Talk:World number 1 ranked male tennis players/Archive 9

Archive 5

←

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

L.Doherty in 1903

Apparently there's no citations for him being #1 in 1903 despite being the first man ever to win Wim/US in the same year, adding Davis Cup as well? USLTA nominated Whitman (clearly biased and bogus #1, but he needs to be listed of course). However, as it is, L.Doherty has no nominations for 1903, is that true? Ricardo 78.2.71.144 (talk) 10:04, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

No, not a biased and bogus number 1. These are mainly national rankings before 1913. USTA rank American players and Whitman and Larned were American. Laurie Doherty was English. Perhaps you should go and find a British ranking for Doherty as it concerns you so much. Tennishistory1877 (talk) 10:45, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

Well, I don't see the need to argue here and insult. Of course, Whitman's nomination is perfectly legit, and he should be listed as #1. However, even without trying to determine true #1 (which is not done here) we all "know" L.Doherty deserve nomination as well so I asked if it was an error on behalf of editor, or there's really been no nomination for him? He had to be nominated by someone, somewhere, sometime so I guess it will pop-out eventually. No doubt it would look bizarre if a man who won 3 biggest titles in 1903 isn't at least co-#1. 1903 is in many ways de facto "internationalistion of tennis", no? First time ever foreigner won US, first time ever someone won Wim/US double, first time ever there was second nation to win International Lawn Tennis Challenge. Ricardo 78.2.71.144 (talk) 17:25, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

"Well, I don't see the need to argue here and insult." Stop doing it then. Saying the decision of USTA (USLTA in those days) to select someone who is American for a ranking list of American players rather than an Englishman is "biased and bogus" is not only insulting, its plain wrong. As I said in my last reply, if you are so concerned about a lack of a British ranking that year, I suggest you put effort into finding one instead of making false criticisms of the USTA. Tennishistory1877 (talk) 18:07, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

Ricardo, I have no doubt that L.Donherty was British #1 in 1903 but we can't list his name without a source so could you provide one? It's not only about 1903. British ranking is also missing for all the years form 1906 to 1912. ForzaUV (talk) 19:43, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

Good point about L. Doherty in 1903, who was obviously world No. 1 for that year although he received no ranking for that No. 1 spot. This shows us that rankings are not always rational or reasonable. In fact, it shows us that rankings had very little meaning for anyone at that time.Tennisedu (talk) 00:41, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

Thats because the concept of "world" rankings was very new in 1903, tennisedu, and there usually werent world ranking lists then. Tennishistory1877 (talk) 01:46, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

Hello everyone. I didn't suggest we/you should give 1903 Year-End #1 (British #1) to L.Doherty without citations. I would have expected a citation for him for sure. I only asked if it was a page error (citation missing) or there's actually been no citations for him. It's just my attempt to improve the article. If there's no citations, fine by me. It's all fine. We all know he's probably the true world number 1 for 1903 and definitely British #1 so he'll be treated unfairly if it turns out there's no citations for him and I have done nothing wrong by examining his case which is pretty obvious. I finished my tables, does anyone want to see? Ricardo P.S. to Tennishistory I didn't say USLTA nominating Whitman was bogus nomination, nor did I imply they should have nominated L.Doherty instead. By "bogus" I meant this entire situation of having no citations for L.Doherty for 1903 which gives entire year to Whitman alone and that situation is bogus, L.Doherty missing from the rankings. I thought it would be clear, but perhaps my English isn't good enough. I don't like insults. 187793.137.12.87 (talk) 19:07, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

I had noticed the Doherty 1903 situation as well. It's just a matter of finding a source (probably Pastime or similar would have British rankings for that year). It doesn't matter too much though, because we've removed the No. 1 column for those early years, so we're not "giving" the year to anyone. Sure, you might as well show the tables since you've already made them. Sod25 (talk) 19:26, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

@Sod2500: Not totally true. The No. 1 column may have been removed but some of those years are certainly given to a player. Such as 1881 given to Renshaw, and 1887 given to Lawford. The fact there is no column doesn't change those world No. 1s. Fyunck(click) (talk) 10:35, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

But these are national rankings, Ricardo. There is nothing biased or bogus about 1903, its just not got a lot of citations (and none from Great Britain). No one is saying Larned was world number 1 in 1903, only U. S. Number 1. Gonzales had friends on the pro tour?! News to me! Tennishistory1877 (talk) 21:20, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

