1977 SCANDAL[>~<]***Vilas was robbed by Connors & corrupt tour...!!! [Archive] - MensTennisForums.com

1977 SCANDAL[>~<]***Vilas was robbed by Connors & corrupt tour...!!!

CmonAussie
10-02-2006, 07:47 AM
:wavey:
Sorry I`ve borrowed this info from another thread & it`s probably been discussed thoroughly before but I thought it was deserving of it`s own thread;) ... What really happened in 1977:confused: :confused: ! From the statistics available it would seem pretty clear that Vilas was the undisputed #1 in 1977 & yet somehow Connors held that official post then:eek: :eek: :mad: :o ...I don`t like to regurgitate water under the bridge:p but seriously Vilas is due his cred;) ..Surely there`s been a court case over this:confused: Or maybe there still will be:confused: The status of saying you were a former #1 or the official World Champion for a given year (1977) would surely have a spin off affect~ in terms of potential sponsers & post tennis career opportunites:cool: .. I`d like to see a more thorough discussion on the SCANDAL of 77:eek: :devil: :eek:
Below are the blaring stats in question...

Vilas in 1977

http://www.atptennis.com/5/en/player...0&prevtrnnum=0

Australian Open : F
Roland Garros : W
Wimbledon : R32
US Open : W
Masters : SF

Titles / Runners-up : 16 / 6
Win-Loss : 128-14
Year-End Ranking : 2




Connors in 1977

http://www.atptennis.com/5/en/player...0&prevtrnnum=0

Australian Open : DNP
Roland Garros : DNP
Wimbledon : F
US Open : F
Masters : W

Titles / Runners-up : 7/ 6
Win-Loss : 66-13
Year-End Ranking : 1

Action Jackson
10-02-2006, 07:51 AM
No, there wasn't a court case or anything like that and what purpose would it serve? The fortunate thing for Vilas at RG in 77 was that Borg was not playing and yes he won the most matches and won 2 Slams and made a final in another Slam, but Vilas needless to say was a bit pissed off by the whole thing.

Argenbrit
10-02-2006, 08:21 AM
Vilas was indeed robbed. :mad:

CmonAussie
10-02-2006, 08:26 AM
No, there wasn't a court case or anything like that and what purpose would it serve? The fortunate thing for Vilas at RG in 77 was that Borg was not playing and yes he won the most matches and won 2 Slams and made a final in another Slam, but Vilas needless to say was a bit pissed off by the whole thing.
:wavey:
Thanks mate...however i don`t agree with you when you say "..what purpose would it serve?(a court case)":confused: . Of course there`s a point in legal action;) . Justice should be served & whoever was in charge of determining the rankings back in 77 should get a spanking & fine:devil: . Also they should rewrite the stats showing Connors as year end #1 for 77 & change that to Vilas`s name:angel: . Personally I don`t like Vilas BUT that`s still the only decent thing to do:cool: .

If you think it`s ridiculous that they rewrite the books to show Vilas ast #1 instead of #2 then you should be aware that there is a precedent:p . On the PGA Tour they realised it was ridiculous to not count the British Open as on official win~ simply because the bigots determined that if it`s not on US soil it`s not a tournament:o ...Thank God common sense prevailed there & now the British Open golf has it`s correct status;)

No wonder Vilas was so pissed off at the FO this year when everyone was lauding Nadal:sad: If the history books are full of crap then you`ve got to rewrite them:angel:

feuselino
10-02-2006, 08:26 AM
So how did the rankings work in those days? Anyone know? Must have been a pretty unfair system, if Vilas didn't end up Nr.1 with such a year...

TennisGrandSlam
10-02-2006, 08:28 AM
Vilas in 1977

http://www.atptennis.com/5/en/players/playerprofiles/playeractivity.asp?query=Singles&year=1977&player=V028&selTournament=0&prevtrnnum=0

Australian Open (Jan.) : F
Roland Garros : W
Wimbledon : R32
US Open : W
Australian Open (Dec.) : DNP
Masters : SF

Titles / Runners-up : 16 / 6
Win-Loss : 128-14 * (non-ATP source claims 145-14)
Year-End Ranking : 2




Connors in 1977

http://www.atptennis.com/5/en/players/playerprofiles/playeractivity.asp?query=Singles&year=1977&player=C044&selTournament=0&prevtrnnum=0

Australian Open (Jan.) : DNP
Roland Garros : DNP
Wimbledon : F
US Open : F
Australian Open (Dec.) : DNP
Masters : W

Titles / Runners-up : 7/ 6
Win-Loss : 64-13
Year-End Ranking : 1

Boris Franz Ecker
10-02-2006, 08:29 AM
Borg was elected 'player of the year' in 77.

CmonAussie
10-02-2006, 08:30 AM
Vilas in 1977

http://www.atptennis.com/5/en/players/playerprofiles/playeractivity.asp?query=Singles&year=1977&player=V028&selTournament=0&prevtrnnum=0

Australian Open (Jan.) : F
Roland Garros : W
Wimbledon : R32
US Open : W
Australian Open (Dec.) : DNP
Masters : SF

Titles / Runners-up : 16 / 6
Win-Loss : 128-14 * (non-ATP source claims 145-14)
Year-End Ranking : 2




Connors in 1977

http://www.atptennis.com/5/en/players/playerprofiles/playeractivity.asp?query=Singles&year=1977&player=C044&selTournament=0&prevtrnnum=0

Australian Open (Jan.) : DNP
Roland Garros : DNP
Wimbledon : F
US Open : F
Australian Open (Dec.) : DNP
Masters : W

Titles / Runners-up : 7/ 6
Win-Loss : 66-13
Year-End Ranking : 1
:wavey:
Thanks for doing the research TennisGrandSlam:worship: :worship: :cool:
& sorry to steal your info...

Action Jackson
10-02-2006, 08:32 AM
:wavey:
Thanks mate...however i don`t agree with you when you say "..what purpose would it serve?(a court case)":confused: . Of course there`s a point in legal action;) . Justice should be served & whoever was in charge of determining the rankings back in 77 should get a spanking & fine:devil: . Also they should rewrite the stats showing Connors as year end #1 for 77 & change that to Vilas`s name:angel: . Personally I don`t like Vilas BUT that`s still the only decent thing to do:cool: .

Fact is most people with an ounce of commonsense know who the number 1 player was that year and it wasn't Connors. Vilas would only become #1 bureaucratically, if there was a needless court case as I said he was fortunate that his nemisis Borg was not playing RG that year and he played a lot of small events that year, neverthless he was the best player of the year.

TennisGrandSlam
10-02-2006, 08:35 AM
Borg was elected 'player of the year' in 77.

Player of Year 1977 : Borg
ITF Champion of 1977 : Borg
Year-End NO.1 of 1977 : Connors

But I think all 3 honors belongs to Vilas :o

CmonAussie
10-02-2006, 08:39 AM
Fact is most people with an ounce of commonsense know who the number 1 player was that year and it wasn't Connors. Vilas would only become #1 bureaucratically, if there was a needless court case as I said he was fortunate that his nemisis Borg was not playing RG that year and he played a lot of small events that year, neverthless he was the best player of the year.
:cool:
Fair enough...#However I take point with the Borg:devil: comment.~~ Whether or not Borg was the best clay-courter at the time should have no bearing on this thread;) . What we`re talking about is who deserved to be YE #1 in 1977 & clearly that was Vilas.

Borg not playing the FO that year was fortunate for Vilas but we all know that sports is not about ^^who could have, who should have won or done something:p ~it`s about facts & who actually put themselves in the position to win.. The stats clearly show that 77 Vilas was the man!! Sure you already know that but a few decades from now I doubt people will realise. Also it`s quite sad for the Argentinian people~ I`m sure they`d feel better if the dodgy records were rectified to give their man his props:cool:

CmonAussie
10-02-2006, 08:41 AM
Player of Year 1977 : Borg
ITF Champion of 1977 : Borg
Year-End NO.1 of 1977 : Connors

But I think all 3 honors belongs to Vilas :o
:)
That`s exactly what I`m trying to say;) .. That`s why there should be some legal action over this injustice..:devil:

Action Jackson
10-02-2006, 08:42 AM
So how did the rankings work in those days? Anyone know? Must have been a pretty unfair system, if Vilas didn't end up Nr.1 with such a year...

This is how it worked. The Aus Open and the French were much lower rated ranking wise than say Wimbledon and the US Open. That is one problem there.

Next one is that, there was an organisation called WCT and they had their own events as well and they had a lot of ranking points even higher than the those 2 Slams I mentioned.

Thirdly there was an average system in place, so say you played 10 events and won 8, then the ranking would be higher than say 16 wins out of 22 events.

Action Jackson
10-02-2006, 08:44 AM
:cool:
Fair enough...#However I take point with the Borg:devil: comment.~~ Whether or not Borg was the best clay-courter at the time should have no bearing on this thread;) . What we`re talking about is who deserved to be YE #1 in 1977 & clearly that was Vilas.

He was fortunate that is all, not the fact that Vilas was the best player for 1977 and the court case isn't going to happen at all. The tennis writers at the time had Vilas as their number 1 player for that year.

According to the system at the time, he wasn't.

CmonAussie
10-02-2006, 08:44 AM
This is how it worked. The Aus Open and the French were much lower rated ranking wise than say Wimbledon and the US Open. That is one problem there.

Next one is that, there was an organisation called WCT and they had their own events as well and they had a lot of ranking points even higher than the those 2 Slams I mentioned.

