Talk:World number 1 ranked male tennis players

Non-official rankings post-1978

I’m going to agree with Tennisedu regarding the non-official rankings post 1978, they shouldn’t be listed anymore as they’re trivia for the most part. Alternatively, we can limit it to only one additional consistent ranking source like Tennis Magazine. Other awards and rankings can be very subjective sometimes, ESPY for example went to Fed in 2018 and 2019, L'Équipe never awarded Djokovic their award even once in the 2010s even though he was the player of the decade while Nadal got it 4 times in the same decade, SI made Thiem a season MVP because Djokovic made so many “off-court unforced errors” and then nominated Djokovic for the athlete of the season but not Thiem?? In my opinion, all of those need to be removed from 1978 onward or at least from 1990. Speaking of those sources, I remember they were greyed out by Tennishistory1877 in the draft so why that format was changed into brackets? It was better before. ForzaUV (talk) 18:02, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

Another editor removed the grey text claiming it may be an issue for sight-challenged readers (I had even selected dark grey so it could be read easily). I dont have strong views either way about 1978- non-official sources. Tennishistory1877 (talk) 18:11, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

I think we should include post-1978 sources (in brackets), but they need to be actual rankings per the title. Not "MVP", "sportsman of the year", etc. Current sources which would qualify:

• Tennis Magazine (US/France), World Tennis, Bud Collins, Tommasi.

Current sources which wouldn't qualify:

• L'Équipe Champion of Champions, ESPN MVP, Laureus Sportsman of the year, Gazzetta dello Sport Sportsman of the year, SI MVP.

This would eliminate the trivia issue. Sod25 (talk) 18:30, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

That could work too I guess but I'm still hopeful they can be greyed out, the color Tennishistory used does not cause an accessibility issue. Per WP:MOS you can use this tool https://colororacle.org/ to check if a color could cause a problem, I've downloaded and used it and the grey text is still easily readable. ForzaUV (talk) 18:51, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

Yes I much preferred the grey text. Perhaps you should explain to the other editor about the accessibility issue. I do appreciate the fact text has to be read by people with sight issues (this is important). But as you say the dark grey text is readable, this shouldnt be an issue any longer. Tennishistory1877 (talk) 20:53, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

Don't mind the grey, feel to re-add it if that makes you fine to keep the other rankings I listed. Instead of the brackets, why don't we start or end the line with "*" to indicate the ranking(s) aren't counted, and we need to add a note at the top saying so. Sod25 (talk) 03:46, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

If it is agreed the grey text causes no problems for sight challenged readers, as ForzaUV says, then maybe it should be re-added. But I suggest someone else add it rather than me. I have already added it once. I do not wish to get into an edit war on this issue with an editor I am not communicating with. Tennishistory1877 (talk) 11:05, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

Yes for Sod's suggestions

• Including non-official rankings if necessary but not awards.
• Non-official rankings in grey and with an * at the end indicating they're not counted. ForzaUV (talk) 11:56, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

@ForzaUV, no objections have been raised, I think you can go ahead with this now. Sod25 (talk) 15:14, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

Fine. @ForzaUV, U have added Djokovic as nominee for 2020. Djokovic is one of the last nominees for SI’s PoY based on his performance 2020 (81 career titles, Currently ranked the ATP's No. 1 player, Won his eighth Australian Open and 17th Grand Slam, Reached the FO final, Tennis MVP Runner-up) but not won the award. Added Nadal as he was also the highest rated tennis player of 2020 nominated by L'Equipe for its World champion. However, he finished second. @Sod25...Please verify and confirm for removal if they are unnecessary. We do agree to add winners only as above in the brackets..Krmohan (talk) 18:24, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

Post 1978 and by now, one big source ATP is mechanical ranking based rating and ITF committee's judgement based decision. Recognising these sources as relevant, all other official sources ranking/judgement is made semiofficial or trivia to this page. Annual or Year-end No.1 column is based on ATP and ITF. But in the second column, most of the sources are corroborating ATP or ITF. If any other sources (semiofficial/trivia) either rating based or judgement based not corroborating, they must be listed in the brackets as agreed (grey shade). But let us not try to analyze source's rating or judgement (especially when we are not aware of its criteria). Also not infer/interpret the source based on how many times they rated one player. It is not correct. Our job is to simply list the sources. However, the comments from other editor is as below. a) ESPY...Post 2000, it is considering Jul-Jun performance and it is voted by fans also (similar to ATP fanfavourite award). I do not think Federer's Best Male Tennis Player by ESPY is relevant. b) Tennis Magazine (US) ie rating is based on win-loss, titles, head-to-head, ATP No.1 etc. They mention oncourt and offcourt performance but is based on stats. c) SI Judgement for Tennis MVP and Player of year different. They disclosed why nominees are nominated before PoY declaration. d) Not knowing the criteria for L'EQUIPE champion of champions, do not know why Federer/Nadal rated four times and Djokovic none. For analysis of sources, one has to go its site and ask them. This is not the objective of this page. We should list other annual sources in the brackets, if they are not corroborating ATP's rating or ITF's judgement. It is up to the source whether they consider on/off court performance in its criteria. I completely agree with the structure of the existing page. After all it was done with so much of discussions and deliberations considering Wikipedia policy and guidelines... Krmohan (talk) 04:19, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

As all are aware of, one of the official rankings source, ITF itself, names only World Champion but does not rate or rank players... Krmohan (talk) 17:54, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

It is understood that many a time, we are referring to Tennis Magazine (France) and (U.S.)..How consistent these ranking sources are post 1970 to consider ?? If the both sources aligned and consistent, can we add these to all the years of top ten ranked article..If they are not consistent, why we are considering it for few years only in World no.1 page. Last year, understood that Tennis.com (Tennis Magazine US) ranked top 5 male contenders. Is this ranking based on any calculation/mechanism or judgement based. If anyone is aware of, can u throw some light on this.... Krmohan (talk) 15:58, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

They've published rankings every year, from what I know. The issue is getting access to the old magazines to find the rankings. This was discussed in this section. Sod25 (talk) 03:31, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

@ Sod25.....Thx. Particularly about Tennis Magazine (U.S), Top 5 players may be extracted from its website Tennis.com. I think, it is merit-based ranking, considering No. of titles won, Overall Win-Loss record and Key wins against other top players...Krmohan (talk) 14:37, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

Another type of source/nomination?

Ricardo here, serious question. Talking to Sod25 recently and looking at how I used green colour in my tables, and reading something about #1 during pro era, namely, I've read that in some years during pro era winning certain "World titles" was enough of a reason to nominate players as pro year-end #1, true? If it's true I think my proposal would need to be accepted, and even if this wasn't not true, my proposal would still deserve to be considered. And my proposal is this: Doesn't winning a single ILTF World Championship title (1913-1923) nominate player as #1? It's an official organisation, bestowing World title on a player? As a concept it's similar to how this page already treats those unofficial "world titles" among pros which served as nominations/citations for year-end #1 among pros, only here with the ILTF WC it's among amateurs and very official, so a lot more important. Nominally speaking those majors in 1913-1923 are higher in status (ILTF World Championships) compared to majors 1924-present (ILTF Official Championships) precisely because they're not shying away from "World titles". Slams (1924-present) are merely "Official Championships" and ILTF in 1923 decreed that no event would be world championships. So Sod25, do you agree that their 1923 decision is what probably caused them to wait until 1978 to embrace the idea of awarding World Champion again? You have de facto vs de iure situation here. I think ILTF WC are/were majors just like 1924-present GS titles, not really any better or bigger, but I also think that them nominally being official world championships, they could, and should serve as nominations for year-end #1. It's because only ITF can issue, mention, award or flirt with an idea that someone is a tennis world champion and we have that situation in 1913-1923 and in 1978-present. The green columns in my table designating World Championship led me to consider this idea. Replace the capital X with a dot. https://docdroXid/Lq1D1vk Ricardo 93.143.101.6 (talk) 12:24, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

The more I think about it, the more I'm convinced that, per structure of ILTF in 1913-1923, the winners of WGCC (Wimbledon), WHCC and WCCC in that period, being "ILTF World Champions on grass/clay/woood" are by definition nominated as year-end #1s in those years, with e.g. Wilding being undisputed ILTF World Champion in 1913, having won all 3 of them in that year. I think ILTF 1913-1923 period, with up to 3 world champions per year is structurally very similar to dichotomy within ATP in the 1970s/80s with point system and Player of the Year serving as two different nominations. Do you accept this? Ricardo. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.140.187.52 (talk) 10:50, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

On my part, no. The WHCC/WCCC/WGCC are reasonable proxies for who was the best on clay/wood/grass in a given year, but this page is for the best overall player from each year across all surfaces. Nadal has easily been the best player on clay almost every year since 2005, but hasn't been considered the world number 1 for most of those years. The WCCC also wasn't attended by the top players for most of its history, and thus didn't weigh heavily in the rankings of the contemporary authorities - Gordon Lowe was the 1920 champion, but wasn't placed in Wallis Myers' top ten; William Laurentz was the 1921 Champion, but was not placed in the top ten of any of the five known rankings. I trust the judgement of the experts of that era as to which tournaments were important (generally Wimbledon, the U.S. Championships and the Davis Cup held the most weight). Sod25 (talk) 10:09, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

I get your view, but I find it problematic. This page is supposed to have abandoned attempts of determining true #1 in a given year, it only counts nominations, citations. So we don't care how good or deserving someone was. We only care about possible claims. I would say winning official world championships on any of the surfaces is an automatic nomination. Not because those players were "good", or because they won "big" titles, it's because they won the world champion accolade, bestowed by ILTF.

