I've seen stats table in one of the sandboxes and I'd like to discuss it. The table is correct but I feel such list is again another attempt to "determine" true #1, which I thought we abandoned here.
So should there be a discussion on how to count years at #1 once the page is updated? I have my preference but in all honesty, I don't think there's one true course so I guess it's optional?
(I've noticed Laver's page doesn't include him "being #1 in 9 seasons, most ever". With the fabulous reorganisation of this page I found out it's actually Gonzales with 11 claims for #1 so he's the most ever so good work for deleting that from Laver's page.)
Gonzales case of course is a mess. It's two eras and he can have either undisputed or shared year within same era, thus you could have 4 categories for him. For Laver it's even more complex, 6 possible categories. Shared and undisputed years across 3 era.
My preferred option is this. I'm against split counting because in such cases some players slip under the radar. E.g. if you count French Champ. winners and set the cut off at 1924/1925 (French becoming slam) you will have Decugis at 8, and Nadal at 13 topping their lists, but it hurts Cochet's 5 titles. He gets credited with 1 and 4 in separate tables and his relative stature is diminished, no?
I would deal with French in a way to have one table for all-time (Nadal 13, Decugis 8, Cochet 5...) And one stricter table (post 1924 or even more strict, open era only).
I'm not saying this is a proper course, but I would use that approach here for year end #1, I would have 1 table with undisputed years and 1 table with total years. Of course, we don't have undisputed #1 until open era (we have some in 1920s) thus undisputed mostly becomes another word for modern in our case. Which is ok for me. I consider anyone playing during amatuers/pro split and being #1 in their respective tours to be disputed #1 since there was another tour at the same time. So Gonzales imo has 0 undisputed, bold years. But I would also have second table listing total seasons, which he would top with 11.
I feel the sandox I've seen and which motivated me to write this attempts to "balance it out", determine true #1, etc, it seeks to count undisputed season for Gonzales in both eras so he end up at 6. But why would undisputed season in amatuer be superior to disputed season in pros? Or vice versa. That's again us passing judgements.
We/you reorganized page to put things into proper perspective. So let's follow it through.
So my proposal is we count all claims, and have Gonzales topping that list with 11. And in another table we count fully undisputed seasons, Sampras still topping that with 6, and some others perhaps I haven't checked yet. Ricardo 93.140.186.133 (talk) 11:05, 30 October 2021 (UTC)
I disagree about the stats table. It passes no judgments. As for the profile pages, it is my belief that rather than saying a pre-open era player has a certain number of number one rankings, it is better merely to list the citations. Gonzales was a great player, but he wasnt the best player for 11 years, what he has is a world number 1 ranking nomination in 11 years. I take "records" for rankings in the pre-open era with a pinch of salt. Tennishistory1877 (talk) 11:19, 30 October 2021 (UTC)
"Gonzales was a great player but he wasn't the best player for 11 years". How is that not passing judgements? You directly say that some of his years are "unworthy". But what is it that we agreed to do here, was it to count nominations or determine which one of the nominations is more "heavy and dismiss lesser ones"? Surely that is not. And if Gonzales has 11 nominations and we end up with tables portraying him as "5-time undisputed year-end #1 Pro" I'm afraid such approach hides more than it reveals and it skews the picture. It does passes judgement because even though the data in table is accurate, it places emphasis on certain period, omitting else thus leading the reader to conclude what editor already thinks.
Look, ideally, there would have been undisputed year-end #1 in every year throughout tennis history. But that is not the case so we shouldn't try to come up with such names. In fact we can't come up with such names. As soon as there is a conflicting source, the year is shared. Split tours also mean the year is shared by definition.
So in order to be most accurate, we'd have to make 6 tables, with undisputed/shared years for each of the 3 eras, amateurs, pro and open. Obviously that would be cluttering. Human brain can tolerate one, two tables max. So I would have two tables, one listing only undisputed years, and one listing total years, including shared ones. So in table 1, Sampras would have 6 years and Connors 1, and in another one, Sampras and Connors would both have 6. I think that's the best approach. Ditto for Gonzales, 0 and 11, Laver 2 and 9, Nadal 4 and 5, etc. That way we get to understand their ranges. Gonzales was arguably best in 11 years, but no way to be sure even in 1 year. Laver was arguably #1 in 9 years, and at least we know with absolute certainty that he was #1 in 2 years. I think having two tables like that would illustrate situation the best and would enable readers to understand it at first glance. Ricardo93.140.186.133 (talk) 12:44, 30 October 2021 (UTC)
Its not my opinion on Gonzales, several of those years are based on single citations. I would prefer on pre-open era profiles to merely list the rankings rather than making statements about how many years each player has. My preferred option is no tables at all pre-1973, but I definately agree with ForzaUV in splitting the tables between the modern era and before. What we have 1973 onwards are rankings, before that we have ranking nominations. It gives a false impression to say things like "Pancho Gonzales was the best player for 11 years". Tennishistory1877 (talk) 13:13, 30 October 2021 (UTC)
Well in this modern era it has also been mostly about nominations. ATP PotY and ITF WC were committee awards, thus nominations, meaning 2/3 of official rankings was nominations. Even today with effectively only ATP rankings and ITF WC as two main awards, nominations are 50% of year end #1 because ITF WC is still a committee award. So I don't follow your like of thought, I don't understand why should we overly ignore nominations from pre-open era?
My main concern is this. I feel the proposed statistical table is ambiguous and such confusing table totally butchers the entire structure of the page and undermines the purpose of the revamp of this page, negates it. You said you were against these changes, I respect that, but I don't think it's ok now to obfuscate matters and try to undermine the changes by insisting on stats section counting something opposite of what article is centered around. The whole purpose of clear and separate amateur and pro listing was (imo) so that we can have two main lists. 1. Undisputed year-end #1 and 2. Total year-end #1. In my view, the most relevant all-time numbers for Gonzales are 0 and 11. He has 0 undisputed years and 11 nominations in total. Everything else, saying he was "for sure #1" in 5, 6, 7 or whatever number of seasons is just talk. We don't know how many years he was for sure #1. Nobody can tell that because nobody knows it and you can't prove it. So those numbers (5,6,7) should not be in our focus. But what we know is his his range (0 and 11) and I find that the most relevant info and the stats section should be organized around that. Unless you really want to make 6 tables? Undisputed amatuers, total amatuers, undisputed pros, total pros, undisputed OE, total OE..
