%2B%26SearchForm%3D%252fFulton%255fform%252ehtml%26.pdf&uri=https%3A%2F%2Ffultonhistory.com%2FNewspapers%252021%2FBuffalo%2520NY%2520Courier%2520Express%2FBuffalo%2520NY%2520Courier%2520Express%25201957%2FBuffalo%2520NY%2520Courier%2520Express%25201957%2520-%25209087.pdf&xml=https%3A%2F%2Ffultonhistory.com%2FdtSearch%2Fdtisapi6.dll%3Fcmd%3Dgetpdfhits%26u%3Dea0e237%26DocId%3D1833949%26Index%3DZ%253a%255cDISK%2520V%26HitCount%3D7%26hits%3Db61%2Bb62%2Bb63%2Bb64%2Bb65%2Bb66%2Bb67%2B%26SearchForm%3D%252fFulton%255fform%252ehtml%26.pdf&openFirstHlPage=false

If you are unable to fathom even the simplest navigation of newspapers.com, then the following link will provide you with a PDF file of a newspaper page of the same article from a different newspaper. Tennishistory1877 (talk) 23:58, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

https://cdnc.ucr.edu/?a=d&d=SBS19570709.1.24&srpos=1&e=-------en--20--1--txt-txIN--------1

LOS ANGELES (UP) World pro tennis champion Pancho Gonzales announced yesterday he was returning his airplane tickets to tennis promoter Jack Kramer and would not appear in the tournament of champions at Forest Hills Saturday because of the presence of Australian star Lew Hoad. "If Hoad is in the tournament of champions, I'm out of it," Gonzales said. "This is unfair to me. I had been looking forward to playing Hoad in a 'head-to-head' tour for the world's championship. Any previous meetings in tournaments would detract, from next year's big tour."

"For nine days of tournament play the most I could make is $2,300. If I played Hoad on tour for nine days I could probably make $2,000 a match."

Gonzales furious, arguing about percentages with Kramer. Tennishistory1877 (talk) 00:35, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

Interesting, but I have seen this article before in some other form. I am not sure what Gonzales means by "nine days of tournament play". The tournaments were usually three rounds. The two series in 1959 paid out about the same money to Hoad, and the Ampol series involved more money overall than the world tour.Tennisedu (talk) 01:32, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

Forest Hills TOC 5 matches per player, the Masters 6 per player, both round robins, that is what Gonzales is referring to. Knock-out tournaments with three rounds were not as long as 9 days. Pretty clear from all the articles when Hoad turned pro in 1957 that everything was geared towards the world pro tour. Standard practice for decades. Tennishistory1877 (talk) 11:21, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

You forget 1947, where Forest Hills was designated the world pro championship. By 1957, everything was already changing, most top players were now pro. There was now Kramer's Tournaments of Champions, beginning with the 1957 White City TOC where Segura had his greatest tournament win, beating Gonzales and Sedgman. The 1957 Forest Hills TOC (and the 1958 and 1959 Forest Hills TOC) were the only pro tournaments to receive national broadcasts on CBS, which fetched substantial fees for the tour. By 1959, Kramer was able to establish a world series of tournaments, which he continued in 1960. It was a new era.Tennisedu (talk) 15:15, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

THERE WAS NO WORLD PRO TOUR IN 1947!!!!!! Tennishistory1877 (talk) 17:09, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

There was no world tour in 1947 AND a single pro tournament at Forest Hills was designated as the world pro championship event for 1947. That did not happen before 1947, it was a sign of the times changing. The pro tournaments were becoming important events.Tennisedu (talk) 02:22, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

What were the contents of the 1975 L.A. Times rankings for 1954? It is cited but the contents are not discussed in the text.Tennisedu (talk) 17:13, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

I believe it said he was number one in 1954. I'd have to dig it out again. Fyunck(click) (talk) 21:48, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

Looking forward to seeing it.Tennisedu (talk) 22:41, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

I actually had no plans on looking it up again. Fyunck(click) (talk) 23:19, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

Interesting to note that the newspaper article in question says Gonzales was "undisputed" world champion between 1954 and 1960. This is very much in line with nearly all contemporary sources. I believe that the L'Impartial reference was simply wrong. Hoad was world tournament champion, not world champion. There are literally thousands of references from contemporary sources through to sources decades later that say Gonzales was world champion in 1959 and one reference that says Hoad was. Tennishistory1877 (talk) 00:22, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

A world championship title is not a rankings order. Fyunck, there is no mention of Gonzales being ranked as No. 1 for 1954 in that L.A. Times article, just a general reference to being "undisputed world champion" for the 1954 to 1960 period. We have solid references, which we have looked over carefully and repeatedly, that Hoad was a world champion in 1959. The term "world series", which Kramer applied to the Ampol series, was only used for world championships, and there are several press reports which agree with the Impartial report. A "world tournament champion" is a world champion. Not an issue any longer.Tennisedu (talk) 02:44, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

I can't believe this malarkey is still ongoing. None... repeat... None of the rankings in any of this time period is official at all. Kramer gave rankings but he was no more qualified that expert writers or later historians. So please stop with this never-ending spiral of he said she said. We have also told you many times that we have to be a little flexible during the pro years and this LA Times article is an example of flexibility. If you don't like it... tough. It is really tiring to see this stuff every single day. Can't you work on the 1930s or 1980s for a month or two? Fyunck(click) (talk) 04:55, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

We are finding new contemporary rankings every day. I discovered a new one for 1953 and added it into that year. If rankings do not exist for a particular year, we should acknowledge that, and not try to stretch things out of shape just to fit a preconceived idea of what should have happened. We are constrained to take the records as they are, and if we cannot find rankings for a year, just come right out and admit that. There is certainly no problem with making a ranking for these years using the materials we have on results. We have not been stopped or frustrated by the lack of rankings for some years. So be it.Tennisedu (talk) 05:14, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

It just goes in one ear and out the other with you. No matter what is said you don't seem to hear it... or perhaps you just ignore it. I'll let others do the explaining to you from now on since this is just wasting my time. Fyunck(click) (talk) 06:42, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

It seems to me that there is a consensus that Tennisedu should not continue to make disruptive edits to this page. I am noticing a pattern with Tennisedu's editing. First, he edits a page, being combative and disruptive but in the early stages he also contributes information. Then he runs out of anything useful to say but continues to edit the page. Other wikipedia editors edit a page making the edits that are required to make and then move on to another page. They do not continue making daily disruptive edits that are reverted by other editors. This editing from tennisedu is a form of page vandalism and should be treated as such. Also, you are quite right fyunck about suggesting tennisedu should edit a different time period. One of the main reasons his edits for thr 50s/early 60s era are so disruptive is his overwhelming bias towards Lew Hoad, which is a form of illness. Tennishistory1877 (talk) 10:36, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

I have noticed a pattern in your editing, Tennishistory, pushing your POV on the Cleveland event. I had to correct you just yesterday when you attempted to override a statement which I obtained from World Tennis, you just assumed that your own interpretation should take precedence over the source. That is just one example of your bias on this issue. The sheer volume of your meanderings is sometimes overbearing and required me to consign some of them to notes. If you have a point to make, just do it, give one or two citations. There is no purpose in piling up repetitive citations which repeat the same point.Tennisedu (talk) 16:22, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