Think of it, if ITF World Champions from 1978 onwards are nominated for this page, why aren't ILTF World Champions 1913-1923 nominated as well? We don't have to agree with the picks (e.g. Djokovic 2013 World Champion or Lowe 1920 World Champion on covered courts) but we have to recognize ITF's authority. I would say Official World Champion title (there's only one organisation that can award those) outweighs any of the Tingay or Myers rankings. Also 1913-1923 ILTF WC titles probably outweighs even ITF committee award (1978-present) since ILTF WC title in 1913-1923 period was won on court and thus was kinda superior to comittee award (1978-present).

I would strongly vote we adhere to same criteria for all periods. ITF is the ultimate authority in tennis and their picks are legit nominations. We should observe 1924-1977 period as the period during which ILTF remaimed silent. But 1913-1923 and 1978-present, ITF has spoken. During first period (1913-1923) ILTF WC was won on court (similar to ATP points system which also wasn't always ideal) and during second period (1978-present) ITF WC is a committee award (similar to early ATP PotY). What do others think? Essentially if Connors gets 1/2 of ATP claim in 1977 based on ATP points system, why shouldn't Lowe get 1/3 of ILTF's claim in 1920. Both won it on court vs their peers. Generally they're not seen as the true #1 in those years, but they have the legit (co)claims. Ricardo 93.143.105.230 (talk) 23:54, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

The ILTF was not the ultimate authority until 1924. Many countries did not recognize that authority, including the US. The ILTF was going bankrupt with countries leaving. The ILTF tried to force three world championships on the rest of the world. Wimbledon was always bigger and hugely prestigious than the ILTF brand so that was easy. The WHHC they had to start from near scratch so that was more of a challenge... but they did a pretty good job. The WCCC was a dismal failure in crowds and prestige. It was never on the same level of any of the events we talk about here. Fyunck(click) (talk) 07:43, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

That's likely all true, but I wonder if it is relevant at all for this case? Take a counter example, AO was basically irrelevant in the 70s/80s but it was still officially a slam, and we count it as slam today. Are we going to examine tournament by tournanent whether they had sufficient depth? And just because US wasn't part of ILTF until 1924, doesn't mean ILTF wasn't the supreme global tennis organisation with the sole authority of awarding World Champion accolade in that period. Other big countries joined even later. Russia was a founding member of ILTF but was only readmitted as USSR in the 1950s same as China who joined much later than the US. Perhaps the field lacked depth in early era, but the depth of the field and organisational structure is something that is ever expanding and improving. If you start questioning depth or quality of the field you can question Laver's 1962 CYGS or 1973 Wimbledon, or boycotted 1980 and 1984 Olympics etc. We shouldn't go there.

As I pointed out, it's not about any of these tournaments being "big" or "major" or having tough fields or whatever, it's about the fact that winners were officially awarded with the World Championship title and by definition they co-owned the year under the rules of this page. Just take a bizarre situation in 1914. Wilding won ILTF World Championships (on clay) and thus became World Champion (on clay) and this page doesn't recognize it as him being at least nominated for #1, despite that title being by ILTF (whole world officially) yet OTOH James Cecil Parke is co-#1 for 1914 on the account of some P.A.Vaile guy compiling his rankings and placing J.C.Parke as #1? The contrast is quite stark.

Obviously if the consensus is here we stop "determining true #1" and just count nominations, how can being officially World Champion, especially since it's won on court, isn't a nomination in itself? Who cares if e.g. WCCC was a bit second tier in quality or fame, it was still ILTF world championships, just as AO of 70s/80s is a slam. Ricardo 93.140.180.247 (talk) 10:16, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

My proposal is we rightly acknowledge all the WGCC(Wimbledon), WHCC and WCCC winners in the period of 1913-1923 as co-#1s for those years. It would be historically justified and it's all legal. Those majors (with the exception of Wimbledon) are actually lost in history, in slam tables Wilding gets zero mention for his 2 WHCC and 1 WCCC and the only way to somehow translate his success to our modern model (slams and #1 being the most important records) is precisely to acknowledge ILTF world champion as co-#1. The link is obvious. If the world champion isn't the best in the world, or at least co-best, who is? Ricardo 93.140.180.247 (talk) 10:41, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

They weren't named the "world champions", they were named the "world grass/hard/covered court champions" - a critical distinction that nullifies your point. Contemporary authorities that actually attended these matches and saw the players play didn't put WCCC champions in the top ten, nevermind the No. 1 spot. To me that ends the debate. Sod25 (talk) 14:42, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

Your argument is kinda "it isn't liberty, it's freedom". They were world champions on grass/hard/clay and of course there is no undisputed ILTF world champion unless someone won all 3 (which Wilding did in 1913). So in years in which different players won those championships, all of them are co-world champions. So you have multiple ILTF champions in some of the years. The question is, why is that controversial for you? In that era you also had two Olympic gold medalists, namely outdoors (grass or clay) and indoors (wood). It was a standard practice. Many decades later, in ATP era you also had a case of two different players vying for ATP #1 (those who won points system and those who received Player of the Year). If ATP can issue 2 world #1s in the begginigs of ATP before they consolidated their organisation, so can ILTF issue multiple #1s in their own beginnings before they consolidated their organisation. No double standards please.

As for WCCC champions not being ranked in top 10, I am afraid you're missing the point. If a player wins World Championships, he doesn't need to be "ranked by anyone to give credibility to his claim", he is the world champion by the fact he won world championships. He didn't win "mubadala world championships in Doha", he won world championships sanctioned by international tennis federation. You bemoaned the fact that ILTF waited until 1978 to publish their rankings, suggesting ILTF is important, yet here you're easily dismissing players who won ILTF world championships. By doing so you're not bashing those players or WCCC, you're bashing ILTF and their supreme authority. Even if competition was poor, so what? Wimbledon 1973 was boycotted, Olympics 1980 and 1984 were boycotted, piss poor competition, but their status isn't questioned. Saying ILTF world championships was ancient times, or competition was poor, or stuff like that is weird to me. Uruguay won two FIFA world cups, nobody cares it was in piss poor competition in first ever 1930 tournament or that second was won in 1950 in bizarre RR format. They won it 2 times. So anyone who won WGCC-Wimbledon, WHCC and WCCC in 1913-1923 period is officially world champion. Think of it as different boxing belts. Even if it's just one, you're world champion, and if you had won them all (like Wilding in 1913) then you're the undisputed ILTF world champion. But per rules of this page, any ITF world champion counts as nomination/citation for #1. It is the official title, how are you in awe of that? Post 1978 it's a committee award, and in 1913-1923 period players determined it among themselves by playing on 3 different surfaces. Please, can there be a vote on this one? Ricardo 93.140.180.247 (talk) 17:19, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

Btw what does this headline say?

https://trove.nla.gov.au/newspaper/article/57128738?searchTerm=Wilding%20world%20champion — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.140.180.247 (talk) 17:30, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

Because that was the tournament name. Wimbledon Champion, US Champion, World Champion, all mean the same thing back then. We don't put names in the article because we should, we put them in because sources called them the Number 1 player, or the best player of the year. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:36, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

Well I think you couldn't be more wrong. You are basically saying that "ILTF World Championships" is "just a name of the tournament", suggesting it's similar to perhaps 1990s "ATP Tour World Championship" or even worse, that exo in Abu Dhabi "Mubadala World Tennis Championship". Are you serious? I'm not trying to be offensive but if you're unable to see the difference, try again?

