Mens Tennis Forums banner
2541 - 2560 of 2763 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
15,497 Posts
Hello folks, I propose we do not list numbers here which are not official, or publicly available+verified by a large number of people -- as though they are "facts". There are no publicly available, verified week-by-week calculations for the weeks at #1 of Laver, Tilden, Renshaw, Gonzales, etc.

For example, Laver:
I have mentioned this before -- but with my layman knowledge, its pretty difficult for Laver to have 374 weeks at #1, he probably has somewhere in 300-350 range:
  • 1964, Laver tied Rosewall for #1 by the end of the year as per journalists, however using the official pro points system Rosewall was still ahead at year end, so not clear how many #1 weeks Laver can collect here, if any!
  • 1965-1969: 5 years #1 = 260 weeks -- however, if Laver was not #1 at end of '64 based on pro points, then Rosewall would steal some #1 weeks in 1965 as well
  • 1970, Laver tied with Newcombe and Rosewall for #1, and had very poor slam performance, so its not clear how many weeks would Laver have for #1
  • 1971/1972, Laver was not even considered in top 3 of either year, so he is likely to have collected few, if any, weeks at #1
In summary, even if we give all 52 weeks of 1970 to Laver, and 12 weeks of 1964 to Laver, it would be 260+52+12=324 weeks. Adding some in 1971, would fall short of 340/350, far from 374. Unless clear detailed calculations are available which prove 374, its not obvious.

Because of ambiguities like these, I suggest we should not cite these numbers as facts.

I have utmost respect for @Johnny Groove and others like @Slasher1985 who have tried to calculate rankings for some of these -- I have learned a lot from Johnny's videos and posts -- but without publicly available, detailed and verified calculations -- my suggestion is we do not list them as facts in the official MTF ranking threads.

Or there could be separate threads/posts where these numbers are mentioned, but should be clearly marked as private, speculative numbers with no publicly available basis.

This is just my suggestion, feel free to ignore / shoot down.

This is not meant to disrespect anyone -- Johnny, I love you! -- but this is just a thought I had.

Thanks for listening!
Thanks for sharing this .....
Obviously I can't argue pre-Open era numbers since I haven't done any significant research on it. I'm just copying-pasting Johnny's numbers.

But I would be over the moon if Novak gets to 378 (or at least to 375). This record coupled with 2-3 slam wins would make him an undisputed GOAT. Nobody would be able to argue he is not.
I say 2-3 slam wins since I believe that Rafa has another RG or two in him

And аt the end, its fun to calculate all these points and weeks. Even if some of them (pre Open era) end up being imaginary :)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
504 Posts
It is not just about the slams. Commentators know Nadal is an ATG, but has such a skewed winning of tournaments on clay that he is not the true GOAT which is probably between Djokovic and Laver (I personally think Laver would be a great player today, but not in the GOAT category due to his size and the court make-up which was done to improve fan interest).

In any case, all of this discussion will not matter because, I believe Djokovic will be above 400 weeks pretty easily even if it is not consecutive in the coming year to year and a half. I am hoping that Medvedev will be more challenged by Zverev, Thiem, Nadal, and Tsitsipas so that his points are brought down. He now clearly seems Djokovic's main challenger for No. 1.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,165 Posts
I have Laver getting to #1 on Sep 21 1964 after winning 8-6 in the finals of 1964 Wembley Pro over Rosewall. He gets 15 weeks in 1964.
Rosewell came first in the pro points ranking system at the end of the year, Laver came second. And based on journalists view, Rosewall and Laver tied at #1 at year-end, with many actually saying Rosewall was #1, so how can we say definitively Laver was #1 in the last 15 weeks? Which detailed calculations show this?

1965- Laver, all 52, is 2nd YE #1, 67 weeks
If Rosewall ended #1 at 1964 with point system, he could steal some weeks in this year as well.

1966- Laver, all 52, is 3rd YE #1, 119 weeks
1967- Laver, all 52, 4th YE #1, 171 weeks
1968- Laver, all 53, 5th YE #1, 224 weeks
1969- Laver, all 52, 6th YE #1, 276 weeks
All good here

1970- Laver, all 52, 7th YE #1, 328 weeks
1970 Laver won 15 titles and was #1 every single week. It did get close a few times but he was #1. The tour was split back then, he played WCT events which paid more, and when he did, he was banned from playing from some slams. And when the slams pay way less prize money and they are closed to some players, how much point value should they really have?
Really Johnny? Isn't a slam a slam, as per your own opinion? :)

And having less prize money and being closed to some players were the arguments used against amateur/pro tour achievements, which some people including yourself believe to have no bearing on the value of the achievement. If these have importance, then all the pre-open era achievements would need to be lowered in value.