Ricardo, what Tennishistory1977 told you is correct. We can't have an-all time table since it's impossible to compare pre ATP and post ATP rankings, different tours, different systems, different formulas and so many different variables. There was no world ranking at all before 1973. Also, some of the players were listed in those years because they were considered the best or one the best at some point of the season not at the end of the season. Claiming that Laver for example was the year-end #1 for 9 years would be misleading and wrong. What we know from the sources we have on the article is that he was considered the best amateur for 2 years, the best professional in 5 years and one of the top players in 2 other years, that’s it. Anything else can be seen as an attempt to synthesize the material. ForzaUV (talk) 08:29, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
It feels like it, yet it is the best page I visited. So I think you're wrong on approaching this issue, and not because I know much about history of #1, but based on logic. As you say, there is really no #1 before modern era, I would say there is arguably no #1 before 1978 with 2 governing organisations of tennis (ITF and ATP) both stepping in and proclaiming their year-end #1 annually. So pushing it to the extreme, why not just have 1978-present rankings? That is justifiable, and that's an option too, but otoh I am interested in all-time comparisons, and I believe many who visit this page are interested in that as well. The title also doesn't suggest it's only about "modern" era so there should be room for all-time comparisons here. I am aware that modern and previos #1 is apples and oranges, but doesn't that apply for a lot of stuff? E.g. Sears/Renshaw types won many Wim/US titles and we credit them as "slam" champions despite the fact Wim/US are official majors since 1913/1924 and they won their "slams" by often playing just 1 match. Could be seen as bizarre to count them with modern players, yet it's how it's done. Quite a case of apples and oranges when you have them next to to present day players. Or what about ATP rankings itself? They're using best of 18 now, previosly best of 14, and before that, they had that system of averages I believe? So their methodology has changed over the years, I've read claims that Vilas would have been #1 in ATP rankings had they used current methodology back then? My point being, everything changes, so even comparing ATP rankings of today to the one of past is kinda apples and oranges. I am aware that it's even moreso in case of all-time rankings with many different sources, however who was best in which era, and overall nominations/claims is what interests people a lot. I believe there is no more "synthesis" in us just counting overall #1 historical claims and and writing them down in a table, without passing judgements, than there is in this page I posted in which they count all "majors". Or why not just make one of those tables that would enable people to sort it out the way it interests them and examine the table by multiple criterias? I would propose 10 combinations to cover everything. amatuers, pro era, open era, "professionals overall", and all-time. And all that x2 (undisputed and total years). You know the kind of table I'm refeering to? It would be awesome. Ricardo93.142.131.230 (talk) 09:02, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
I think you are correct that it is improper synthesis Ricardo. Those years don't actually say a player was "nominated" for number. There are sources that say those players were the best player of that year... there are just conflicting sources just as we have today. They weren't nominations. Borg, Connors, and Vilas aren't nominations... they were considered the best player that season by different sources. Same with Nadal and Djokovic in 2013. The "nomination" wording is silly imho and we should simply list all the times a player is sourced as No. 1 for the year. Don't call them nominations, don't pick a side on who was better, just list and total them all as long as the source is reliable. Fyunck(click) (talk) 10:04, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
Agree with Fyunck on this. Although I would phrase it that the rankings are not choosing the best player, but the player with the best year. These were only one year rankings, and in some years lesser players could have great years.Tennisedu (talk) 05:43, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
Yeah, I think so too. All-time table with all the claims/nominations is the most interesting piece of this article and is the purpose of having this article actually. We all know it's kinda appless and oranges, but splitting it too much is just butchering. It's like having separate lists for pre-challenge round Wimbledon period, then a separate list for amatuer era but without the challenge round, then another list for open era, etc while at the same time having no no all-time list. That's a big no for me. As I said, we should always concentrate on one, maximum two most important tables. 1. All-time table, and 2. Fully modern (open) era. How do you like my table? https://docdroXid/Yj09PSu (replace capital X with the dot) Ricardo 93.142.131.230 (talk) 10:29, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
I don't get it Ricardo, if you or anyone are really into all-time comparisons, you still can make them as you wish, who stopped you from doing so? All the data is presented for everyone to make their conclusions. But your and my conclusions are no facts and definitely don't belong to Wikipedia. You can believe that some amateur #1 was the year-end world #1 but I would strongly disagree with you on that. And please, don't bring the "other stuff" argument, you can start a discussion on any article's talk page if you have an issue with some of its content. ForzaUV (talk) 11:46, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
Pre-1973 rankings are not the same as official ATP and ITF rankings and should not be listed together. Any attempt to imply Pancho Gonzales was world number 1 for 11 years by joining together single nominations just looks foolish. The idea that Ken McGregor gives an interview to a newspaper saying he thinks Gonzales is the best is the same as ATP point system or the ITF award is absurd. I am against any tables, but if there must be any there should be 2: before mid-70s and later. The whole point of this article is the sources. Drawing false conclusions from the sources is something I am against. Tennishistory1877 (talk) 11:59, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
Bear in mind also that the ATP and ITF awards are widely recognised standards outside of wikipedia. One thing I am against is wikipedia creating its own version of tennis history. I recall a certain article about Masters series events using the ATP super 9 and Masters model and using it to list pre-1990s events alongside later ones. This is wikipedia at its very worst and this is when it opens itself up to ridicule. To uncover and present new research is good, but wikipedia should be very careful about the conclusions it draws. Tennishistory1877 (talk) 12:15, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
I think you two are absolutely wrong on this. If you don't acknowledge Gonzales's 11 (or whatever the number is) nominations over two different tours, it's no different than some of you deciding "Djokovic was not a real #1 in 2013 and ITF got it wrong and so we shouldn't count him in the final table". Totally arbitrarily and if you do it, it means it's you who you who is enaging in content creation and synthesis and trying to pick "true" number 1 and that's very bad and something I thought we would abandon here? That's not encyclopedia imo. The problem obviously lies elsewhere. Perhaps Gonzales doesn't have 11 claims? I would ask why would an interview by a fellow player Ken McGregor who is stating an opinion that Gonzales was #1 in a given year ever be considered as a credible source? That's obviously no different than Federer backing Nadal in 2013 over Djokovic. Pretty silly to have that as a credible source even in the old times without ITF/ATP. This is why I argued that the only credible sources (other than ITF and ATP) should be entities or individuals who compiled multiple *ranking lists* over the years. Names such as Tingay, pro tour point rankings etc. I think that pretty much passes encyclopedia test whereas some bozo compiling a single ranking in a year doesn't pass the encyclopedia test. It's just a one-off. And it's even worse if it's just an opinion on who was #1 without the author giving us a full list of players. No full list? I would not even consider that opinion. So in this case, it seems I would ignore Ken McGregor's opinion as not being a proper claim. It should stay in citations as a trivia (just as Laureas award in 2017 or Tennis France backing Thiem in 2020) but this is not a valid claim imo. So your problem is obviously sources in general. There has to be a uniform, valid criteria satisfying basic encyclopedic standards on what is a true, credible source. Once you establish that, then we add them all up in the final table for all-time period. And have a separate table for modern period only. I'm also upset that nobody commented on my table and offered no tips.
As for this, "Pre-1973 rankings are not the same as official ATP and ITF rankings and should not be listed together" this seems very strict. Wimbledon in 1910 was very very different from Wimbledon today. No pros allowed, defending champion automatically in the final, no official ITF designation, long trousers etc, nothing is comparable to modern period, it's a totally surreal setting compared to today's game. Yet in all-time tables, winners of 1910s and winners of today are listed alongside. Same should apply to all-time #1. Saying #1 of any era is "too different from modern #1 to be listed next to each other" seems like a personal opinion to me. This is not a page about ITF, ATP or modern #1, it's a about past players who had claims to being best in the world (#1) so it should include all-time claims. Ricardo 93.142.131.230 (talk) 17:12, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
Another big issue is handling the two chart totals differently... that is unfair to our readers. If you don't list all the years someone like Gonzales has sources for being the best, and only use undisputed year-end No. 1s for his totals, then we need to reciprocate on the ATP/ITF chart. Under ATP totals Borg should only have a total of "2" and Connors only gets a value of "1". The ATP split those years so they are disputed. Lendl and McEnroe would also get one less in the ATP column since is was disputed by the ATP. That's the problem with not including all instance of sourced best player of the year. Fyunck(click) (talk) 07:08, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