I'm saying that's the reason the press reported it that way. Fyunck(click) (talk) 04:18, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

Here's the deal. 1990s ATP Masters was a big title, worth as much as slams in rankings points, but it still wasn't world championships. Only ITF can organize those or bestow such title. And this thing in Abu Dhabi is just an exo. So both of these (and many others over the course of history) used expression such as world championships, but neither was "world championships". Only ITF sanctioned tournaments can be world championships, and only in 1913-1923 we had those.

So let us recapitulate? Apparently for 1953 among the pros, Ken McGregor, nominating his fellow player Gonzales as #1, whom he never saw playing or never played against him, is a valid nomination?? "Gonzales ranked No. 1 pro in October by Ken McGregor.[263]". But OTOH winning world championships in 1920 is not a valid nomination?? And no, world championships is not the name of the tournament. E.g. WHCC in 1912 is such case, but once ILTF was formed they're all official world championships in 1913-1923 period. If we don't accept ILTF world champions in 1913-1923 period achieved on court, why would we accept ITF world champions in the form of committee awards from 1978 onwards? We either accept ITF or we don't. Ricardo 93.140.180.247 (talk) 21:26, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

This article is about the best player from each year. The separate year-end No. 1 and Player of the Year awards bestowed by the ATP were two different explicit measurements of that - one quantitative and the other qualitative - that have since been unified as a single award. The ITF World Champion similarly is explicitly awarded to who the ITF considers the best player at the slams/Davis Cup/Olympics over the year. The ILTF World X Court Champions on the other hand were given those titles based on single events, not their performances over the whole year. The US, the single most important tennis country in the world, also didn't recognize the "World Championships" status of the three events, which is why the terms were abolished as a condition to the US joining the federation in 1924. This source [1], probably the only that discusses the three championships in a substantial way, puts it thus: Tony Wilding won all three events in 1913 and thus would conceivably be the only player to be legitimately entitled to the unadorned term of ‘World Champion’ during the years of 1913-1923 (though the other winners could still be denominated as such with a modifier). The "World Hard (clay) Court Champion" title in my mind is equivalent to the French Open champion nowadays - the best on that surface, but not necessarily the best player overall in the year, which is what this article is about. Sod25 (talk) 04:10, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

You're taking about the substance, I'm talking about legitimacy. For sure in practical terms, WHCC = RG, and perhaps WCCC = YEC. Biggest titles on clay, or indoos. Sure. But that's not the point. It has been agreed here that we do not compare or determine true #1. We count citations and nominations. ILTF World Championships were official and the only possible world championships that can ever exist in tennis. ILTF published no rankings nor they did pick world champion by the committee in 1913-1923. You know that they did in that period? Organized world championships. So if becoming a world champion isn't enough to be nominated as (co-)owner of the year, then I don't know what could be enough? Some journalists or former player compiling a list is enough, but player being crowned a world champion after he wins it is not enough? It's so wrong. Secondly, yes of course the concept of world championships was abolished due to American pressure, and US later joining ILTF and new structure being built, switching to 4 slams (official ILTF championship), which in turn are not world championships. They're just big titles, majors. But the ILTF WC concept being abolished post 1923, doesn't mean it didn't exist in 1913-1923. We have to honour it.

Maybe I'm a sucker for fancy words but when supreme authority in tennis (ILTF) organizes world championships, I find those winners to have claims for owning the year. They were crowned world champions. Wilding was crowned world champion on clay by winning WHCC in 1914 and by doing so he also won biggest title on clay. Nadal won RG in 2014 and he "only" won biggest title on clay, he wasn't crowned world champion. It's a difference. I think you have stop viewing ILTF WC era from present (slam) perspective, as if those ILTF WC championships were mere majors. Not really the case. Nominally, I say nominally, in name, they were bigger than current majors precisely because they were officially world championships. I'm not talking about quality of the field and stuff like that, of course Wimbledon 1912 and Wimbledon 1913 are roughly the same. But winning Wimbledon 1913 meant you were crowned world champion, officially. That means something, it should mean something extra, or if not, this page makes no sense. And finally, if ILTF World Championships meant nothing why did USLTA push for it to be abolished and only then joining the ILTF? Ricardo 78.1.194.168 (talk) 09:55, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

Any organization can claim it has "supreme authority" over a domain, but unless that authority is universally recognized or legally enforceable, the claim is worthless. The most important national tennis federation, the USLTA, which had many of the top players and managed many of the top tournaments, didn't recognize that authority, or any of the titles bestowed by that authority. You claim to be talking about legitimacy, but the legitimacy of the "World Championship" titles was disputed by the USLTA, which claimed that only one world championship existed which deserved that name: the Davis Cup. That is why the Americans pushed for the World Champion titles to be abolished, because they didn't accept those tournaments were World Championships in the first place, and by joining the ILTF they would be endorsing and accepting all its current rules and terms. The "World Championship" title obviously did mean little in practice as otherwise the top players would have attended the WCCC, instead of skipping it entirely as was the reality.

To summarize, your proposal has several fundamental flaws: 1) The "World Grass/Hard/Covered Court Champion" titles weren't recognized by one of the major tennis powers; 2) The best players didn't even attend one of the three tournaments (WCCC) for much of its history, and the WCCC didn't factor much into the rankings of the contemporary experts; and 3) Even if the "World X Champion" titles had been universally recognized/considered legitimate, they were surface specific and thus not a proxy for overall World Champion unless a player won all 3 of them, as Wilding did in 1913. Any of these is enough in my opinion to discard the proposal.

I've said my piece on this matter now; if you don't accept my arguments, feel free to put it to a vote, but I doubt you'll get the outcome you seek. Sod25 (talk) 15:46, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for you kind reply, how do I put it to a vote here? Anyway, here is short reply to your 3 counts.

1) ILTF WC and ILTF as a whole weren't recognised by major tennis power? But it's just USA, just one nation, other major nations of the era were part of the ILTF. Britain, France, Germany, Russia, Australia..etc. And you do realize that US was a major tennis power only "unofficially", once ILTF was formed? When official global era began (even this page uses 1913 as a cut-off), and they stayed out of it, from that point on, they were kinda like Indian Wells or Miami, touted as "fifth grand slam". They were still big, but they had no official status. Being major (power) unofficially counts for something, but it's a big thing until ILTF was formed, until 1913, but once ILTF was formed and the world organized itself, and US opted to stay out, they excluded themselves. Had they stayed out for too long, they would have lost even more importance. They knew it, that's why they joined in 1923. If ILTF label was so irrelvant, USLTA would not have demanded they be given official championships by ILTF status for themselves.

2) WCCC temporarily lacking great fields or depth is an objective reality, but please consider the world war 1. Nevetheless, out of 6 WCCC editions, 3 were won by true all-time greats (Wilding and Cochet), and 2 were won by Australasian and Olympics champions (Lowe and Gobert) which is very respectable, and just 1 edition was won by a player without future grand slam or olympics titles, but even that guy (Laurentz) won multiple ILTF WC, winning on clay and wood. So WCCC honour role is higly respectable, much more so than AO in the late 1970s, early 1980s. We do still say Kriek or Teacher are grand slam champions, we do not question the depth of field, right? In the same vein, let's recognize and respect ILTF World Champions. Anyway, you seem to constantly going back questioning the field, which I already exolained is irrelvant. We are not calculating highest elo, or debating "best at peak" here, we are counting nominations for best players in the world. Being crowned a world champion, means you're the best in the world. It's the case in all sports. Tennis in 1913-1923 with those world championships operated under the premise that 1 world championship would deciede who is the best on a given surface. In a way, if grand slams 1924-present are "majors", then world championships 1913-1923 are "supermajors" because they're not merely big titles, but they were also world crowns. Officially.