I proved that the Cleveland event was referred to as U. S. Pro, not only by many later sources but also by contemporary sources. This is something you have been lying about on a monumental scale for years, but like so many of your fantasies have been disproved by hard evidence. You seem to think you can ramraid your biased agenda onto wikipedia pages but have found that your edits are reverted again and again and again and again by other editors (not just me, but fyunck, Wolbo and Krosero to name just a few). When other editors try and reason with you, you ignore the points they make (as fyunck said earlier in this thread) and continue to ramraid your biased agenda in talk threads. Tennishistory1877 (talk) 16:48, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

I gave you many examples from New York Times, Chicago Tribune, Sports Illustrated, World Tennis, all of which used the term "Cleveland World Pro". The major media used this term. But that is not the issue here, this reference yesterday was from World Tennis, and you are attempting to override it. That would be like me overriding your references from newspapers to Cleveland as the U.S. Pro. We should respect our sources, and not try to interpolate our own views into them.Tennisedu (talk) 22:37, 7 December 2020 (UTC) 18:03, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

No one is disputing the billed name was World Pro. McCauley says this in his book. No one should be disputing the U. S. Pro name either, as there are many references to this. Other wikipedia editors don't like the World Pro to be listed at all, but I came to a compromise with you to write it when listing the tournament names on the world rankings page. I have also now compromised with you to put the World Pro name in other references on this page, even though this does make it a bit longwinded to write this every single time. Tennishistory1877 (talk) 18:26, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

Yes, that compromise agreement we made was a very sensible way to handle this strange issue, which was complex from the very beginning, with the promoter Jack March himself striving to find a name for his event, and the players inserting their own ideas into the discussion. We found, I think, the best way to deal with it, acknowledging that the sources themselves show a complex situation, and respecting the sources. Kudos all around for this achievement.Tennisedu (talk) 22:40, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

USPLTA rankings

Interesting that the 1949 USPLTA rankings discount non-US tournaments entirely (not just a bias), so big events like Wembley arent included in the ranking. This calls into question the scope of these rankings and may explain their inaccuracy. Tennishistory1877 (talk) 00:13, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

The USPLTA is not alone in their U.S.-centric rankings. The Jack March rankings (or his players committee rankings, if that is what they are) also seem to focus on the results of the Cleveland tournament. The L'Equipe rankings seem to focus on the results from red clay events in Europe. The scope of expertise of the ranking agent was probably limited to their own backyard, so we should probably expect this. But I expect more from Kramer, Tennis de France, Tingay (the latter two giving very limited pro coverage in rankings), who had a broader perspective on the world of tennis. Kramer, unfortunately, also had promotional concerns which may explain some of his ranking choices.Tennisedu (talk) 04:56, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

We have long known rankings of that era were biased in favour of certain events, but the 1949 USPLTA rankings show that important tournaments (Wembley) were not included in the ranking at all. US tournaments seem to be the only events included in USPLTA rankings. Tennishistory1877 (talk) 10:36, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

What is and isn't a ranking

There seems to be an issue (caused by the Hoad fanatic in residence) about what is and isn't a ranking. To refer to someone as "world champion" seems to me to be closer to saying they are the number one player than a statement saying "I think I am as good as so-and-so". But actually neither statement is saying that a player was the number one player. It would be nice not to have to rely on rankings that list only one player, but we don't have that luxury on the old pro tour. So we have to be specific. Rules need to be quite strict on rankings of one I think. Otherwise the whole thing becomes rather silly. Tennishistory1877 (talk) 20:56, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

We have been over this issue many times...different concepts. World Champion is the winner of a tour, one event on the year's calendar. Each year had a different world tour, some were more important than others. Some years had important tournaments, some did not. Each year had a different story. I could see Gonzales ranked alone as No. 1 for 1952 and 1960, but when I tried putting that in, it was immediately reversed for some unknown reason. Wolbo claimed that I was making a POV statement by ranking Gonzales alone at No. 1...now could someone explain that to me, who is supposedly a Hoad fanatic? How does ranking Gonzales at No. 1 in 1952 represent a Hoad pushing? The logic escapes me.Tennisedu (talk) 05:06, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

Solution to the Original Research Quandary for this Article

There is an obvious solution to the problem posed in this article on original research, that the list of rankings on the left hand column represents original research and original conclusions. The solution is really quite simple. We simply take the areas from the right hand column described as "Rankings", and move that material into the left hand column, where currently exists subjective and original conclusions, which causes the original research problem for this article, and replace the original conclusions now located there with the actual rankings. Problem solved. That does not necessarily mean that the editors endorse the contemporary rankings cited, and these should be contemporary rankings in line with the rubric and header to the article. It simply means that the title of this article "Players RANKED" as NO. 1, will be satisfied where possible, by reference to the actual rankings. This avoids the problem of original research and conclusions, which has plagued this article to the present time.Tennisedu (talk) 05:46, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

There is currently a serious disjunction between the "rankings" on the left-hand column, and the "Rankings" area in the right-hand column, which are the contemporary rankings. Those two areas of material SHOULD be identical or the same. It is only the use of original conclusions and original research which has created any difference between the two areas. The current left-hand column should be eliminated, and the question of the article answered with reference to actual rankings of the time. I know that we are CLAIMING that the left hand column is a dispassionate view of the actual rankings, but that is clearly not the case in some years. True, some of the contemporary rankings were biased, but that is not our concern, which is simply to report what those rankings were, not to create new rankings of our own. It is this desire to "fix" or to "correct" the contemporary rankings, because we disagree with them, or because they are inconsistent with some of the career legends of the game, which has caused this problem of original research and conclusions.Tennisedu (talk) 05:59, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

Sorry but I have no idea what you are talking about with right columns to left, nor do I see any serious disjunction, nor anything that has "plagued" this article. Maybe it's the semantics of the term "ranking" that has some in a quandary. I look at ranking as either what was a subjective unanimous or near unanimous year-end ranking by newspapers/magazines at the time, or historical consensus best player of the year by newspapers/magazines from contemporary through the present sources. With that this article looks pretty tight to me. It's the prose that needs some work to me. Sections like "Between 1913 and 1973: opinion-based worldwide rankings" I'm not sure why it stops with 1973. ATP No. 1 was not truly based on a points system till about 1990. Points before that were used for seeding purposes. The best player per the ATP was the "ATP Player of the Year." It was only later that it was points only. And still the ITF has their own methods of choosing. That also brings the section "From 1973 onward: merit-based ATP rankings" into question.