Yes, agreed. I'm definitely arguing for all-time table including shared years as the ultimate table on this page but I think other arrangements would provide additional insight, e.g. all-time undisputed should/could be shown as well, and if some of you insist on showing modern period alone, then apply the same shared and undisputed combo for modern period too. I'm ok with that. Ricardo93.141.234.204 (talk) 08:59, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
I understand the concerns about the pre-1973 table (it seemed to me ForzaUV had created a table pre-1973 which was the least worst option, but I take your points). So alternatively either list the ATP and ITF number ones (which are recognised standards outside of wikipedia) and dont list pre-1973 or alternatively list neither. They would be my preferred options. Tennishistory1877 (talk) 10:44, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
But Tennis history 1877, don't you like tables? How can "don't show any tables" be a good proposal? What is solved by having zero tables? Ricardo 93.141.234.204 (talk) 10:58, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
In my opinion, nothing is unfair to the readers as long as all the info is presented. One applicable formula for the two eras is probably impossible given the different variables but you're right regarding the ATP. I'll do some tweaking to make the modern chart a bit clearer to the readers. ForzaUV (talk) 12:08, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
no rankings before 1973? What about Lance Tingay? Why is he in tennis hall of fame for publishing rankings? I've heard he published his annual rankings for many many years. He was a respected figure and his rankings matter a lot. The only thing they lack is ITF/ATP label since Tingay's ranking list wasn't official. But guess what, neither was Wimbledon prior 1913 official per ITF but it's still counted. So my message here is this. This article can't and shouldn't demand stricter criteria than the rest of tennis articles. Page is about all time rankings, it's not about "official rankings". I'm not opposed to having a separate list/table here for modern/official #1, similarly to list of open era GS winners on GS titles pages, but don't lose the important stuff from your sight. All-time records are always first. Ricardo 93.141.234.204 (talk) 12:41, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
Tingay was just a journalist for The Daily Telegraph who made an annual ranking list. Though his list was published in other publications too, he was no different to the editors of Tennis de France who made a ranking list or Ken McGregor, or any of the other pre-1973 sources. Tennishistory1877 (talk) 13:02, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
”Tingay just a journalist"? But Tingay is a member of tennis hall of fame due to his journalistic contribution and his annual rankings are probably what accounts most in his contribution. OTOH what has McGregor done in terms of rankings? Maybe he did something, I'm no exoert, and he's also member of tennis hall of fame, but it says he's there due to his on court success, it doesn't say he's there as a publisher of rankings? So he probably didn't do a lot, if anything. And if Tingay is "just a journalist" then Wimbledon pre-1913 is "just a tournanent". Neither is official. But both were "big" and you seem to ignore the grandeur of Tingay? I now believe the the main problem for this page is accepting sources. If tennis hall of fame member Tingay and his annual rankings are treated no differentlly than some random guy who gives an interview on who is #1, I understand why it's difficult to make this page. I think we should work more on deciding which criteria to apply for sources. Other than ITF/ATP and point based lists during pro era, I would accept someone like Tingay who is hall of fame member and has published many rankings. Or someone who wrote a book on entire history of tennis. I would not equate those two with people who published one-off rankings. Ricardo93.141.234.204 (talk) 13:34, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
As you say, you are no expert, yet you seem very keen to make lots of arbitrary judgments on sources. You say all sources should be treated the same and listed in the tables, yet also say you should select which sources should be listed. You are not making a whole lot of sense right now. Tennishistory1877 (talk) 14:09, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
Just to elaborate on Tingay, and his predecessor Olliff, they provided annual rankings for the amateur tour only, I do not believe that they prepared any pro ranking lists. Which is one reason why we had so much trouble finding pro ranking lists. So elevating Tingay/Olliff to super status only applies to the amateur tour. The pros never had a consistent ongoing ranking authority, which is one reason why they tried in some years to adopt a point ranking system.Tennisedu (talk) 22:52, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
But Tennishistory, I'm not suggesting it should be me who is to decide on sources, I'm saying there has to be a criteria (based on encyclopedia standards) which would clearly sort them out? Why do you attack me as if I'm trying to impose anything? I never changed article I am simply discussing here. For example I don't understand why is McGregor interview from 1953 a "source". You said it's just an interview and I don't know the whole background. Ok just an interview. So you put Gonzales in a column in 1953 because of the interview coming from a fellow pro (?), but then again Gonzales is missing from the final table. That's too confusing for me. If someone is in the column, he should be in the final table as well. That should not be up for the discussion. The names in columns and final table need to be aligned. As for which names will make it to the column (and later to the final table), I tried to start a discussion on what constitutes a credible source. For me, a fellow pro player giving an interview on some other player's behalf does not constitute a valid source. OTOH Tingay, who has hall of fame resume, is a super valid source. What does wikipedia and the rules here say about it? Ricardo 93.141.234.204 (talk) 14:33, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
Ricardo, WP:OTHERCONTENT is not a valid argument on Wikipedia - start a discussion on that other article's talk page about whether the early Wimbledons should be counted in the all-time major tallies if you disagree with the status quo. For this article, the official ("ITF/ATP label") vs. non-official ranking distinction is critical for any objective tallying. While on individual years pre-1978 we can detail the subjective nominations, combining and comparing these cannot be done because each year's number 1 is not 100% certain and therefore to tally them up would require the % uncertainties to also be added up for an objective total. As the % uncertainties are indeterminable, this procedure is impossible. Also, the resulting table would be completely unique to Wikipedia, breaching WP:V. Tallying only the official rankings, which can be easily verified ([1], [2] p.64), has none of these issues per WP:CALC. Sod25 (talk) 14:20, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
But why do you discuss 1973? The year you need to consider is 1978. That's the first year of total modern era, no? ITF and ATP issuing their awards from then on. So the cut off is imo, either open era 1968, as the year in which the tours were united, or 1978, the year in which we've entirely moved on from journalist, magazine pundits rankings lists and we are only focused on two official organisations. Remember you have controversies in 1973 (official ATP Năstase vs unofficial Newcombe) and 1977 (unofficial Vilas vs official ATP Borg vs official ATP Connors). From 1978 onwards the only conflicts are between official organisations (ITF vs ATP) so that's modern period. Ricardo 93.141.234.204 (talk) 14:41, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
It's ok. So here it is, the article in which Ken McGregor states his opinion that Gonzales is the best. https://trove.nla.gov.au/newspaper/article/51080197 It goes like this: " Sat 31 Oct 1953, By KEN McGREGOR WHO is the world's best tennis player to-day? I would say Pancho Gonzales, even though, strangely enough, I've never seen him hit a ball." So it's not merely his opinion, it's a heresay. He never saw him play. I would ask seriously on what grounds does this constitue as a valid source/claim to be a year-end #1? And it was only Oct 31, the year wasn't even finished yet. It's not modern/official the way ITF/ATP do it, but it also lacks any systematization, it feels just an article written to express his opinion? Has McGregor published more of these rankings over the years so that we can match them and have some continuity? And what about him being a tennis pro at the same time, competing in the same tour vs these guys, doesn't that affect his impartiality? These are all questions I am raising in good faith. Judging by the scores for 1953, Sedgman beat Gonzales convincingly in Wembley Pro final and Gonzales beat 38-year old Budge in US Pro final, you'd have to kinda rate Sedgman higher here, but obviosuly, I won't impose my view. Still, I would preffer impartial sources. Gonzales wiki Page states this: "In 1953, Gonzales was omitted by Kramer (by now also a promoter) from the big pro tour, which featured Frank Sedgman (a winner of five Grand Slam singles titles) against Kramer himself and Ken McGregor (the 1952 Australian Open singles winner) against Segura. Gonzales won the Cleveland event, defeating a 38-year-old Don Budge in the final in four sets.[37] Gonzales was awarded the Pilsner of Cleveland Trophy for his victory. At Wembley 1953[38] and two days later in Paris,[39] he was severely beaten by Sedgman, the eventual winner of these tournaments, and Sedgman was ranked the pro No. 1 for 1953 by Tennis de France in its full season ranking list.[40] In June, the Players Committee of the Cleveland U.S. Pro or Cleveland World Pro (billed title) had ranked Gonzales as the world No. 1 professional player for 1953". I have issues with this. This Players Committee of US players is worse than McGregor rankings. Not only they are fellow players, but they're US compatriots of Gonzales and potentially very biased, it would not constitute as an impartial source for me. E.g. what if you asked a bunch of Spanish players who was better in 2013, Nadal or Djokovic? So..so far the most credible source I think that there is for 1953, is Tennis France Magazine. They publish annual rankings so I would say they are the credible source here, and if there is no one else to back Gonzales as #1 for 1953, under my understanding, he should not be in column for 1953. But of course, this approach goes for all players and all years. There should definitely be more discussion about criteria for valid claims. Ricardo93.141.234.204 (talk) 16:48, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