Thirdly there was an average system in place, so say you played 10 events and won 8, then the ranking would be higher than say 16 wins out of 22 events.
:angel: :devil:
So are you saying we can`t make anyone accountable for this:confused: :confused:
What about the ITF determing Borg the official World Champion for 77:o ~ surely they should be made to rectify that decision:mad:

Action Jackson
10-02-2006, 08:46 AM
:angel: :devil:
So are you saying we can`t make anyone accountable for this:confused: :confused:
What about the ITF determing Borg the official World Champion for 77:o ~ surely they should be made to rectify that decision:mad:

I am telling you how the rankings were done at that time and nothing is going to change with Vilas being appointed number 1 for the year. He knows he was and most people know it as well, he can still sleep at night.

Boris Franz Ecker
10-02-2006, 08:50 AM
Player of Year 1977 : Borg
ITF Champion of 1977 : Borg
Year-End NO.1 of 1977 : Connors

But I think all 3 honors belongs to Vilas :o

It's simply that French Open or Australian Open didn't have the big meaning in these days.

More important was the WCT championships (Connors), the Masters (Connors), of course Wimbledon (Borg).
US Open in 77 was played best-of-three until quarter finals. Ok, Vilas won it.

TennisGrandSlam
10-02-2006, 08:50 AM
ATP Singles titles :

Vilas (16) : Springfield, Buenos Aires, Virginia Beach, Roland Garros, Kitzbuhel, Washington, Louisville, South Orange, Columbus, US Open, Paris, Tehran, Bogota, Santiago, Buenos Aires, Johannesburg WCT

Borg (11) : Memphis, Nice, Monte Carlo WCT, Denver, Wimbledon, Pepsi Grand Slam, Madrid, Barcelona, Basel, Cologne, Wembley

Connors (7) : Birmingham WCT, St. Louis WCT, Las Vegas, Dallas WCT, Maui, Sydney Indoor, Masters

Mechlan
10-02-2006, 08:51 AM
This is incredible. This was before my time and I didn't even realize such a thing happened. I mentioned in the Federer forum how strange it was that Connors had #1 the entire year in '75, '76 and '78 when he won no slams in '75 and only one each in '76 and '78. Makes you wonder how legitimate the other stats are, especially when comparing the game of today's standards to that era.

TennisGrandSlam
10-02-2006, 08:53 AM
It's simply that French Open or Australian Open didn't have the big meaning in these days.

More important was the WCT championships (Connors), the Masters (Connors), of course Wimbledon (Borg).
US Open in 77 was played best-of-three until quarter finals. Ok, Vilas won it.

How about US Open? :rolleyes:

Is that Year-end tournament (Masters) counting for ranking point? But you should realize that Vilas never be NO. 1.

CmonAussie
10-02-2006, 08:57 AM
This is incredible. This was before my time and I didn't even realize such a thing happened. I mentioned in the Federer forum how strange it was that Connors had #1 the entire year in '75, '76 and '78 when he won no slams in '75 and only one each in '76 and '78. Makes you wonder how legitimate the other stats are, especially when comparing the game of today's standards to that era.
:wavey: :cool: :)
Thanks Mechlan:angel: ...This is another reason I opened up this thread!! Even though golden oldies like GeorgeWhitler may know their tennis history in detail [future generations won`t]:eek: the problem is the record books were obviously shoddy in the 1970`s & I don`t think corruption is too strong a word;) .

We`re still talking about how Federer`s records & the mighty Connors back in his heyday. Though it seems Connors may have had the right friends in the right places to give him a helping hand on his way to domination the #1 spot in the mid-late 1970`s:o :o

Somehow this should be addressed more thorougly;) . I think it`s up the the ATP & ITF to go back over those records & set some of them straight;)

Action Jackson
10-02-2006, 08:59 AM
:wavey: :cool: :)
Somehow this should be addressed more thorougly;) . I think it`s up the the ATP & ITF to go back over those records & set some of them straight;)

Since when did these organisations care about the game? They haven't done it before and they aren't going to do it now.

Boris Franz Ecker
10-02-2006, 09:19 AM
How about US Open? :rolleyes:

I think, they made the rules before the season.
Connors very possible made much more points at Wim/US Open than Vilas. He reached the finals.
And he won the Masters, the WCT.
It's very possible that Connors made much more points in the big tournaments than Vilas even if AO or FO were included.

What's the problem?

And I don't know wether the Masters had ranking points in 77 (in the late 80ies it didn' have).

TennisGrandSlam
10-02-2006, 09:21 AM
I think, they made the rules before the season.
Connors very possible made much more points at Wim/US Open than Vilas. He reached the finals.
And he won the Masters, the WCT.
It's very possible that Connors made much more points in the big tournaments than Vilas even if AO or FO were included.

What's the problem?


But ITF/ATP don't have any figure / data to show it up.

The ranking systems is ridiculous! :mad:

TennisGrandSlam
10-02-2006, 09:26 AM
Also, it is unlucky that Vila's clay streak was snapped unfairly by Nastase's use of a soon-banned racquet


http://www.menstennisforums.com/showthread.php?t=76118


http://www.whatsalltheracquet.com/archives/pictures/spaghetti.jpg


http://album.sina.com.cn/pic/483009d10200038v

Dancing Hero
10-02-2006, 01:05 PM
I'd make Borg no.1 for 1977, then Vilas at no.2 and Connors 3.

Borg won Wimbledon and something like 10 other titles himself. He beat Vilas in their head to head meetings and then again at the Masters, which was really the Masters for 77 but played in January the following year. Borg beat Connors in the Wimbledon final.

Vilas won the French when Borg was absent. Borg would have been the favourite.

If Connors had won either of the GS finals he played in 77, I'd have made him no.1 for the year as he won the Masters and WCT for that season as well.

But he didn't win Wimbledon or the US Open. So in my eyes he wasn't no.1 either.

TennisGrandSlam
10-02-2006, 01:38 PM
I'd make Borg no.1 for 1977, then Vilas at no.2 and Connors 3.

Borg won Wimbledon and something like 10 other titles himself. He beat Vilas in their head to head meetings and then again at the Masters, which was really the Masters for 77 but played in January the following year. Borg beat Connors in the Wimbledon final.

Vilas won the French when Borg was absent. Borg would have been the favourite.

If Connors had won either of the GS finals he played in 77, I'd have made him no.1 for the year as he won the Masters and WCT for that season as well.

But he didn't win Wimbledon or the US Open. So in my eyes he wasn't no.1 either.



ATP Singles titles :

Vilas (16) : Springfield, Buenos Aires, Virginia Beach, Roland Garros, Kitzbuhel, Washington, Louisville, South Orange, Columbus, US Open, Paris, Tehran, Bogota, Santiago, Buenos Aires, Johannesburg WCT

Borg (11) : Memphis, Nice, Monte Carlo WCT, Denver, Wimbledon, Pepsi Grand Slam, Madrid, Barcelona, Basel, Cologne, Wembley

Connors (7) : Birmingham WCT, St. Louis WCT, Las Vegas, Dallas WCT, Maui, Sydney Indoor, Masters



Vilas - 16 titles (including 2 Grand Slam titles and 1 WCT title, also 1 Grand Slam runner-up)

Borg - 11 titles (including 1 Grand Slam titles and 1 WCT titles, also Masters runner-up)

Connors - 7 titles (including Masters titles, also 2 Grand Slam runners-up)


So, it seems that

1- Vilas
2. Borg
3. Connors

:o

CmonAussie
10-02-2006, 02:07 PM
ATP Singles titles :

Vilas (16) : Springfield, Buenos Aires, Virginia Beach, Roland Garros, Kitzbuhel, Washington, Louisville, South Orange, Columbus, US Open, Paris, Tehran, Bogota, Santiago, Buenos Aires, Johannesburg WCT

Borg (11) : Memphis, Nice, Monte Carlo WCT, Denver, Wimbledon, Pepsi Grand Slam, Madrid, Barcelona, Basel, Cologne, Wembley

Connors (7) : Birmingham WCT, St. Louis WCT, Las Vegas, Dallas WCT, Maui, Sydney Indoor, Masters



Vilas - 16 titles (including 2 Grand Slam titles and 1 WCT title, also 1 Grand Slam runner-up)

Borg - 11 titles (including 1 Grand Slam titles and 1 WCT titles, also Masters runner-up)

Connors - 7 titles (including Masters titles, also 2 Grand Slam runners-up)


So, it seems that

1- Vilas
2. Borg
3. Connors

:o
:worship: :worship: :worship:
You don`t have to convince me mate:cool: ...It`s pretty obvious that Vilas was #1 in 77;) ...-->My point is there should be some kind of official recognition of that fact..It`s up to the head-honchos in the ITF & ATP to do the decent thing & make a retrospective announcment atleast that 77 belonged to Vilas:angel: !! That way future generations will know the truth:devil:

TennisGrandSlam
10-02-2006, 04:31 PM
This is how it worked. The Aus Open and the French were much lower rated ranking wise than say Wimbledon and the US Open. That is one problem there.

Next one is that, there was an organisation called WCT and they had their own events as well and they had a lot of ranking points even higher than the those 2 Slams I mentioned.

Thirdly there was an average system in place, so say you played 10 events and won 8, then the ranking would be higher than say 16 wins out of 22 events.

Did it mean that I (If I were Vilas, maybe Borg or Connors) played ONLY 1 tournament, like WCT or Wimbledon, in 1977, and won it.

My winning % would then be 100% and 1 win out of 1, that perfect record gave me Year-End NO.1 :rolleyes:

feuselino
10-02-2006, 05:48 PM
This is how it worked. The Aus Open and the French were much lower rated ranking wise than say Wimbledon and the US Open. That is one problem there.