And Laver did participate in 2 slams, and lost in 4th round in both. This has to have some meaning.

And based on journalists opinions, Laver/Rosewall/Newcombe are all tied #1. Many journalists actually ranked Laver as #2 or #3. So assigning 52 weeks to Laver does not seem definitive!

I agree in 1971 and 1972 it gets into very murky waters. Of course these are @Slasher1985 data, but I also looked up the draws from these events and confirmed Laver was seeded #1 in those weeks. So here we go

1971- Laver keeps #1 until March 29, 1971, 12 weeks, for 340 total. Newcombe takes over March 29 until September 13, 24 weeks, when he loses 1st round in US Open and Stan Smith wins USO and gets to #1. He keeps it until November 15, when Laver gets it back, but only for 1 week, for 341 total. Stan Smith or Newcombe end year #1

1972- Laver back to #1 on Jan 10, 1972, for 32 weeks and 373 weeks total, until Aug 21 when Smith takes it over, until Sep 11 when Laver gets it back again, for 1 week for 374, until Nastase gets it the week after, Sep 18, for 1 week, then Smith gets it back on 9/25, and keeps it until the end of the year. 374 final count for Laver
These are indeed murky and difficult to rely on.

- The actual data and calculations based on which these rankings you have written is not available.

- Secondly, Newcombe, Stan Smith and Rosewall were considered #1 players at end of 1971 by journalists, so its not clear why Laver suddenly became #1 on Jan 10 1972 and retained for 32 weeks. What caused Smith, Newcombe and Rosewall to all lose points suddenly and what caused Laver to gain points to jump over those 3 is not clear. Laver did not even play until Feb 6th of 1972.

- Laver's weeks at #1 in 1972 are seriously doubtful. Laver won 5 titles in Feb/Mar/Apr of 1972, and did not win any title afterwards. In fact, after 10th May he did not go past QF of any tournament. Most tournaments he lost even before QF. So its not clear how he remained #1 until August, and then won it back in September. He did not play a single match against Stan Smith / Nastase etc who were the top players on Grand Prix. Stan Smith also won 4 tournaments during Feb/Mar/Apr for example, but it was all in separate tournaments. And then Stan Smith continued to win many tournaments through the remaining part of the year as well, which Laver did not. Its not clear to me whether Laver was ahead of Stan Smith for even a single week in the ranking.

- Laver's very poor slam performance (and absence) continued in 1971 and 1972. This should obviously have meaning, and its accounted for in the journalists ranking which dont have Laver in the top 3.

- You mentioned seed #1 -- first of all we would have to see exactly which tournaments and when he got the seeding, and what it was based on -- and secondly he was mostly playing in WCT tournaments where other top players like Stan Smith / Nastase were not even playing. The only slam he played in 1972 - US Open - at end of August - he was seeded 3rd after Stan Smith and Rosewall -- and Laver lost in 4th Round. (so not sure why you have him at #1 again after the US Open)
 
  • Like
Reactions: Ogi45 and Apophis

·
Your visions will happen
Joined
·
58,611 Posts
Rosewell came first in the pro points ranking system at the end of the year, Laver came second. And based on journalists view, Rosewall and Laver tied at #1 at year-end, with many actually saying Rosewall was #1, so how can we say definitively Laver was #1 in the last 15 weeks? Which detailed calculations show this?
We don't have that mate, that's what this whole debate is about! Even journalists at the time were mixed

If Rosewall ended #1 at 1964 with point system, he could steal some weeks in this year as well.
There was no pro point system until 1965 if I recall

Really Johnny? Isn't a slam a slam, as per your own opinion? :)
Yes a slam is a slam. But how many ranking points should it be worth relative to other events of the day is the question.

And having less prize money and being closed to some players were the arguments used against amateur/pro tour achievements, which some people including yourself believe to have no bearing on the value of the achievement. If these have importance, then all the pre-open era achievements would need to be lowered in value.
You always seem to go with the extremes, man. Life is a million shades of grey.

I do count all the slams as 1 slam, yes. Including in the 1968-1973 era. What their status as a slam means in regard to how many ranking points they get is what is up for debate. @Slasher1985 has all the 1968-1973 data, I would encourage him to find a way to put the calculations out again, though he said he is doing more calculations in that time

And Laver did participate in 2 slams, and lost in 4th round in both. This has to have some meaning.

