Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 02:06, 7 March 2018

Template:Vital article

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Biography: Sports and Games This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Misplaced Pages's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography This article is supported by the sports and games work group (assessed as Top-importance). Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Tennis High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Tennis, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles that relate to tennis on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.TennisWikipedia:WikiProject TennisTemplate:WikiProject Tennistennis High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Tennis To-do: edit history watch purge Here are some tasks awaiting attention: Cleanup : Take an item off the Cleanup listing Copyedit : Roger Federer, Leander Paes, Rafael Nadal, Justine Henin – to be used as examples for ideal page structures Expand : Grab a Start article and expand it, or peruse the List of articles. Photo : Add photos to Tennis or Tennis people articles Stubs : Bring a Stub up to our standards. Other : *Sign up as a member of the project. Tag more articles with our standard project template. Help with the creation of yearly main articles and drawsheets for every Open Era ATP and WTA tournament. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Australia: Queensland / Sports High‑importance Rod Laver is within the scope of WikiProject Australia, which aims to improve Misplaced Pages's coverage of Australia and Australia-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page.AustraliaWikipedia:WikiProject AustraliaTemplate:WikiProject AustraliaAustralia High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Queensland (assessed as Mid-importance). This article is supported by WikiProject Australian sports (assessed as High-importance). Need help improving this article? Ask a Librarian at the National Library of Australia, or the State Library of Queensland. The Wikimedia Australia chapter can be contacted via email to helpwikimedia.org.au for non-editorial assistance. Template:WP1.0

Highest Rank

If he was a World Number 1, why does it says his highest ranking is No.3? Rev. James Triggs 21:36, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

The problem is - apart from the different contributors - the ranking system. Rod Laver was Nr. 3 on the ATP computer ranking in 1974, which was invented in 1973, when Laver was 35 years old.It 'sa problem of many tennis reference books, which rely on the highly incomplete ATP webside. Rod Laver has won many more titles than the 39, the ATP give him credit for. He was officially ranked Nr.1 by the press, notably Lance Tingay of the 'Daily Telegraph' in 1961 and 1962, when only the amateurs, who played the majors and Davis Cup, were ranked. When Laver turned pro at the begin of 1963, he could not play the majors any more. The pros had no official ranking, but after a rough initial year 1963, Laver was co-Nr 1 with Rosewall in 1964 (whom he beat 12 out of 15 times that year), and then clearly Nr.1 pro until 1967. When open tennis arrived, he was again 'officially' ranked Nr. 1 for 68 and 69 by the press.Under the modern scoring system he would have been Nr. 1 even in 1970, when he won 13 tournaments. John Newcombe confesses this in his autobiography.I feel sorry for some contributors, who come up with some valid information relying on the new book of Betty Laver, but are constantly "cured" by a quite obsessive Gonzales fan, who is constantly praising his own hand-made ranking as objective source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.62.89.188 (talk) 12:00, October 12, 2006

You don't seem to understand the basis rules of editing Misplaced Pages articles. We can ONLY put in information that has some sort of reference or citation behind it. McCauley clearly writes that Rosewall was No 1. in 1964, even if only by a small margin. Therefore McCauley is a SOURCE and his opinion can be used for the ranking. If Betty Laver writes a book with info about how many tournaments Rod Laver won, that info can also be used. But YOU cannot use it to say that, in YOUR OPINION, that makes Laver No. 1 for that year. To do so is Original Research. I hope that this is clear. Please find another source as authoritative as McCauley that says Laver was No. 1 and we can make Rosewall and Laver co-No. 1s for the year. Why do you think I have changed a number of rankings back and forth over the last couple of months? It is because I have found NEW info that has made me change my mind. Please try to understand: Wiki needs CITATIONS! Hayford Peirce 19:22, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

This argument regarding citatation is obsolete, Mr Pierce. The whole concept of Your ranking is speculative. There is NO citation to be found, that Rosewall was the Nr.1 player in the world overall pros and amateurs in the McCauley book, which i have recommended to You. McCauley doesn't even have specific year end rankings of the pros, even less of the amateurs. For some years he is ambivalent in his persectives, for 1964 he writes, that through the head to head (12-3 Laver-Rosewall) "it was clear, who the master was".He also writes, that Kramer was the World Champion pro in 1952. Your basic thought, that all pros were better than the amateurs in a given year, is a pure assumption.The only acceptable ranking sources, one can find, are the amateur rankings by Wallis Myers and Lance Tingay and McCauley in 'World Tennis'.In 68 and 69 they had a Martini and Rosso panel of 10 journalists to make a ranking.I recognize Your passion and inteerst in the historical aspects of tennis, but You should make it more clear, that You are presenting Your own choices. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.60.165.197 (talk) 14:17, October 12, 2006