3) Yes, there were 3 world championships on 3 surfaces, so I don't understand what is bothering you here? They had noble idea back then of treating equally all major surfaces, we can only compliment them for that- You win on 1 surface, you're world champion on that surface. Haven't they given outdoor and indoor olympics medal in that era as well? And what about boxing? World champion per (you name the organisation) and how many belts are there? The guy who wins them all, is the undisputed, but even 1 belt is enough to co-claim world champion, at least on your surface. So how is vote done? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.1.194.168 (talk) 17:33, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

I appreciate your passion for this issue. I only have so much time, so will not rebut your rebuttals, but my position has not changed. If you insist on a vote, you can start one using a similar format as I did with my proposals earlier, i.e. ask a specific question and then have "Survey" and "Discussion" subsections below for people to vote on/discuss the proposal. Sod25 (talk) 18:15, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

I think I need to learn a bit more and formulate my question better before I start a poll. However Sod25, as it's been visible in my tables which you complimented, I used CYMK colour to outline ie emphasize official status of various events. You correct me if I'm a wrong and I'd like to hear your opinion without any desire to argue, but from my understanding we have/had these types of events. 1. Those I portyaed as grey titled, which means just any kind of event, of course in in my tables I presented only selected tournaments. But grey means they're the least important of these big events that deserve to be in the tables. Clearly, early Aus Championships or ATP Finals should be grey titled, those events weren't majors, weren't official so they're lowest tier. 2. Blue titled events, ie blue chip events, events that people saw as important or big or events that strived to be seen as important. In the begining obviously Wimbledon is one of those being self-proclaimed world championships, US, Irish, Northern etc. 3. Begging of official era, green titled events, those with ILTF label of world championships. So Wimbledon jumped from "blue" (major unofficial) to "green" (ILTF WC official). US remained blue titled in that period so clearly Official prestige of Wimbledon was greater. It had the official label which US lacked. In 1923 ILTF was reorganized and the concept of ILTF World Championships was de-emphasized. A new top tier structure was created (4 ILTF Official Championships) or grand slam tournaments as we know them today, which I labeled as "yellow" titled. Those events didn't claim they were World Championships anymore, thus their prestige "nominally" was less than that of ILTF WC or those "green" events. Overall I'm using bright colours (CYM and green) to mark official events and awards such ILTF WC and GS, ATP rankings and PotY and I've used shaded colours (blue and purple) to denote unofficial majors such as early amatuer majors before creation of ILTF and pro majors during pro era. If you need the link I can post it again.

So what I'm asking, I'd say if grey titled events are worth "1", then unofficial amatuer majors, blue titled are worth "2", ILTF WC are worth "4" and ILTF Grand Slams are worth 3, being de-emphasized in concept. You have to rate ILTF WC nominally as the highest profile events we've ever had in tennis history. They were everything at once. Major events, official ILTF events, and they were awarding World Champion title.

I also feel there is a degree of historical accuracy, balance and justice if you will, in recognizing the "world champion" aspect of these events in nominations for #1. These ILTF WC events were majors, first tier 1 global events and are completely (except Wimbledon-WGCC) forgotten today. We can't mix them with grand slam but we can recognize their "world championship aspect thus co-nominating their winners for #1. During pro era you have bunch of various lists, e.g. in 1953 you have 7 different #1s in amatuers and pros and you feel it's too much if we recognize that official ILTF world champion might have a claim to being the best in year? I don't thinks it's too much, I think they deserve it. For the same reason (even though it's another topic) I'm arguing all-time count of year-end #1. Gonzales is nearly completely absent from GS history, and literally the only thing that matters in tennis are GS and #1. By recognizing his achievements and multiple year-end #1 claims we're balancing out historical perspective. It doesn't matter his #1 stats are inflated, it's inflated to same extent that his GS record is deflated so it all evens itself out. He's not goat anyway because he never won big on clay, but his true measure is this: "2 GS titles and 12 years at #1”.

Here, remind yourself of my usage of colours. Replace the capital X with a dot. https://docdroXid/Lq1D1vk 78.3.60.231 (talk) 12:19, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

Just to let you know where I am with this proposal, Ricardo. I am against it. This sort of assigning ranking based on status of event is the sort of thing that is only needed if there are rankings gaps. We now have rankings for every year. Also, I dont agree with the tiers or the tournaments assigned to these tiers. Tennishistory1877 (talk) 12:59, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

It's ok you said your opinion. But remember, I'm not saying we should have a number 1 at all costs. For example as noted in our discussion about 1903, L.Doherty is virtually undisputed world #1 and first global dominator by being the first person ever to have won Wim/US/DC in a single year. However, he's not listed as #1 because we have no nominations. Fine. So all the big titles be won, don't help his case. We need nominations. But 1913-1923 period was different, ILTF World Championships were not merely big titles, they were nominally most prestigious events in tennis history. I say nominally. In reality they were simply majors and WCCC was probably weaker, kinda like AO during 70s. However we can't choose to ignore their official status. Being crowned world champion in official capacity is important. Should be important. I mean if ILTF World Champions 1913-1923 aren't co-#1, why are ITF World Champions 1978-present co-#1? Why do we treat ITF 1978-present with utmost respect and treat ITF 1913-1923 as if it's Mubadala exo? I am trying to understand. Ricardo 78.3.60.231 (talk) 14:38, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

The modern ITF World Champion title is explicitly awarded to the who the ITF views as the best player each year (the topic of this article). Unless you can find strong sourcing saying that the WGCC/WCCC/WHCC champions were the best players of the year by virtue of winning those titles alone, then counting those titles victories as No. 1 nominations would be WP:OR, to once again ground things in policy. If there are no sources that do this, then I'm afraid there will be no "justice" on this issue, as Wikipedia is not here to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS.

As for the tier system you outlined above (grey titled events are worth "1", then unofficial amat[eu]r majors, blue titled are worth "2", ILTF WC are worth "4" and ILTF Grand Slams are worth 3), honestly, I disagree with not only your categorization of the tournaments and assigned values for each tier, but the premise of it being possible to apply such a basic system to the complexity of tennis history and produce numbers of any validity. Likewise for the 1 "pro major" (a post hoc invention) = 1 Grand Slam = 1 ILTF World Championship system used at All-time tennis records – men's singles#Overall Majors that you raised earlier. But this is off-topic for this talk page, and further feedback on your tables is best asked for on a forum per WP:NOTFORUM. Sod25 (talk) 18:14, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

I made a mistake, I expressed myself in a bad way, I wasn't promoting "tier system" to asign values to various events. I am not counting majors. What I meant to say was this. I was trying to describe and label historical/evolutionary steps in developments of tennis majors. You tell me if it's wrong, but that's the kind of chart I have in my head based on reading on tennis history.

Level 1.0 - random tournament (such as Aus until 1924, no official status, no huge prestige but is retroactively appreciated now)

Level 2.0 - unofficial majors (Wim from start until 1913, US from start until 1924, also Irish, Northern)

Level 3.0 - official world championships by ILTF (ILTF WC 1913-1923 era)

With USLTA joining ILTF in 1923 and WC being disbanded and ILTF Official (Grand Slam) Championships being created instead, we ask ourself what kind of level is that? These 1924-present majors are also ILTF championships, but unlike those in 1913-1923, they're not world titles. They're kinda nominally de-emphasized. So I would say.

Level 2.5 - official championships by ILTF (Grand Slam era)

The difference between level 3.0 and 2.5 (official world title vs official title) is the difference that serves as nomination for year-end #1, In my oppinion. Winning ILTF WC wasn't just a major, it's being crowned world champion, and any world champion in any sports can claim ownage of the year. Overall I think we should respect ITF. They cracked under US pressure and disbanded ILTF WC, they gave up on any of the tournaments being world championships etc, and it's fine. We have had almost 100 years of this era. But for the period 1913-1923 we had different kind of structure, we had world titles, and it's revisionism if we nowadays pretend that there was no world championships. There was. And just think of this. If that label (honour) was meaningles, why did USLTA demand it to be abolished before they joined ILTF? Ricardo 78.3.59.66 (talk) 08:07, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

Disagree with your "levels", and have fully expressed my opinions on your idea on both a policy and argument basis. Fyunck(click) and Tennishistory1877 have also expressed disagreement with it. If that's not enough for you, start a poll. Sod25 (talk) 08:43, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

I think the levels made by Ricardo are interesting, but we could not include them here because they aren't official and there are limitless other systems we could invent to determine who was number one. Letcord (talk) 15:22, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

Repetitiousness

Hi, this article is a great resource and obviously very well researched with nearly 600 references, but I was wondering why there is so much repetition in the text of the different rankings? For example in 1938 the text "Budge ranked No. 1 amateur" is repeated 12 times...