And based on journalists opinions, Laver/Rosewall/Newcombe are all tied #1. Many journalists actually ranked Laver as #2 or #3. So assigning 52 weeks to Laver does not seem definitive!
Yes he did, the meaning is that he did not win them and got less points. Slasher's numbers had Laver going wire to wire in 1970, wikipedia is only the start as a resource my friend

These are indeed murky and difficult to rely on.

- The actual data and calculations based on which these rankings you have written is not available.

- Secondly, Newcombe, Stan Smith and Rosewall were considered #1 players at end of 1971 by journalists, so its not clear why Laver suddenly became #1 on Jan 10 1972 and retained for 32 weeks. What caused Smith, Newcombe and Rosewall to all lose points suddenly and what caused Laver to gain points to jump over those 3 is not clear. Laver did not even play until Feb 6th of 1972.
Could have possibly been that their points from a previous year's events fell off

- Laver's weeks at #1 in 1972 are seriously doubtful. Laver won 5 titles in Feb/Mar/Apr of 1972, and did not win any title afterwards. In fact, after 10th May he did not go past QF of any tournament. Most tournaments he lost even before QF. So its not clear how he remained #1 until August, and then won it back in September. He did not play a single match against Stan Smith / Nastase etc who were the top players on Grand Prix. Stan Smith also won 4 tournaments during Feb/Mar/Apr for example, but it was all in separate tournaments. And then Stan Smith continued to win many tournaments through the remaining part of the year as well, which Laver did not. Its not clear to me whether Laver was ahead of Stan Smith for even a single week in the ranking.

- Laver's very poor slam performance (and absence) continued in 1971 and 1972. This should obviously have meaning, and its accounted for in the journalists ranking which dont have Laver in the top 3.

- You mentioned seed #1 -- first of all we would have to see exactly which tournaments and when he got the seeding, and what it was based on -- and secondly he was mostly playing in WCT tournaments where other top players like Stan Smith / Nastase were not even playing.
It wasn't just Smith but also Newcombe in the mix. I would implore you to look at the weeks I quoted above and then check the ATP calendars in 1971 and 1972 and see how Laver is #1 in those weeks and #2 or #3 in the other weeks. Of course Smith did not play WCT, he was in GP, so it is again as I said, murky waters

Tilden has 368 weeks and Gonzales 365 weeks so even if Slasher's updated rankings from that time puts Laver in the 350 or 360 week range, the other guys would then have the record
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,165 Posts
We don't have that mate, that's what this whole debate is about! Even journalists at the time were mixed
There was no pro point system until 1965 if I recall
Exactly -- even journalists were mixed, but by saying Laver was #1 for last 15 weeks of the year we are claiming Laver was clear year-end #1, so we are going against journalists consensus.

There was a pro point system in 1964 -- in fact after the Wembley Pro final in September 1964 -- from when you are counting his #1 weeks -- Laver himself said after the match that Ken Rosewall is #1 player based on the points system, and that he would like to be #1 in the future sometime.

So the claim that he was clear #1 from Sept onwards was (a) against journalists consensus, (b) against Laver's own opinion and (c) against the points system.

Yes a slam is a slam. But how many ranking points should it be worth relative to other events of the day is the question. You always seem to go with the extremes, man. Life is a million shades of grey. I do count all the slams as 1 slam, yes. Including in the 1968-1973 era. What their status as a slam means in regard to how many ranking points they get is what is up for debate.
Well if a slam is less valued compared to other events in the same year, then how is it valued the same compared to slams of other years?

If prize money and player pool have implications of their value for the same year, then they also have lower value when compared with other years.

@Slasher1985 has all the 1968-1973 data, I would encourage him to find a way to put the calculations out again, though he said he is doing more calculations in that time

Yes he did, the meaning is that he did not win them and got less points. Slasher's numbers had Laver going wire to wire in 1970, wikipedia is only the start as a resource my friend
Since Slasher's numbers are not available, am not sure we can make a claim. And due to the unclear basis for rankings in 1972 (I pointed out discrepancies in my previous message and this message below), we shouldnt accept without verifying them.

Could have possibly been that their points from a previous year's events fell off
No they didnt. For example, Stan Smith played no event in Jan and Feb 1971, so he couldnt have lost any points in Jan/Feb 1972.