And yet these amateur rankings by Tingay (which you, Ricardo, seem to regard as semi-official) were published in September. Sod25 summed up the situation best in a few words quoting wikipedia policies. Seems to resolve the issue, so no need for any more hot air. Tennishistory1877 (talk) 17:19, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
OK, Tingay published his rankings before year-end as well, ok. That's obvious a historical detriment to these list. We accept none of them is perfect. However, again, I am asking you in good faith, isn't Tingay actually indeed semi-official? You seem to have said that with a touch of irony? I would defintely view him as a semi-official source, the one praised by ATP, inducted into hall of fame, etc. While not entirely official source, he's halfway there, and acknowledged in retrospect as a top source. Isn't he? It's the reason why I argue his opinion should matter in 1973, and Newcombe being co-#1 that year despite ATP saying Nastase.If you don't view Tingay as semi-official then you can't claim Newcombe in 1973 since ATP said Nastase. I say Tingay mattered in 1972 so he doesn't just become irrelevant in 1973. Him being semi-official means he matters until full modern era rankings (1978). You guys seem to argue that there are only two types of sources? Official ITF/ATP and everyone else. I think we also have grey area, persons and entities that weren't official but were highly respected and whose oppinion matters a lot more than the opinions of a random guy publishing one rankings and never saying anything else again. Tingay (and co.) have proven themselves over the years. Example, Who is better at FO, Nadal with 13 titles or Gaudio with 1? Same goes for rankings, those who published more rankings over the years have greater stature, reaching almost semi-official status. That's how I would see it. As of now, I don't think Gonzales has a claim for 1953. A poll of his US fellow players is not a valid source the way I see it. If there is a conflict of respecteble sources e.g. Tingay vs Tennis France magazine, or stuff like that, then I agree the claim would be valid. But Gonzales' friends saying he's the best, isn't a claim. Ricardo 93.141.234.204 (talk) 19:25, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
At least McGregor consulted those who had seen Gonzales play, which is more than can be said for a lot of these modern retrospective ranking sources. I see you intend talking about this issue forever, Ricardo, but for me the issue is settled. Tennishistory1877 (talk) 20:45, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
This is not an issue for the old pro era because in those days Tingay did not make a ranking list for pros, only amateurs. In 1953, Tennis de France made their only pro ranking list, putting Sedgmans at No. 1.Tennisedu (talk) 22:59, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
I'm not into arguing but it seems I had a completely opposite idea about this page. I thought pre-official, meaning pre ITF and pre ATP sources, other than some pro era points lists, were exclusively journalists and magazines, based primarily in UK, USA, France, so perhaps Tingay, Collins, Tennis France, etc stuff like that. Tingay, Collins are both hall of famers based on their work. That makes them semi-official sources I'd say, they earned that status through tradition and reputation. Just like the slams. Based on that, I thought "conflicting years" are those years in which these aforementioned sources disagreed. I never assumed a "source" could be player nominating himself or getting nominated by a fellow player who could either be a competitor or a close friend, thus very likely biased. RI would also say this. You should really try to make a distinction between semi-official and unofficial sources. It's as big as a difference as between official and semi-official. For example, in year 2020, we have official sources ITF and ATP so we don't care what once semi-official source (Tennis France) said about Thiem being #1 for that year. But before we had official sources we relied on semi-official ones, Tingay, tennis France etc. But same logic applies further. We should make a distinction between semi-official sources and unofficial ones and we should pay attention to unofficial ones only as a last resort, when there's no semi-official sources. Ricardo 93.140.231.115 (talk) 02:45, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
Ricardo, before 1968, there were zero official or regularly issued rankings for the pros, Tingay ranked only the amateurs, Tennis de France made only one pro ranking, in 1953, there were only a few years with point systems (1946, 1959, 1960, 1964-68) plus a few world tours which ranked the top pros (1942, 1954, 1961, 1963). The USPLTA issued rankings in the late 1940's and early 1950's, biased towards the results from the U.S. Pro events sanctioned by the USPLTA. The Cleveland tournament issued rankings for 1950, 1951, 1952, 1953, 1954, 1956, 1958, 1959. But we have chosen to downgrade the Cleveland rankings because of its bias towards the Cleveland event itself. That leaves us with the odd reference in newspaper reports of "No. 1" without giving any ranking source, a weak result. But that is all we have for the pros. We have regular amateur rankings for the old split era.Tennisedu (talk) 11:56, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
Ok, you do it as you wish. But all I'm saying is stuff like this is unbelievable for me. I'm quoting 1962: Rankings: Rosewall announced his personal Pro/Amateur rankings at the end of 1962: 1) Rosewall... I'm like wtf? Isn't that hilarious? Guy ranks himself as #1 and that's a credible source? Btw I'm not saying he doesn't have a claim, apparently there's another citation for 1962 so it's ok. But this stuff with players propping themselves up or their own colleagues, that's a bit fishy for me. Is that a valid source I ask myself. Ricardo 93.140.231.115 (talk) 16:25, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
Yes, I raised that issue about 1962 and Rosewall myself earlier, it is clearly a conflicted ranking. The answer I got back was that many of the old pro rankings were conflicted. So this is not necessarily worse than the others. Personally, I would exclude rankings by a player of himself. That crosses a clear line.Tennisedu (talk) 17:30, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
Have the tables, don't have the tables. But if you have them make them both apples, not apples and oranges. That's a disservice to our readers. To be honest, without all the data these totals tables are pretty useless now. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:54, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
Not sure we have consensus. IMHO the article is much worse without the tables as I have found them useful for my own submissions to outside publishers. I always saw them as part of this article's charm in seeing a non-bolded name and researching for myself as to why there were different viewpoints that season. But in the state they have become now, with so much missing on Wolbo's draft, it's now more like why bother because they are useless. Fyunck(click) (talk) 23:18, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
I agree with tennisedu to remove the tables. There are too many complications with wikipedia policy compliance to list pre-1973 sources in a table. Tennishistory1877 (talk) 23:51, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
Ricardo here. I feel it's wrong to remove the tables, because the tables are always most important part of pages like these. Everyone wants to see the table. Once the visitors read the article in its entirety, and unless they're interested in certain year, vast majority of readers, if not all of who come back will come back for the tables first and foremost. So I don't understand. It's ok that you don't have (yet) consesus on exact years, but how can we not have consensus on tables? Tables are great. I feel like the Puerto Rican guy from Seinfeld? "Who does not want to wear a ribbon?"
My proposal is this. The main emphasis should be on 4 categories. Modern (undisputed and shared) and all-time (undisputed and shared). Not so sure about the need for amatuers and pros separate listing but it you want, go ahead. No matter how many categories you choose to portay, evrything can be put into 1 table actually. We've seen those tables. And finally I believe this isn't difficult to achieve but only once you reach a consensus on sources. This page is a bit confused and sloppy in discerning between valid and trivia sources. You can't have players nominating themselves for #1 during pro era as a legit source, just as we can't have Tennis France magazine overriding ITF/ATP today. It's good that we see that Tennis France nominated Thiem in 2020, but in this age, with ITF/ATP being in charge, what Tennis France says is just trivia. Same goes for amatuer or pro era. Tingay, Collins, Tennis France etc are all semi-official for that period. OTOH player nominating himself or his friend in 1953, is just a trivia for that era. 93.143.117.25 (talk) 09:43, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
Again, Ricardo, I am having trouble following your line of thought. Tingay, Collins, and Tennis de France (except for 1953) did not make any pro rankings, just amateur. We really lack any official pro rankings for other years. The closest thing to official pro rankings were the point system years and the four ranking world tours. Mostly there was little or nothing for the old pro era in a way of regular rankings.Tennisedu (talk) 13:04, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
"My line of thought" is that we generally have official, semi-official and random/trivia claims. Since 1978 we observe only official (ITF and ATP), in transition period 1973-1978 we observe both official (ATP) and semi-official stuff, and before 1973 we observe semi-official. We should never observe random claims (such as Gonzales' friends voting for him, or Rosewall proping himself up). If you say there is no claim for certain period, leave it empty. Why should that be a problem? However I see in this site that there is a lot of claims for pro era that would classify as semi-official. E.g. in 1954 international professional tennis federation published rankings, no? That sounds quite official, no? That stuff alongside stuff like PTPA (professional tennis players association) should be at least consider semi-official from present day perspective because they sound as somewhat serious organisations so I think these sources are ok to be used as semi-official. Just don't use ridiculous stuff (Rosewall votes for himself) which should be in trivia section. If there is no valid (semi-official) claim, leave it empty, no big deal. Ricardo 93.143.117.25 (talk) 13:50, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