Next one is that, there was an organisation called WCT and they had their own events as well and they had a lot of ranking points even higher than the those 2 Slams I mentioned.

Thirdly there was an average system in place, so say you played 10 events and won 8, then the ranking would be higher than say 16 wins out of 22 events.

Great, thanks for the info, I appreciate it very much! :) :yeah:

Was before I was born, so I had no clue...

GlennMirnyi
10-02-2006, 05:57 PM
There's no unfairness. Both played under the same system and knew how it worked. Connors found a way to get more points and that's it.

TennisGrandSlam
10-02-2006, 06:02 PM
There's no unfairness. Both played under the same system and knew how it worked. Connors found a way to get more points and that's it.

Jimmy is great, but he didn't deserve to be NO.1 of 1977. :rolleyes:

1977 - Year of Vilas :cool:

GlennMirnyi
10-02-2006, 06:04 PM
Jimmy is great, but he didn't desire to be NO.1 of 1977. :rolleyes:

1977 - Year of Vilas :cool:

Connors finished #1. That's it.

TennisGrandSlam
10-02-2006, 06:07 PM
Connors finished #1. That's it.

That was black-box operation of American-dominated ATP. :mad: :mad: :mad:

Dancing Hero
10-02-2006, 06:16 PM
ATP Singles titles :

Vilas (16) : Springfield, Buenos Aires, Virginia Beach, Roland Garros, Kitzbuhel, Washington, Louisville, South Orange, Columbus, US Open, Paris, Tehran, Bogota, Santiago, Buenos Aires, Johannesburg WCT

Borg (11) : Memphis, Nice, Monte Carlo WCT, Denver, Wimbledon, Pepsi Grand Slam, Madrid, Barcelona, Basel, Cologne, Wembley

Connors (7) : Birmingham WCT, St. Louis WCT, Las Vegas, Dallas WCT, Maui, Sydney Indoor, Masters



Vilas - 16 titles (including 2 Grand Slam titles and 1 WCT title, also 1 Grand Slam runner-up)

Borg - 11 titles (including 1 Grand Slam titles and 1 WCT titles, also Masters runner-up)

Connors - 7 titles (including Masters titles, also 2 Grand Slam runners-up)


So, it seems that

1- Vilas
2. Borg
3. Connors

:o


I knew what tourneys they won in 77, I had a look at the ATP site. Didn't need you to tell me, pal. Connors was no.1 on the ATP computer for that year, not Vilas. Borg REAL no.1 in many judges eyes as he whipped Vilas but good on the occasions they met. And Vilas won RG with Borg absent.


:cool: :devil: :wavey:

GlennMirnyi
10-02-2006, 06:16 PM
That was black-box operation of American-dominated ATP. :mad: :mad: :mad:

Don't need for colored capital letters. My eyes hurt.
I'm not American, so you can stop this paranoic nonsense. ;)

TennisGrandSlam
10-02-2006, 06:20 PM
I knew what tourneys they won in 77, I had a look at the ATP site. Didn't need you to tell me, pal. Connors was no.1 on the ATP computer for that year, not Vilas. Borg REAL no.1 in many judges eyes as he whipped Vilas but good on the occasions they met. And Vilas won RG with Borg absent.


:cool: :devil: :wavey:

Borg' absence from RG was his personal problem, Vilas was a champion!

Can you say that Agassi's title on Australian Open, FedCow's title on Wimbledon and A-Rod's title on US Open in 2003 were devaluated because Sampras was absent from all. :rolleyes:

GlennMirnyi
10-02-2006, 06:24 PM
Borg' absence from RG was his personal problem, Vilas was a champion!

Can you says that Agassi's title on Australian Open, FedCow's title on Wimbledon and A-Rod's title on US Open in 2003 were devaluated because Sampras was absent from all. :rolleyes:

Big difference fella. Sampras was retired in 2003. Borg was far from retiring.

Dancing Hero
10-02-2006, 06:26 PM
Borg' absence from RG was his personal problem, Vilas was a champion!

Can you says that Agassi's title on Australian Open, FedCow's title on Wimbledon and A-Rod's title on US Open in 2003 were devaluated because Sampras was absent from all. :rolleyes:


Borg beats Vilas in 1977 or any other year you care to mention. Borg whooped Vilas in 77 when they met. As he did in 75 at RG and then again in 78 at RG. Facts, my friend, facts.

ATP Computer 1977- No.1 Jimmy Connors.

:D

TennisGrandSlam
10-02-2006, 06:29 PM
Borg beats Vilas in 1977 or any other year you care to mention. Borg whooped Vilas in 77 when they met. As he did in 75 at RG and then again in 78 at RG. Facts, my friend, facts.

ATP Computer 1977- No.1 Jimmy Connors.

:D

One fact is that tennis historical position and fame of Vilas is inferior to those of Connors and Borg.

Vilas was one of the most underrated tennis players! :o

Hendu
10-02-2006, 06:29 PM
I knew what tourneys they won in 77, I had a look at the ATP site. Didn't need you to tell me, pal. Connors was no.1 on the ATP computer for that year, not Vilas. Borg REAL no.1 in many judges eyes as he whipped Vilas but good on the occasions they met. And Vilas won RG with Borg absent.


:cool: :devil: :wavey:

Borg being absent in RG is irrelevant to the topic.

Vilas played 4 RG finals, winning 1. Lost twice to Borg and one to Wilander.

Of course Borg and Connors were better than Vilas, but Vilas was the best in 1977. The stupid ranking system didn't reflect that, so Connors was #1. Thank god they changed the system.

But Vilas has been recognized by everyone as the best that year. And the best South American player of all times.

Hendu
10-02-2006, 06:33 PM
Borg beats Vilas in 1977 or any other year you care to mention. Borg whooped Vilas in 77 when they met. As he did in 75 at RG and then again in 78 at RG. Facts, my friend, facts.

ATP Computer 1977- No.1 Jimmy Connors.

:D


If you want to add to that:

Vilas-Borg head to head record... 17-5 for the Swedish.

But as I said before, its irrelevant.

GlennMirnyi
10-02-2006, 06:37 PM
Borg being absent in RG is irrelevant to the topic.

Vilas played 4 RG finals, winning 1. Lost twice to Borg and one to Wilander.

Of course Borg and Connors were better than Vilas, but Vilas was the best in 1977. The stupid ranking system didn't reflect that, so Connors was #1. Thank god they changed the system.

But Vilas has been recognized by everyone as the best that year. And the best South American player of all times.

Yeeah, right! :lol:

Hendu
10-02-2006, 06:38 PM
Yeeah, right! :lol:

I knew you would bite!!! :devil:

But its true... ;) don't make me go for the stats...

Dancing Hero
10-02-2006, 06:40 PM
Borg being absent in RG is irrelevant to the topic.

Vilas played 4 RG finals, winning 1. Lost twice to Borg and one to Wilander.

Of course Borg and Connors were better than Vilas, but Vilas was the best in 1977. The stupid ranking system didn't reflect that, so Connors was #1. Thank god they changed the system.

But Vilas has been recognized by everyone as the best that year. And the best South American player of all times.

Wrong again. Connors was no.1 in the year end rankings. Borg won Wimbledon and beat Vilas in their meetings and again in the Masters. Who is everyone who recognized Vilas as no.1 that year? Connors or Borg didn't. The rankings didn't. Many good judges didn't. World of Tennis Yearbook Lance Tingay's rankings had Borg as no.1.

Yeah, Vilas best South American player of all times, and 1977, I'll give you that one!

:D :devil:

GlennMirnyi
10-02-2006, 06:41 PM
I knew you would bite!!! :devil:

But its true... ;) don't make me go for the stats...

Hehehehe you wouldn't expect me to let that pass, would you? :p

Yeah... maybe we're talking about some player that was really #1? Like... official #1? :devil:

Hendu
10-02-2006, 06:45 PM
Wrong again.

:confused: Ok...

Connors was no.1 in the year end rankings. Borg won Wimbledon and beat Vilas in their meetings and again in the Masters.

so?

Who is everyone who recognized Vilas as no.1 that year? Connors or Borg didn't. The rankings didn't. Many good judges didn't. World of Tennis Yearbook Lance Tingay's rankings had Borg as no.1.

The press.

Yeah, Vilas best South American player of all times, and 1977, I'll give you that one!

:D :devil:

You don't have to give anything. Vilas earnt it for himself. ;)

TennisGrandSlam
10-02-2006, 06:46 PM
Wrong again. Connors was no.1 in the year end rankings. Borg won Wimbledon and beat Vilas in their meetings and again in the Masters. Who is everyone who recognized Vilas as no.1 that year? Connors or Borg didn't. The rankings didn't. Many good judges didn't. World of Tennis Yearbook Lance Tingay's rankings had Borg as no.1.

Yeah, Vilas best South American player of all times, and 1977, I'll give you that one!

:D :devil:

New Falkland Islands (Islas Malvinas) war between http://imgsrv2.tennisuniverse.com/mtf/images/flags/Argentina.gif & http://imgsrv2.tennisuniverse.com/mtf/images/flags/United%20Kingdom.gif

:devil:




Argentine guy (Vilas) did well in Australian Open, Roland Garros and US Open, but not in Wimbledon :o

Hendu
10-02-2006, 06:49 PM
Hehehehe you wouldn't expect me to let that pass, would you? :p

Yeah... maybe we're talking about some player that was really #1? Like... official #1? :devil:

Chino Ríos? :p ;)

Different ranking systems.