• A)

1938

Ellsworth Vines (USA)

Don Budge (USA)

Rankings: Budge ranked No. 1 amateur by Bowers. Budge ranked No. 1 amateur by A. Wallis Myers of The Daily Telegraph, with Austin No. 2. Budge ranked No. 1 amateur by Pierre Gillou, with Bromwich No. 2. Budge ranked No. 1 amateur by Ned Potter. Budge ranked No. 1 amateur by Pierre Goldschmidt, L'Auto, with Bromwich No. 2. Budge ranked No. 1 amateur by The Times (London), with Bromwich No. 2. Budge ranked No. 1 amateur by F. Gordon Lowe of The Scotsman, with Bromwich No. 2. Budge ranked No. 1 amateur by Dr. G. H. McElhone of The Sydney Morning Herald, with Bromwich No. 2. Budge ranked No. 1 amateur by "International" of The Referee. Budge ranked No. 1 amateur by Mervyn Weston, Daily Telegraph (Sydney). Budge ranked No. 1 amateur by Jack Crawford, with Bromwich No. 2. Budge ranked No. 1 amateur by Alfred Chave, The Telegraph (Brisbane). Vines ranked No. 1 pro by Bowers. Year summary: Budge became the first amateur player to win all four of the Grand Slam tournaments; in the pros, in the World Professional Championship tour Vines defeated Perry 49–35; Vines still didn't enter any tournament as probably in 1936 and surely in 1937.

I was thinking it could look so much cleaner if nested bullet points were used instead, like so...

• B)

1938

Ellsworth Vines (USA)

Don Budge (USA)

Rankings: Budge ranked No. 1 amateur by: Bowers. A. Wallis Myers of The Daily Telegraph, with Austin No. 2. Pierre Gillou, with Bromwich No. 2. Ned Potter. Pierre Goldschmidt, L'Auto, with Bromwich No. 2. The Times (London), with Bromwich No. 2. F. Gordon Lowe of The Scotsman, with Bromwich No. 2. Dr. G. H. McElhone of The Sydney Morning Herald, with Bromwich No. 2. "International" of The Referee. Mervyn Weston, Daily Telegraph (Sydney). Jack Crawford, with Bromwich No. 2. Alfred Chave, The Telegraph (Brisbane). Vines ranked No. 1 pro by: Bowers. Year summary: Budge became the first amateur player to win all four of the Grand Slam tournaments; in the pros, in the World Professional Championship tour Vines defeated Perry 49–35; Vines still didn't enter any tournament as probably in 1936 and surely in 1937.

The other thing was that the years in most of the 20th century have many many rankings that take up so much vertical space in contrast with recent years that the article feels aesthetically imbalanced. Maybe the rankings for each player and tour [professional, amateur, or combined] combination could be condensed to a single bullet point, like this,,,

• C)

1938

Ellsworth Vines (USA)

Don Budge (USA)

Rankings: Budge ranked No. 1 amateur by: Bowers; A. Wallis Myers of The Daily Telegraph, with Austin No. 2; Pierre Gillou, with Bromwich No. 2; Ned Potter; Pierre Goldschmidt, L'Auto, with Bromwich No. 2; The Times (London), with Bromwich No. 2; F. Gordon Lowe of The Scotsman, with Bromwich No. 2; Dr. G. H. McElhone of The Sydney Morning Herald, with Bromwich No. 2; "International" of The Referee; Mervyn Weston, Daily Telegraph (Sydney); Jack Crawford, with Bromwich No. 2; Alfred Chave, The Telegraph (Brisbane). Vines ranked No. 1 pro by: Bowers. Year summary: Budge became the first amateur player to win all four of the Grand Slam tournaments; in the pros, in the World Professional Championship tour Vines defeated Perry 49–35; Vines still didn't enter any tournament as probably in 1936 and surely in 1937.

Either of those two formats would be a great improvement in my view. Letcord (talk) 02:28, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

Gotta say you are correct. Your first example is better than what we have now, and your second compact version is even better still. Fyunck(click) (talk) 10:21, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

I like the first example you listed, Letcord. The second example bunches all the sources in together, which I strongly dislike for sources pre-mid 1970s. Before 1973 each source was of equal individual weight and should be listed on a separate line (also when scrolling through the page it isn't apparent at first glance how many sources there are for each player in each year when bunched together). So I would be in favour of a change to the first example you listed. Tennishistory1877 (talk) 11:13, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

I see what you're saying in terms of treating all the different sources equally (though in practice I'm sure the views of The Daily Telegraph or L'Auto would have been given more weight than a regional newspaper). My first alternative takes up even more space than what's there now. Maybe the sources and results could be split, like so...

• D)

Year	No. 1 professional	No. 1 amateur	Sources of ranking	Tournament results summary
1938	Ellsworth Vines (USA)	Don Budge (USA)	Budge ranked No. 1 amateur by: Bowers. A. Wallis Myers of The Daily Telegraph, with Austin No. 2. Pierre Gillou, with Bromwich No. 2. Ned Potter. Pierre Goldschmidt, L'Auto, with Bromwich No. 2. The Times (London), with Bromwich No. 2. F. Gordon Lowe of The Scotsman, with Bromwich No. 2. Dr. G. H. McElhone of The Sydney Morning Herald, with Bromwich No. 2. "International" of The Referee. Mervyn Weston, Daily Telegraph (Sydney). Jack Crawford, with Bromwich No. 2. Alfred Chave, The Telegraph (Brisbane). Vines ranked No. 1 pro by: Bowers.	Budge became the first amateur player to win all four of the Grand Slam tournaments; in the pros, in the World Professional Championship tour Vines defeated Perry 49–35; Vines still didn't enter any tournament as probably in 1936 and surely in 1937.

This option would make things more compact while still keeping the sources listed nicely. Letcord (talk) 15:00, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

Yes I like that, Letcord. Also, another thing that would save space would be to remove all the information on the number two (or below) rankings. There are already pages containing top 10 rankings which cover a lot of rankings listed on this page anyway. This page is World number 1 ranked male tennis players and should be a listing of number one rankings only in my view. I would even be in favour of removing the Year summary (which you call Tournament results summary) column entirely, though its possible other editors may wish to keep this. Tennishistory1877 (talk) 16:05, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

Removing the summaries would be throwing the baby out with the bathwater I think. The number 2 and 3 rankings add some context about who was in the running in years of close competition for the top spot, so I'm not sure I'd remove them either. I've tried splitting the rankings and results into separate columns on the article to see how it looks. I'll try the bullet points next. Letcord (talk) 17:43, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

The number 2 rankings are only listed because the page used to have a number 2 ranking column. Particularly with the recent addition of the top 10 ranking pages, which include all the longer rankings on this page, there is no need to list number 2 rankings on this page anymore. Tennishistory1877 (talk) 17:59, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

Actually there is nothing to indicate to readers that one source is better than another, and the order they are placed in means zero to my eyes. It's simply a non-alphabetical list. It is much better and takes up far less room to bunch them in sentence format as option C has. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:12, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

Tennishistory1877's objection to the bunching up is that you can't tell at a glance when scrolling how many sources each player has. I've finished the bullet points now for 1913 to 1975, 1975 being the year when non-official rankings start to be bunched up by player in the pre-existing format so I haven't altered the rankings beyond then. Please review the changes. Letcord (talk) 19:48, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

Actually, it does not matter how many rankings a player has, because the rankings are of indeterminate value, and we cannot add them up into totals.Tennisedu (talk) 05:41, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

This format (option D let's call it then), reduces the length of the article by about 16%, and cuts out all the repetition while still being easy to digest. Letcord (talk) 20:06, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

The revisions you have made to this page should be agreed by all the editors involved in the mass reconstruction of this page, which was done recently. Although I wouldn't be against what you have done here, Letcord, I am also happy with the page the way it was. I would remove number 2 rankings because this was something that was needed before the top 10 ranking pages existed, but is not necessary any longer (and would save on space). Also, please bear in mind when bunching rankings together that there were amateur rankings, pro rankings and combined rankings. Some you have listed inconsistently. My preference is to list player A's name and all rankings and if a combined ranking is used to write combined in brackets, then Player B's name, all rankings for that player etc. Tennishistory1877 (talk) 20:59, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

I'm not sure what mass reconstruction you're referring to, or which editors were involved in that that would need to be contacted. The page as of this revision is option D of my proposal, with the bullet points being the same as they would be in option B. I didn't intend for this revision to be permanent necessarily, I just wanted to make the changes in full so they could be seen in full. The page can be reverted back to the old version until there is agreement if you want, I don't mind. Which rankings have are bunched together inconsistently? I was careful to keep the amateur, professional and overall rankings separate according to the text that was there. The only quandary was when 2 or more players were ranked number 1 by the same source. I decided to list these rankings separately rather than duplicate the ranking for each player, but they can be duplicated if that is preferred. Your system of listing all of a player's rankings, be they professional, amateur or overall, under their name is different to my proposal proposed, but it's a fair alternative. Letcord (talk) 21:30, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