Ricardo, there was nothing wrong with raising this point. It's valid and as mentioned we need a British ranking to add H.L. Doherty to the list. Unfortunately you got a snarky response which was uncalled for.--Wolbo (talk) 19:45, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

If Ricardo had merely said we could do with a British ranking for 1903 then I would have agreed with him, Wolbo. What was uncalled for is this "biased and bogus" statement. There is nothing biased or bogus about what is listed in 1903. And he is still using the word bogus. Tennishistory1877 (talk) 21:27, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

"USLTA nominated Whitman (clearly biased and bogus #1" is what you said Ricardo. Nothing biased or bogus about it and actually USLTA nominated Larned, not Whitman. Maybe the 1903 British tennis magazines didnt publish rankings. I will ask Karoly next time I speak to him, as he has visited libraries to research the early years. Tennishistory1877 (talk) 19:37, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

Again, if you don't trust me, think logically. Why would I question USLTA nomination from 120 years ago? I only ever questioned stuff like Gonzales's friends nominating him in 1953 or even worse Rosewall nominating himself in one of the years. But I would never question USLTA nomination. My issue with 1903 has been with L.Doherty missing, so that situation creates a bogus year/rankings. The way I emphasized L.Doherty case, I assumed it would have been pretty obvious. Ricardo

Here is my table, please give me tips. Remove capital X with a dot. https://www.docdroidXnet/ha9TKbj/tennishistorypo-pdf 93.137.12.87 (talk) 20:26, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

I like your tables, Ricardo. The black/white font on grey background/grey font on black background is a bit hard to read, though. My position on having tables on this Wikipedia article remains the same. Sod25 (talk) 21:50, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

Tnx for looking at it. Well my main concern was whether I got something terribly wrong in the tables so I'd hoped experts here would point out to any mistake. As for graphical issues, I agree readability isn't the greatest with regards to years, but I'm kinda deliberately downplaying irrelant info by burying it it similar colours. Do I really need so many years in all the columns in the tables being equally visible and dominant to winners lists? I think years would overshadow the players in that case and it's just clutter. This way years, written in black, are blended into grey background and winners names, written in white on a colour background, strike out a lot more. You can still see the years, but they're not dominant. Overall I think many would say color backgrounds are not the way to go, but I simply wanted to note the surfaces. When I tried using black font got both years and winners and used paler shades of colours for surfaces, and had written winners in black font as well, it got cluttered and mixed up with years. So I opted for this model, years in black font, winners in white. But it can be improved s lot I think. I also tried using important colours (CMYK) for major (official) events and I also tried to maintain colour consistency. E.g. ILTF 1913-1923 World Championships are in basic green, same as ITF's 1978-present World Champions. I also used true colours from Grand Slam tournament logos in the tables for GS winners list and I used a mix of AO's blue and USO's blue to find a medium blue color for HC surface so that blue, which signals hardcourt is halfway to both AO and USO in shades. Ricardo — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.137.15.155 (talk) 10:08, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

Response from Karoly Mazak regarding no British men's rankings in 1903: "I could not find a classification of British players in 1903 in Lawn Tennis and Badminton. They stopped making classifications regularly after 1899. We do not have rankings for 1900, 1901, and after 1905, either. They often lamented how difficult it was to compare the leading players because of the contradictory results." Tennishistory1877 (talk) 10:39, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

Top ten articles

Editors of this page might be interested in two new ones I've started:

• Top ten ranked male tennis players
• Top ten ranked male tennis players (1913–1972)

All the No.1 rankings on this page have been added there if a full ranking was given in the source.
It would be appreciated if any new rankings found and added to this article were also added to the top ten articles going forward. Sod25 (talk) 15:13, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

 Great! ForzaUV (talk) 18:06, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

Self rankings and non-official rankings

I think self-rankings should be listed here for completeness, but put in brackets and not counted towards the No. 1 column, same as we are doing for non-official rankings post-1978. Sod25 (talk) 04:58, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

Self rankings were originally included partly because of a lack of citations in one particular year. We now have more citations so they are no longer required (plus two other editors did not want them, even questioning whether they fitted with wikipedia policy). Tennishistory1877 (talk) 10:48, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

Self-rankings are very rare, and for a good reason. If a player feels the need to self-rank, the motivation is probably not good enough for inclusion here. I strongly believe that we must remove those opinion-based rankings post-1978, which cause nothing but confusion and do not enlighten anyone. They do not add anything to the list and therefore must be removed. If they are not an improvement, they must be removed.Tennisedu (talk) 15:23, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