I agree that laver is the no1 player for 1964. McCauley's book often does not cite his opinion for each year. In 1964 this is the case. The chapter heading, confirming Rosewall as pro Champion, refers to Rosewall outscoring Laver 78 to 70 over 18 tournaments (7 for a win) was the pro's own system. The chapter cites Laver's own comment after winning the Wembley event that Rosewall was no1. Laver's reason being that Rosewall had won more of the important events, except for this one. However Laver is plain wrong. Laver won the US and Wembley pro events, the two most important ones; Rosewall won the french pro. The pro's own system is totally flawed . The three major events score the same as the other 15; it ignores one of laver's 8 man wins (Port Elizabth); It ignores 4 man tournaments and one night stands(laver's 12-3 edge includes a 7-1 edge for one night stands) Given that in terms of consistency Roseall and laver were evenly matched, but that laver had the edge in head to head and major events there is no doubt that Laver is no1. Just because the pros themselves ranked some one no1 does not mean McCauley agrees with them. In the 1961 Chapter McCauley starts with Gonzales still World Champion because he won the World series. However, a read of the chapter quite clearly reveals that McCauley thinks Rosewall was no1 because of his wins in Paris and Wembley against fields containing all the best pros. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jeffreyneave (talk) 09:57, November 1, 2006

Mysterious book by "Betty Laver"

Please give us more info about this book by Betty Laver. I have done an extensive search, via Google, plus through the Australian National Library system, and the only books by a "Betty Laver" that I can find are about geology and minerals. Betty Laver in Australia appears to be a small publisher or self-publisher of books. I can find no connection between "Betty Laver" and tennis. Rod Laver's wife, incidentally, is named Mary. Hayford Peirce 02:12, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

i didn't come upt with this book and i don't know it yet, but it is on sale on thetennisgallery.co.uk — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.60.165.197 (talk) 14:17, October 12, 2006

I have a copy of this book. Betty Laver is a relative of Rod Laver. She is married to his brother Trevor. The book was published in Rockhampton, Queensland in 2001. The title is "the red headed rocket from Rockhampton." It adds about 6 tournaments to the 164 total.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Jeffreyneave (talk) 07:51, November 2, 2006

A Google search turns up only 2 hits for it, both for the book's sale at thetennisgallery. That's a pretty obscure book! At the gallery, the comment is: "Fascinating privately-published family biography written by Rod Laver's sister-in-law." Although a similar search for the McCauley book (using a minus sign to eliminate references to Misplaced Pages) only turns up 7 hits.... Hayford Peirce 16:50, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't think, its an obscure book. It is cited and used by the famous Australian tennis writer Alan Trengove in his book 'Advantage Australia' 2002, about Laver and Court for the Australian Post. It should be recognized the same way as autobiographies or biographies of Riggs, Gonzales, Kramer, Rosewall (both by Rowley and R. Geist),Laver (both by Jack Pollard and Bud Collins), Jenny Hoad (with Pollard), John Newcombe 'Newk-On and off the court', 2002, and others. If there are additional tournament wins recorded, they should be added to the list. As i wrote, the 164 list is not complete. I have only included the bigger pro tourneys, not the smaller ones, which McCauley not always differenciates from the one night stands.But the ATP list with 39 wins for open era, is sadly imcomplete. They even forget the big open titles, like the South African Open, the US pro, the Wembley British indoor, or the Madison Square Garden events, which would be the equivalent to the Masters Series today. They don't even have the first open in history: the BHC at Bournemouth 1968, which Rosewall won over Laver.Greg Sharko of the ATP should better this. The problem of the lost records is discussed in a recent article on Tennis Week by Raymond Lee. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.60.168.173 (talk) 04:40, November 4, 2006

I agree that it can (and should) be used as a source. But it should also be referenced the way the other books are, with footnotes and/or reference citations, giving the complete name of the book, the date published, and, if appropriate, page numbers. Info from any source is important. But it wasn't enough, some time ago, for someone to simply stick in info saying "from Betty Laver's book" without identifying it any further. And, as I have written above, I was totally unable to find it during a lengthy search UNTIL someone gave us the name of the book. If google can't find it otherwise, then that is an *obscure* book.... Hayford Peirce 16:59, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Hello misters Peirce and germanfriend. I have found the book in an old page of 2004 at http://www.thetennisgallery.co.uk/default.asp : then this book doesn't appear in the site now in december 2006 nevertheless I asked them if they have a copy and they answered me positively : then I have ordered it and I am eagerly waiting for it. Carlo Colussi 10:52, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Minor change

I've changed "Binghampton" in "Binghamton" though McCauley has written it with a "p" because when I look at any Atlas I only find "Binghamton" without "p" in the New York State. Am I wrong ?