62 titles, 4 GS, almost ten years as a top ten. One of the all time greats.

There is no doubt who is the best south american ever?

Hendu
10-02-2006, 06:50 PM
Argentine guy (Vilas) did well in Australian Open, Roland Garros and US Open, but not in Wimbledon :o

Chinese guy,

Very true... but thats not the discussion.

Vilas was the best in 1977, and the ranking system was crap, so he got the #2 position.

GlennMirnyi
10-02-2006, 06:52 PM
Chino Ríos? :p ;)

Different ranking systems.

62 titles, 4 GS, almost ten years as a top ten. One of the all time greats.

There is no doubt who is the best south american ever?

Of course there is. Being year-end #1 is much more than any number of titles and/or years as top 10.

Hendu
10-02-2006, 06:55 PM
Of course there is. Being year-end #1 is much more than any number of titles and/or years as top 10.

You know thats not true... your colors make you blind.

TennisGrandSlam
10-02-2006, 06:58 PM
Very true... but thats not the discussion.

Vilas was the best in 1977, and the ranking system was crap, so he got the #2 position.

Actually, NO. 1 of 1977 for Vilas is more reasonable.

16 titles and 6 runners-up

2 Grand Slam titles and 1 Grand Slam runner-up

over 100 win (ATP record : 128-14, non-ATP sources claim 145-14 :confused: )

Titles won over N. America, Africa, Europe, Asia and (of course) S. America

All above are ATP-recognised tournaments.

No people other than Vilas since Open-Era owns all above wonderful records at the same year!

Dancing Hero
10-02-2006, 06:59 PM
New Falkland Islands (Islas Malvinas) war between http://imgsrv2.tennisuniverse.com/mtf/images/flags/Argentina.gif & http://imgsrv2.tennisuniverse.com/mtf/images/flags/United%20Kingdom.gif

:devil:




Argentine guy (Vilas) did well in Australian Open, Roland Garros and US Open, but not in Wimbledon :o


My family's Irish. I reckon the Malvinas should belong to Argentina really.

But Vilas was still not no.1 in 1977!



:) :devil:

Hendu
10-02-2006, 07:01 PM
But Vilas was still not no.1 in 1977!

Looking at the rankings he wasn't. Looking at the results, and the records he installed that year, he was.

TennisGrandSlam
10-02-2006, 07:02 PM
My family's Irish. I reckon the Malvinas should belong to Argentina really.

But Vilas was still not no.1 in 1977!



:) :devil:



But I think you are not a member of Sinn Fein party :p

Dancing Hero
10-02-2006, 07:03 PM
Vilas was the best South American in 1977 though!


:p :wavey: :devil:

Hendu
10-02-2006, 07:05 PM
Vilas was the best South American in 1977 though!


:p :wavey: :devil:

Well, thats quite obvious.

Dancing Hero
10-02-2006, 07:05 PM
But I think you are not a member of Sinn Fein party :p

Not interested in politics, pal. I go to Ireland every year though, it's a fine country.

:) :p

Dancing Hero
10-02-2006, 07:06 PM
Well, thats quite obvious.

And still not world no.1.


:devil:

Hendu
10-02-2006, 07:08 PM
And still not world no.1.


:devil:

Thats a fact, he was not offitially #1.

TennisGrandSlam
10-02-2006, 07:11 PM
Vilas was the best South American in 1977 though!


:p :wavey: :devil:


Not only 1977, but also all time (He is better than Rios, because the latter has no GS title even though he was NO. 1. He is better than Guga, because he did well not only on claycourt, but also on hardcourt, carpet and grass but Guga didn't well on grass)

Dancing Hero
10-02-2006, 07:13 PM
Not only 1977, but also all time (He is better than Rios, because the latter has no GS title even though he was NO. 1. He is better than Guga, because he did well not only on claycourt, but also on hardcourt, carpet and grass)

Yes, best South American player yet, I agree.

Boris Franz Ecker
10-02-2006, 07:16 PM
Vilas was one of the most underrated tennis players! :o

He is overrated.
Four of his four grand slam titles were with question marks concerning the value of the event.

62 titles sounds impressive. But there are players in the 70ies with 20 or more titles nobody has heard of. Those were other times.

if we're friendly, Vilas is comparable with players like Kuerten or Hewitt.

GlennMirnyi
10-02-2006, 07:19 PM
Not only 1977, but also all time (He is better than Rios, because the latter has no GS title even though he was NO. 1. He is better than Guga, because he did well not only on claycourt, but also on hardcourt, carpet and grass but Guga didn't well on grass)

No-one won two matches back-to-back against Sampras and Agassi, two of the greatest players ever, in SF and F of a year-end championship.

Kuerten is one of the 10 players in weeks as #1.

TennisGrandSlam
10-02-2006, 07:21 PM
Vilas is more unlucky than Nadal.

Nadal is unlucky, his achievement in 2005 is better than those of every ATP players in 2000-2003 (pre-Federer ATP Race Era), he should be NO.1 in 2000-2003.

But Vilas was more unlucky, there is no guy other than him winning multiple slam in the same calendar but never rising to NO.1 (actually, he deserved to be NO.1)

Hendu
10-02-2006, 07:22 PM
He is overrated.
Four of his four grand slam titles were with question marks concerning the value of the event

Why?

62 titles sounds impressive. But there are players in the 70ies with 20 or more titles nobody has heard of. Those were other times.

Vilas has the the still standing record of most consecutive victories (46) and most titles in a season (16).

He is one of the greats in the sport.


if we're friendly, Vilas is comparable with players like Kuerten or Hewitt.

:rolleyes: Thank you for being friendly...

Hendu
10-02-2006, 07:24 PM
No-one won two matches back-to-back against Sampras and Agassi, two of the greatest players ever, in SF and F of a year-end championship.

Kuerten is one of the 10 players in weeks as #1.

Impressive, but not enough.

TennisGrandSlam
10-02-2006, 07:26 PM
No-one won two matches back-to-back against Sampras and Agassi, two of the greatest players ever, in SF and F of a year-end championship.

Kuerten is one of the 10 players in weeks as #1.

No. 1 is only depending on ranking systems.

When Safin rose to NO.1 in ranking point, ATP emphasized on year-end champion race point, so less people noticed that he was NO.1 at that time. ATP almost didn't announce that Safin was NO.1, until ATP revert to use ranking point system rather than champion race system

I don't suspect the greatness of Connors, but Vilas won on achievement (Slam, # of titles, # of winning, etc) and lost to ranking system. :rolleyes:

GlennMirnyi
10-02-2006, 07:31 PM
Impressive, but not enough.

Vilas = never year end #1. The ranking system was the same for Connors.

TennisGrandSlam
10-02-2006, 07:31 PM
He is overrated.
Four of his four grand slam titles were with question marks concerning the value of the event.

62 titles sounds impressive. But there are players in the 70ies with 20 or more titles nobody has heard of. Those were other times.

if we're friendly, Vilas is comparable with players like Kuerten or Hewitt.


You can say that both Borg and Connors are reluctant and even refused to play Australian Open. So, Vilas won it on grass twice in 1978 and 1979.

But I tell you that JMac (one of best serve-and-volleyer and grass expert) played Australian Open first time in 1983, but still lost to Wilander (baseliner and claycourt expert).

So, even both Borg and Connors played Australian Open in 1978 and 1979, it doesn't mean that either one will supress Vilas to win the title.

Hendu
10-02-2006, 07:41 PM
Vilas = never year end #1. The ranking system was the same for Connors.

Guga: 20 singles titles. 3 GS.

Vilas: 62 singles titles (16 in 1 season), 4 GS and 4 GS Finals.

Kuerten is one of my favorite players, but come on...

if your argument is that the 1977 ranking system didn't recogize Vilas as #1, you are lost.

Vilas is the best SA player ever. Guga is second, no doubts.

GlennMirnyi
10-02-2006, 07:48 PM
Guga: 20 singles titles. 3 GS.

Vilas: 62 singles titles (16 in 1 season), 4 GS and 4 GS Finals.

Kuerten is one of my favorite players, but come on...

if your argument is that the 1977 ranking system didn't recogize Vilas as #1, you are lost.

Vilas is the best SA player ever. Guga is second, no doubts.

62 titles when? During the 70's? Yeah... as the brit said before, a lot of no-ones had 20 or more titles during that time. I want to see 3 GS playing against Sampras, Agassi, the Spanish armada...

TennisGrandSlam
10-02-2006, 07:51 PM
62 titles when? During the 70's? Yeah... as the brit said before, a lot of no-ones had 20 or more titles during that time. I want to see 3 GS playing against Sampras, Agassi, the Spanish armada...

actually, Vilas has 62 titles, not 20-30s. :rolleyes:

DrJules
10-02-2006, 07:55 PM
Vilas = never year end #1. The ranking system was the same for Connors.

Do you always believe the output of a computer.

In 1978 the computer ranked Borg number 2 despite the fact that he won the French Open and Wimbledon and was runner up in the US Open. Connors with a US Open win and losing in US Open final was ranked 1.

Based on actual tennis performance such as grand slam titles and performance in those events Vilas was the best player in 1977 and Borg was the best player in 1978.

From 1975 to 1978 Borg won 5 grand slams and Connors 2 grand slams. In that period Connors was year end number 1 for 4 years in a row. Which record would you prefer?

GlennMirnyi
10-02-2006, 07:55 PM
actually, Vilas has 62 titles, not 20-30s. :rolleyes:

Hey big boy, I'm just saying that it was much easier to win those numbers in those times.