I think they do add something to the list - context for how the players perceived their competition compared to the established rankers. There's no harm in listing them as long as we don't count them toward the No. 1 column. Sod25 (talk) 17:11, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

A ranking being "required" or not no longer makes sense with respect to this article. It used to be Wikipedia editors trying to determine a "consensus" No. 1 from the sources. For years where the No. 1 was undisputed, only a couple of sources were "needed". The article now simply lists all available rankings, with any player ranked No. 1 by a source put in the No. 1 column pre-1978. This is the least biased solution, and most useful for researchers investigating the various rankings. We should list self-rankings like Budge's from 1938, but put them in brackets and explicitly note that self-ranked No. 1s are not put in the No. 1 column. Sod25 (talk) 17:11, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

It always was that if number 1 was undisputed, more than 1 ranking for that undisputed number 1 could be listed. Tennishistory1877 (talk) 17:37, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

Now that there are top ten articles where players' own rankings are collated, I'm no longer in favor of listing self-rankings on this page. Sod25 (talk) 15:36, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

@Sod25...Agreed for Self rankings. For post 1978, why we have removed awards. Whether one calls it nonofficial, semiofficial or trivia, they are the facts and sources. In my opinion, if they are corroborating ATP or ITF, they need not be considered. But independent awards like World Sportsman of year must be considered. They have their own criteria and judgement. The objective in World No.1 page is about list PoY, if the sources are independent, consistent and credible in my opinion like SI, L'Equipe champions (of course Calendar year). Otherwise post 1978, this World no.1 page is as good as combining ATP#1 and ITF WC pages. That's all. I agree that adding nominees for PoY of SI, L'Equipe unless player wins the award. ITF itself is awarding WC. This makes more sense when ITF WC and ATP PoY are different or if many other sources consider a tie between two players or season is disrupted. I have already posted my comments in other threads but no comments so far. Krmohan (talk) 16:56, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

Is it possible?

To have one, all-encompassing table with sortable criteria?

That way you could avoid the hot issue here, you wouldn't count different rankings together, but it would enable the readers to observe them and compare them.

It's just so impractical to have almost 150 years period and no way of skimming through it.

I think without tables this page suffers a lot. It's good that at least you put pics there, kinda overview of top players throughout history, however I don't think it's OK to use ATP #1 as the only modern critera? We know modern #1 is comprised of 3 factors, ATP #1 (and PotY earlier) and also ITF WC. You have to respect ITF a lot more.

What that means in practice is that Connors is mentioned as the top player based on his 5 ATP #1 but Borg isn't there even though he has 5 ATP PoTY (vs 1 ATP PotY for Connors). I think you need to rethink it.

I would go either by maximal number for everyone (Connors 5 ATP #1, Borg 5 ATP PoTY, Nadal 5 by ATP) or if not that, then by undisputed years, Connors and Borg would be 2, Nadal 4. Whatever you choose. But choosing to go by ATP #1 alone is too narrow imo for this kind of page. That's my comment regarding the overview.

And regarding the table (I'm a big fan of tables), my proposal would be to have sortable table with all rankings, ATP #1, ATP PotY, ITF WC, Tingay, Collins, Tennis Magazines, old USLTA rankings etc.

Is that within rules?

Such table would merely count all that's already listed in the article and the counts would be kept separate, it would just enable the readers to get a sense of history. He could e.g. click on the "Tingay" to check how many times, per Tingay, Gonzales was #1 and how many times Rosewall was. Ricardo 93.137.9.169 (talk) 11:04, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

It ought to be possible to have ITF award winners and ATP POTY listed like the ATP point leaders and in fact should be done, otherwise we are saying the ATP point leaders are more important if we dont include a table for them too. Tennishistory1877 (talk) 11:19, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

Ricardo, we've already discussed and agreed that stats tables are just not possible. ForzaUV (talk) 14:19, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

I do not know how many have agreed to addition of "Players" section to the page. It is strictly 'No' from my side. It is as good as having table for modern ranking. No matter how many times one can edit, this is aganist what was discussed. What is not applicable for pre-1978 is also not acceptable for post-1978, especially when there are more than one source and if one source (ATP) having two systems, one mechanical ranking based and other award based similar to ITF WC. With this addition, the essence of re-doing the page is lost in my opinion. Are we concerned about particular periods or tours ?? If anybody wants, they can be directed to List of ATP#1 ranked players, ITF World champion, ATP Awards page individually or selectively (see also). This kind of introducing "Players" does not fit into this page...It is unnecessary stuff drawing inference/interpretation. However, it is up to other editors...Cheers... Krmohan (talk) 15:23, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