It wasn't just Smith but also Newcombe in the mix. I would implore you to look at the weeks I quoted above and then check the ATP calendars in 1971 and 1972 and see how Laver is #1 in those weeks and #2 or #3 in the other weeks. Of course Smith did not play WCT, he was in GP, so it is again as I said, murky waters
I did a basic look at the tour results, and thats what I mentioned in my previous message. Laver's performance in 1972 is not great... apart from 5-6 tournaments over 3 months in Feb/Mar/Apr, his performance in all of the remaining 9 months is pretty poor. And that Feb/Mar/Apr performance is not alone sufficient for #1 -- considering Stan Smith also had similar performance in those 3 months, and that he was #1 tied at the start of the year whereas Laver was not even in top 3 at the start of the year.

Laver was seeded #3 in Aug in US Open and lost in R4. But then you claim he suddenly dropped the #1 ranking at the beginning of the US Open and regained for 1 week after it. This also does not checkout since Laver had no other good performance around that time, apart from R4 loss in US Open.

Overall from what I saw in the calendar, Laver could not have even 1 week as #1 in 1972.

If Slasher's data was showing that -- then it could have errors or he probably weighed WCT tournaments much much higher than GP tournaments (perhaps because of prize money) -- which would hard to state as a fact -- since no journalists agreed with it (since top 3 in 1971 did not even include Laver) -- and many top players were not playing in WCT tour.

So Slasher's data would have to be shared and verified, but until then, looking at the tour results, Laver does not appear to have even 1 week as #1 in 1972.

Tilden has 368 weeks and Gonzales 365 weeks so even if Slasher's updated rankings from that time puts Laver in the 350 or 360 week range, the other guys would then have the record
Are there any week by week calculations available for Tilden and Gonzales?

Even these are not clear cut. For example, some of the years Gonzales was considered #1, he was tied with Kramer/Sedgman/Rosewall etc, so the weeks are hard to calculate without detailed week by week calculations.
 

·
Your visions will happen
Joined
·
58,611 Posts
Exactly -- even journalists were mixed, but by saying Laver was #1 for last 15 weeks of the year we are claiming Laver was clear year-end #1, so we are going against journalists consensus.

There was a pro point system in 1964 -- in fact after the Wembley Pro final in September 1964 -- from when you are counting his #1 weeks -- Laver himself said after the match that Ken Rosewall is #1 player based on the points system, and that he would like to be #1 in the future sometime.

So the claim that he was clear #1 from Sept onwards was against journalists consensus as well as against Laver's own opinion.



Well if a slam is less valued compared to other events in the same year, then how is it valued the same compared to slams of other years?

If prize money and player pool have implications of their value for the same year, then they also have lower value when compared with other years.



Since Slasher's numbers are not available, am not sure we can make a claim. And due to the unclear basis for rankings in 1972 (I pointed out discrepancies in my previous message and this message below), we shouldnt accept without verifying them.



No they didnt. For example, Stan Smith played no event in Jan and Feb 1971, so he couldnt have lost any points in Jan/Feb 1972.



I did a basic look at the tour results, and thats what I mentioned in my previous message. Laver's performance in 1972 is not great... apart from 5-6 tournaments over 3 months in Feb/Mar/Apr, his performance in all of the remaining 9 months is pretty poor. And that Feb/Mar/Apr performance is not alone sufficient for #1 -- considering Stan Smith also had similar performance in those 3 months, and that he was #1 tied at the start of the year whereas Laver was not even in top 3 at the start of the year.

Laver was seeded #3 in Aug in US Open and lost in R4. But then you claim he suddenly dropped the #1 ranking at the beginning of the US Open and regained for 1 week after it. This also does not checkout since Laver had no other good performance around that time, apart from R4 loss in US Open.

Overall from what I saw in the calendar, Laver could not have even 1 week as #1 in 1972.

If Slasher's data was showing that -- then it could have errors or he probably weighed WCT tournaments much much higher than GP tournaments (perhaps because of prize money) -- which would hard to state as a fact -- since no journalists agreed with it (since top 3 in 1971 did not even include Laver) -- and many top players were not playing in WCT tour.

So Slasher's data would have to be shared and verified, but looking at the tour results Laver does not have appear to be #1 at all in 1972.


Are there any week by week calculations available for Tilden and Gonzales?