The mass reconstruction was a few months ago. This has been quite a contentious page in the past. I appreciate your approach, posting here and saying that the changes need only be temporary. I dislike a double listing of a player both on a pro (or amateur) ranking and combined ranking. This makes the page look more messy and more difficult to follow. Brackets and the word combined would suffice (after all a pro number one in a combined list is pro number one). Also, the joint no. 1 rankings should be listed in each player's list. There should be no need to list a player's name twice in one year. Tennishistory1877 (talk) 21:56, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

I see you have put these ideas into practice. I was skeptical but can see now that it makes things less cluttered. I have also tested the removal of No. 2 rankings when the No. 1 is unanimous (only for before 1975 for now, and not including combined rankings). Why are there no names in 1945 when there are rankings listed? Letcord (talk) 17:53, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

Just a small point about the value of the rankings before 1974. It is not that they are all of "equal value", because if that were the case, we could add them up into a total for each player. The point is that they are all of "indeterminate value", which means that we cannot add them up into totals, and having several No. 1 rankings for one player means nothing more than having a single No. 1 ranking for a player. So the emphasis on numbers of rankings is without significance.Tennisedu (talk) 05:38, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

That is a fair point. Letcord (talk) 17:53, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

For 1945, we concluded that there was insufficient play to make a ranking, although rankings did exist on the basis of limited fields.Tennisedu (talk) 18:28, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

The new format has been trialed and refined for a few days now (thanks to Tennishistory1877 for assisting). Is it safe to say that the changes have been accepted, or do other editors need to be contacted? Letcord (talk) 00:34, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

I feel it is much worse this way than it stood on January 1, 2022. But there are several things about this article that have changed for the worse in the last year or so, so it really doesn't matter anymore. Fyunck(click) (talk) 09:01, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

Any specific criticisms? As I said I'm only trialing what I thought would be a better solution, so if people don't like it it can be reverted right back. Letcord (talk) 09:32, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

I feel this page has vastly improved in the past year, with a huge number of new rankings added (the page changes were very much a group effort, all advertised on the tennis project page and agreed by consensus on talk pages). Tennishistory1877 (talk) 21:45, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

Usually in a "trial change" it would be done in your sandbox, not on the main article. Then people could comment and tweaks could be made so the finished item would truly be a group effort. The way you did it is not. Then you would replace the old version with the new version. The extra column and width is much worse on my laptop and phone for viewing and un-needed imho. I just want to make sure I went on record that it is not unanimous, and these changes to the tables is worse. Your version C was the best I saw but I guess you were swayed away from that. Also it was reverted once already but you reverted it right back so I guess that ship already sailed. Good luck. Fyunck(click) (talk) 22:15, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

I've changed the article to trial a modified version of option B which I think looks better. No one has objected so I take it that there is unanimous consent for that version. Good luck. Letcord (talk) 23:59, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

Category:World No. 1 tennis players

This category is missing many of the players listed in the No. 1 columns in this article before the official ATP rankings began in 1973, e.g. Anthony Wilding, but has others, e.g. René Lacoste. I see two options: either all players in the number 1 columns are added to it, or all players ranked No. 1 before the ATP rankings began are removed from it. Which is preferred? Letcord (talk) 12:26, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

I've now created Category:World number 1 ranked male tennis players which contains every player with a nomination in this article, with the players who have been ATP No. 1s put in the newly-created child category Category:ATP number 1 ranked singles tennis players. Same has been done for the women. Letcord (talk) 15:45, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

Kramer rankings

I noticed that three sources (LA Times, Chino Champion, Bleacher Report) were added for Jack Kramer for the years 1948-1953 [2]. Each of the three say that Kramer was "considered the No. 1 player" in those years, with almost identical wording, indicating that they all pulled that info from a common original source (which would preferably be what we cite here), or copied from each other. The use of "considered" also raises an obvious question - considered by whom? This article should list *specifically* who ranked each player No. 1 each year. Accordingly, I've removed the Bleacher Report and Chino Champion sources (the first openly claims to have taken material from the LA Times, and the second only mentions the ranking in passing), so that only one source uses "considered" for Kramer for those years, and added citations for Ray Bowers and Peter Underwood, who say Kramer was indisputably the world's best player in that period. Letcord (talk) 16:00, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

I was reluctant to remove the Peter Underwood source in the first place. Kramer is widely regarded as the best or top pro player etc. from 1948-1953. I am interested in reflecting that in this article using the best sources available. I only use modern sources when contemporary ones are not available. Tennishistory1877 (talk) 18:05, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

We are not supposed to recycle references in this fashion. Chronologically, the L.A. Times report is from 2009, Bowers from 2010, and Underwood from 2019. It appears that the L.A. Times is the source for the later two reports. We really do not have three citations here, just ONE. And recycling the word "considered", which is not a ranking term, confirms that these three references are related, and only really just ONE source, the L.A. Times, which Bowers and Underwood would certainly have read and borrowed from.Tennisedu (talk) 20:36, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

The three sources are entirely different. Please stop talking nonsense. And as I have said numerous times before, only the LA Times reference uses the word considered. Tennishistory1877 (talk) 20:56, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

The L.A. Times was the earliest of the three references and provided the basis from which the other two borrowed. But I get your main point, we have no good rankings for this period so we are desperate enough to use this recent vague material. I am not sure that this is a good excuse, but at least it's an excuse.Tennisedu (talk) 02:13, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

Tennisedu, I wrote indicating [the LA Times, Chino Champion and Bleacher Report] all pulled that info from a common original source above because all three articles use "considered" and are written by general sports writers, not expert tennis writers. The Bleacher Report explicitly references the LA Times, and the Chino Champion is a small local newspaper that mentioned the No. 1 ranking as a side note in an article about Kramer's son, so is likely to have sourced that info from another newspaper, like the LA Times (which is in the same region). That's why I am in favor of only keeping the LA Times source of the three.

Bowers and Underwood on the other hand are a completely different story. Bowers writes of Kramer that that he was the world's best throughout that period, pro or amateur, is beyond question - no "considered" in there as it's his own expert opinion. I don't have access to Underwood but Tennishistory1877 said he doesn't use "considered" either (a full quote would be nice), so Underwood is giving his own opinion as well. Your statement that The L.A. Times ... provided the basis from which the other two borrowed is therefore both unevidenced and illogical - why would two expert tennis writers rely on a non-expert for judgement of the best player? It's far more likely that the LA Times writer asked an expert like Bowers for info about Kramer's career when writing his obituary, although we don't have evidence of that either. Letcord (talk) 04:33, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

Tennisedu is completely illogical, as usual. Bowers and Underwood merely confirm a widely held view and have no link to the LA Times article. Also, tennisedu makes it sound as if the Kramer rankings are the only modern rankings used on this page. For 1964 all of Laver's number one rankings are based on modern citations (and counter the many contemporary citations for Rosewall this year). There are the Hall of Fame rankings used throughout the pre-open era also. Tennishistory1877 (talk) 09:38, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

If the L.A. Times report was not written by a tennis expert but only by a general sports editor, it is not eligible for inclusion in this article. We have already excluded a ranking for 1962 because it was composed of inputs by sports editors and not by expert tennis writers. Any ranking sourced with sports writers or editors rather than tennis experts is not permissible in this article. The same applies to Chino Champion and Bleacher Report.Tennisedu (talk) 17:48, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

The year 1964 highlights the problems with using recent rankings, because they often conflict with the contemporary rankings from the period itself and reflect a strong recency bias. Rosewall has the edge in the contemporary rankings, while Laver has a strong edge in the more recent rankings, reflecting Laver's dominant success in later years. Likewise, the haze of passing years has obscured some of Kramer's record, and his legend may be over-reflected in the recent rankings. A reexamination shows that Kramer's tournament record does not match the success of his marathon world tours, where his style of play, consistency and pacing made him an almost unbeatable player. In the major pro tournaments, his results are below the level of the tours, and that is reflected in the contemporary rankings.Tennisedu (talk) 22:00, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

The only contemporary pro rankings from 1948 to 1952 were USPLTA and PTPA rankings, which took into account US tournaments only. His performances at the Philadelphia tournament would not be enough for Kramer to be ranked no. 1 on US tournament play in the early 1950s! In addition to Philadelphia, Kramer also lost a match at the US Pro in 1950 to Segura and pulled out of the 1951 Forest Hills US Pro at the round robin stage due to injury. And there were very few US tournaments in that era. Tennishistory1877 (talk) 23:50, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

The L.A. Times report is not eligible for inclusion on this page, it is not from a tennis writer but from a general writer.Tennisedu (talk) 20:59, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

The LA Times source (which was written in an obituary of Kramer in a major newspaper) is better than others listed on this page. I vote to keep it. Your bias on this issue has been thoroughly exposed once again, trying every desperate argument you can. Tennishistory1877 (talk) 21:14, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