I'm still against the all-encompassing table Ricardo wants but the simple gallery of the players who have been #1 the longest is fine imo. I don't see a problem with it as everything in there can be verified from official or reliable sources. Moreover, I'm sure we will see some editors in the future trying to count everything and add a records table or section as an improvement but the note we have in the gallery will serve as a reminder of why it's not possible and why it wasn't implemented by us. ForzaUV (talk) 16:42, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

Ok. Fine. But few reservations. I recommend only one gallery of No.1 ranked players. Need to be careful with wording like Modern rankings or Pre-ATP ranking especially when we are including ITF awards too. If it is unavoidable to make different gallerie s, it is better to identify with time periods only. I have also got reservations on using word "World" No.1 when some years for the players disputed...Why do not we use Annual or Year-end No. 1 instead of World No.1. As per ITF, this word should not be used. Further, we are not listing all No. 1 ranked players here (many players like Rafter etc..No. 1 for few weeks).... Krmohan (talk) 17:24, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

ITF name their award recipients "world" champions and ATP is considered the standard world ranking, #1 in the ATP ranking is always referred to as world No. 1 in the media so I'm not sure what you mean. ForzaUV (talk) 18:21, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

No, it's not possible. Just in the past few weeks the following changes have been made (23 total):

• 1914 Amateur: +Brookes
• 1927 Pro: +Koželuh, +Richards
• 1930 Amateur: +Borotra
• 1932 Pro: +Plaa
• 1941 Amateur: -Riggs
• 1942 Amateur: -Riggs
• 1948 Amateur: +Gonzales
• 1949 Amateur: +Schroeder; Pro: -Kramer, +Riggs
• 1950 Amateur: +Sedgman; Pro: +Kramer
• 1951 Pro: -Kramer
• 1952 Pro: -Kramer
• 1954 Amateur: +Seixas, +Trabert
• 1961 Amateur: +Emerson; Pro: -Hoad
• 1962 Pro: -Hoad
• 1963 Amateur: +McKinley
• 1965 Amateur: +Santana
• 1966 Amateur: +Stolle

Which shows how silly it would be to tally the No. 1s listed as if they were certain (and vindicating my strong opposition earlier). And there are many rankings still out there with potential new No. 1s. So having tables simply cannot be done here. I'm also against the gallery - it adds nothing except more room for dispute with respect to which players are chosen to be in the "Pre-ATP ranking No. 1s" section, and new readers will think: "Why don't I tally up the number of No. 1s for them, just like for the ATP No. 1s?", potentially leading to more edit warring and wasting of time. Sod25 (talk) 18:50, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

No players are chosen, I went with the players who were ranked #1 the longest but you can add whoever you want to the gallery. Only a player's pic, name and years he had a claim for #1 are needed. I don't think readers would tally up the numbers for pre 1973 players. The note is there for reason, it serves as reminder that there was no standard ranking before ATP. ForzaUV (talk) 04:01, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

I am not really in favour of the pre-1973 gallery. Post-1973 I have no strong views either way. But there are two reasons why I object to lists pre-1973. Firstly, whichever way it was done would be deeply unsatisfactory (and I have considered all options carefully). Secondly, it would violate the often mentioned line in the original research policy. I can see ForzaUV has created the gallery with the very best of intentions, but unfortunately it has caused more problems than it has solved. We are going over old ground here on something that has already been decided. Tennishistory1877 (talk) 23:17, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

Obviously there is nothing wrong with post-1973 gallery but what exactly is unsatisfactory with the pre-1973 gallery? it's a just a player's name with his pic and the decade he was a top player in. ForzaUV (talk) 04:01, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

I am against the table. I agree with @Tennishistory1877 and @Sod25. In that case, I do not agree to the addition of this kind of galleries as well (Pre or post-1973). I am referring to the page No.30 of ITF 2021 version, which quotes as "The term “World” or any other term attributing a similar global dimension to TENNIS, a tennis competition OR EVENT OF ANY KIND or to a title, shall only be used by the ITF, or otherwise with the permission of the ITF". Krmohan (talk) 02:23, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

@Krmohan, are you suggesting we should seek the ITF approval for the title of this article? ForzaUV (talk) 04:01, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

@ForzaUV, Not exactly. Many a time, editors mentioning "World No. 1" or attributing "World No. 1" to player(s) knowingly or unknowingly in the article/page. I recommend stop using this and remove this Word, if present. World No.1 / World Champion is only designated by International Tennis Hall of Fame / ITF. It can be attributed to those sources only in specific, but not in general. Krmohan (talk) 04:32, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

Ricardo here, I think you will eventually agree with me.