Otherwise I think you should add the 4-man tournaments by precising it as I've done in the Rosewall article : I have much more respect for Laver's win at Adelaide in January 1964 over Sedgman, Hoad and Rosewall though it was just a 4-man tournament than for many 16- or 32- or 64- or more than 64-man tournaments where only second rank players enter. If I compare this Laver's victory with Florent Serra's victory at ... Adelaide 2006 where only Hewitt in the Top10 entered, I prefer Rocket's win. This is my opinion. 84.96.87.77 14:42, 21 November 2006 (UTC)Carlo Colussi

I have added Laver's additional wins , including 4 man events, from McCauley and Betty Laver 23 November 2003

I have changed 22 victories in 1962 to 21 victories because I don't find 22 (perhaps you've forgotten a tournament) then I've replaced 179 by 178.I've also changed Nordwijk to Noordwijk, Kitzbühl to Kitzbühel, Monterrey to Monterey (I haven't McCauley's book at hand but if the tournament took place in California and not in Mexico then Monterey has only one "r", and the last "Binghampton" to Binghamton. I haven't changed Caracus in 62 but I think it is Caracas (I haven't any book at hand to check it). Other thing : if my memory is good, Sutter in his 1991 has probably listed a 1976 Laver's victory while in his 2003 book he hasn't.84.96.87.77 13:39, 27 November 2006 (UTC)Carlo Colussi

Additional titles

Thank You, Jeffreyneave for the additional titles.Still there are some others, i am reluctant to put in. I know, that Laver played and won a round robin in Germany in Sept. 1970 in Berlin, Bonn, and Saarbrücken, whre he beat Okker, Drysdale and Gimeno.In 1976, Sutter has a win Jan. 1976 indoors at Detroit over Cox. I recall, that he beat Borg as well there, so it should have been a 4 men event.From Bud Collins i know, that Geist's latest count is 185 titles.For those readers, who think, that they could marginalize the accounts, it is to say, that for instance all 13 titles in 1970 were regular tournaments, like they are played today (german friend). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.60.149.75 (talk) 02:32, November 24, 2006

I can't prevent changing your article so I've added these two tournaments.

You've talked elsewhere about a new Geist's book : have you any information ? 84.96.87.77 10:41, 28 November 2006 (UTC)Carlo Colussi

Ranking numbers

The article World Nr. 1 ranking has now changed from 5 to 6, then to 7 years as Nr.1 for Laver, with 2 co-rankings in 64 and 70. I will wait some days, before i change it now from 6 to 7.As i wrote in the article, Laver was undisputed Pro Champion for 5 years 65-59, but has a valid claim for the years 64 and 70. In 1970 he would lead under the modern ranking system of the points race with about 1100 points to 880 of Rosewall. This ranking doesn't regard his amateur Nr. 1 rankings of 61 and 62.(german friend). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 84.60.152.44 (talk) 09:32, 7 December 2006 (UTC).