Dancing Hero
10-02-2006, 07:56 PM
What hurts Vilas' standing when you look at his record is that he never reached even the semis at Wimbledon if I'm right. Quarter-finals yes, but no further.

TennisGrandSlam
10-02-2006, 07:59 PM
Hey big boy, I'm just saying that it was much easier to win those numbers in those times.

Vilas's 16 titles (including Roland Garros and US Open) and 6 runners-up (including Australian Open-Jan.) are very difficult to do. :o

Hendu
10-02-2006, 08:03 PM
62 titles when? During the 70's? Yeah... as the brit said before, a lot of no-ones had 20 or more titles during that time. I want to see 3 GS playing against Sampras, Agassi, the Spanish armada...

Tennis players with most singles titles

Jimmy Connors USA 105
Ivan Lendl USA1 94
John McEnroe USA 77
Pete Sampras USA 64
Guillermo Vilas ARG 62
Andre Agassi USA 60
Björn Borg SWE 57
Ilie Năstase ROM 52
Boris Becker GER 49
Thomas Muster AUT 44
Stefan Edberg SWE 42
Roger Federer SUI 41
Rod Laver AUS 39
Stan Smith USA 35
Michael Chang USA 34
Arthur Ashe USA 33
Manuel Orantes ESP 33
Mats Wilander SWE 33
John Newcombe AUS 31
Yevgeny Kafelnikov RUS 26
José Luis Clerc ARG 25
Brian Gottfried USA 25
Lleyton Hewitt AUS 25
Ken Rosewall AUS 25
Vitas Gerulaitis USA 24
Jim Courier USA 23
Yannick Noah FRA 23
Goran Ivanisevic CRO 22
Tom Okker NED 22
Harold Solomon USA 22
Eddie Dibbs USA 21
Andres Gomez ECU 21
Andy Roddick USA 21
Brad Gilbert USA 20
Gustavo Kuerten BRA 20

Link (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tennis_players_with_most_singles_titles)

Who are those who have 20 or more singles titles and nobody knows?

:wavey:

Hendu
10-02-2006, 08:06 PM
Vilas's 16 titles (including Roland Garros and US Open) and 6 runners-up (including Australian Open-Jan.) are very difficult to do. :o

Yes, and everybody remembers the time when Kuerten reached the Wimbledon final...

;)

Peoples
10-02-2006, 08:08 PM
What corrupt tour? :rolleyes: Stop bitching about Vilas.

DrJules
10-02-2006, 08:08 PM
Tennis players with most singles titles

Jimmy Connors USA 105
Ivan Lendl USA1 94
John McEnroe USA 77
Pete Sampras USA 64 14 grand slams
Guillermo Vilas ARG 62 Only 4 grand slams: quality more important than quality.
Andre Agassi USA 60 8 grand slams
Björn Borg SWE 57 11 grand slams
Ilie Năstase ROM 52
Boris Becker GER 49 6 grand slams
Thomas Muster AUT 44
Stefan Edberg SWE 42
Roger Federer SUI 41
Rod Laver AUS 39
Stan Smith USA 35
Michael Chang USA 34
Arthur Ashe USA 33
Manuel Orantes ESP 33
Mats Wilander SWE 33
John Newcombe AUS 31
Yevgeny Kafelnikov RUS 26
José Luis Clerc ARG 25
Brian Gottfried USA 25
Lleyton Hewitt AUS 25
Ken Rosewall AUS 25
Vitas Gerulaitis USA 24
Jim Courier USA 23
Yannick Noah FRA 23
Goran Ivanisevic CRO 22
Tom Okker NED 22
Harold Solomon USA 22
Eddie Dibbs USA 21
Andres Gomez ECU 21
Andy Roddick USA 21
Brad Gilbert USA 20
Gustavo Kuerten BRA 20

Link (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tennis_players_with_most_singles_titles)

Who are those who have 20 or more singles titles and nobody knows?

:wavey:

Quality is more important than quantity.

Hendu
10-02-2006, 08:08 PM
What corrupt tour? :rolleyes: Stop bitching about Vilas.

Yes, the title is completely inadequate.

TennisGrandSlam
10-02-2006, 08:09 PM
In conclusion, Vilas is underrated! :devil:

Because he is neither European nor American (US citizen), he is a Latin American. :o

Hendu
10-02-2006, 08:09 PM
Quality is more important than quantity.

I agree... :confused:

I'm just stating that Vilas is the best South American player ever.

TennisGrandSlam
10-02-2006, 08:12 PM
Quality is more important than quantity.

A man who had small slam (missing one to be career grand slam) == lack of qualtity? :o


How many players who have won RG, UO and AO title? :cool:

TennisGrandSlam
10-02-2006, 08:14 PM
Yes, and everybody remembers the time when Kuerten reached the Wimbledon final...

;)


I know that Vilas like grass but Guga don't like it. :devil:

DrJules
10-02-2006, 08:15 PM
A man who had small slam (missing one to be career grand slam) == lack of qualtity? :o


How many players who have won RG, UO and AO title? :cool:

Yes Vilas has won more titles than Federer, Becker or Edberg, but they have all won 6 or more grand slams and each only lacks one. For his total number of titles Vilas has a small number of grand slam victories.

DrJules
10-02-2006, 08:18 PM
Not really surprising that people with an interest in tennis have a better understanding who the best player in a year is than a computer.

Hendu
10-02-2006, 08:18 PM
Yes Vilas has won more titles than Federer, Becker or Edberg, but they have all won 6 or more grand slams and each only lacks one. For his total number of titles Vilas has a small number of grand slam victories.

I agree, but nobody is saying he is the best player ever... :confused:

The original discussion that he deserved to be #1 in the ranking in 1977, and later that he is the best South American player ever.

TennisGrandSlam
10-02-2006, 08:18 PM
Yes Vilas has won more titles than Federer, Becker or Edberg, but they have all won 6 or more grand slams and each only lacks one. For his total number of titles Vilas has a small number of grand slam victories.


I don't think that Vilas is better than Federer, Becker or Edberg.

I claims that Vilas is underrated. :(

(i.e., In some points of view, Vilas is better than Becker, at least Vilas is relatively all-court, Becker didn't well on clay :devil: )

Boris Franz Ecker
10-02-2006, 09:03 PM
(i.e., In some points of view, Vilas is better than Becker, at least Vilas is relatively all-court, Becker didn't well on clay :devil: )

3 times semi-final in RG when it was a full-established Grand Slam tournament and 5 times finalist at the Masters series.
If Becker had played small clay court event as Vilas in 77 he might have won 10 titles, but he usually played only a few tournaments.

Hendu
10-02-2006, 09:18 PM
3 times semi-final in RG when it was a full-established Grand Slam tournament and 5 times finalist at the Masters series.
If Becker had played small clay court event as Vilas in 77 he might have won 10 titles, but he usually played only a few tournaments.

Becker made 3 Monte Carlo finals (lost to Mancini, Bruguera and Muster), 1 final in Hamburg (lost to aguilera), 1 Rome final (lost to Sampras).

Also made semis in RG three times (lost to Wilander, Edberg and Agassi).

I don't know if he ever won a clay Tournament though...

But what a great player he was.

Boris Franz Ecker
10-02-2006, 09:29 PM
Why?




Why... because AO was dead in the 70ies, FO was lucky that world's best player Borg played there, and Vilas was the luckiest that Borg didn't play in 77, and UO in 77 was a strange mixture of best-of-3 and best-of-5 tournament.
To sum it up: in the 70ies mainly Wimbledon counted. Others were second league or even third league. If you want or not, that's the reality.

Hewitt's record with two fully-countable Grand Slam-titles is preferrable over Vilas, Krieks or Edmondson pseudo-slam-record.
Vilas won a lot more titles and which can promote him above Kuerten or Hewitt but he's in the same league.
I think, Vilas was the greatest south american player but it would be OK to say that Kuerten was the greater player.

DrJules
10-02-2006, 09:32 PM
Becker made 3 Monte Carlo finals (lost to Mancini, Bruguera and Muster), 1 final in Hamburg (lost to aguilera), 1 Rome final (lost to Sampras).

Also made semis in RG three times (lost to Wilander, Edberg and Agassi).

I don't know if he ever won a clay Tournament though...

But what a great player he was.

Becker was another player who was number 1 in everybodys mind other than the computer in 1989.

In 1989 Becker won Wimbledon (beating Lendl in semi-final) and US Open (beating Lendl in final) and reached master final losing to Edberg. Becker reached semi-final of French Open while Lendl reached 4th round.

In same year Lendl only grand slam win was the Australian Open and lost in the only 2 matches he played against Becker that year which were both in grand slams.

The computer decided Lendl was number 1.

CmonAussie
10-03-2006, 01:09 AM
Why... because AO was dead in the 70ies, FO was lucky that world's best player Borg played there, and Vilas was the luckiest that Borg didn't play in 77, and UO in 77 was a strange mixture of best-of-3 and best-of-5 tournament.
To sum it up: in the 70ies mainly Wimbledon counted. Others were second league or even third league. If you want or not, that's the reality.