1. Without the table, this page is incomplete and it doesn't fullfil its purpose. There has to be an overview of some kind for a such lengthy period of 150 years. Whether it's the table or something else like gallery, this kind of page demands it. Even in the parliament buildings, royal and presidential residencies you have paintings of old monarchs and leaders. People want that stuff. So. You deleted tables, but of course it felt incomplete so you added gallery, but again you're arguing over what's to be included. If you had followed my proposals that having all-time #1 count, even unofficially, is a good way to go (we have similar pages unofficially counting all-time majors) you could have used that approach and included into gallery anyone who's had nominations in e.g. at least 3 different seasons, irrespective of the tours. So Vines would be there, his picture, Hewitt wouldn't and it makes sense.

2. I repeatedly offer solution. If you claim you can't just simply count and add up all-time #1s because Wikipedia "forbids" it and the sources and methodologies are different, you can certainly create one encompassing, sortable table, without adding anything up. Nobody has ever responded to this proposal and explained why would this be forbidden per Wikipedia rules? If you object adding, and there is no adding in this table, what is the problem? I am still waiting for a reply regarding this proposal. One table that wouldn't count and add up different sources, but table that would show #1s per all sources, and that would enable people to sort out most #1s any way they desire, whether it's per ATP rankings, ATP PotY, ITF WC, Tingay, USLTA, A.Wallis Myers, etc.

3. As for your previous decision that Wikipedia "forbids" all-time count, based on the fact the sources are different, I will just remind you that if you pushed that line hard enough, you could question the ATP ranking itself. ATP changed methodology and has changed it substantially over the years, to a point that they (or someone else proved) admitted that Vilas would have been #1 in 1977. Essentially it seems that ATP from the 1970s and ATP from the 2010s is apples and oranges, de facto the same situation such as when two different guys compile rankings, e.g. Tingay and Collins, whom could you also describe as apples and oranges. Năstase's 4 ATP#1 relates to Djokovic's 7 ATP#1, just the same as #1s determined by Myers, Tingay or Collins relate to each other. Finally, if you followed this line, wikipedia should delete e.g. all pages on Byzantine empire because throughout their entire existence, they considered themselves Romans, never used Byzantine name in any official capacity for themselves. Yet that's not done. So I think there needs to be some common sense here, you can not expect that over the course of 150 years you could have same organisations and methodology in determining #1. What matters is the final outcome who was #1 in a given year, despite how he got there, and who picked him, so I don't see adding up final outcomes as some kind of transgression. The nature of ranking itself is that it isn't consistent, the ATP could change their formula and you could have different #1. So it's wrong to approach it as if it was something set in stone.

4. So overall I think you're nitpicking on this issue. Wikipedia has pages such as "largest empires in the history" and they're grouping all sorts of countries and civilisations there, entities that are completely incomparable, existing in different times and lacking organisational structure of modern states, so obviously the rule which forbids counting isn't enforced as strictly as you claim. So I propose we make a table and don't tell anyone of the wiki officials. Ricardo 93.137.3.244 (talk) 11:29, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

Ricardo, you appear to be alone on this issue: stats tables are just not possible - ForzaUV; No matter how many times one can edit, this is aga[in]st what was discussed - Krmohan; We are going over old ground here on something that has already been decided - Tennishistory1877.
I initially tried a massive table when creating the top ten articles. It doesn't work as there are dozens of different ranking authorities, most of whom only published rankings for a couple of years, meaning that their columns and therefore the table as a whole is mostly empty space, and is unallowably wide. The table also would be redundant to the main list and therefore yield little benefit even without those other fundamental problems.
It's disappointing that the ITF didn't get their act together early on and publish official annual rankings every year (the idea was proposed at least as far back as 1939 [1]), or abolish the amateur rules before 1968, but they didn't, so we have to treat the mess of tennis history as just that - a mess, that largely doesn't allow for neat summary statistics tables. Mentioning other pages is again irrelevant here. There are many reliable sources discussing and comparing empires, but not tennis rankings on the scale of all of tennis history. This and the top ten pages are certainly the most complete collections of tennis rankings ever assembled, and yet they are still very incomplete and can't be treated as finished (as the large list of changes above shows). You just have to accept that what you want can't be done on Wikipedia, and move on. Sod25 (talk) 00:33, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for your kind words. I agree that ITF has disappointed by not publishing rankings early on, and you know what is even more disappointing? They could publish retroactive rankings and they're not doing it. Ricardo 93.142.130.91 (talk) 12:22, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