Even these are not clear cut. For example, some of the years Gonzales was considered #1, he was tied with Kramer/Sedgman/Rosewall etc, so the weeks are hard to calculate without detailed week by week calculations.
Well when it comes to Laver, until Slasher releases his numbers again, it will always be an estimate. My original numbers had Laver at 354 before I saw Slasher's very detailed calculations, assuming Wembley 1964 to Wimbledon 1971, 354 weeks. Speaking of 1964, Laver was very gracious but I disagree with what he said. Laver was 17-7 H2H with Rosewall in 1964, both won 11 titles

My original 354 for Laver had him losing #1 at Wimbledon 71 and never regaining back later in 71 or 72. But Slasher's data was so convincing I changed my numbers. I still like the 374 number but 354 would be the number more in line with how I calculated Gonzales and Tilden

Tilden I have at #1 Sep 6 1920 after winning his first USO, having also won Wimbledon that year, 17 weeks

1921- 52 weeks, 69 weeks total, 2 YE #1
1922- 52 weeks, 121 weeks total, 3 YE #1
1923- 53 weeks, 174 weeks total, 4 YE #1
1924- 52 weeks, 226 weeks total, 5 YE #1
1925- 52 weeks, 278 weeks total, 6 YE #1
1926- 36 weeks, 314 weeks total, loses #1 on Sep 20, 1926

1930- 2 weeks, 316 weeks total, gets #1 back after Wimbledon 1930 for 2 weeks, July 7 and July 14 1930, but then loses it again when he loses Davis Cup Final to French again. Or perhaps he could have kept #1 for a few more weeks until losing his US 1929 title when he lost in QF. Cochet is the YE #1 but the question is whether or not Bill got 2 weeks or 10 weeks. Originally I have him at 2, but I can take another look deeper into the rankings to make sure

1931- With Tilden pro and the French still amateurs, it is tough to say who is #1. I have Tilden taking back #1 after none of the French win Wimbledon on July 13 1931. He gets 25 weeks, his 7th YE #1, and 341 weeks

1932- Tilden keeps #1 until July 4 1932 when Vines wins Wimbledon, having already won US 1931, and Tilden does not defend his US Pro. 27 more weeks is 368 weeks, one can argue another 8 weeks from 1930, 376 perhaps

Gonna do my Gonzales numbers another time
 

·
Rankings Master
Joined
·
18,191 Posts
Discussion Starter · #2,547 ·
Hello @grkhetan and @Johnny Groove, thanks for thinking of me when doing your stats. Although I do have the data, it is obsolete and not yet ready to share in its final form. A number of tournaments for which I recently obtained data needed to be added in order to make the rankings closer to the reality of what should have been theoretically. The system is the same though, 100% identical to the one used between Aug 1973 and Jan 1974. Please have a little more patience though. I am working on numerous other higher priority time periods and unfortunately I have no help with these calculations, neither can I pay someone else to help.
 

·
Your visions will happen
Joined
·
58,611 Posts
Hello @grkhetan and @Johnny Groove, thanks for thinking of me when doing your stats. Although I do have the data, it is obsolete and not yet ready to share in its final form. A number of tournaments for which I recently obtained data needed to be added in order to make the rankings closer to the reality of what should have been theoretically. The system is the same though, 100% identical to the one used between Aug 1973 and Jan 1974. Please have a little more patience though. I am working on numerous other higher priority time periods and unfortunately I have no help with these calculations, neither can I pay someone else to help.
Take your time man, it all good
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,833 Posts
Yes indeed, every week and every point counts. Who knows what the point drop scheme or the exact weeks on the calendar will be in 2022

Which is why YEC is so important coming up. Novak should try to get as big of a lead as possible going into 2022 so he is prepared for whatever happens in Australia. Then he can make up a lot of points IW and Miami, where he has historically done very well. It is possible he can lose #1 for a few weeks before regaining it in March. But hopefully he just keeps it every week which again is why YEC means so much next tournament. Get enough of a lead to get 380 weeks by keeping #1 until Wimbledon
For the bolded part, Medvedev drops only 225 points more than Djokovic for the sunshine double. Medvedev could plausibly gain ground, especially if Djokovic skips an event.
 

·
Your visions will happen
Joined
·
58,611 Posts
For the bolded part, Medvedev drops only 225 points more than Djokovic for the sunshine double. Medvedev could plausibly gain ground, especially if Djokovic skips an event.
Aha this is true. We shall see what's going on by that time. I sure do hope Djokovic plays both but it all depends on what the calendar looks like
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
862 Posts
Hello @grkhetan and @Johnny Groove, thanks for thinking of me when doing your stats. Although I do have the data, it is obsolete and not yet ready to share in its final form. A number of tournaments for which I recently obtained data needed to be added in order to make the rankings closer to the reality of what should have been theoretically. The system is the same though, 100% identical to the one used between Aug 1973 and Jan 1974. Please have a little more patience though. I am working on numerous other higher priority time periods and unfortunately I have no help with these calculations, neither can I pay someone else to help.
I would be happy to help (using python would be preferred, but I can program in other programming languages as well)
 

·
Your visions will happen
Joined
·
58,611 Posts
@grkhetan @Tennis Passion @Slasher1985