As I have said since day one we have to be flexible in some of these early years of tennis. If source after source simply says so-and-so was the best player in a certain year, then we go with that. It may not give us a second place but that's ok. But to demand exact wording is unfair to the time period in question. Simply put a footnote next to the ranking saying it was reached by consensus sources rather than an actual list that said these players are 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9, and 10. Fyunck(click) (talk) 07:12, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

I note that Wolbo's edits in recent days have focussed on the pre-1913 period. For this period the rankings are not good. It is not helpful to have UK and US players rated seperately, as this does not show how good the top UK player was compared to the top US player. Also some years in this period dont have any rankings. The pre-1913 period does contain a fair amount of original research in selecting no. 1 and 2. It makes an automatic assumption that Wimbledon is the premier tournament (though this may well be the correct assumption). Early Wimbledon and US championships contained mainly players from the home nation of each event. J. Parmly Paret wrote an interesting book during the first decade of the 20th century on the early years of tennis comparing the players. A. Wallis Myers also wrote books on the early years of tennis. Tennishistory1877 (talk) 11:43, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

Fyunck, it is not hard to understand what I am stating above. The left hand column represents a JUDGMENT by the editors as to the "consensus ranking" (a presumed consensus of the editors here) which the editors believe did or should have existed about the identity of the number one or two players. That constitutes ORIGINAL CONCLUSIONS, because there was was no clear consensus for those years published regularly anywhere, no one identified a universal rank, no one stated that Tingay or some other source was the official ranking for the year. What we now have on the left is the judgment call by our own editors. That constitutes original work which is beyond the scope of this article. The solution is quite simple, just take the material we already have from the summaries labelled as "Rankings", and move that material into the left column in place of the current rankings created by the editors. Problem solved. Fyunck, I know you are reluctant to acknowledge that the current ranking choices are the work of the editors, but that is simply the way this was done. That is why the "original" tag is still hanging over this article. The rankings which we have created seem mostly reasonable to me, but the purpose of this article is not to create our own reasonable rankings, but rather to report on the rankings which actually were published at the time of the events described. The purpose of this article was clouded when we created our own improved version.Tennisedu (talk) 19:04, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

I have no problem with the original research tag being placed on the article. If there are no number 1 and 2 rankings, then the article ceases to have much relevance. I believe the current numbers 1 and 2 are the fairest that can be reached bearing in mind all the information. We know the imperfections that exist. The article makes it quite clear what these imperfections are. It has the original research tag and it clearly states the editorial involvement. No one could ever mistake this list for an "official" list. I say lock the page and move on. Only when new rankings are found should the article be substantially altered again. Tennishistory1877 (talk) 19:31, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

As I said above, the rankings the editors have arrived at are reasonable as far as I am concerned, but as you admit, this is original work, and as such it is outside the bounds of the article. We are not supposed to leave it there.Tennisedu (talk) 05:05, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

I actually don't think that is true for your "left hand" column. It is not a consensus ranking by editors at all. It is a ranking by tennis experts or a consensus of tennis experts on who was the best player in a particular season. So we disagree right out the gate. Whether you call it a ranking, or the best, the top, player of the year, that's what was put in the ranking columns. Sometimes it's a sourced historian, sometimes a sourced famous tennis writer, sometimes simply newspapers, but that's what we take it from. We (editors) don't just look at what was won and make our own determination of who the best player was each year. Publishers have done this for us. Now sometimes publishers split on who was best. When that happens, if the number of split best players is close, we simply list both players. If it's a landslide we list only one. But we go with sourced info. Fyunck(click) (talk) 07:38, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

We have kept editorial judgement to a minimum, but its still there. As I said, we have done our best using the available sources. That's all anyone can ask. Tennishistory1877 (talk) 10:40, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

Fyunck, the process of arriving at the annual rankings which you describe here, is the definition of original work. It involves the exercise of judgment by the editors, and very often there is a disjunction between the left-hand column of rankings and the contemporary published rankings. To stay within the guidelines for this article, we should be simply listing the contemporary rankings, warts and all, plus the rare retro ranking, if the contemporary rankings are ridiculous. Let the strangeness that exists in the sources remain on the record. The casual reader now could easily be confused into thinking that our current ranking list is some sort of official ranking put together by an official organization. That is certainly not the case, and the only way to avoid that confusion is to remove the editor's ranking list.Tennisedu (talk) 19:03, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

I don't see an "editor's ranking list" in the article. I see ranks based on sourcing. And if you think readers will think this is an official list posted in some book, then they didn't read the prose or we need to better explain that they were pulled from multiple sources, not just one source. We could change the work rank to best player. But I have no control if, for example, the Los Angeles Times article states that Budge is the best player in the world for 1939 and I put Budge as #1 with that source in the article, and you later remove it. I never really look at the column "source of the ranking" as far as who won what. I look at the column for the source only. What they won means nothing as to the ranking except to give perspective to our readers... nothing more. We don't use what they won to form the ranking, or at least I don't. Fyunck(click) (talk) 22:56, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

No I dont think the casual reader will think this is an official ranking. The article clearly states how the article was put together. I disagree with removing the editors ranking list. Tennishistory1877 (talk) 19:12, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

The casual reader will avoid the fine print and go straight to the ranking list determined by the editors. In some years where the published rankings are limited or non-existent, this original work by the editors will be accepted as representing a published source, which is not the case.Tennisedu (talk) 19:22, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

I have added a sentence in bold at the start of the article. There is also the original research tag. People can not claim this is an official list when it clearly states to the contrary. We have limited editorial involvement to a minimum, thats all we can do. Tennishistory1877 (talk) 19:34, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

The continuing presence of the "original work" tag and the admission that this ranking list consists of original work by the editors (which you have now admitted in bold type) indicates that there is more work to be done to address the problem. There is only one way to remove the "original" tag and address the problem.Tennisedu (talk) 19:55, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

It is not a question of "admitting" anything. The statement is a factual statement which also says the editors are guided by the ranking sources available. You better get down to some research and find some more rankings. It is no use grumbling from the sidelines. Too much hot air and posturing around here. Do some research. Tennishistory1877 (talk) 20:59, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

According to the wikipedia rule book (of which Wolbo is more familiar than I am) the sentence I wrote is not admissable because it refers to wikipedia editors. I prefer to be upfront about how a page is constructed and do not believe that casual readers of wikipedia pages also spend hours scrolling through the giant source of hot air known as the talk archives while they visit, but if the rule book states wikipedia editors shall not be mentioned on pages, then I shall abide by it. It is ironic that this same rule book prevents rankings by a respected historian (Mazak) being used which would solve the problem of some years without rankings sources. But rules are rules and should be applied fairly, however imperfect. Tennishistory1877 (talk) 22:47, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

Mazak can be used if he is published by a known publisher or is quoted in acceptable sources. The problem arises because he likes to self publish. Musicians are doing that today with no problems but books are kind of iffy. To be honest I would look at self-published works with more an open mind. They would always be a last choice, but they should be a choice if Amazon deems they have no copyright infringement and he seems a reputable historian. His books gets recommended by Goodread, and Wood Tennis, etc. The world is changing and more and more writers are bypassing costly publishers. Look at the book "The Martian." It was self-published when I read it then got picked up years later and turned into a movie. Of course not all self-published items are the same and it should be up to editors to determine their writers merits. So yes, I too would use Mazaks book as a source if no other source could be found. Fyunck(click) (talk) 23:18, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

I dont think its a question of liking to be self-published. Its often a question of self-publishing or not publishing. McCauley was self-published. If Mazak is acceptable as a source then I would expect my book to also be admissable as a source, as the same criteria applies to my book as it does his. I also have an excellent review of my book in a respected tennis magazine. Many books nowadays are self-published. There was an autobiography of Julie Heldman (a very successful book) out a couple of years back, self-published on amazon. The world is changing. Some of the information on wikipedia tennis pages was very out of date and incorrect and I have made it more accurate. There is more I could do, but am not prepared to do so unless my book is admissable as a source. Personally I rate Karoly Mazak (who I know and is a big supporter of my book) higher than many of the sources used on this page. Tennishistory1877 (talk) 23:41, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