The players gallery of photos is an odd concoction. What are the criteria for inclusion? For pre-1973, I see Perry there, but not Riggs, Kramer, Kovacs, Sedgman, Hoad, Lacoste, Cochet, Emerson, Santana many other great names.Tennisedu (talk) 16:08, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

Those are the ones who have been #1 the longest. I couldn't add all pre-73 players who had multiple claims for #1 but you're welcome to do so if it concerns you that much. ForzaUV (talk) 18:33, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

In my view, the criteria should be player to be rated No.1 for multiple years by multiple sources. For post 1973, it would be total 10 players (counting min 2 years and 2 sources). They should be arranged in chronological order (as of now, not there) like "before 1973". Before 1973, need to see how many qualify for multiple years and multiple sources...Just to put in chronological or alphabetical...Seems necessary to have the criteria for this gallery.. Krmohan (talk) 19:09, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

And this is my issue with the galleries - they just cause debate and disagreement over who should be included and in what order, while adding nothing to the article in my opinion. My preference is to remove them, but they don't violate policies like the tables did, so I won't comment further if others want them. Sod25 (talk) 19:44, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

This is exactly my problem with galleries too, Sod25. From what I have read on this thread, the consensus is for removal of the galleries. I would go along with removal (and particularly of the pre-1973 gallery). Tennishistory1877 (talk) 20:42, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

I do not see any objective criteria for inclusion on the galleries section, so I would agree to excluding the photo galleries section. The photos can be seen on the individual player articles, anyway, they are not relevant here.Tennisedu (talk) 03:02, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

Yes, I agree to remove the photo galleries section... Krmohan (talk) 05:18, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

Now, there is addition of statistics in place of galleries. This is also infructuous. It is better to leave the stuff as it is. There is no need of adding the data or stats to this article. As already discussed, this kind of data is not plausible for before 1973. The fact that there are multiple sources even after 1973, one can check the data from individual sources like ATP No.1, ITF WC, ATP Award of PoY...This article is to simply list the sources. Even though one can calculate how many times, each player is rated by each source, each source's No. 1 is different from the other. One can not designate anybody World No. 1 even if multiple sources attributing to one player. So, any kind of data, stats leading to this type of conclusion is infructuous. If there is nothing of this sort in this page, then objective of the page is understood and self explanatory in my opinion. I recommend for not adding stats etc to this page further, which was already discussed. Hope there would be full agreement from other editors also on this. Krmohan (talk) 12:34, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

Yes, we have already agreed that these types of rankings are highly variable one from another, and cannot be added up. They should be removed.Tennisedu (talk) 21:37, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

Collins' encyclopedia

This article cites two different editions of Collins' encyclopedia (1994, 1997) and two editions of Collins' History of Tennis (2010, 2016), so I hope the citations get updated to refer to only one edition of them. Maybe Tennisedu or Tennishistory1877 has one of the editions? That would be appreciated. ForzaUV (talk) 19:08, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

The problem is they have all different info. 1997 is the only one that has his own rankings up to 1997 (the later editions just use the ATP computer rankings from 1973 onward). There is a discrepancy between his 1994 and 1997 editions for his 1990 ranking, found in this discussion. So the 1994 & 1997 editions are both needed. At best we can merge his 2010 and 2016 citations. His 2010 edition is freely viewable online, so that would be my preference. I've been replacing his citations for the Wallis Myers, Olliff and Tingay rankings anyway because they have errors including misattribution of rankings by Gillou and F. Gordon Lowe to Olliff, which is unforgivable on a page where the exact source of each ranking is important. Sod25 (talk) 19:35, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