So I have delved back into the archives and I have some slightly new numbers for the all time weeks:

Graf- 377
Tilden- 376
Renshaw- 365
Laver- 365
Wills- 364
Djokovic- 357 and counting
Navratilova- 332
Court- 325
S. Williams- 319
Gonzales- 318
Lenglen- 312
Federer- 310

Djokovic would pass Wills, Renshaw, and Laver during Miami if he keeps it every week, and would pass Tilden and Graf between RG and Wimbledon

Notes:

Tilden gains 8 weeks in total, my previous numbers had him getting #1 at USO 1920 first, now Wimbledon 1920. I also have him losing #1 for a year from July 9 1923 to July 7 1924, to Bill Johnston, as well as the 1923 YE #1. I then have him keeping #1 until Sep 20 1926, same as my old numbers. Then once more gets #1 from July 7 1930 to July 4 1932, to Ellsworth Vines, where previously I only had him getting back to #1 in July 1931. Both projections have him losing #1 in July 1932. So in total he gets another 8 weeks, loses 1923 YE #1 but gaining 1930 YE #1

Renshaw numbers stay exactly the same, just miscounted the weeks, 365 now from 366.

Laver loses 9 weeks, he gets #1 from Wembley 1964 as in my original data, but keeps it straight until Sep 20 1971, when he loses #1 to Stan Smith. He does not get any weeks in 1972, nor are his 1971 weeks at #1 choppy and here and there as before based on Slasher's numbers. Laver ends up with 365 weeks in total, same as Renshaw, insane

Gonzales the big loser here in my newest edition. From 365 weeks and 7 YE #1 to only 318 weeks and 6 YE #1, lost 47 weeks. I no longer have him getting #1 in 1952 or any weeks in 1953 as Sedgman was too good in that time. Gonzales does not get to #1 until May 31 1954, and loses it on July 4 1960 to Ken Rosewall, not Sep 26 1960 to Rosewall as in my original data. So Rosewall gets another 12 weeks to 220 weeks at #1 overall, while Gonzales loses a hefty amount of weeks

So in conclusion, after further review, Tilden is the real record holder, Laver is still very much up there, and Gonzales falls to near Sampras numbers, and Steffi Graf still after all this still has the record at 377 weeks
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,165 Posts
@grkhetan @Tennis Passion @Slasher1985

So I have delved back into the archives and I have some slightly new numbers for the all time weeks:

Graf- 377
Tilden- 376
Renshaw- 365
Laver- 365
Wills- 364
Djokovic- 357 and counting
Navratilova- 332
Court- 325
S. Williams- 319
Gonzales- 318
Lenglen- 312
Federer- 310

Djokovic would pass Wills, Renshaw, and Laver during Miami if he keeps it every week, and would pass Tilden and Graf between RG and Wimbledon

Notes:

Tilden gains 8 weeks in total, my previous numbers had him getting #1 at USO 1920 first, now Wimbledon 1920. I also have him losing #1 for a year from July 9 1923 to July 7 1924, to Bill Johnston, as well as the 1923 YE #1. I then have him keeping #1 until Sep 20 1926, same as my old numbers. Then once more gets #1 from July 7 1930 to July 4 1932, to Ellsworth Vines, where previously I only had him getting back to #1 in July 1931. Both projections have him losing #1 in July 1931. So in total he gets another 8 weeks, loses 1923 YE #1 but gaining 1930 YE #1

Renshaw numbers stay exactly the same, just miscounted the weeks, 365 now from 366.

Laver loses 9 weeks, he keeps #1 from Wembley 1964 as in my original data, but keeps it straight until Sep 20 1971, when he loses #1 to Stan Smith. He does not get any weeks in 1972, nor are his 1971 weeks at #1 choppy and here and there as before based on Slasher's numbers. Laver ends up with 365 weeks in total, same as Renshaw, insane

Gonzales the big loser here in my newest edition. From 365 weeks and 7 YE #1 to only 318 weeks and 6 YE #1, lost 47 weeks. I no longer have him getting #1 in 1952 or any weeks in 1953 as Sedgman was too good in that time. Gonzales does not get to #1 until May 31 1954, and loses it on July 4 1960 to Ken Rosewall, not Sep 26 1960 to Rosewall as in my original data. So Rosewall gets another 12 weeks to 220 weeks at #1 overall, while Gonzales loses a hefty amount of weeks

So in conclusion, after further review, Tilden is the real record holder, Laver is still very much up there, and Gonzales falls to near Sampras numbers, and Steffi Graf still after all this still has the record at 377 weeks
Thanks for looking again Johnny!