There is a very good reason why wiki has a strict policy on allowing self-published sources because if we start to add self-published sources to articles which do not meet those requirements it simply ceases to be an encyclopedia. No offence to anyone who has taken the effort to publish something but any idiot can self-publish (and it seems a lot of them have). Fyunck's view that "something is better than nothing" is simply wrong if it doesn't meet the requirements set out in WP:V, WP:SOURCES and WP:SELFPUB (which are not static but evolve with community consensus). It is a minimum standard that cannot be compromised. If we allow Mazak's "book" (and I use the term loosely) we might as well determine the rankings ourselves and that is aside from the question about the encyclopedic merit of judging in 2010 that Gore was the No. 1 ranked player in 1877.--Wolbo (talk) 00:41, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

I didn't say we shouldn't follow wikipedia rules, I said wikipedia should be more flexible in its rules and allow things case by case. Wikipedia should allow Mazaks book, but I don't make that call. And of course not all "something's are better than nothing." But there are exceptions. If Pete Sampras puts out a self-published book of tennis rankings you can bet it should be taken seriously. Not as seriously as a book published by Rayner Unwin, but serious none-the-less. Flexibility and compromise has always been my mantra in these situations. Fyunck(click) (talk) 01:06, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

Your last sentence is nonsense, Wolbo. You allow Ray Bowers to judge number one pros from the 1930s in 2005. And exactly how does Bowers qualify as a source? Because his data is on some website? More and more good books are self-published. McCauley, you told me qualifies as a source because he wrote articles for World Tennis magazine. How does Geist qualify? Wolbo, you need to explain exactly how each historian qualifies as a source, because it seems a very fine line to me. Tennishistory1877 (talk) 01:00, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

Tennishistory, you are straying way outside the topic here, this is not a venue to mention your book, regardless of how well researched it might be. I might be interested in reading it, if it were accessible. But the issue here is the rankings created by the editors, and you have acknowledged that the ranking list here is original work by the editors. It must be removed, and replaced by the "Rankings" sections from the summaries. That would solve the problem completely.Tennisedu (talk) 02:38, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

You can buy my book the same as any other person, tennisedu. I have sold copies to Canada on Canadian Amazon. I have told you that I dont agree with your suggestion of replacing the rankings, tennisedu. You have not established a consensus. I will explore the issue of acceptable sources with Wolbo elsewhere. Tennishistory1877 (talk) 10:33, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

Your solution, as I understand it, is to acknowledge that these rankings are indeed original work by the editors, and to simply allow the "original work" tag to ride along with the article as an acknowledgement that the rankings are original work and should not be here. Great. But not acceptable according to the rules which supposedly prevail on this page. While these rankings appear to be reasonable, they are certainly not sourced properly.Tennisedu (talk) 04:41, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

The rankings in the rankings column are heavily based on available rankings and editorial involvement is minimal. You can keep repeating yourself endlessly like a stuck record if you want to, but there is nothing more to be said on this. Tennishistory1877 (talk) 11:43, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Editorial involvement is central to many of these years. The "original work" tag will continue to ride along with this article. I guess that is okay with some editors.Tennisedu (talk) 04:34, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

Technically, these are not Wiki rankings, but a report of existing contemporary rankings.Tennisedu (talk) 17:32, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

Vines Rankings for 1933

I am not sure if we should include the Vines rankings for 1933, because Vines did not include himself in the rankings, and the rankings are therefore not comprehensive. It is quite possible that Vines, despite having a subpar year, could be ranked near the top of the pro rankings, so for Vines to leave himself out of the rankings puts a huge hole near the top of his pro list. The rankings are incomplete without Vines being put somewhere in them. This is especially important if we are planning to claim an all-time world record for Tilden on the basis of the Vines list. Logically, Vines should probably belong at the top of the pro rankings. I think that Vines would be shocked if he knew that Tilden would receive an all-time world record on the basis of Vines' rankings for 1933. This list is apparently a promotional exercise, as Vines had just turned pro and would be playing the old Tilden on the upcoming pro tour. Tennisedu (talk) 20:07, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Many of the rankings only include narrow criteria. Vines chose not to rank himself, his choice. Imperfect, like many of the rankings used. There is no justification in singling this ranking out for criticism. Tennishistory1877 (talk) 21:51, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

It was not meant as a criticism, just an observation. Vines perhaps felt uncomfortable about ranking himself at No. 1 pro, although that would have been reasonable. So what we have here is a ranking of Tilden as top pro, excluding any consideration of where Vines might be. That is a serious qualification on the ranking, and I think prevents us from using it as a basis to establish any sort of all-time world record ranking for Tilden. But Tilden already has the record due to his ranking in 1931. There can be no doubt that the Vines ranking excludes himself, he is not in the top ten for either amateur or pro, and therefore this must be deemed an incomplete ranking.Tennisedu (talk) 23:53, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

It is a valid ranking, so is listed on this page. Therefore it counts (if the cherry-picked number one counts) as a record for oldest number one. It is not listed as the consensus pick for the year, just as Hoad 1953 isnt. Many rankings are much worse (some have limited scope in some way or other) but are listed. Tennishistory1877 (talk) 00:14, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Why are the rankings thought to be disputed?

I don't know the history of this article, but Bud Collins's book lists sourced rankings from 1913 onwards (1913–38 by A. Wallis Myers; 1939–51 by F. Gordon Lowe, Pierre Gillou, and John Olliff; and 1952–68 by Lance Tingay). Why do you not just use those rankings, and what is the rational behind stating any of those years are disputed? Sportsfan77777 (talk) 21:58, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

The rankings you list were amateur rankings. The pros were superior to the amateurs post-war (and in some years before). Tennishistory1877 (talk) 22:03, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Okay, maybe there are separate amateur and professional rankings. But players who were ranked as the No. 1 amateurs in the pre-Open Era still count as "world number 1 ranked male tennis players". Sportsfan77777 (talk) 23:52, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Readers coming to this page invariable want to know who the best player in the world was in a given year. Just like we have done since the 1990s. By listing only an amateur ranking we are actually doing a disservice and giving a dubious answer. Many are not aware that there were actually far better players than the amateurs. When the pro/amateur ranking differs, both should probably be listed, because you are correct that they did have a number 1 ranking. Fyunck(click) (talk) 00:22, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Besides splitting amateur and professional rankings, we should also split contemporary rankings from the retrospective rankings. It's not the same for someone to be ranked No. 1 in 1955 at the time, and for someone to decide in 2010 who was No. 1 all the way back in 1955. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 22:51, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Following up on that last part, what makes any of the retrospective rankings recognized? Naively, I would guess none of them would be recognized. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 22:51, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

I have finally received clarification on the points I raised (from editor fyunck). Bowers qualifies under the rules as an expert, which is why his rankings are used in this article. Tennishistory1877 (talk) 22:58, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

That shouldn't suffice for Bowers or anyone. Being an expert doesn't automatically mean your rankings are "official" rankings. They need to be recognized. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 03:30, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

1963

I would suggest that we change the rankings for 1963, the two references to casual remarks from 1964 are not clearly tied to the 1963 season, and are just passing remarks without a multi-player ranking. This does not rise to the minimum requirement for a player ranking. I would suggest using the results of the World Championship Tour for 1963, which were designed to create a comprehensive official ranking of players by number. The playoffs were also designed to establish a ranking order. Hoad was absent from the ranking due to injury and was officially unranked for 1963. The final ranking order was Rosewall, Laver, Gimeno, Buchholz.Tennisedu (talk) 05:36, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