No, I am simply pointing out your extreme bias, for you insisting on removing another ranking because it was not from a tennis writer specialist. The same rules must apply to every page. We do not accept POV editing of your type here.Tennisedu (talk) 00:22, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

The LA Times writer is not giving his own opinion, but stating that Kramer was considered by others at the time to be world No. 1. Letcord (talk) 00:36, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

No, he does not cite any other opinion. He is giving his own opinion about who was generally "considered", not ranked. That is a subjective opinion which requires a tennis expert to state.Tennisedu (talk) 01:22, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

There's no evidence he was giving his own opinion. Journalists don't have spontaneous knowledge about the topics they write about, so they have to source their info externally (obviously). The LA Times is a WP:RS so does not have to give attribution to the sources it uses to be cited on Wikipedia. Letcord (talk) 02:09, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

Tennisedu, I did not insist on "removing another ranking" on this page. There was a consensus of editors including myself that insisted on removing it and you have deliberately misrepresented the debate that occurred regarding it. Please stop demeaning yourself. Tennishistory1877 (talk) 07:30, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

First of all, that other item was also a wire press report, so if that is exempt from the rules of sourcing, it should have been included in this page. Note this from your reference: "News sources often contain both factual content and opinion content. News reporting from well-established news outlets is generally considered to be reliable for statements of fact (though even the most reputable reporting sometimes contains errors). News reporting from less-established outlets is generally considered less reliable for statements of fact. Most newspapers also reprint items from news agencies such as Reuters, Interfax, Agence France-Presse, United Press International or the Associated Press, which are responsible for accuracy. The agency should be cited in addition to the newspaper that reprinted it." This was a UPI source. Secondly, Tennisedy1877, there was no consensus on that other item, just a disagreement as to its status as a ranking. The argument against it was that the sports editors were not tennis writers. Or have you forgotten the discussion?Tennisedu (talk) 12:57, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

UPI poll

It appears that the 1962 UPI should be acknowledged as a legitimate ranking, according to the Wikipedia rules on sources mentioned above. Whether or not we happen to agree with the ranking is not an issue here. Many would not agree to Kramer as No. 1 for 1952 based on the results of that year, but we are including Kramer for No. 1 for 1952 based on acceptable sources. The same must apply to 1962. Unless someone offers a reasonable objection, I will add the 1962 UPI ranking to this page. The previous objection raised as to the source of the ranking has apparently been resolved.Tennisedu (talk) 02:18, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

@Tennisedu where is the previous objection discussion before you add back anything? Letcord (talk) 02:37, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

It was, I think, on the Annual World No. 1 page, but also I believe on the Lew Hoad page. Those discussions on the No. 1 Talk page and the Hoad Talk page have apparently been cleaned up of the old discussions on both articles. The major objection to the 1962 ranking was that the UPI poll was made by sports editors and not tennis writers. But as you correctly have pointed out, the UPI source is legitimate and the ranking should now be restored to the rankings page.Tennisedu (talk) 03:19, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

I have pointed out no such thing, please don't put words in my mouth. I found the edit that removed the UPI poll you speak of [3], which points to this discussion where the objection seems to be mainly on methodological grounds, not because it was a ranking by sports editors.

Even so, the LA Times writer isn't giving his opinion on who was No. 1, he is stating who was considered at the time to be No. 1 (Dwyre was 4 years old in 1948, so obviously not by him). That's very different to a poll of general sports editors giving their opinions, even if the methodological objections didn't exist. Letcord (talk) 03:39, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

Okay, I see the discussion, it is on the Talk page of the Top Ten article. Here is part of what I stated there, " But you are right that we do not know the details of the 1962 UPI ranking, but then, we do not know the details of the USPLTA ranking, either, who made those USPLTA lists, what was the system of ranking? We can only guess, as with the UPI. Those do not provide grounds for judgment. The idea that sports editors of newspapers were not aware of tennis results is a preposterous suggestion, they reviewed tennis articles regularly." The general sports editors had to choose from the UPI sports news wire which items to print in their respective newspapers, so they were exposed to all the reports of the pro tour. There are many ranking lists which use unusual methodologies, so this is not unusual. Here is a similar methodology used in another ranking list, "Early in 1986 Inside Tennis, a magazine published in Northern California, devoted parts of four issues to a lengthy article called "Tournament of the Century", an imaginary tournament to determine the greatest of all time. They asked 37 tennis notables such as Kramer, Budge, Perry, and Riggs and observers such as Bud Collins[c] to list the ten greatest players in order. Twenty-five players in all were named by the 37 experts in their lists of the ten best. The magazine then ranked them in descending order by total number of points assigned. The top eight players in overall points, with their number of first-place votes, were: Rod Laver (9), John McEnroe (3), Don Budge (4), Jack Kramer (5), Björn Borg (6), Pancho Gonzales (1), Bill Tilden (6), and Lew Hoad (1). Gonzales was ranked the sixth-best player, with only Allen Fox casting a vote for him as the greatest of all time." Actually, I think that the UPI 1962 ranking uses a better methodology than this 1986 ranking. The strange thing about that 1962 ranking is that Rosewall was excluded from the top five names by so many editors. Presumably Laver and Emerson got some good mention, also Segura was mentioned. It would be nice if we could see the actual results.Tennisedu (talk) 04:04, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

If that 1986 ranking were in this article, then it would be relevant to bring up. No points were assigned in the UPI poll if I understand it correctly, which makes it fundamentally different (inferior) to the 1986 ranking methodology-wise regardless. The current consensus is to leave the 1962 UPI poll out, and I see no reason why that should change. Letcord (talk) 04:37, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

Well, I am not sure how bad that methodology was. Here are some other results from that same poll. "A poll of sports editors of the nation's 85 leading newspapers has come up with these "tops". Top all-time pro football team: the 1940 Chicago Bears; Top tennis player of 1962 professional: Lew Hoad ; Top pro team of 1962: football's Green Bay Packers; Top pro athlete of 1962: baseball's Maury Wills." Now the methodology for these polls (percentage of mentions in a five name set) did not seem bad at the time, these other results were, I think, cited many times in other publications, and they seem very reasonable. Note that the tennis poll is strictly for professional tennis players. The poll was taken immediately after the January 1963 Australian Tour, where Laver started slowly but soon was beating Rosewall in five-set matches, the final match in Adelaide a three-set one-sided win for Laver, the only shellacking in the Australian series. So if that is how they judged Laver's ability as a pro, you could see this result in the poll taken right after Rosewall had some difficulty.Tennisedu (talk) 01:56, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

On further thought, I think that we have understood the methodology of the 1962 ranking wrong. I do not think that the sports editors made a list of five names each, because if that were the case, Rosewall would not be excluded by 45% of the voters, this was a voting for professionals only, and if Rosewall were excluded you could not find five other logical candidates in the pro ranks. I suspect that each editor gave the name or names which he thought could be ranked No. 1, and these percentages show what percent of the editors mentioned each player as a good candidate for No. 1. Hoad and Laver were well ahead of Rosewall. That is a reasonable methodology.Tennisedu (talk) 04:35, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

Rosewall's low % can be explained by a lack of pro tennis knowledge of among the editors, which is conceivable as the amateurs received most of the limelight. The poll was for "top tennis player", not just top pro, so there were more candidates to choose from.

It appears that every editor other than yourself who has commented on this poll has been against its inclusion, so I think you just have to let this one go. Letcord (talk) 05:18, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

I think that the explanation for Rosewall's third place showing is to be found in the recent perspective of the editors. Notice that fourth and fifth place went to Olmedo and Segura, both of whom played well in the Kramer Cup series in the late 1962 season. Gimeno and Buchholz would perhaps be expected to rank four and five in tournament results, but the high profile Kramer Cup put Segura and Olmedo into those places. Segura did win some tournaments in Europe that season, and Hoad won the Italian tour. Hoad and Laver had the best showing for the January pro tour. And, no, this poll was strictly for professional tennis players, as shown in the article I quoted above, where it clearly says "professional" top tennis player. "Top tennis player of 1962 professional: Lew Hoad" That means that this poll is only based on nominations for pro No. 1, not five choices per editor. So we can actually calculate the number of votes each player received, multiplying the percentages times the number of editors (85). Some editors gave more than one choice for the No. 1 player, if they thought that it was a tie. So that makes this poll a more sensible format than you were claiming above, and the other editors have claimed above. And the other "top" pro sport choices in these polls also seem reasonable. Now that we understand this 1962 poll, and for the first time in this discussion, we should reconsider inclusion.Tennisedu (talk) 14:59, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

No, it says "Top tennis player of 1962 — [the] professional Lew Hoad". If it were a professionals-only poll it would say "Top professional tennis player of 1962", and you know this. Trying to mind-read the editors is an exercise in futility. The assumption that that general sports editors would have had in-depth knowledge of the pro tour is extremely doubtful. The percentages add up to 273%+ so in your theorized system each editor submitted 2-3 No. 1s, with 43% saying Pancho Segura was equal or outright No. 1 and 28% saying Alex Olmedo was equal or outright No. 1. This does not make sense.