Hewitt's record with two fully-countable Grand Slam-titles is preferrable over Vilas, Krieks or Edmondson pseudo-slam-record.
Vilas won a lot more titles and which can promote him above Kuerten or Hewitt but he's in the same league.
I think, Vilas was the greatest south american player but it would be OK to say that Kuerten was the greater player.
:rolleyes: :rolleyes:
So are you trying to say that only one tournament counted in the 1970`s:confused: ...Why bother playing the other Slams if only Wimbledon counts~~i guess to your thinking Wimbledon is akin to the Tennis World Championships:angel: & the other slams were Mickey Mouse warm up events:devil: :p

Quite ironic that these days Wimbledon is the Slam that`s least in touch with modern tennis (in terms of surface, facilities for fans, fairness for players & lack of provisions for the weather~ people can`t be sure when/if they`ll see the match played):p ...Sure Wimby still has prestige & it`s lucky that Federer values it at the top of his list but seriously Wimby is out of touch;)

hammett
10-03-2006, 01:38 AM
Tennis players with most singles titles

Jimmy Connors USA 105
Ivan Lendl USA1 94
John McEnroe USA 77
Pete Sampras USA 64
Guillermo Vilas ARG 62
Andre Agassi USA 60
Björn Borg SWE 57
Ilie Năstase ROM 52
Boris Becker GER 49
Thomas Muster AUT 44
Stefan Edberg SWE 42
Roger Federer SUI 41
Rod Laver AUS 39
Stan Smith USA 35
Michael Chang USA 34
Arthur Ashe USA 33
Manuel Orantes ESP 33
Mats Wilander SWE 33
John Newcombe AUS 31
Yevgeny Kafelnikov RUS 26
José Luis Clerc ARG 25
Brian Gottfried USA 25
Lleyton Hewitt AUS 25
Ken Rosewall AUS 25
Vitas Gerulaitis USA 24
Jim Courier USA 23
Yannick Noah FRA 23
Goran Ivanisevic CRO 22
Tom Okker NED 22
Harold Solomon USA 22
Eddie Dibbs USA 21
Andres Gomez ECU 21
Andy Roddick USA 21
Brad Gilbert USA 20
Gustavo Kuerten BRA 20

Link (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tennis_players_with_most_singles_titles)

Who are those who have 20 or more singles titles and nobody knows?

:wavey:


Where is Rios on that list?? :lol: And he was N1

Merton
10-03-2006, 01:42 AM
Back in the 70's they counted the past two years results in determing ranking, that surely affected the result both in 1977 and 1978, where Vilas and Borg should have the top ranking respectively. However, I think that history records results more than rankings, Vilas in 1977 had better results than Connors and so did Borg in 1978.

Action Jackson
10-03-2006, 02:13 AM
Back in the 70's they counted the past two years results in determing ranking, that surely affected the result both in 1977 and 1978, where Vilas and Borg should have the top ranking respectively. However, I think that history records results more than rankings, Vilas in 1977 had better results than Connors and so did Borg in 1978.

Yes, they did and there were a minimum of tournaments they had to play.

Merton
10-03-2006, 02:20 AM
Ranking is just a number after all, I doubt Connors # of weeks as #1 counts as much as Sampras or Lendl. By the way, there is very little doubt that Borg was the best player during all that period, however Villas did have the best results in 1977.

GlennMirnyi
10-03-2006, 02:23 AM
Number of weeks at #1: (second number- consecutive)

1. Pete Sampras 286 102
2. Ivan Lendl 270 157
3. Jimmy Connors 268 160
4. John McEnroe 170 58
5. Roger Federer 140 140
6. Björn Borg 109 46
7. Andre Agassi 101 52
8. Lleyton Hewitt 80 75
9. Stefan Edberg 72 24
10. Jim Courier 58 27
11. Gustavo Kuerten 43 30
12. Ilie Năstase 40 40
13. Mats Wilander 20 20
14. Andy Roddick 13 13
15. Boris Becker 12 9

Where's Vilas??? :lol:

JW10S
10-03-2006, 02:26 AM
Back then there used to be a magazine called "World Tennis" and at the end of every year they would put out an issue with their world rankings. They based their rankings not simply on math but on head-to-head match ups, win-loss records, etc. They would even put out separate rankings based on surface. Anyway, their rankings often differed from the ATP rankings and that year they did indeed rank Vilas #1. As already pointed out in this thread the mathematical system used by the ATP had some flaws.

Merton
10-03-2006, 02:26 AM
Thanks for that Glenn, I remembered Connors was close to Lendl on paper but not the exact numbers. The way the ranking was calculated makes the numbers non-comparable.

Action Jackson
10-03-2006, 02:28 AM
Ranking is just a number after all, I doubt Connors # of weeks as #1 counts as much as Sampras or Lendl. By the way, there is very little doubt that Borg was the best player during all that period, however Villas did have the best results in 1977.

Stop using logic.

TennisGrandSlam
10-03-2006, 02:29 AM
Becker was another player who was number 1 in everybodys mind other than the computer in 1989.

In 1989 Becker won Wimbledon (beating Lendl in semi-final) and US Open (beating Lendl in final) and reached master final losing to Edberg. Becker reached semi-final of French Open while Lendl reached 4th round.

In same year Lendl only grand slam win was the Australian Open and lost in the only 2 matches he played against Becker that year which were both in grand slams.

The computer decided Lendl was number 1.

No, Lendl had 10 titles including Australian Open, also runner-up of US Open and semi-finalist of Wimbledon and many small tournaments in 1989. Becker had 5 titles only (w/ Wimbledon and US Open), semi-finalists of almost all small tournaments else. So Lendl was NO.1 of 1989 is reasonable. (The agruement was not significant)

Becker in 1989 http://www.atptennis.com/5/en/players/playerprofiles/playeractivity.asp?query=Singles&year=1989&player=B028&selTournament=0&prevtrnnum=

Lendl in 1989 http://www.atptennis.com/5/en/players/playerprofiles/playeractivity.asp?query=Singles&year=1989&player=L018&selTournament=0&prevtrnnum=0

ITF presented Becker with the ITF champion (Male) of 1989 honour because Becker also helped West Germany to win Davis Cup. (ITF emphasizes on Grand Slam, Davis Cup, FED Cup and Olympics) - That is why Myskina was ITF champion of 2004 (Female) because of her Roland Garros and FED Cup title also 4th in Olympic Games!

TennisGrandSlam
10-03-2006, 03:45 AM
Number of weeks at #1: (second number- consecutive)

1. Pete Sampras 286 102
2. Ivan Lendl 270 157
3. Jimmy Connors 268 160
4. John McEnroe 170 58
5. Roger Federer 140 140
6. Björn Borg 109 46
7. Andre Agassi 101 52
8. Lleyton Hewitt 80 75
9. Stefan Edberg 72 24
10. Jim Courier 58 27
11. Gustavo Kuerten 43 30
12. Ilie Năstase 40 40
13. Mats Wilander 20 20
14. Andy Roddick 13 13
15. Boris Becker 12 9

Where's Vilas??? :lol:


Just a black-box operation of ranking systems :mad:

ATP cannot briefly explain why Connors' 7 titles (including Masters and 3 WCT) and 6 runners-up (Wimbledon and US Open) taking year-end NO.1 over Vilas' 16 titles (including Roland Garros, US Open and 1 WCT) and 6 runners-up (including Australian Open-Jan.). It is wonderful that Vilas has never been NO. It is impossible to occur now!

Hendu
10-03-2006, 03:48 AM
Number of weeks at #1: (second number- consecutive)

1. Pete Sampras 286 102
2. Ivan Lendl 270 157
3. Jimmy Connors 268 160
4. John McEnroe 170 58
5. Roger Federer 140 140
6. Björn Borg 109 46
7. Andre Agassi 101 52
8. Lleyton Hewitt 80 75
9. Stefan Edberg 72 24
10. Jim Courier 58 27
11. Gustavo Kuerten 43 30
12. Ilie Năstase 40 40
13. Mats Wilander 20 20
14. Andy Roddick 13 13
15. Boris Becker 12 9

Where's Vilas??? :lol:

Thats what this thread is about. Unfairly, he was never #1 in the ranking because a crappy ranking system, that does no longer exist.

And you go on and on on this subject, because thats the only argument you have to support your position of Vilas not being the best South American player ever.

Kuerten has won 20 titles in his whole career, while Vilas won 16 in only one season.

Guga is one of my favorites, and the second best South American player of all time.

:wavey:

CmonAussie
10-03-2006, 04:08 AM
Back then there used to be a magazine called "World Tennis" and at the end of every year they would put out an issue with their world rankings. They based their rankings not simply on math but on head-to-head match ups, win-loss records, etc. They would even put out separate rankings based on surface. Anyway, their rankings often differed from the ATP rankings and that year they did indeed rank Vilas #1. As already pointed out in this thread the mathematical system used by the ATP had some flaws.
:wavey: :cool:
I`m glad the World Tennis:angel: magazine atleast recognised Vilas`s 77 year worthy of #1;) ..
Anyway all of what you mentioned plus the fact that the rankings included results from the previous 2-years just shows how floored the system was back in the day (70s):eek: ...However it seems eveyone got some level of credit for their performances (Borg was ITF champion in 77 & Connors was #1)~~~the only guy who missed out & is left of the pages of history is Vilas:sad: ...That`s why I`m saying he deserves some kind of retrospective recognition of the fact that indeed he was the best player, World Champion, #1 of 1977;)

To say the system had some floors & just leave it at that is a somewhat apathetic stance:rolleyes:

TennisGrandSlam
10-03-2006, 04:25 AM
:wavey: :cool:
I`m glad the World Tennis:angel: magazine atleast recognised Vilas`s 77 year worthy of #1;) ..
Anyway all of what you mentioned plus the fact that the rankings included results from the previous 2-years just shows how floored the system was back in the day (70s):eek: ...However it seems eveyone got some level of credit for their performances (Borg was ITF champion in 77 & Connors was #1)~~~the only guy who missed out & is left of the pages of history is Vilas:sad: ...That`s why I`m saying he deserves some kind of retrospective recognition of the fact that indeed he was the best player, World Champion, #1 of 1977;)

To say the system had some floors & just leave it at that is a somewhat apathetic stance:rolleyes:



Recently, ITF emphasizes on Grand Slam, Davis Cup, FED Cup and Olympics

Myskina was ITF champion of 2004 (Female) - Roland Garros and FED Cup titles, 4th in Olympic Games.