1964 Rosewall and Laver

This year has always been a contentious one for rankings, with some rankings giving Rosewall as No. 1, others choosing Laver as No. 1. I do not think that this is a major issue, they were practically equal in achievement that year, much like comparing Segura and Gonzales in 1952. Rosewall won the tournament point system No. 1, and Laver won the two most important tournaments and led Rosewall in hth 17 to 7. Clearly the top two players that year, but in many years the distance between No. 1 and No. 2 is so small that you could choose either player as No. 1 and be justified. In general, the two top players chosen for this list should each have some claim to being ranked No. 1, so that we can feel assured that the "true" No. 1 player, whatever that means, is among the names chosen.Tennisedu (talk) 20:47, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

The various contemporary sources listed show Rosewall was number one for 1964, largely based around the point system. My own personal view is that there was a point system for 1964-67 with no competing world series, so I go with the result of the point system. This seems to have been the view of the players also. There has been a trend in recent years for "historians" to look back at particular years in the past where there were all-encompassing point ranking systems and try and rewrite who was no. 1. The problem is, the point ranking systems were there, players knew what they were and the number one was announced based on that system. The ranking page is problematic in the pre-open era in that there were certain years where there are no contemporary sources (or limited scope rankings or bad rankings). That is the way it is. But it seems to me that in years where there was a point ranking and no competing world series that the ranking is determined by that system (from 1973 onwards also with ATP rankings). My own personal view is Rosewall has a much stronger case for being no. 1 in 1964 than he does in 1960, when Gonzales won 80% of his world series matches against Rosewall and won the series easily. But in any case, sources should be listed for each year and I am willing to accept rankings I dont necessarily agree with if the sources are there to back up the choices. But just thought I would share my views on the subject. Also, the head to head YOU have for Laver Rosewall in 1964 is 17-7. Tennishistory1877 (talk) 21:12, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

For the Laver/Rosewall hth for 1964, I suggest that we be consistent with the Wikipedia page on tennis rivalries which gives a score of 17 to 7 for 1964 Laver over Rosewall. Of course, giving a relative weighting for the various pro events is a subjective game, and there is no absolute right or wrong answer. If there is severe doubt about who is the actual No. 1 for the year, it makes sense to post two names, and probably 1964 is a classic year for including a joint No. 1. Admittedly, Laver's support for No. 1 relies upon the International Tennis Hall of Fame, but we also used that same support to give Gonzales a joint No. 1 ranking for 1952. As I recall, we had some extended discussion about that. Both 1952 and 1964 were years when the official No. 1 judged by contemporary rankings differed from rankings arrived at years later retrospectively.Tennisedu (talk) 00:45, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

Just scanning over the lists of number One and number Two players, it seems to me that in most years there is little or nothing to choose between the top two players, you could make a case for either player as No. 1. I think that this is justification of the system we have here, including at least two names, because it is mostly a subjective exercise who the top player is in the vast majority of years.Tennisedu (talk) 01:59, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

Fine to go with the wikipedia head to head for now, I am just telling you 17-7 was not the 1964 Laver Rosewall head to head. In fact most of the head to heads quoted on wikipedia for the pro tour are wrong. I didnt remove your Hall of fame source for 1964 (I did laugh when I saw you put it on there, after you had so vehemently argued against it for 1952). In 1952 there were few ranking sources, which is not the case for 1964. It seems to me that in most years there is a clear number one and that is the way it should stay. I do find it a strange concept to have an all-encompassing world tour and a points system attached to it, for the players to know what it was and to regard the number one as number one, yet for people to come along in later years and try and rewrite that. Personally I am much more interested in finding results than altering the meaning of the results that are already known. Tennishistory1877 (talk) 09:29, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

I am surprised that you would find it strange to include a HOF ranking, after you insisted so strenuously on using one for 1952. And, no, the official points No. 1 is not always the choice for No. 1 in this Wikipedia list, there are some changes in other years besides 1952 and 1964 (in 1952, Segura was the official No. 1), such as 1977, 1978, and 1982. And for that reason, the multiplicity of yardsticks used here, there are very few clear No. 1 players in most years, if you check the fine print on achievements for those years. In 1982, Connors finished second on the points list, but is rated No. 1 on this Wikipedia article, so obviously we are not just sticking with the points system here. It appears that 1982 is very similar to 1964, Connors in 1982 and Laver in 1964 both won the two most important tournaments but finished second on the points list. There is no logical reason to give Connors No. 1 for 1982 and not give Laver No. 1 for 1964. Also, Connors had a losing hth against Lendl in 1982, whereas Laver had a huge hth edge over Rosewall for 1964. Perhaps you could explain that, why we should use a different system for 1982 than we do for 1964, especially when it appears Laver had a better year in 1964 than Connors had in 1982. If any year argues for a joint No. 1, it would surely be 1964, so I do not understand why you felt compelled so strongly to change the ranking which already existed for 1964. In 1977, Vilas and Borg finished second and third on the points list, but are ranked here as joint No. 1. In 1978, Connors was first on the points list, but we have Borg alone as No. 1 with Connors second. I think that 1947 is another tough year, where the No. 1 is not clearly No. 1, the other players have a good claim for No. 1 also. Perhaps we should acknowledge that these rankings are only approximate rankings, based on the best judgments available, and not strict rankings like a point system. If you think that 17 to 7 is wrong for the 1964 hth, tell us what you think it is, and perhaps you could change the page on rivalry to reflect that. We should at least be consistent in this Wikipedia article with other Wikipedia articles.Tennisedu (talk) 18:26, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

I dont find it strange to include a Hall of fame ranking, I find it funny that YOU put it on there. I changed the 1964 ranking because the sources I found and most of those existing on the page showed Rosewall as number one. As I said to fyunck, if you find other valid sources for Laver being no. 1 then by all means change it back to a tie. I am not responsible for other editors' choices for 1982 as I concentrate my editing on the pre-open era (I am prepared to defend my own edits, but not other people's). Tennishistory1877 (talk) 20:00, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

Well, let's see, you added British Lawn Tennis and McWhirter for Rosewall, and then you changed the ranking to Rosewall sole No. 1. Since then there have been two more sources added for Laver at No. 1, International Tennis Hall of Fame, and Raymond Lee. So that seems to level the field again back to where we started. Any objection to restoring Laver as joint?Tennisedu (talk) 02:13, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

We now have another source ranking Laver No. 1 for 1964, The New York Times. So that really adds to the list of sources for Laver. Should we go ahead and restore the co-No. 1 status of Laver and Rosewall for 1964?Tennisedu (talk) 03:30, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

More were just added. I think there is enough uncertainty to put it back to co-No. 1s and leave it up to our readers to do their own research. Some years are just tough and this could just be who you talk to on a given day. Points aren't everything...heck look at Connors in the 70s. He'd win ATP points races and the ATP would go against those points and vote someone else No. 1. 1964 is tough. Fyunck(click) (talk) 06:42, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

Fine with me to restore 1964 to joint no. 1. Good to see sources added. I have found nearly all of my rankings in contemporary newspapers because these are what I use. Nearly all of my research is based on contemporary sources and reading recent articles by modern "historians" doesnt interest me at all, but I accept these are valid sources. Tennishistory1877 (talk) 09:04, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

I think that we should not necessarily accept contemporary sources just because they are contemporary. Many of those contemporary sources are compromised because they originate from someone who is financially connected to the pro tour, and they take on a promotional aspect because of that. I notice that Tennishistory1877 does not seem to mind that some of those historic sources are compromised in this way. Personally, I think that compromised sources should be distinguished as such by an asterisk or some identification of the source as related to the tour. If this consideration is of no account, then we should also accept Laver's autobiography as a source of ranking for 1964, because Laver claimed in it that by the end of 1964 he had attained the top position in the pro tour. Perhaps I should add Laver's own evaluation to the list.Tennisedu (talk) 22:08, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