No, the 1954 International Pro ranking is just the continuation of the 1953 Cleveland players' committee ranking under a different name, which you claim you don't like. Those Cleveland rankings carry on from the PTPA rankings from 1950-52, after which the PTPA appears to have morphed into the Cleveland players committee and then into the International Pro Cleveland rankings, just a succession of names designating the same group of people. Then these groups appear to have morphed into the Jack March Cleveland rankings reported in World Tennis, like the earlier Cleveland rankings were reported. Same thing under a different name. And we regard those Cleveland series of rankings to be biased toward the Cleveland event, so they do not have a clean bill of health. Sorry to pop the balloon. The best rankings remain the occasional point systems and the world tours structured to rank the top pros, which happened in 1942, 1954, 1961, and 1963.Tennisedu (talk) 20:40, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
Well that's ok then, I would not consider it "semi-official" based on what you said. Clearly biased. But if there is no one else publishing rankings in those years, what do you do? For example if both ATP and ITF remained silent in 2020, would the policy here allow for Tennis France nominating Thiem to be the legit nomination? Ricardo 93.140.164.70 (talk) 11:05, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
What we have done is to list every ranking, good or bad, because in many years there would be a blank otherwise. But that makes its impossible to give a player total for yearly rankings, each ranking was vastly different from another ranking, so they cannot be added together to give a number for each player. That is where the confusion has arisen here.Tennisedu (talk) 11:54, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
Yes, and this is also covered by WP:CALC (a policy we must follow): "Comparisons of statistics present particular difficulties. Editors should not compare statistics from sources that use different methodologies." We can neutrally list various sources' rankings, but adding them up amounts to considering each year's ranking equally valid and the same, when the reality is that the sources have a wide range of methodologies and credibilities. Post-1978, when we've have the same official organizations ranking the players each year doesn't have these issues, so we can tally up the rankings from then. I wouldn't mind having no tables so as to treat the pre-1978 and post-1978 players equally, however. Sod25 (talk) 12:13, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
Yes, it is understandable that totaling for players makes it irrelevant as each ranking is different, sources are not consistent and changing for different periods using different methodologies. I agree to remove the tables as suggested by most of you in the thread Krmohan (talk) 12:33, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
Even post 1978 also, we are indicating two rankings from single source (ATP) ie Points leader, Player of year for the same year. Tally in the table is not meaningful (even for different eras, it is just Annual No.1, not World No.1 for the sake of counting) Krmohan (talk) 15:54, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
Early 1950s
We have a problem with the early 1950s. There is use of a citation from Underwood that Kramer was "the best" player from 1948 until his retirement in 1953. So far, we have not understood the term "the best" to be equivalent with "no. 1", which is the underlying assumption being used here. "The best" does not necessarily mean No. 1 for a particular year, in fact, "the best" is not a ranking choice at all. Very often, the acknowledged "best" player for a year does not get the no. 1 ranking for that year. "Best" is a subjective rating of talent, whereas "no. 1" is a ranking of achievement, based on results, two different things.Tennisedu (talk) 21:42, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
Agreed, Djokovic was clearly the best player of the last decade [3], but several years in that period he didn't have the best season and wasn't ranked No.1. Sources should be specific to the year in question, not sweeping statements about multiple years at a time. If the Underwood source is the only one backing Kramer for a year in that range, then he should be removed. Sod25 (talk) 00:42, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
However, "the best" player is not always the no. 1 ranked player, as we noted above. We need annual references for ranking as no. 1 for particular years, not an overall assessment of talent for a player for an era or group of six years.Tennisedu (talk) 01:12, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
Kramer was World champion as we know, many sources that say that. The word "Best" is debatable. Underwood calls Kramer King of the Pros, the best player in a specified period. Most unbiased tennis historians think Kramer was the best, top player from 1948-1951 and 1953, this is not contentious. Of course this page should also reflect ranking sources such as USPLTA rankings.Tennishistory1877 (talk) 01:21, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
Precisely, "best player" in a PERIOD. Not for individual years, which is why this period description cannot be automatically applied to individual years. We need some reference to the specific years. And no, "best player" is a qualitative assessment, not a ranking for a year. Your suggested period ranking included 1952, where clearly that term "best" does not apply to a ranking for that particular year. We need annual rankings, not a qualitative assessment for an era.Tennisedu (talk) 01:30, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
If a source says a player was ranked number one between specific years, that is specific. The example Sod25 uses is different. Best player of the last decade does not specify individual years. Tennishistory1877 (talk) 01:34, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
A specific period is not a specific year, but a collection of years during which other players might rank no. 1 for one of the years. You are trying to compare apples with oranges. Your source does not make any reference to no. 1 rankings, but uses the vague term "best", which avoids the question of rankings.Tennisedu (talk) 01:40, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
Clearly you do not understand the words from and to! Maybe I should remove it because of the term "best", which is debatable. I know what Underwood means, its clear from the chapter what he thinks, but with someone like you around its "best" to have clear rules, as I have found. No reasonable judgments made with you, only rules. Tennishistory1877 (talk) 02:07, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
Explicit is better than implicit - we shouldn't have to read between the lines to justify a nomination, especially when it is the sole one backing a player for a given year. When Underwood states that Kramer was the best player from 1948 to 1953, it isn't clear that he would have ranked Kramer No. 1 at the end of each year in that period. Sod25 (talk) 03:05, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
The years were explicit. However, I removed Underwood because of the term best. Its a shame, Kramer is not listed for 3 years in which he was the top player. I dont want to lecture you, Sod25, but you have a lot to learn about the pre-open era pro tour sources. Convoluted doesnt even begin to cover it! Tennishistory1877 (talk) 03:11, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
He wasn't explicit enough about Kramer's supposed No. 1 ranking for each year in that period to include it here, evidently. You're correct however that when it comes to the players of years long passed my knowledge is shallow, so I will not contribute further. I came to this article with a clear vision for change, which has now been fully realized. The last thing I'll say is that this is not a correct citation. You should be using the {{Cite book}} template inside of ref tags, i.e. <ref>{{Cite book|last=...|first=...|date=...|title=...}}</ref>. Likewise for {{Cite news}} and {{Cite web}} for newspapers and websites. This is easily done with WP:RefToolbar/2.0, or the WP:VisualEditor. All the citations on this page will have to be converted to the correct format - I'll leave that one in your and everyone here's capable hands. Sod25 (talk) 21:48, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
I may be an expert on tennis history, but I am not an expert on wikipedia citation formatting. I leave that to others more interested in this than I am (and there are regular users on this page that have a lot of experience in this). Yes I feel happy with this page as it now stands and feel it is a great improvement and thank all editors for their contributions. Tennishistory1877 (talk) 22:29, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
That doesn't cut it I'm afraid. Very few people are "interested" in formatting citations correctly, but it needs to be done and there is no excuse not to learn. Please watch this video to learn the basics. Otherwise for every edit you make, other editors will need to spend twice as long cleaning up after you. Sod25 (talk) 20:02, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
I spend a lot of time adding citations and I add them in bulk. Every one of my newspaper citations contains the newspaper, date, and wherever possible the website source and a direct link to the page. I many times find citations for information added by others when they have added no citation at all. I notice you have added a lot of citation needed tags to this page. I have added a lot of citations for those that were needed. The shorter time it takes me to add citations, the more I can add. If others want to add longer citations, including quotes, article titles etc. then they can. But my prime concern is adding citations where there are none. Tennishistory1877 (talk) 22:54, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
Yes, I added tags to every source without a reference. Your additions of citations are valuable and appreciated, but you need to do it the proper way. Please just watch the short video. You don't need to add any more information than you already do, and it is very easy. Sod25 (talk) 05:00, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