Becker was the ITF champion of 1989 (Male) - Wimbledon, US Open and Davis Cup titles.

Action Jackson
10-03-2006, 04:28 AM
To say the system had some floors & just leave it at that is a somewhat apathetic stance:rolleyes:

There are a lot more important issues in tennis at the moment. Vilas only inspired a whole generation of South Americans to play the game, so yes he is a loser.

CmonAussie
10-03-2006, 04:34 AM
There are a lot more important issues in tennis at the moment. Vilas only inspired a whole generation of South Americans to play the game, so yes he is a loser.
:cool:
You`re right about more important issues;) .
Was your final throw away line a joke:confused: .If so it`s pretty funny:worship: ,however the South Americans` on this board may take offense:o

Hendu
10-03-2006, 04:47 AM
There are a lot more important issues in tennis at the moment. Vilas only inspired a whole generation of South Americans to play the game, so yes he is a loser.

Not only a whole generation... tennis exists in Argentina thanks to Vilas. He made it popular, and millions started playing years after thanks to his success.

After the success of the last years (the emergence of Coria, Nalbandian, Gaudio...) there has been another wave of tennis in Argentina, but not as big as the one Vilas did.

Argentina now has a tennis tradition. Tennis is always fighting with basketball to be the second sport after football, with a lot of clubs with tennis courts (almost all clay), with lots of players and fans. Vilas was the main reason for that to happen.

Action Jackson
10-03-2006, 04:50 AM
:cool:
You`re right about more important issues;) .
Was your final throw away line a joke:confused: .If so it`s pretty funny:worship: ,however the South Americans` on this board may take offense:o

I think most of the South Americans will know how serious my comment was. If they don't, it's this simple basically what Borg did for Sweden. Vilas did for a continent.

Hendu
10-03-2006, 04:51 AM
:cool:
You`re right about more important issues;) .
Was your final throw away line a joke:confused: .If so it`s pretty funny:worship: ,however the South Americans` on this board may take offense:o

GWH's sarcasm is well known in this forum. ;)

Plus I wouldn't be offended if someone actually thought that.

TennisGrandSlam
10-03-2006, 05:44 AM
Vilas :

W (16) - Springfield, Buenos Aires, Virginia Beach, Roland Garros, Kitzbuhel, Washington, Louisville, South Orange, Columbus, US Open, Paris, Tehran, Bogota, Santiago, Buenos Aires, Johannesburg WCT

F (6) - Australian Open (Jan.), Baltimore, Palm Springs, Johannesburg, Nice, Aix en Provence


Connors :

W (7) - Birmingham WCT, St. Louis WCT, Las Vegas, Dallas WCT, Maui, Sydney Indoor, Masters

F (6) - Philadelphia WCT, Toronto Indoor WCT, Wimbledon, Pepsi Grand Slam, Indianapolis, US Open



I still don't know how does tha ranking system work for Connors (rather than Vilas) to be year-end NO.1 in 1997. Still no one can explain it briefly and officially. :rolleyes:

Action Jackson
10-03-2006, 05:55 AM
I still don't know how does tha ranking system work for Connors (rather than Vilas) to be year-end NO.1 in 1997. Still no one can explain it briefly and officially. :rolleyes:

You don't need 1000000000000000000 fonts most people can read and it has already been explained a few times.

Peoples
10-03-2006, 07:21 AM
Wow lots of Mickey Mouse tournaments back then and Vilas seems to have won most of them.

Boris Franz Ecker
10-03-2006, 09:49 AM
:rolleyes: :rolleyes:
So are you trying to say that only one tournament counted in the 1970`s:confused: ...Why bother playing the other Slams if only Wimbledon counts~~i guess to your thinking Wimbledon is akin to the Tennis World Championships:angel: & the other slams were Mickey Mouse warm up events:devil: :p


It counted much more than the others.
Why playing the others?
It's enough time in the remaining year to play other tournaments, but
a lot of top players didn't play French Open, nearly no top player did play Australian Open, US Open was different.
AO simply was no main event in the 70ies and FO wasn't much better.
Look in the books.
Vilas was the best player in smaller events in 70ies.
But in main events, including Masters, maybe the WCT championships, and assuming, FO wasn't the big deal in 77 (look at women's tournament, neither Evert nor Navratilova played there and girl named Jausovec won it), he was only no 3.
Comparable with Muster in 95.

TennisGrandSlam
10-03-2006, 10:30 AM
It counted much more than the others.
Why playing the others?
It's enough time in the remaining year to play other tournaments, but
a lot of top players didn't play French Open, nearly no top player did play Australian Open, US Open was different.
AO simply was no main event in the 70ies and FO wasn't much better.
Look in the books.
Vilas was the best player in smaller events in 70ies.
But in main events, including Masters, maybe the WCT championships, and assuming, FO wasn't the big deal in 77 (look at women's tournament, neither Evert nor Navratilova played there and girl named Jausovec won it), he was only no 3.
Comparable with Muster in 95.

Australian Open + Roland Garros + US Open = Smaller Events :rolleyes: :eek:

Boris Franz Ecker
10-03-2006, 12:00 PM
Australian Open + Roland Garros + US Open = Smaller Events :rolleyes: :eek:

US Open was no smaller event in the 70ies, at least in late 70ies.
FO and especially AO were relatively small events in these times, yes of course. Sounds strange but it's the truth.

Too difficult to understand?

TennisGrandSlam
10-03-2006, 12:36 PM
US Open was no smaller event in the 70ies, at least in late 70ies.
FO and especially AO were relatively small events in these times, yes of course. Sounds strange but it's the truth.

Too difficult to understand?

Grand Slam is Grand Slam

The pool of AO was small, but still 96, not very small :rolleyes:

Boris Franz Ecker
10-03-2006, 02:43 PM
Grand Slam is Grand Slam

The pool of AO was small, but still 96, not very small :rolleyes:

No, Grand Slam is obviously NOT Grand Slam.
We should've learned that from the Vilas example.

Btw the field in 77 was 64 and usually without best players in the world.
There were even worse fields with 48 or fewer players (for example 30 players in women's field 1971 with 26 australian girls, only 4 foreign girls, even worse in the 60ies).

The size is one thing, the importance is another thing. Vilas had a very good year in 77 but he was only no 3 at the main events, that's a sad reality for all his fans.

Hendu
10-03-2006, 02:55 PM
No, Grand Slam is obviously NOT Grand Slam.
We should've learned that from the Vilas example.

Btw the field in 77 was 64 and usually without best players in the world.
There were even worse fields with 48 or fewer players (for example 30 players in women's field 1971 with 26 australian girls, only 4 foreign girls, even worse in the 60ies).

The size is one thing, the importance is another thing. Vilas had a very good year in 77 but he was only no 3 at the main events, that's a sad reality for all his fans.

No, look at their performance that year, the players they faced and the titles they won (Vilas won more than the double of titles). He won 7 titles in a row (including the US Open) , then he retired in the final of Aix en Provence, because of the weird racket Nastase was using, and then won 5 more in a row, to lose in the semifinal of the Masters against Borg... thats one of the most impressive seasons in mens tennis history... Vilas was the best in 1977, no doubts about that.

VILAS' 1977 (http://www.atptennis.com/5/en/players/playerprofiles/playeractivity.asp?query=Singles&year=1977&player=V028&selTournament=0&prevtrnnum=0)

CONNORS' 1977 (http://www.atptennis.com/5/en/players/playerprofiles/playeractivity.asp?query=Singles&year=1977&player=C044&selTournament=0&prevtrnnum=0)

Number 3 at the main events?

yes right, like in the US Open, where he beated Connors in 4, with a bagel in the last set.

TennisGrandSlam
10-03-2006, 03:29 PM
No, Grand Slam is obviously NOT Grand Slam.
We should've learned that from the Vilas example.

Btw the field in 77 was 64 and usually without best players in the world.
There were even worse fields with 48 or fewer players (for example 30 players in women's field 1971 with 26 australian girls, only 4 foreign girls, even worse in the 60ies).

The size is one thing, the importance is another thing. Vilas had a very good year in 77 but he was only no 3 at the main events, that's a sad reality for all his fans.

Very unluckily, many people still look down upon Vilas and suspect his historical position of Tennis.

Only counting 1977, obviously Vilas was much more better than Connors, but objectors always cliams Australian Open and Roland Garros were not Grand Slam in 1970s! (Vilas never being NO. 1 was due to ranking system NOT his problem)

I can only tell you that, after 100 years, no one remember the WCT winners but the Grand Slam holders must be in the mind of the tennis lovers. :)



It is obvious that

Australian Open runner-up + Roland Garros title + US Open title >> Wimbledon runner-up + US Open runner-up

hammett
10-03-2006, 03:40 PM
No, look at their performance that year, the players they faced and the titles they won (Vilas won more than the double of titles). He won 7 titles in a row (including the US Open) , then he retired in the final of Aix en Provence, because of the weird racket Nastase was using, and then won 5 more in a row, to lose in the semifinal of the Masters against Borg... thats one of the most impressive seasons in mens tennis history... Vilas was the best in 1977, no doubts about that.