Have just added the Laver source for 1964. Laver rated as No. 1 professional by the end of 1964.Tennisedu (talk) 23:07, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

That is quite amusing, Laver being used as a source at seperate times for Laver and Rosewall being no. 1 in 1964. Laver saying "We are working on a points system which is the soundest way so that everyone has to try hard all the time and Ken has the most points" and "I had also edged ahead of Ken Rosewall to be the top-ranked pro". Still, not as bad as someone who vehemently opposes the use of a website as a source and then includes a source from the same website the moment they see an opportunity to promote their cause. Your bias against Ken Rosewall is longstanding (and goes hand in hand with your bias towards Hoad). I have read many of your remarks over the years and I have only ever heard you say anything nice about Ken when listing him in a group of the old pro players in an argument against a group of modern players. Maybe we should put an asterix next to every one of your edits and at the bottom of each page an explanation saying "edit made by a Hoad fanatic who has been challenged many times over many years by other users of an online forum and wikipedia editors due to his frequent inaccuracies and bias". Or should we should leave the asterixes alone? Tennishistory1877 (talk) 23:24, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

You left out the defining phrases, "by the end of 1964", the quote you bring in was from right after Wembley, long before the end of 1964. So there was no amusing inconsistency, despite your suggestion. Your suggested qualification for my edits is, of course, nonsense. Everything I edit is supported by the most unimpeachable of sources, as the work here on 1964 amply demonstrates. But I thought that since you put so much extreme importance on Rosewall's own self-ranking for 1962, we should also accord the same privilege to Rod Laver for 1964. Sound logical? There is no Hoad self-ranking which is available, as far as I know, I guess he did not bother to self-rank. If one shows up, I will let you know. And, yes, it makes sense to qualify with an asterisk those rankings which are compromised by financial associations with the pro tour.Tennisedu (talk) 01:30, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

Laver said after Wembley 1964 that the points system was the "soundest way" to decide things. Rosewall finished the season with most points. Then many years later Laver claimed he had "edged ahead" of Rosewall to be the top ranked pro. Laver didnt edge ahead of Rosewall in the points system by the end of the year. I didnt place "so much extreme importance" on Rosewall's own self-ranking for 1962, so please stop lying. I said no asterixes or asides. Either a source is valid or it isnt. If you find a valid source for Hoad self-ranking (which surely you will spend all day every day looking for) then it would be valid the same as Rosewall. I have had enough of your nonsense for one evening. It is late here and I am going to bed. Tennishistory1877 (talk) 01:48, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

I doubt that Hoad spent any time doing self-rankings. If a player has to self-rank, something is a little unusual. Laver did not claim to amass more points than Rosewall, but to achieve the top ranking. He made no mention of points, so I am not sure what you are referring to. Have a good sleep.Tennisedu (talk) 02:11, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

I am referring to Laver saying the point system was the "soundest way" to decide things and then later claiming to be number one despite not finishing ahead in the point system. Not difficult to understand really. Tennishistory1877 (talk) 09:40, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

Just one thing I would like to add. This page must, wherever possible, be source led. 1964 seems to be very well served by sources now, with many being added in the past few days and the sources showing a tie. Some other years are not well served. The focus should be on finding sources for these years. Tennishistory1877 (talk) 12:12, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

Yes, there are many sources for 1964, because that is a particularly contentious year, like 1982, and 1977. Those years are controversial and so require many references. We have no sources at all for 1957 or 1947, those should be a priority.Tennisedu (talk) 18:00, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

Agree completely. At the moment the original research tag on the article is justified, because of those few years like 1947 and 1957 without sources. I would like the original research tag to apply to the section before 1913 only (and it is largely thanks to Karoly Mazak that we have so many sources for the pre-1913 period). In order for that to happen sources must be found for 1947 and 1957. I only have limited amount of time to spend on wikipedia at the moment but I will do my best. This article is much better than it was some months back. Tennishistory1877 (talk) 19:49, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

Found a source for Gonzales 1957. Tennishistory1877 (talk) 21:14, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

Found a source for 1947. Didnt take too long. Tennishistory1877 (talk) 00:01, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

1960 and 1961

Request was withdrawn

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Gonzales won the world series in 1960 and 1961. He easily beat Rosewall in the 1960 series. I believe the most accurate for 1961 is a tie between the two and for 1960 Gonzales no. 1 alone. Many sources considered that Gonzales was the dominant force from the mid 1950s to around 1961 and any other alternative options for co.-no.1 in this period need to be backed up with multiple solid citations (Hoad has for 1959 and Rosewall for 1961). Tennishistory1877 (talk) 21:50, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

So lets take a look at things and see where the vast majority of sources say. I don't have time right this second but before we start making massive changes, like was done last time, lets look and decide if changes need to be made. This is a team effort. Fyunck(click) (talk) 22:28, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

This page is viewed by a lot of people, amongst them keen fans of tennis history. They do not do so to tune in to the latest views of wikipedia editors. They do so to look at the sources listed. It is vitally important that sources decide this page, because if it looks as if an editor is trying to project their own personal views onto this page going against the sources, then this page just looks cheap and biased. And dont think people are stupid, because they can see if a weight of evidence is presented in one direction but a decision on number one is in the other direction. We have sources for every year since 1913 now. This means absolutely minimum editorial input in deciding number one is required from 1913 onwards. This has been a group effort and no one individual can claim credit for this page. But even a small amount of biased decision making in choosing number one could bring down the level of credibility significantly. Tennishistory1877 (talk) 00:03, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

Discuss and see if we can come to an agreement BEFORE you start changing things. It's been known to work well. That way we aren't changing things back and forth. You have actually changed who is number 1 for two consecutive years. That's HUGE and needs to be discussed. We aren't talking about a tournament name. Tell us why you think things should change and others here may very well have counters to your suggestions. My agenda is to follow procedure. If you change something that's been here awhile, like 1960 and 1961, and it gets reverted, per wikipedia you do not change it back again. You discuss and convince on this talk page. I may very well agree with you on these changes, although the sources I recall in 60 are pretty well split. But you have to give us a chance to look at things. Fyunck(click) (talk) 05:52, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

The period from 1960, 1961, 1962 is confused because all three of the players who received No. 1 rankings from some source (Gonzales, Rosewall, Hoad) did not play very much tennis against each other, which would have given a more settled result. It appears that they, in fact, probably dodged each other, and withdrew from tours and events formats in which they believed they would not have an edge in play. They chose to play in events and tours where they could expect success. All three should be discounted for that reason. Rosewall had a 6 to 5 edge over Gonzales on the 1959 season, and so Rosewall was probably expecting a better result than he actually obtained from the 1960 tour, where Gonzales beat him 20 to 5, a decisive result. Rosewall did not make that mistake again, and skipped the 1961 world series. Hoad probably skipped the 1960 world tour because the format was the same as the 1959 4-man, where Hoad led until his back gave out later in the series. Hoad was willing to play the 1960 tournament series, having won the 1959 tournament series. But Gonzales concentrated on the 1960 world tour, a format where he was at his best, and skipped the 1960 tournament series. So all three players dodged the tour formats where they expected less success.Tennisedu (talk) 16:18, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

Please cut out the ad-hominem attacks and the constant sniping. It is not productive and has nothing to do with discussing aspects of the article which is what an article talk page is for. Read WP:AGF and WP:NPA. --Wolbo (talk) 17:08, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

I believe that there was an issue about using encyclopedia articles as sources. I am not sure if we are permitted to use encyclopedia articles as sources. Anyone remember the precise rule on that? Encyclopedias are certainly not primary sources, and have limited use as secondary sources, due to the changing nature of knowledge.Tennisedu (talk) 19:57, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

If something big gets changed and is challenged and reverted it is always up to the person who wants the change to convince others. The year 1964 has way too many sources in the box... they should be lumped as a footnote. You leave four good sources in the box and put the others someplace else for readers to look at if they want. Most readers want to see what was won and against whom, and who was No. 1 and No. 2 (or likely No. 1 per preponderance of evidence). They don't need to be hit in the face with reading all that evidence. That can be footnote stuff that they can research themselves.