Keep posting walls of text if you wish, but I'm not going to keep replying. The consensus remains unchanged unless multiple others start joining in to agree with you. Letcord (talk) 15:44, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

You have interpolated your own adjective there, Letcord, "the" is not in the original. It means top player in the professional category, and only pro players are mentioned in the ranking. Laver is the only prior amateur mentioned, and by January 1963 when the poll was made, Laver was a pro. And no, the percentages are percentage of EDITORS who named a particular player, that is obvious from the numbers. So Hoad and Laver were both mentioned as a candidate for No. 1 from 70+% of the 85 editors, not 70+% of the votes cast, Rosewall mentioned as candidate for No. 1 by 55% of the 85 editors (not 55% of the votes). That makes the poll much more sensible. The consensus you mention was based on a false understanding of how this poll was made, so, yes, we need to reconsider now that it makes sense. Confusion now should be ended on the methodology in this poll, and then we can reconsider.Tennisedu (talk) 15:53, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

"The" is an article, not an adjective. Given your now-apparent lack of elementary grammar knowledge, it's clear why you haven't parsed the sentence correctly. It has two parts, split by an emdash: "Top tennis player of 1962", which is unqualified - not top professional or amateur, just "top"; and "professional Lew Hoad", "professional" being the shortened noun "professional tennis player", with the article "the" omitted as a style choice. In full, it can be expanded to "the professional tennis player Lew Hoad".

I'm not going to keep explaining things to you, but suffice to say you are completely wrong on the methodology as well. Letcord (talk) 16:19, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

Yes, you should take a well-deserved break and recharge. First of all, the article in this form is rather cut-up with odd punctuations. The term "professional", "top tennis player of 1962....professional...Lew Hoad", with the punctuation randomized in this version. This free version has wild punctuation. All of the players ranked are professionals, no Emerson, Santana, Fraser. Not an issue. As I pointed out above you and others were confused about the calculations beyond belief. The percentages refer to percentage of EDITORS who named each player as a world No. 1, not the percentage of VOTES received, which you wrongly presumed. I guess Einstein decided to avoid us when we were thinking about that. Here are the actual votes per player. Hoad: .74 of 85 = 63 votes, Laver: .72 of 85 = 61 votes, Rosewall: .55 of 85 = 47 votes, Segura: .43 of 85 = 37 votes, Olmedo: .28 of 85 = 24 votes. This is how it was certainly calculated. The idea that each editor made five choices is clearly nonsensical, because the top three would all get 100% of the editors giving them a top vote.Tennisedu (talk) 18:23, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

It says "top tennis player of 1962 — professional Lew Hoad". I've linked a picture so there's no further pretending it was "top pro". 28% of 85 = 24 editors included Olmedo in their top 5, not put Olmedo as No. 1. I know it refers to % of EDITORS, I never said otherwise. The percentages add up to 273+%, so the editors would have had to have named 2.73 players each on average as their No. 1 in your system, with 43% inexplicably naming Segura as their No. 1 and 28% Olmedo. This is not logical. In what is understood to be the system as the current consensus, the top three would not each get 100% if they weren't included in every editor's top 5, which would happen if some editors had shallow knowledge of pro tennis. This is completely conceivable as tennis is just one of a dozen or so sports they covered, and a relatively minor one at that.

Now that you've tried every possible argument and all have been refuted, please move on to something remotely productive. Letcord (talk) 00:03, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

This UPI polling series looks only at professional sports, the Bears, the Packers, Maury Wills. The only tennis players being ranked here were pros, there were no amateur names involved, so this is a pro ranking only. The prominence of Segura and Olmedo is due to their success in upsetting the American squad in the Kramer Cup, which was a high profile press coverage event near the end of 1962. That propelled those two names above Gimeno and Buchholz, who were losers in the Kramer Cup in the semifinal rounds. No surprise with that. Yes, I could see each editor naming two or three candidates for world No 1 pro. Not a problem there. There is no other reasonable explanation for this poll, if they chose five pro tennis names, Hoad, Laver, Rosewall would have made every list and reached 100%. That is not close to what happened here. The editors were not asked to rank the top 5 players, as you are suggesting, they were asked to give names for the No 1 spot only, more than one name if necessary. Segura mentioned by 43% of the editors as one name for a No. 1 is not strange, Segura had a good year in 1962, winning several tournaments against top name players, beating Rosewall in Zurich, leading South America to the Kramer Cup final. He nearly eliminated Rosewall from Wembley.Tennisedu (talk) 04:07, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

"This UPI polling series looks only at professional sports..." Baseless assumption. If the top players were all pros, then an overall top 5 list would all be pros. Laver's achievements that made him a candidate for "top tennis player of 1962" came as an amateur anyway. "Hoad, Laver, Rosewall would have made every list..." Baseless assumption. In a panel of tennis writers? Absolutely. But this poll was of general sports editors whose tennis knowledge is unknown.

You are of course free to assume such things, but until others chime in to agree with you the status quo will remain unchanged. Letcord (talk) 04:48, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

There are no assumptions here, just observations. These players are all professionals, no Emerson, no Santana, no Fraser. The UPI ranking series, of which the pro tennis poll is a segment, is all about professional sports, No. 1 nominations only, professional players and teams, so obviously that is what we have here. The five top tennis finishers were all pros when the poll was conducted at the end of January 1963, including Laver. To rank Laver, the Australian tour gave some immediate comparison of the play of Laver against Hoad and Rosewall, with Rosewall fading against Laver. The editors here are apparently well aware of the Kramer Cup series, which was well covered in the press, and in which the other four pro players in this list were prominent in the order given here. The editors would also be aware of the major pro tournaments, which was carried on the UPI newswire, and from which they would choose what should be printed in their local area. The only reason this UPI poll was being excluded, as you pointed out above, was because the editors here were confused about the voting methodology, which is now clear and reasonable. With this new information about voting results, there is no reason to exclude the poll. As you mentioned above, general sports writers are allowable if the publication is listed as having status here, such as UPI, which organized and published this poll.Tennisedu (talk) 14:25, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

If I do a poll asking for the "top marathon runners" and the results come back with the top 5 all being Kenyan, that doesn't mean that I asked for the "top Kenyan marathon runners", though the top 5 would have been identical if I had. The same is true with this poll, where no indication is given that they specifically asked for the top professionals, and Laver earned his status as a top player for 1962 as an amateur anyway. The amateur/pro status of the players in January '63 should not have mattered, as the poll was for the top players "of 1962". Whether you think you do or not, you make numerous assumptions to try to fit the poll's outcome with reality to make the methodology (whatever its specifics may be) seem reasonable: The UPI ranking series, of which the pro tennis poll is a segment, is all about professional sports, No. 1 nominations only, professional players and teams = multiple assumptions; The editors here are apparently well aware of the Kramer Cup series = assumption; The editors would also be aware of the major pro tournaments = assumption.

We will just have to agree to completely disagree on this. Letcord (talk) 06:46, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

First world rankings

I know Bud Collins says in his encyclopedia that "Pre-computer world rankings [...] have appeared since 1913 (men)", but they actually first appeared in 1912, with A. E. Crawley being the first to compile one, as is clear from his article: [4]

It may interest the generality of enthusiasts to make an attempt to select and rank ten of the world's players, who may form a hierarchy in this cosmopolitan game. International visits are so regular a feature to-day that some notion of relative merit is essential. The fact that this country or that stands out of the Davis Cup or Wimbledon, or other national championships is no longer a bar to an estimate. Cross-references are numerous and assist decision. [...] Relativity of form is always fascinating, and if the estimate below assists the average enthusiast to compare heroes, its appearance will not be in vain.

In a 1920 article he also states that he was "the first, some years ago, [...] to attempt a ranking list of world's players" [5]. As such, I've changed the first year in the range of "opinion-based rankings and professional series rankings" to 1912, and added 1912 to the main table with the No. 1 column. Letcord (talk) 15:52, 28 April 2022 (UTC)