Fortunately my copy of the Italian almanacco specifies the sources used, though original newspapers are also available. To say a dead man (Olliff in 1951) made rankings is fairly unforgiveable! Tennishistory1877 (talk) 20:40, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

2010 edition would be my preference too if it's actually accessible online but I think it would be easier for now to stick with the 2016 edition since most of the citations are from that one. The 2010 edition is cited only 3 times on the article. ForzaUV (talk) 08:16, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

Year-End No. 1 and ATP Player of the Year

It seems to me that since the ATP replaced the average system in 1990, the ATP Player of the Year award has been always given to the Year-end No. 1, but the article claims this has been the case only since 2000, how true is that statement? ForzaUV (talk) 19:08, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

It is true because the ATP rules said it was changed back in 2000. I don't have the source anymore but someone at Tennis Forums does. It had to do with compromising with the Master and ITF in 2000. The Grand Slam Cup and ATP Tour World Championship were merged into the Tennis Masters Cup, and for the first time ranking points were given out. But the ATP had to agree to always giving the Player of the Year award to the points leader. It is just a coincidence that points and PotY were the same for 10 years. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:25, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

Makes sense I guess. It's either 1990 when the new system was implemented or in 2000 when the ATP and ITF year-end championships were merged into one tournaments. I'll take your word for it. ForzaUV (talk) 11:58, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

We do need a reference for that, as it's important to the article. Sod25 (talk) 21:39, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

Having done some research on this now, I've put more of the pieces together. The ATP announced a "21st Century Tennis" plan at the end of 1999 [2]. Part of this plan was the founding of the "ATP Champions Race" [3], now known simply as the ATP Race (that article is woefully out of date, as an aside). I haven't found an earlier source directly linking the Player of the Year and the race winner, but for 2004 at least there's one saying ATP [...] will present Roger Federer with its 2004 Player of the Year Award that honors the winner of the INDESIT ATP Race [4]. The 2000 Player of the Year award announcement article says: Gustavo Kuerten, who finished as No. 1 player on the inaugural ATP Champions Race, was named the ATP Player of the Year for 2000 today at the Tennis Masters Series Indian Wells [5] - extremely close to directly linking them, but not quite. Sod25 (talk) 00:14, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

Anderson ranking 1959

There should be some reference to the 1959 Anderson ranking, even if we do not accept it as an independent ranking. It represents an endorsement of the Ampol list and therefore an opinion from Anderson as to which Kramer ranking, of which there were two, should be accepted as the official ranking. That constitutes an opinion by Anderson, surely as worthy of inclusion as many of the throwaway references to "top player" we have also included here. Anderson in this context was disagreeing with the Sedgman opinion, and that is surely as significant a statement as the Sedgman opinion. Endorsing an existing list constitutes an opinion of a ranking, which we accept here in other references in this article. I will suggest a rewording of the reference to Anderson's opinion. Anderson stated that Kramer established a point system "to decide the best players in the world...Lew finished ahead of Pancho." That is a clear opinion by Anderson.Tennisedu (talk) 16:15, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

Best to keep the discussion at Talk:Top ten ranked male tennis players (1913–1972)#McCauley. Sod25 (talk) 04:11, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

Sod25, you apparently misunderstood the Anderson ranking as referring to Kramer's personal ranking and not to Kramer's point ranking, I have corrected the citation. Anderson endorsed the Kramer points ranking, and thus this represents an endorsement of that ranking by Anderson, and should be mentioned separately. Anderson stated in his own words, "...Lew finished ahead of Pancho.", which clearly represents a ranking decision by Anderson.Tennisedu (talk) 06:00, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

Yes I put "recalled by Mal Anderson" next to the wrong Kramer bullet point by mistake, now corrected. For those not interested in reading the full discussion on the other page, Tennisedu is claiming that the following quote by Anderson, where he recalls Kramer's point ranking: Last year Kramer established a point system to decide the best players in the world. We played 14 tournaments and got seven points for first, four for second, three for third, two for fourth and one for fifth and sixth place. After the year's play, Lew finished ahead of Pancho. The final ranking was Lew, 1; Pancho, 2; Kenny Rosewall, 3; Sedg, 4; Trab, 5; myself, 6; Segoo, 7; and Coop, 8. constitutes a new ranking by Anderson himself. It is clear to me and Tennishistory1877 that it doesn't. Sod25 (talk) 06:27, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

Although it is not the same ranking.Tennisedu (talk) 17:41, 12 December 2021 (UTC)