The shear number of sources for two players is not the point. Everyone knows the decades in question are murky and it often comes down to two things: 1) Far and away most sources say player X was No. 1 and player Y was No. 2. Yeah player Y has some contemporary or modern sources that say they were No. 1, but by preponderance of sources player X was No. 1. Then we have 2) Where it's pretty close to the number sources that say X and Y are No. 1. Maybe it's 50/50 but maybe it's 60/40. When we see that, and notice the events won were pretty close, Wikipedia throws up it's hands and says surrender and gives them co-No 1s. It's the best we can do in a very uncertain time period of tennis history. Wikipedia can't be the historian but it can take the published observation of historians.

The first look I did was use some of the books I own. "The Pros" states Rosewall took over No. 1 spot in 1960 and held it for five years. So 1960-1964. Two self-published books "The Concise History of Tennis" and "Professional Tennis Archive" do not dispute this. CHT says 60-61 had both Gonzales and Rosewall at the top, and PTA says too close to call. "Tennis Observed" Tennis, 100 Years of Great Players and Events" and Bud Collins "History of Tennis" tell us nothing except scores. In 1960 we have Kramers points, L'Équipe and Robert Geist, split right down the middle. We don't always get sources other than newspapers but all these are a pretty good indicator that 1960 can go either way. Sort of a tour vs tournament battle of opinions. 1961 we have a pro tour that's a mess. Rosewall doesn't play and Hoad pulls out, and Gonzales wins it easily. Rosewall wins several big events and Gonzales retires before the year has ended. Rosewall has more wins in the Kramer Cup but Gonzales has already retired in October. This is why L'Équipe and Robert Geist and the USPLTA all have Rosewall No. 1. Not a fan of Encyclopedia.com reliability except as its use as confirmation of weight for a player as number one. The big names have Rosewall No. 1 in 1961, the tour points Gonzales in 1961. Time Magazine has Rosewall No. 1. I haven't dug through the newspapers (maybe Wolbo could help there) either contemporary or modern so bear with me on that. On what I've seen so far, plus the other sources given here in the article boxes, I don't see a reason why we would remove Rosewall from 1960. It's as close as can be. I also don't see evidence that Gonzales should be elevated in 1961. No one of importance thought he was best, plus he retired before the season ended. But at least with 1961 Gonzales did win the depleted tour... it's not Gonzales fault the best dropped out. I don't see enough to change what we have in 1961 but depending on how history rates the 1961 tour I can understand if others disagree. I'll dig into some newspapers and magazine to see if they have a different take on things. Cheers. Fyunck(click) (talk) 21:48, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

"Pancho Gonzales Retires As Undisputed King Of Tennis" https://www.newspapers.com/newspage/17670476 Tennishistory1877 (talk) 22:48, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

I'm not making value judgements, but historians and experts are, and some sources are proven to be better than others. We take everything as equal. You don't take what the Missoula Gazette says with the same ferocity as the London Times. And you don't mix apples and oranges. The pre-Open Era is totally different than today when we have two and only two organizations that matter anymore. 2013 can't compare. Goodness if they threw the 2017 results into 1960 I guarantee every major source would have Federer as No. 1, and the ones that didn't would have Nadal and Federer co-ranked No. 1. If it was 1977 Federer would have been ATP Player of the Year. So lets keep our eye on the ball with 1960 and 1961 shall we? Yes there were biases by tennis writers also, but it's what we have. We know Kramer was a Gonzales hater, and did everything he could to devalue the man. We know that US press tried their best to minimize Australian players too. But these are what we have. I can certainly see that some here may disagree with view of 1961, though I doubt many will for 1960. So we disagree on this item seeded between millions of other tennis items. But I'm cool with that and I'm only one voice amongst many. Fyunck(click) (talk) 22:51, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

I should say I dont necessarily agree with these articles, I merely bring them up to show how the papers view Pancho at the end of 1961. "Pancho Gonzales continues to beat off all challengers" https://www.newspapers.com/newspage/280543483 Tennishistory1877 (talk) 22:57, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

My view with 1960 is that Rosewall has not got enough no. 1 citations listed on the page. Also he was easily beaten by Gonzales on the world championship tour. Anyway, I am looking at 1961 for Gonzales at the moment. Also, many of the newspapers syndicated articles so just because I list a particular paper doesnt mean it was the only source for the article. You are not one voice among many when it comes to editing this page. That is not your fault, but unfortunately the way it will pan out is your view will probably carry. I never expect to count on tennisedu's support! Tennishistory1877 (talk) 23:12, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

This is a newspaper review of 1961 sporting season. Mentions Gonzales winning the tour, no mention of Rosewall's accomplishments. https://www.newspapers.com/newspage/600398355/ Tennishistory1877 (talk) 23:27, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

But with those you can also find the Dec 24 1961 Sydney Morning Herald saying Ken Rosewall is "the World Professional Champion" when comparing him to Rod Laver. Or the Dayton Herald in 1961 saying Gonzales is retiring with Hoad and Rosewall on top. We have the Dec 11 SMH telling us in the headline that "Rosewall is Still the World's Best" and that professional tennis players have acknowledged the fact that Rosewall is No. 1. This is the type of thing that confirms what the experts have said. It's great to add sources, but right now I see no reason to change what we have for 1960 and 1961. Maybe others do. Fyunck(click) (talk) 23:31, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

I am saying there is considerable doubt. I said Rosewall should be listed in 1961 along with Pancho. You have not put nearly enough citations for Ken on the page for 1960, you have 1 plus a Gonzales/Rosewall tie by Rosewall fanatic Geist. I have far more for Gonzales in 1961 than are listed for Rosewall in 1960. I can buy Rosewall being joint no. 1 in 1960 but only with citations to back it up. https://www.newspapers.com/newspage/600155329 "Pancho in or out of retirement will win the pro crown again", a very bold statement! Tennishistory1877 (talk) 23:42, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

"Still the King of the tennis court Pancho Gonzales" https://www.newspapers.com/newspage/279555122 Tennishistory1877 (talk) 23:55, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

And if you are going on judgement over volume of citations (which you seem to be suggesting), it would seem that Segura joint number one 1950 and Sedgman joint number one 1953 were extremely doubtful! Tennishistory1877 (talk) 00:08, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