Actually I find that not to be true. If a source is listed, but improperly formatted, I find that much easier to fix than no source at all. Usually a link is posted and I simply insert it into Wikipedia "ProveIt (classic version)." I would rather have important info added with a poorly formatted source, than to not have the info at all. Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:16, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
That's great, but doesn't undercut the point that someone needs to clean up after them after every edit, which shouldn't be the case. A brand new editor can be forgiven, but one with 4000 edits over 4 years should be expected to do things the proper way, especially when it's so easy. Sod25 (talk) 05:00, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
1961
There seems to be some belief that rankings for 1961 cannot be accepted for individual writers or experts from mid-season, although in 1961 the formal rankings season had already ended before July and the official ranking for the tour was already completed. The official world ranking tour had already ended, so there is no point to suggesting that this was a mid-year ranking. It was a ranking after the world tour had ended.Tennisedu (talk) 01:23, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
Gonzales won the world tour in 1961. Hoad 1961 by Mulloy was not a ranking for the ranking tour. The remarks made by Mulloy are not relevant to that tour. It was a mid-year passing remark by Mulloy. I removed a couple of other mid-year references a few days back. We shouldnt be having these. An association ranks at the end of their tournament or tour, but a mid-year remark in a newspaper is another matter. Tennishistory1877 (talk) 01:30, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
It was not mid-season, the world tour had completed, so July was not too early to issue a ranking. Some world tours ended earlier than in 1961. This was a specific ranking for 1961 with a view to a prospective open Wimbledon tournament, the subject of the article. So the timing was relevant to the Wimbledon event, and the discussions over open tennis which were taking place at that moment. There is no reason to restrict this ranking from our list.Tennisedu (talk) 01:36, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
There were loads of tournaments after July, as you well know. Gonzales won the World tour easily and had a 6-2 win loss record against Hoad on the tour! I read the article, Mulloy says "When Gonzales and Hoad meet head-to-head, Hoad wins". This may be true in 1959, but not from January-July 1961, when the head to head was 6-2 to Gonzales. Tennishistory1877 (talk) 01:58, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
The official ranking world tour had been completed, so it was not too early to issue a ranking. You seem to be grasping at straws. We are discussing the ranking requirement for a no. 1 ranking, not Mulloy's personal ranking system, which clearly downplayed the early world tour. The timing of this ranking was determined by the discussions over prospective open tennis, and who would win at Wimbledon. Hoad had a huge edge over Gonzales on grass in 1961, I believe that it was 4 to 1. And Hoad had won the world tour hth against Gonzales in 1959 by 15-13. Gonzales and Hoad did not play each other in 1960, so the latest complete tour of the two players was that 1959 number. So a Wimbledon no. 1 ranking is plausible for that year. But that is beside the point, because many rankings we include do not go into any detail of how the ranking is made, we simply quote the ranking without entering our own judgment. Mulloy was a credible authority. There is no reason to exclude this ranking.Tennisedu (talk) 02:06, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
It is a mid year ranking. We had this discussion on another thread and ForzaUV agreed with me about this issue. There are players in the open era who have even had an official mid-year ATP number one ranking and arent listed as number ones on this page, never mind any of this mid-year 1961 nonsense from Mulloy. As for your desperate attempts to justify the unjustifiable, "When Gonzales and Hoad meet head-to-head, Hoad wins" is simply not true when applied to the January-July 1961 period. Tennishistory1877 (talk) 02:27, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
Those 6-2 in world series matches were only one-set matches, some of which Hoad played with a broken foot. Mulloy apparently discounted those, which were only preliminary to the playoff series, which started at 0-0.Tennisedu (talk) 16:13, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
Obviously, they did not meet Mulloy's standards. Mulloy's judgment is considered sound enough to be accepted for a ranking on this page for 1953, so I think that we should accept Mulloy's judgment here for this citation. His rankings carried some authority, and for 1961 his ranking was vindicated by the remainder of the season.Tennisedu (talk) 23:25, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
1: Hoad was not accepted by anyone other than you as being ranked number one for 1961. 2: Mulloy's remarks were made mid-year. 3: Mulloy's remarks clearly refer to 1959. 4: All other mid-year rankings not made by an association have been removed from this page, including one for Kramer in 1951. 5: As usual your desperate and relentless bias toward Lew Hoad is getting the better of you. Tennishistory1877 (talk) 00:18, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
No, I have no bias towards Hoad or Kovacs, just want to see even-handed application of the rules. Interesting, though, that both Hoad and Kovacs got rated well below most other ranking authorities in Kramer's personal rankings. Not sure why that happened.Tennisedu (talk) 00:46, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
Additional amateur details
Do we want to add some additional season details for the amateur years? We now have a ranking for them, so it would be appropriate to add some details.Tennisedu (talk) 01:42, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
Yes, and likewise for the early pros. I would split the pro and amateur seasons' info by starting the amateurs' with something like "<br />In the amateurs'..." (including the "<br />"). All tournaments draws should be linked like I did with the rest. You can copy these links for the four majors:
[[19XX Australian Championships – Men's Singles|Australian Championships]]
[[19XX French Championships – Men's Singles|French Championships]]
I almost hesitate to introduce this question, but there are other articles which are impacted by the changes which we have made here, in particular tables for all-time records for rankings numbers, which we have cancelled here for good reasons. I suggest that we now edit the other articles with these improper records to bring them into consistency with this article. Tennisedu (talk) 21:38, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
I filled in many of the missing citations for ranking sources on this page. There are still some French citations missing, most notably L'Equipe (Judith Elian) and Tennis magazine (France). Most of the missing sources are after 1969. I could probably get the L'Equipe sources by emailing BnF (who have L'Equipe archives and have been helpful to me in the past) but I would need to know roughly what date each year they were published to narrow down the research time. If anyone has copies of Tennis magazine France in the 1970s and 1980s then please add citations. Thanks. Tennishistory1877 (talk) 23:35, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
I thought it might be him that added them. I was looking back at an old wikipedia talk thread with Colussi on it from 2006. He added some good material but without citations. I dont know Colussi myself, though I know people that do know him. Tennis de France from 1953, though added by tennisedu, came from Colussi. Tennishistory1877 (talk) 10:42, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
unfortunately when I picked up these rankings I didn't note precisely the sources I used about Judith Elian from L'Équipe (not L'Equipe). Her rankings were originally published in L'Équipe but I never saw them. I don't know when Elian published them (possibly in December ???). In the late 1970's-early 1980's L'Équipe rankings were published in late January the following year since the Masters at NY was held in early-mid January. I collected Elian's world #1 players lists from one monthly tennis magazine (I can't remember which one), either from Tennis de France (TdF) or Tennis Magazine (France) (TM) in the 1980's or 1990's (can't remember too). So to find them back I should have to scrutinize all my monthly magazines (I won't do it right now since many of them are still in moving boxes unopened and undocumented). However I just have found another source with some lists of world top 10 players : La fabuleuse histoire du TENNIS by Christian Quidet (the edition of the second quarter of 1976 with Arthur Ashe on cover).
1970 : original source Judith Elian - L'Équipe (derived source : TdF or TM ?)
1971 : original source Judith Elian - L'Équipe (derived source : TdF or TM ?)
1972 : original source Judith Elian - L'Équipe (derived source : La fabuleuse histoire du TENNIS by Christian Quidet (the edition of the second quarter of 1976 with Arthur Ashe on cover) pages 750-751), Elian list : 1 Smith, 2 Nastase, 3 Rosewall, 4 Laver, 5 Ashe, 6 Newcombe, 7 Orantes, 8 Okker, 9 Riessen, 10 C. Drysdale
1973 : original source Judith Elian - L'Équipe (derived source : La fabuleuse histoire du TENNIS by Christian Quidet (the edition of the second quarter of 1976 with Arthur Ashe on cover) page 751), Elian list : 1 Newcombe, 2 Nastase, 3 Smith, 4 Okker, 5 Kodes, 6 Laver, 7 Rosewall, 8 Connors, 9 Ashe, 10 Orantes
1974 : original source Judith Elian - L'Équipe (derived source : La fabuleuse histoire du TENNIS by Christian Quidet (the edition of the second quarter of 1976 with Arthur Ashe on cover) page 751), Elian list : 1 Connors, 2 Borg, 3 Rosewall, 4 Newcombe, 5 Vilas, 6 Smith, 7 Nastase, 8 Ashe, 9 Laver, 10 Okker
1975 : original source Judith Elian - L'Équipe (derived source : La fabuleuse histoire du TENNIS by Christian Quidet (the edition of the second quarter of 1976 with Arthur Ashe on cover) page 751), Elian list : 1 Ashe, 2 Borg, 3 Connors, 4 Orantes, 5 Vilas, 6 Nastase, 7 Ramirez, 8 Laver, 9 Tanner, 10 Solomon
1976 : original source Judith Elian - L'Équipe (derived source : TdF or TM ?)
1977 : original source Judith Elian - L'Équipe (derived source : TdF or TM ?)
About the Tennis Magazine (France) annual rankings, they were published in the March edition following the year : I have some of them but as told before in moving boxes. So when I find them I will give the exact source but now I have no time and energy to make researches.
