Thanks for sharing this .....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:
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.
- 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
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!
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