VILAS' 1977 (http://www.atptennis.com/5/en/players/playerprofiles/playeractivity.asp?query=Singles&year=1977&player=V028&selTournament=0&prevtrnnum=0)

CONNORS' 1977 (http://www.atptennis.com/5/en/players/playerprofiles/playeractivity.asp?query=Singles&year=1977&player=C044&selTournament=0&prevtrnnum=0)

Number 3 at the main events?

yes right, like in the US Open, where he beated Connors in 4, with a bagel in the last set.

:worship:

Wow, small but quality wins by Connors :haha:

TennisGrandSlam
10-03-2006, 03:41 PM
US Open was no smaller event in the 70ies, at least in late 70ies.
FO and especially AO were relatively small events in these times, yes of course. Sounds strange but it's the truth.

Too difficult to understand?

If I were a tennis player, I would rather win all 3 SMALL tournaments. :wavey:

Grand Slam is always Grand Slam.

TennisGrandSlam
10-03-2006, 03:53 PM
No, look at their performance that year, the players they faced and the titles they won (Vilas won more than the double of titles). He won 7 titles in a row (including the US Open) , then he retired in the final of Aix en Provence, because of the weird racket Nastase was using, and then won 5 more in a row, to lose in the semifinal of the Masters against Borg... thats one of the most impressive seasons in mens tennis history... Vilas was the best in 1977, no doubts about that.

Vilas :
W (16) - Springfield, Buenos Aires, Virginia Beach, Roland Garros, Kitzbuhel, Washington, Louisville, South Orange, Columbus, US Open, Paris, Tehran, Bogota, Santiago, Buenos Aires, Johannesburg WCT
F (6) - Australian Open (Jan.), Baltimore, Palm Springs, Johannesburg, Nice, Aix en Provence


Connors :
W (7) - Birmingham WCT, St. Louis WCT, Las Vegas, Dallas WCT, Maui, Sydney Indoor, Masters
F (6) - Philadelphia WCT, Toronto Indoor WCT, Wimbledon, Pepsi Grand Slam, Indianapolis, US Open


Without discussing the ranking system (I don't know if it was black-box operation), Just doing a small statistics - I ask more than 100 netfriends in one tennis discuss forum, all of them claim that Vilas should be the NO.1 of 1977 :devil:

Boris Franz Ecker
10-03-2006, 04:08 PM
If I were a tennis player, I would rather win all 3 SMALL tournaments. :wavey:

Grand Slam is always Grand Slam.

Simply wrong and Vilas knows that.
Even he didn't want to play the second edition of the Australian Open in 77.
And today he is overrated by some people, because they think, his 2 1/2 pseudo-slams are comparable to four Grand Slam titles in our days. That's nonsense and wrong if looking into details.

Boris Franz Ecker
10-03-2006, 04:29 PM
Number 3 at the main events?

yes right, like in the US Open, where he beated Connors in 4, with a bagel in the last set.

No 3 after Connors and Borg.

Please forget French/Australian open, the ranking system didn't give enough points for them, Vilas and everyone else knew that before the season.
They didn't have the meaning even if someone states that despite better knowledge. They didn't have. It's simple and undisputable.

TennisGrandSlam
10-03-2006, 04:34 PM
No 3 after Connors and Borg.

Please forget French/Australian open, the ranking system didn't give enough points for them, Vilas and everyone else knew that before the season.
They didn't have the meaning even if someone states that despite better knowledge. They didn't have. It's simple and undisputable.

Because ATP was dominated by American. :rolleyes:

Most of the WCTs were hold in USA.

scoobs
10-03-2006, 05:22 PM
I know some injustices nag for a while, but to be going on about this 29 year later...well that's bitterness and obsession of a whole different order :-)

I find it hard to get outraged...to be honest I'm struggling to even manage apathy.

sawan66278
10-03-2006, 05:31 PM
What this discussion proves is that the tennis federations were in complete chaos even then...It does make you look at Connors achievements in a new light though...being #1 for those years has to be discounted slightly when discussing the greatest players of all time....

And with respect to Becker not being #1 in 1989...he lost to Brad Gilbert that year...and to JAY BERGER 1-6, 1-6!!!:eek: :eek: :eek: For those reasons alone, he should never even been considered a viable option for the #1 ranking!!!

MisterQ
10-03-2006, 05:37 PM
Connors beat Cliff Drysdale 3 times that year. 'Nuff said.:worship: ;)

Boris Franz Ecker
10-03-2006, 05:41 PM
Because ATP was dominated by American. :rolleyes:

Most of the WCTs were hold in USA.

Not only because of that.

French Open was dead in the early 70ies, as Pohmann, German Daviscup-player, says during his comments from RG. No public interest, no spectators, etc... and he should know it, he played there.
They launched something like a master plan (maybe headed by Philippe Chartrier) to save the tournament, carrying pupils to the tribunes and things like that.
But it was surely a bigger tournament than AO at that time.
AO even was moved around from city to city until 1972, had partially extremely weak fields and small draws and that of course before computer rankings were introduced.

FO/AO didn't lose importance cause they didn't get the ranking points, no, it's vice versa, they didn't get the ranking points because they lost importance.
Prize money was another thing.

Very possible that other tournaments offered higher prize money.

sawan66278
10-03-2006, 09:11 PM
The Drysdale losses do it for me too...Vilas #1:cool:

GlennMirnyi
10-03-2006, 09:16 PM
If I were a tennis player, I would rather win all 3 SMALL tournaments. :wavey:

Grand Slam is always Grand Slam.

I don't know about other people, but I guess I speak for the majority when I say that we don't really care about what you would prefer if you were a tennis player.

TennisGrandSlam
10-04-2006, 02:58 AM
Wow lots of Mickey Mouse tournaments back then and Vilas seems to have won most of them.

Connors had many more WCT titles, are also Mickey Mouse tournaments :rolleyes: (He needed 4 win for titles) :D



Jimmy Connors: 105 ATP-recognized single titles

1972 - Queens, Columbus, Cincinnati, Albany, Jacksonville

1973 - Baltimore, Roanoke, Salt Lake City, Salisbury, Hampton, Paramus,, Boston, Columbus, Quebec, L.A., Johannesburg

1974 - Australian Open, Roanoke, Little Rock, Birmingham, Salisbury, Hampton, Salt Lake City, Tempe, Wimbledon, Indianapolis, US Open, L.A., London, Johannesburg

1975 - Bahamas, Birmingham, Salisbury, Boca Raton, Hampton, Denver WCT, North Conway, Bermuda, Maui

1976 - Birmingham, Philadelphia WCT, Hampton, Palm Springs, Denver WCT, Las Vegas, Washington, North Conway, Indianapolis, US Open, Cologne, Wembley

1977 - Birmingham WCT, St. Louis WCT, Las Vegas, Dallas WCT, Maui, Sydney Indoor, Masters

1878 - Philadelphia WCT, Denver, Memphis, Rotterdam WTC, Birmingham, Washington, Indianapolis, Stowe, US Open, Sydney Indoor

1979 - Birmingham, Philadelphia, Memphis, Tulsa, Indianapolis, Stowe, Hong Kong

1980 - Birmingham, Philadelphia, Dallas WCT, North Conway, Republic Of China, Tokyo Indoor

1981 - La Quinta, Brussels, Rotterdam, Wembley

1982 - Monterrey, L.A., Las Vegas, Queens, Wimbledon, Columbus, US Open

1983 - Memphis, Las Vegas, Queens, US Open

1984 - Memphis, La Quinta, Boca West, L.A., Tokyo Indoor

1988 - Washington, Toulouse

1989 - Toulouse, Tel Aviv



I also think 1982 is year of Connors NOT McEnroe (Connors should be year-end #1of 1974, 1975, 1976, 1982)

TennisGrandSlam
10-04-2006, 03:10 AM
What this discussion proves is that the tennis federations were in complete chaos even then...It does make you look at Connors achievements in a new light though...being #1 for those years has to be discounted slightly when discussing the greatest players of all time....

And with respect to Becker not being #1 in 1989...he lost to Brad Gilbert that year...and to JAY BERGER 1-6, 1-6!!!:eek: :eek: :eek: For those reasons alone, he should never even been considered a viable option for the #1 ranking!!!


Becker not being year-end NO.1 of 1989 was not very argumentative.


Lendl had 10 titles including Australian Open, also runner-up of US Open, and semi-finalist of Wimbledon in 1989.

Lendl in 1989 (10 titles : Australian Open, Scottsdale, Key Biscayne, Forest Hills, Hamburg, Queens, Montreal, Bordeaux, Sydney Indoor, Stockholm )
http://www.atptennis.com/5/en/players/playerprofiles/playeractivity.asp?query=Singles&year=1989&player=L018&selTournament=0&prevtrnnum=0


Becker had 5 titles only (w/ Wimbledon, US Open) in 1989.

Becker in 1989 (5 titles : Milan, Philadelphia, Wimbledon, US Open, Paris )
http://www.atptennis.com/5/en/players/playerprofiles/playeractivity.asp?query=Singles&year=1989&player=B028&selTournament=0&prevtrnnum=


So Lendl was NO.1 of 1989 is reasonable. (The agruement was not significant)


ITF presented Becker with the ITF champion (Male) of 1989 honour because Becker also helped West Germany to win Davis Cup. (ITF emphasizes on Grand Slam, Davis Cup, FED Cup and Olympics) - That is why Myskina was ITF champion of 2004 (Female) because of her Roland Garros and FED Cup title also 4th in Olympic Games!