I'll make sure others at tennis project see this so more eyes gaze in the direction. We're in no hurry. This is a tough article because of tennis' sketchy history. It 100% needs to be here but its very nature make it more subjective. That's why it says "consensus world No. 1" instead of just world No. 1. To be honest I'd get rid of the word "world." No. 1 is not an exact science and never will be. It is water-cooler talk, but talk that gets published and dissected by the games brightest minds and by the worlds biggest press agencies. Fyunck(click) (talk) 00:37, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

Tennishistory1877, this is not a contest to find out how many newspapers mention a player as "the top" or "the champion" or some other vague undefined term. That adds absolutely nothing to our estimation of the No. 1 RANKED player. There were actually very few genuine rankings of playerS, yes, that is a plural noun, published or even attempted. Most important are the official point rankings which came out in some years, plus the official world tour ranking orders from 1961 and 1963. In the latter two years, the world tour was structured to produce an official ranking order. The trouble was that some players were absent due to injury (Hoad in 1961 and 1963) or by choice (Rosewall in 1961). Gonzales defaulted three events in the 1959 point system. But opting out is not an excuse, and absence by injury is part of the business. However, the idea of adding up newspaper references is against Wikipedia policy, directly against it. It even has a name in the Wikipedia manual of errors, it is called "Citation Overkill", and it specifically warns us that just adding on more references from newspapers does NOT add to the weight of an argument. Newspapers often report little blurbs about "the top" player which is picked up from wire services, and repeated ad nauseum by small town newspapers. That does not add anything to our argument. We have to use discretion as to which rankings really are rankings by experts, not employed by the pro tennis tour, and not just promotional puff for the tour. So I am calling this a prime example of "CITATION OVERKILL", a condition clearly forbidden by Wikipedia. Let us do some sifting of real rankings away from the blurbs.Tennisedu (talk) 03:04, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

Sometimes the tournament point series AND the world tour were both described as "world series". However in those years with a tournament point series, the official ranking series was the tournament series, while the world tour was a more limited group of pros designed to capitalize on the new amateur champion turning pro in an extended revenue-maximizing format. Not the same thing at all, and the world tour did not provide a ranking of the pros, except in certain years (1942, 1954, 1961, 1963). If we are interested in a ranking of players, our first attention should be to the series which the pros designed to provide an overall ranking of players...that is easy enough to understand. And those series existed in 1946, 1959, 1960, 1964-1968. Not a problem finding them in black-and-white print. CITATION OVERKILL means adding extra citations beyond the number needed to establish a point. It says in the Wikipedia style section on CITATION OVERKILL that only one or two citations is enough to establish a point, anything beyond that does not add to the weight of the argument. In fact, it looks like a desperate attempt to buttress a weak argument. I encourage everyone to read that section of the style manual.Tennisedu (talk) 12:34, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

You know I was going to post this thread at Tennis Project in case others wanted to read through and express an opinion, but the amount of vitriol and finger pointing is making me hesitate. No one wants to read that and they'll give up on the topic as soon as they see it. I can mention it with a caveat to ignore personal attacks but it's becoming more difficult. Can we keep things civil and maybe strike out any attacks toward other editors in our own posts to give new readers the ability to skip through the useless stuff? Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:48, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

I have removed all but the basic arguments.Tennishistory1877 (talk) 20:01, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

I removed my responses to those items. Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:31, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

Unfortunately there are still two posts (the most recent two) from tennisedu that are not specific to 1960 and 1961, which include tennisedu's often repeated lies about the world tours and the tournament series (if we are to have a sensible debate about this, then I think these should be removed). The "citation overkill" topic is a seperate one and if it needs to be discussed, it needs to be applicable to the whole page. My patience is becoming quite thin on this issue. I probably should mention that several days ago I emailed one of the sources that was put onto the page recently (not by me) because I was not at all happy with the level of accuracy of one of their webpages. They said they would investigate the issues I raised. I would rather not say which one to be fair to them as they are looking in to it and may change what they have written. So to receive lectures on the quality of sources I have added and to imply that they are any worse than those added by others is a very weak argument indeed. I have said myself I dont personally like the encyclopedia.com reference but if other equally poor or worse references are used against my arguments on this page, then I see no reason why this should be singled out for ridicule. It would be prejudicial to encyclopedia.com to single them out for removal for this reason. If encyclopedias are not permissable as sources then that is an issue that needs to be looked in to and if that is proven to be the case, then (and only then) should it be removed. There is a lot more I could have said about quality of sources, but I have taken the view that if a source is valid it should be used, because to impose value judgements on sources will lead to massive disagreement, major rows and more editorial bias. The inclusion of the rankings in the left column is a seperate issue and I have removed all my remarks on that issue. Compiling rankings on close years prior to 1973 is very contentious anyway, without further arguments about which sources should be used and which shouldnt. And the likelihood of tennisedu and I will come to an amicable agreement on the rankings is extremely unlikely and goes against the evidence of all our past dealings with each other. Tennishistory1877 (talk) 10:13, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Citation overkill is not a policy or guideline, it is just an essay and as such it does not have much weight. Tennisedu's stament that it is "a condition clearly forbidden by Wikipedia" is not correct. Nevertheless the essay has sensible things to say on the topic. The summary "When citing material in an article, it is better to cite a couple of great sources than a stack of decent or sub-par ones." is solid advice and citation overkill or citebombing should be avoided. There is however nothing wrong with adding multiple citations to a statement as long as these citations are reasonable in number and have added value compared to each other. Multiple citations to (essentially) the same content, i.e. identical newswire articles in several different newspapers, should always be avoided.--Wolbo (talk) 11:35, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for that Wolbo. I have just seen fyunck's post requesting further comment from other editors. Whilst we may have differing views, I think it important that lies are not used to further arguments. The argument tennisedu uses where he says that in years where there were tours and tournament series, the results of the tournament series were the rankings and the tours were merely commercial ventures is a lie and is said because tennisedu is an ardent Hoad fan and Hoad won the 1959 tournament series but not the tour. This lie is disproved by all of the many ranking citations that list the tour winner as the number one above the tournament series winner. Important not to mislead anyone that wishes to join this debate and may not be familiar with the posters. Tennishistory1877 (talk) 11:58, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

We have good historical data for those years with official comprehensive point rankings, including those years where the world tours provided an official ranking for the touring pros (1942, 1954, 1961, 1963). The historical record is clear.Tennisedu (talk) 22:14, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

Tournament series had point rankings but they were not all-encompassing rankings for those years before 1964. The annual tours (the winner being crowned world champion) were not merely commercial ventures. Utter rubbish. Whether other editors wish to have their say is up to them, but you have had your say many times on this issue and a lie is still a lie even repeated 100000 times. Stop trolling this thread! Tennishistory1877 (talk) 22:33, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

@Tennishistory1877: Your post above (and the previous post) is the reason no one will join this conversation. It is an attack especially with your choice of words such as "troll" and "lie." People can disagree here, but that stuff must STOP NOW. Make your point and keep things civil. Fyunck(click) (talk) 22:41, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

I started the thread. I have withdrawn my query to alter 1960 and 1961. End of conversation. Tennishistory1877 (talk) 23:01, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

You know, I you’re going to request input from more users it would be nice to give them more than a few minutes to respond before closing the thread in question. And posting said resuest around 11pm with a 9am signature is just weird.Tvx1 23:27, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

The sig time was an error, and you know, I had no idea it would be withdrawn when I posted the input request at Tennis Project. Fyunck(click) (talk) 03:56, 13 May 2021 (UTC)