Laver's retirement

I've changed Laver's retirement year because he has played his last ATP tournament in April 1979 at Las Vegas (in 1978 he has played 2 ATP tournaments, in 1977 7 ATP tournaments and in 1976 6 ATP tournaments) : I recognize he was semi-retired since the US Open 75 but not only he entered ATP tournaments from 1976 but he also played WTT events and challenge matches (as the Göteborg one against Borg). Carlo Colussi 12:17, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Hello, Mr. Colussi and Jeffreyneave.Yes, the 1975 date of retirement is certainly not right. I don't know, who put it into the box infos, which refer heavily on the ATP webside stats.Laver had a sort of lingering retirement since 75/76, playing some selected events like the centenary Wimledon in 1977. He played some challenge matches too, the match at Göteborg in 1976 was held in the middle of a WCT tournament in Rotterdam, where Laver lost to Ashe in sf after a big lead (one of the few losses to Ashe). I think as late as 1978 he had a good win over Gerulaitis in a long 3 set Las Vergas invitational match. At the moment, i am not completely sure, when Laver did sign with WTT (1976 or 77?). Tennis Total and the Hall of fame (by Bud Collins) have the 76 date.I think, he played the 1977 summer season there, and had some good wins ( including Borg) in their one-set matches. I added that WTT thing, because i lately saw a DVD with an old interview by Laver with the pro baseball player Tom Seaver, where he referred to the Rookie of the year thing (with a grin). This DVD with excerpts of Borg, Connors, Ashe and Laver is sold on the Internet auctions. Interestingly it has some black and white material of some Laver-Rosewall matches of the mid-60s in Australia. Soem extraordinary shotmaking by both men, who made points from impossible positions and showed quite a lot emotion (quite contrary to many clichés). One other thing is the Aetna World Cup in the 70s. Laver and also Rosewall played a vital part in that team competetion, which revived the old Kramer Cup. Should we add this in the resp. articles? (german friend 9. jan 2007). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.60.165.77 (talk) 13:30, January 9, 2007

Hello.

I can check in the two or three 1976 World Tennis magazines that I own but I am almost sure that Jeffreyneave is right by writing that Laver played WTT as soon as 1976.

Knowing that the Aetna World Cup was an official (but special) WCT event you can write all you want about this event in Laver's article (I don't think I'll write anything in Rosewall's article about that because Ken hasn't been good in this event and then does not deserve much praise) : I even think that first Ashe's victory (after 18 defeats) over Laver was in the 74 World Cup. Carlo Colussi 09:33, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Hilton Head 1973

It seems that Laver has won 2 tournaments in 1973 at Hilton Head over the same opponent, Stan Smith, the CBS Classic on March 17, 1973 and the World Invitational Tennis Classic (WITC) in probably September. Thus Laver's total is now equal to 181 titles.

Carlo Colussi 07:41, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

21 or 22 in 1962

Now that additional titles were registered, i checked again the 1962 tally. Sutter gives Laver 21, but McCauley has him with 22 titles in 1962. One possible additional title in question, is for me Newport. The 'Encyclopedia of Tennis' by Max Robertson and Jack Kramer (1971), listed Newport winners and Laver as champ in 1962 (however not in 1960, where he won it, they have Fraser as 1960 winner, but imo Fraser didn't play the US grass circuit in 1960, which was completely dominated by Laver).In a recent audio interview on Radio Tennis, in the wake of the Hall of Fame celebrations at Newport this year, Laver was introduced as Newport winner in 1960 and 1962. Maybe You, Jeffrey and Carlo, have further information or opinions (german friend 19. Jan.). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.60.135.136 (talk) 04:23, January 18, 2007

No informationCarlo Colussi 09:39, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

I have no additional information. I would assume McCauley is right in his assertion. Sutter probably missed an event. no source has ever proved to be totally comprehensive when dealing with tournament wins. 20 jan 2007 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.145.169.181 (talk) 03:40, January 20, 2007

I've found some new information : in his book Sutter has listed the 1962 Newport(US) winner as Chuck McKinley over Eugene (Gene) Scott on August 18, 1962 and then I've read my November 1962 edition of World Tennis (US) : it confirms Sutter's information : there were some young US players as Ashe or Riessen or Australian players as Stolle in this tournament but Laver didn't even enter it. McCauley has indeed written that Laver has won 22 tournaments but he hasn't listed them. If he is right then it is another tournament but which ? Carlo Colussi 07:50, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for the input. Sadly, the Hall of Fame webside has no list of former Newport winners. By the way, there were two Newports with tennis tournaments, one in Wales, one in Rhode Island. Maybe the list of Newport (USA) Men's Invitational winners of the Encyclopedia of Tennis, p.260, is not trustful. I will cheque other sources (german friend 22.1.2007). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.60.156.44 (talk) 05:07, January 22, 2007

Greatest Player of All Time

I don't agree with the line "Rod Laver is considered by many tennis fans to be the greatest tennis player of all time." If that was true, then a few other player's Misplaced Pages entries would need to be changed as well, including: Pete Sampras (14 grand slams, 7-time year-end highest ranking), Bjorn Borg (6 French Opens and 5 Wimbledons), Jimmy Connors (longest un-broken streak as world #1). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 65.40.189.59 (talk) 15:32, 20 January 2007 (UTC).