Surprised to see the drop in numbers for Pancho! He is supposed to have up to 8 YE#1s with 1 or 2 of them tied, right?
 

·
Your visions will happen
Joined
·
58,611 Posts
Thanks for looking again Johnny!

Surprised to see the drop in numbers for Pancho! He is supposed to have up to 8 YE#1s with 1 or 2 of them tied, right?
Yes indeed according to wikipedia at least. But really Kramer and Sedgman and Segura were too good until 1954. Sedgman made all 4 slam finals in 1952, 2 wins and 2 losses, then turned pro for 1953, and beat Pancho there and won 2 more slams. Only in 1954 did Gonzales really get there. And then on the other end, Rosewall got there I think 12 weeks sooner than originally thought

1954, 1955, 1956, 1957, 1958, 1959, for sure he was #1, 6 in a row like Sampras from 1993-1998. The "disputed" #1's in 1960 and 1952 are not really disputed for me anymore after doing further research

Real revelation is Frank Sedgman who I have seriously underrated this whole time, while appearing to overrate Gonzales and Kramer as well. Sedgman 8 slams and 2 YE #1, those numbers are like Agassi level
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,165 Posts
Yes indeed according to wikipedia at least. But really Kramer and Sedgman and Segura were too good until 1954. Sedgman made all 4 slam finals in 1952, 2 wins and 2 losses, then turned pro for 1953, and beat Pancho there and won 2 more slams. Only in 1954 did Gonzales really get there. And then on the other end, Rosewall got there I think 12 weeks sooner than originally thought

1954, 1955, 1956, 1957, 1958, 1959, for sure he was #1, 6 in a row like Sampras from 1993-1998. The "disputed" #1's in 1960 and 1952 are not really disputed for me anymore after doing further research

Real revelation is Frank Sedgman who I have seriously underrated this whole time, while appearing to overrate Gonzales and Kramer as well. Sedgman 8 slams and 2 YE #1, those numbers are like Agassi level
Sounds good!
I would suggest you also keep your analysis up in some way easy to reference. Either you open a new thread where you put your numbers and reasons like above in the main #1 post. If you improve your understanding, you can update the #1 post itself s latest info is easy to access on top. You can give a link to that thread anywhere you post these numbers on MTF.

If you are interested, I would also suggest you to create your own independent webpage with this info so that it does not become limited to MTF. You can create a free website on Blog Tool, Publishing Platform, and CMS - WordPress or go daddy for example. It’s pretty simple. That will lend it more credence.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Johnny Groove

·
Registered
Joined
·
15,497 Posts
@grkhetan @Tennis Passion @Slasher1985

So I have delved back into the archives and I have some slightly new numbers for the all time weeks:

Graf- 377
Tilden- 376
Renshaw- 365
Laver- 365
Wills- 364
Djokovic- 357 and counting
Navratilova- 332
Court- 325
S. Williams- 319
Gonzales- 318
Lenglen- 312
Federer- 310

Djokovic would pass Wills, Renshaw, and Laver during Miami if he keeps it every week, and would pass Tilden and Graf between RG and Wimbledon

Notes:

Tilden gains 8 weeks in total, my previous numbers had him getting #1 at USO 1920 first, now Wimbledon 1920. I also have him losing #1 for a year from July 9 1923 to July 7 1924, to Bill Johnston, as well as the 1923 YE #1. I then have him keeping #1 until Sep 20 1926, same as my old numbers. Then once more gets #1 from July 7 1930 to July 4 1932, to Ellsworth Vines, where previously I only had him getting back to #1 in July 1931. Both projections have him losing #1 in July 1932. So in total he gets another 8 weeks, loses 1923 YE #1 but gaining 1930 YE #1

Renshaw numbers stay exactly the same, just miscounted the weeks, 365 now from 366.

Laver loses 9 weeks, he gets #1 from Wembley 1964 as in my original data, but keeps it straight until Sep 20 1971, when he loses #1 to Stan Smith. He does not get any weeks in 1972, nor are his 1971 weeks at #1 choppy and here and there as before based on Slasher's numbers. Laver ends up with 365 weeks in total, same as Renshaw, insane

Gonzales the big loser here in my newest edition. From 365 weeks and 7 YE #1 to only 318 weeks and 6 YE #1, lost 47 weeks. I no longer have him getting #1 in 1952 or any weeks in 1953 as Sedgman was too good in that time. Gonzales does not get to #1 until May 31 1954, and loses it on July 4 1960 to Ken Rosewall, not Sep 26 1960 to Rosewall as in my original data. So Rosewall gets another 12 weeks to 220 weeks at #1 overall, while Gonzales loses a hefty amount of weeks

So in conclusion, after further review, Tilden is the real record holder, Laver is still very much up there, and Gonzales falls to near Sampras numbers, and Steffi Graf still after all this still has the record at 377 weeks
Thank you @Johnny Groove

Much, much better :). Djokovic has 2085 points advantage over Medvedev, 2520 over Zverev and 2900 points over Tsitsipas for March 28th (to overcome Laver’s 365).