P. S. : about the year 1973, I read (probably in Tennis de France but once again I didn't note the source precisely) that 17 of 20 journalists ranked Nastase as world #1 (perhaps the 'Martini and Rossi' Award but in the latter "only" 14 (instead of 17) of 20 journalists chose Nastase).--Carlo Colussi (talk) 12:41, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
Thank you for these sources Carlo Colussi. I may be able to get some of the L'Equipe ones direct from L'Equipe (by emailing BnF) now I know what time of the month they were published. Tennishistory1877 (talk) 14:30, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
Thank you Carlo. If you do find time to get the exact editions/page numbers for the rest at some point that would be great. Likewise for the French sources on the women's page if the men and women's rankings were published together. Sod25 (talk) 05:36, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
Can't remember about the women : perhaps the month before since their Masters was not held at NY in January the next year in the late 1970's.--Carlo Colussi (talk) 09:46, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
Time to transfer drafts to main article
I notice there have been some edits on the main article in the past 24 hours. It seems most of the changes have been applied to the draft articles now, so I think it is time to transfer them across to the main article. Any further changes can be applied on the main article. Agreed? Tennishistory1877 (talk) 20:10, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
Tennishistory1877 Why did you not move the stats section and what further discussion is needed? The original stats section had its issues but as long as we apples are apples and oranges are oranges I don't see a problem with the section. There is absolutely nothing wrong with section we have in the draft and I don't think everybody agreed to remove the section completely. Fyunck, Ricardo and Qwerty maybe are against it unless they've changed their minds. If some think we have a long list for the pre-ATP era we can make it exclusive for the professionals and their amateur years. ForzaUV (talk) 20:01, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
Also, The changes made prior to transfer of capitalizing all the players names was not agreed to at all. How did that happen because it looks absolutely terrible? I had agreed to [number 1 ranked male tennis players&oldid=1053853936 This formatting] not with the player names first and in all caps. That is very improper for an encyclopedia. You don't ask for agreement, get an agreement, then change the formatting just prior to movement. All caps is very very annoying and it flowed better with the agreed upon styling. I would have fought ALL CAPS all the way up the chain. Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:06, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
Myself, tennisedu, Sod25 and Krmohan are all against having tables. I think you did the best job that could be done with them, ForzaUV, but I still feel they are unsatisfactory. I am not sure there is a satisfactory way to present pre-open era tables. I am not so much against 1978 onwards tables, so if there was a majority to keep them I would be OK with that. Tennishistory1877 (talk) 20:10, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
Tennishistory1877 Why do you feel the pre-open era table is unsatisfactory? There are a few years for every players where he was seen as the best player on his tour by almost everyone, those years got listed and counted. I'm not sure what the issue or satisfactory about that. Perhaps you can elaborate a bit more. I get it that some editors are against the inclusion of the stats but there also others who are against the complete removal. ForzaUV (talk) 05:46, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
As well as the wikipedia policy compliance issues (I am not convinced any pre-open era tables would comply), the table is unrepresentative. For instance, Rosewall had one of the most dominant years in history in 1962, but doesnt get an undisputed year because of that hogwash 1962 UPI poll. Kramer was the dominant player for years but gets few undisputed years because he didnt play in the US Pro (whose rankings favoured US Pro winners). Tennishistory1877 (talk) 11:31, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
Ricardo here. I am quoting you: "Kramer was the dominant player for years but gets few undisputed years because he didnt play in the US Pro (whose rankings favoured US Pro winners)". OK and so what? He didn't play one of the top events of his time and got penalized so to speak. How is that different from e.g. ITF snubbing Nadal for 2013, Nadal skipping AO and losing in Wimbledon R1, but overall having superior year to Djokovic, won more slams, won more ATP1000s, won their h2h, won more tournaments. 93.142.128.13 (talk) 00:08, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
Nadal and Kramer were roughly the same in the number of years they were the best player, Ricardo. Nadal gets several undisputed years, Kramer now has one! Kramer isnt even listed now in three years when he was the best player. Seems very rough on Kramer. Tennishistory1877 (talk) 03:16, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
Is it more rough than guys like Laver and Rosewall being stuck at 11 and 8 slams? Or superb Gonzales stuck at only 2 slam titles? At least Kramer gets credited with more slams, lol.
Yes I agree it's rough that he gets no undisputed years at #1, but that was true history and it should be presented here fairly and the truth is, it was equally rough to all of them. They all suffered. Kramer played during split so no way he can be undisputed #1. Ricardo 93.141.240.107 (talk) 14:56, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
Tennisedu and Sod25 requested changes to the listings, I like the new format and capitalisation, its clear and shows who is nominated clearly. Tennishistory1877 (talk) 20:13, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
I am not too happy with having spent time today on re-styling after this issue was discussed on the draft talk page when a certain editor did not voice objection to it. However, despite feeling the new styling was better and clearer, I am happy to go with the previous style too. Tennishistory1877 (talk) 20:24, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
You're welcome. The "NAME (P/A):" styling (initially "(P/A) Name:", which I preferred) was experimented with by Tennisedu and I as part of the discussion at Draft talk:World number 1 ranked male tennis players#Position of citations, where the difficulty of quickly matching names in the ranking columns to the sources in the sourcing column, particularly for years with multiple players listed (1953 being the worst example), was raised. Tennishistory1877 then implemented this across across the board, somewhat prematurely, before copying everything across. I still think "Name (P/A):" is a satisfactory solution to the problem.
As for the tables, I'm strongly in favor of removing them entirely as the equation of various completely separate rankings ineluctably violates Wikipedia policies, as outlined above.
Finally, since none of the editors who both opposed either of the two proposals and have continued discussion here have furthered their disagreements with the choices implemented first in the drafts and now in the article itself, I'm going to formally close the two proposals myself and retract the request for close at WP:CR. I don't blame the admins for not having wanted to wade through the incredibly dense, circuitous discussions on this page to do so themselves. Sod25 (talk) 21:42, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
You have to understand that some editors don't read every single post as opposed to most posts, and that some posts get filtered out completely. That section you linked to on Wolbo's draft, Position of Citations, was a heading about whether citations should be in the player column or the sourcing column. I had initially wanted it in player column but was convinced by many that the "Source of ranking and tournament results summary" was a better location. You all convinced me. I hadn't realized that the section "Position of citations" on Wolbo's personal draft was about to change the style of wording in the "Source of ranking and tournament results summary" so drastically, not just the column of the citations. And even this page at "Time to transfer drafts to main article" asked whether it was time to move Wolbo's draft page over. Wolbo agreed and I did a double check and agreed so said nothing against it. But in the time that was asked and the time it was moved a Huge change happened. I would not have been silent had I seen that change. I like the way it looked when Wolbo agreed to move his draft.
Could we rearrange and have the names in the source column listed first. It's possible but I think it draws far too much comparison to number of sources as opposed to quality of sources. It's why I like it the way it was. But capitalizing EVERY SINGLE LETTER in a persons name is more like shouting and very poor style for an encyclopedia that would likely go against our style guide. There is another issue that must be looked at. Taking 1993 with Pete Sampras as an example and looking at the source "Tennis Magazine (France) ranked Sampras first and Courier second." That sentence goes against Wikipedia guidelines for sight challenged readers. It can't be colorized and it can't be that light gray shade. It should be the same color as the rest as was told to us in our performance chart discussions. Otherwise some admin will one day see it and tell us to change it anyway. Overall the new page layout is in good shape. For the record I am not in favor of the ranking removal for 1877-1912 but everyone else was so we move on. I am not in favor of removing the totals for any time period. They should all be there with the proper titling. I did say that the shrunk down version, only using unanimous years, is so useless that it is better to scrap all charts rather than keep that unfunctional version. Fyunck(click) (talk) 04:35, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
I did wait two days and there were no objections before implementing the style change. I spent a fair amount of time today converting the page (time that was wasted). Yes I am concerned with wikipedia policy compliance too, Sod25. Tennishistory1877 (talk) 22:00, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
Yes agreed..Tables aganist the Wiki policy to compare across different periods and tours. The current version uploaded is ok..One suggestion. Since no.2 removed, "List of No.1 and No.2 ranked players" may be changed with "List of Annual #1 Ranked Players"...Just suggestion.... Krmohan (talk) 04:51, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
I feel not having tables is actually a bias? Someone apparently wants to hide the history or perhaps hates Gonzales? If amatuer and pro slams can be grouped together in all-time lists, I see no reason why we wouldn't group all-time #1? Sure, the methodologies were different in 1964 and 1994, but methodologies change constantly. ATP's best of 18 of today and ATP's best of 14 during 1990s are also totally different methodologies, yet ATP #1 is accepted in ATP #1 page regardless of the year. Since this page is about players ranked #1, all-time, I see no reason why would different methodology or institutions affect our table. Of course things would change over the course of history, over many decades and almost couple of centuries of tennis. Not having tables here, I feel is like insisting on a permanent reset, let's reset stats every 50 years or so. I vote against it. And as a solution here, you can always have table which offers multiple "sort by" (all-time, pros, amateurs, open, shared, split) thus you won't be implying any of the sortation is the "true one". Ricardo93.141.240.107 (talk) 14:56, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
Someone apparently wants to hide things or hates Gonzales? No other explanation. - Accusations such as this are unacceptable on Wikipedia. I have outlined in clear terms why the tallying of players extracted from a vast array of different sources violates Wikipedia policies. Many years' nominations, which we would be tallying up as if they were 100% certain, are in fact very fragile, as seen by Kramer being remove from no less than four years just yesterday. To your ATP argument: you're saying that an official best-of-18 system and an official best-of-14 system are as different as an official best-of-18 system and some random journalist's opinion in a small newspaper, or an offhand comment by one of the players, who couldn't have imagined that their words would be taken as gospel by an encyclopedia many decades later? I hope not, but even if you are, the point is irrelevant anyway, as the ATP itself tallies up its player of the year awards, so the totals are directly verifiable, completely unlike the totals that this article would produce. The choice not to include just the official ATP/ITF table is because it wouldn't do justice to all the players in an all-time article to include a table of only the last 50 years. That is why we don't have tables. Either WP:Assume good faith, or stop contributing here. Sod25 (talk) 21:38, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
In my opinion, it is not about who is or how many are in favor of Tables….This kind of table do not comply with Wikipedia policy, as discussed in the “Stats Table top issue” already. A player is disputed or undisputed itself is an opinion by few members or a group of editors (by so called consensus). Further, a source is contradicting its decision or not (ATP PoY and ATP No.1 ranking points) is again an interpretation. If you make a total tally with this kind of statistics, it is warranted for undue comparison/influence. This is what is against the Wikipedia policy. In fact, one cannot even compare ATP PoY with ITF World champion in a single season (e.g. 2013). Forget about across different periods, tours etc using different methodologies. Putting them in a table with a total tally of #1 s (Each and every source’s No.1 is unique and not be compared with No.1 by other source) call for undue comparison by the readers, which should be discouraged as per the policy it seems. As such, we are doing the listing of No.1 by sources (players designated for annual # 1 or year-end only) and not determining true No.1 or who has got more No.1s as mentioned. One more thing, the word “World No.1” is misleading in the title and it may not be attributed to any player by anyone (as per the ITF directives) in my opinion. Hope this is in order to close the point.Krmohan (talk) 02:43, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
Ricardo here. Not having tables is both wrong and illogical and hypocritical. You can not defend that stance. If you can't have a table at the end of the article to show to the readers stuff that's already been presented in the article, then how can you have a page like this in the first place? What's the connection between Spencer Gore in 1877 and Nadal in 2019? None. Yet someone put them on this same page, inventing concept as "all-time number 1". Strictly speaking, the whole concept could be argued as OR. There is no outside link you can link this page to, right? It all comes from different sources and different methodologies. Even the difference in established rankings was huge, ATP itself going through 3 major changes, system of averages, best of 14 and best of 18. Not even mentioning all other different sources and institutions. If they're all so incomparable and different, then this page shouldn't exist, instead there should be half a dozen pages, all of them separately listing #1 among amateurs, pros, early open era, ATP, ITF etc.