AO decima would practicaly put him at GOAT pole position (21 slams and more weeks than his main GOAT contender)
 

·
Your visions will happen
Joined
·
58,611 Posts
Sounds good!
I would suggest you also keep your analysis up in some way easy to reference. Either you open a new thread where you put your numbers and reasons like above in the main #1 post. If you improve your understanding, you can update the #1 post itself s latest info is easy to access on top. You can give a link to that thread anywhere you post these numbers on MTF.

If you are interested, I would also suggest you to create your own independent webpage with this info so that it does not become limited to MTF. You can create a free website on Blog Tool, Publishing Platform, and CMS - WordPress or go daddy for example. It’s pretty simple. That will lend it more credence.
Oh I'm gonna write some ebooks about it!

Definitely want my work to stand the eternal test of time
 

·
Your visions will happen
Joined
·
58,611 Posts
Thank you @Johnny Groove

Much, much better :). Djokovic has 2085 points advantage over Medvedev, 2520 over Zverev and 2900 points over Tsitsipas for March 28th (to overcome Laver’s 365).


AO decima would practicaly put him at GOAT pole position (21 slams and more weeks than his main GOAT contender)
I still think he should try to keep it until Wimbledon and get 380 weeks and hold the record with no doubts
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,165 Posts
I still think he should try to keep it until Wimbledon and get 380 weeks and hold the record with no doubts
Personally to me, Laver is the key player he would want to exceed.

Womens tennis is a different ball game, and we know Steffi’s numbers are very clearly asterisked. Even without the asterisk, the game is just too different. In most sports, mens and womens records are not directly comparable.

And Tilden’s records are just way way old. 100 years! The world was very different back then. For example look at the draw of 1921 US Open that he won. Almost every person in the draw is from the States. How can we compare the world today with that one — a slam then was almost like a regional tournament. Similarly look at draw of his 1921 Wimbledon win. Most players in draw are British. Is this comparable to todays Wimbledon? Not at all. Travel in 1920s and today are not comparable. Today the world is a village, it wasn’t then.

I wouldn’t want to compare Djokovic and Tilden. Tilden can be considered Pre-WW2 GOAT and that’s how he gets his respect for his achievements.

Djokovic would be post-WW2 GOAT if he is considered better than Laver/Rosewall. He is already Open Era GOAT.

Separating these GOAT lists for completely different tennis worlds gives both the worlds equal respect.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Apophis and Navdeep

·
Your visions will happen
Joined
·
58,611 Posts
Personally to me, Laver is the key player he would want to exceed.

Womens tennis is a different ball game, and we know Steffi’s numbers are very clearly asterisked. Even without the asterisk, the game is just too different. In most sports, mens and womens records are not directly comparable.

And Tilden’s records are just way way old. 100 years! The world was very different back then. For example look at the draw of 1921 US Open that he won. Almost every person in the draw is from the States. How can we compare the world today with that one — a slam then was almost like a regional tournament. Similarly look at draw of his 1921 Wimbledon win. Most players in draw are British. Is this comparable to todays Wimbledon? Not at all. Travel in 1920s and today are not comparable. Today the world is a village, it wasn’t then.

I wouldn’t want to compare Djokovic and Tilden. Tilden can be considered Pre-WW2 GOAT and that’s how he gets his respect for his achievements.

Djokovic would be post-WW2 GOAT if he is considered better than Laver/Rosewall. He is already Open Era GOAT.

Separating these GOAT lists for completely different tennis worlds gives both the worlds equal respect.
No, I disagree, I don't like separation. It is all tennis

Tilden traveled to play Wimbledon and Roland Garros in his career multiple times, plus they had the Davis Cup back then which was much bigger and more important than today

Wilding the New Zealander played Euro events non stop in his day. So I disagree with discounting Tilden's numbers simply because they are "old". Are Genghis Khan's exploits less valuable today because they are "old"?

That is lazy history. It is not easy to do, but that is why we do it. Not because it is easy, but because it is hard
 
2541 - 2560 of 2763 Posts
Top