Obviously, I don't advocate that, but if you're going to push stuff to its logical conclusion, then this entire page should be abolished. However, it's good that this page exists, and it should offer a table in which you could observe everything that's been mentioned in this article. I already proposed a single table, with multiple "sort by" options, enabling readers to observe sortation which interests them, whether it's all amateur #1 citations, all pro #1 citations, open era, undisputed, shared etc. With multiple "sort by" options, you won't be giving precedence to any of the #1s, or any methodology or organisations, you'll just allow people to easily compare the stuff that's already in the article!. What's the big deal if there's a table that shows Gonzales has 10 shared years at #1 among pros? The readers themselves can count and find his name 10 times in #1 pros column anyway. Don't they? Having tables is only about saving time. You can not hide the stuff which is already in the article. So I'm baffled by this bizarre idea that "tables would lead people to wrong conclusion". As I said, it seems to me that by not having tables, someone wants to lead readers to conclusion. Make a single table with multiple "sort by" options. Ricardo 93.137.3.89 (talk) 12:36, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
I notice you didn't apologize for the pillar-violating accusation, instead choosing to further it. It makes people not want to engage with you when you make rude accusations as you have, and indeed this will be my last reply. It's funny - you say "You can not defend that stance", and yet your argument in this comment is completely different from the last, indicating that I successfully countered your previous points. It all stems from a fundamental lack of understanding of WP:Verifiability by you, so I urge you to carefully read that and its related pages. I'll put it simply: the individual nominations for each year are all directly verifiable, but the totals are not, and therefore cannot be shown here. Full stop, end of story. The list as a whole does not have to be directly verifiable, just each of the entries, as long as they faithfully represent their sources, per WP:LISTVERIFY. From WP:SYNTH: "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources." Do any of the sources have the tallies this article would produce? Absolutely not. This should all be obvious. Also, there is no requirement as you seem to think for any list on Wikipedia to have summary statistics tables, and in fact most don't.
One last thing: you've added large swathes of text to this talk page, but contributed precious little to the article itself... I suggest you increase your article:talk page ratio if you want editors here to spend any more time engaging with you. Sod25 (talk) 19:48, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
If you announce you're not going to reply to me anymore, why do you ask me questions, why do expect me to reply to you and why should I reply to you? It's such a jerk move on your part. But I will reply nevertheless, I reply to everyone, I am not ignoring people. I didn't apologize because I feel no need, I didn't name anyone so to whom should I apologize? And apologies are not coerced, they come by free will if the person feels he/she should apologize. Obviously I don't feel that. I raised a valid issue. Not only there are many similar tennis related pages with similar all-time counting (e.g. majors, amatuer+pro+open era slams and ITF WC) but also the table in question was part of this page for years, and now suddenly it doesn't satisfy "criteria"? Gimme a break. And besides, you're acting as if I broke some taboo. There's no taboo. Preference for certain players and bias is always potentially there for everyone, even if it's unconscious. It's not offensive to warn/remind of human innate bias. That's all what I did. As for your reaction towards me, you have guys here accusing each other of pro/anti Hoad bias, and I didn't notice you interfering there and lecturing them telling them to behave? So I perceived your criticism of my post and lecturing me as meaningless and frankly offensive. I expect an apology as I feel you picked on me.
I am not editing anything as I'm not into changing the article on my own. What's the purpose of me making a table and starting an edit war? This is a talk page so I talk and express my opinion, hopefully politely. Of course I respect all the contributions from all the members in this page, but that doesn't mean the lack (removal in fact) of table is positive in any eay. It's a degradation in quality of the article. Especially when there is a solution to have table with multiple "sort by" so you won't be directly counting different periods (assuming that's your main issue). Ricardo 78.3.48.199 (talk) 09:12, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
I said I wouldn't respond further, so I'll address just this one point: the table in question was part of this page for years, and now suddenly it doesn't satisfy 'criteria'? No, not suddenly, that section violated policies for the entirety of its 15-year [6] existence. Wikipedia is a WP:WORKINPROGRESS, and many articles sit with problems for years. That doesn't mean the problems don't exist or shouldn't be addressed now. Sod25 (talk) 01:39, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
Methven Brownlee
@Tennishistory1877, yes the book is very rare, but that doesn't mean it won't be digitized and published online at some point, in fact it probably will. In that case, a reader would see this page, know the book ranked Gore No. 1 for 1877, and just need to find the page where he does so and add it here. Removing the source completely means the info is lost and the fact that Brownlee ranked Gore no. 1 would need to be "rediscovered" at some point. I've changed the "citation needed" templates to "page needed" for the other years (example), as we know the source of the info and just need the page. Sod25 (talk) 11:54, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
I dont think a dubious and rare source should be listed if unverifiable, unless there are no other sources that year. Karoly Mazak explained to me that he no longer has access to this book and asked me to remove it as a source if other citations were there for that year. If the book becomes more widely available, the source can be re-added with full citation. From what Karoly said, I can not be sure exactly what the source said (whether in fact it is a ranking or not). Tennishistory1877 (talk) 12:06, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
Let us remember also, prior to 1881 it is questionable whether there were rankings at all. Tingay says on page 247 of The Guinness book of Tennis facts and feats, the first ranking was the British ranking in 1881 (the Osborn ranking listed). Tennishistory1877 (talk) 12:15, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
Yes those early rankings are dubious, but there is no harm in listing them if correctly contextualized. You should put Tingay's quote in the #Before 1913 section. Sod25 (talk) 05:02, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
Having spoken to Karoly about it, I can not be sure what the source said. As I said, if someone should find the source (a very rare source) then we can clarify the situation. Editors shouldnt try to add dubious rankings to the page without reason, it demeans the legitimacy of the page. Tennishistory1877 (talk) 10:53, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
It's completely pointless to remove it from one year while leaving it as the sole source for three other years. Either it really can't be trusted and should be completely removed from the article, meaning we have no rankings for 1878-1880, or it should be kept just as it has been for the past 14 years until someone gets hold of a copy. I'm for the latter option, personally. Sod25 (talk) 16:46, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
But as you pointed out in an argument with another editor, just because this article has had problems for years doesnt mean we shouldnt put them right now. I may well support removal of rankings before 1881, particularly as there is a source saying none existed. Tennishistory1877 (talk) 17:23, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
Cite error: There are <ref group=lower-alpha> tags or {{efn}} templates on this page, but the references will not show without a {{reflist|group=lower-alpha}} template or {{notelist}} template (see the help page).
Bill Tilden
Karel Koželuh
Fred Perry
Ken Rosewall