Have you read the article?! It carefully lists a number of experts who consider him the greatest of all time. And many fans do also. That's all this article is saying. If you want to rewrite the other articles to say that many fans consider so-and-so to be the greatest, then please go ahead. But leave this one alone. Thanks. Hayford Peirce 17:03, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Mister Pierce is right. If you select Sampras, Borg or Connors as the greatest then you have to also select Laver, Rosewall (Robert Geist and Peter Rowley consider that Rosewall is the greatest by far) and then you have to choose Gonzales and perhaps Budge and surely Tilden and perhaps Norman Brookes or William Larned or Hugh Laurence Doherty or William Renshaw. Mister HagermanBot, tennis is born well before open tennis and Borg but there is a bad (but natural) tendancy to always ignore the past. Now I'm reading Mabel Brookes's book about his husband Norman and I can tell you that Brookes is one of the greatest player that ever lived (he was Tilden's idol) and he can claim this honour as much as Connors or another modern player. So frankly anyone who hasn't studied the whole tennis story (which has begun in 1858-1859 with the first recorded tournament in August 1876 at Nahant (Massachusetts)), cannot express a valuable opinion. Anyone who doesn't know Tilden's feats can't affirm that a modern player was better than the late American.

Concerning Laver it is sure that many tennis witnesses consider him the greatest one : perhaps they are wrong (I personally think that Tilden or Gonzales are the greatest) but perhaps they are right. In any case this is truly their opinion and it isn't a very bad one because I think that Laver has won like Tilden, Gonzales or Rosewall near or about 20 tournaments equivalent of the modern Grand Slam tournaments (for instance to have an idea, look at the Ken Rosewall article where I've written in detail his feats and look at "Tennis, male players statistics" where you will see that Gonzales has won 7 major professional tours where you will be able to understand what a great player he was : as a pro he couldn't play the Davis Cup or Wimbledon or Forest Hills for 20 years but he defeated all the great amateurs who had won these events and also his pro fellows : Kramer, Segura, Sedgman, McGregor, Trabert, Rosewall, Hoad, Cooper, Anderson, Rose, Olmedo, Gimeno all have been dominated by Gonzales : Olmedo (Laver's winner in Davis Cup and at Wimbledon in 1959) think that Gonzales could have won between 8 and 10 Wimbledon had he been allowed to play in the Temple. Do you know that Rosewall has been undefeated at Paris for 7 years and that he has won more French titles (10) than anyone and Borg ("only" 6) in particular ? Do you know that Laver has won something like 18 tournaments in 1967 and in particular the 5 greatest tournaments of the year : Newcombe and Emerson who were the best amateurs in 1967 and had won the Davis Cup and all the Slam tournaments knew very well that they weren't at the time in Laver's class. Do you know that Gonzales has beaten Tilden in his career but also ... in Los Angeles 1971, Connors who had defeated the previous day, Stan Smith then the best player in the world at the moment. Ask Connors who was the most exciting player and the greatest one he has met and he will answer you, Gonzales. Carlo Colussi 08:05, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

In addition to the noted experts like Maskell, Schroeder or Collins, one can cite 3 more recent articles from 2004,2006 and 2007, which rank Laver as all time best:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,9910-1165988,00.html

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2006/09/13/SPGGPL4KST1.DTL

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/main.jhtml?xml=/sport/2007/01/15/stfede15.xml

Its speculative to compare players from different eras, its often a matter of living memory. Who has seen Tilden in his prime, and is still alive? Not many i think. Some say, Hoad in his prime was he most talented, but his best days were numbered, and he simply hasn't the pro record of his comtemporaries Rosewall or Gonzales.You have to carefully study the records in their specific enviroment and context, and wage it against modern players.Laver is Nr.1 or at least top 3 on the very most experts list, and he came on top in greater polls like that of Inside Tennis in 1986 (37 experts) or that poll from AP in 2000 for player of the century. As late as December 2006 he had the equal top lead together with Federer in a 7 experts poll made by Tennis Week (German friend, 22.Jan. 2007). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.60.158.236 (talk) 06:09, January 22, 2007

Of course it's speculative to compare players from different eras but it doesn't prevent you to always state that Laver is the greatest one. Once you have reproached Hayford Pierce to be pro-Gonzales but one can reproach you to be pro-Laver.

What upsets me it's the fact that when some persons talk about the supposed greatest players of all time they have absolutely no ideas of the players of the first century of the tennis history. So it is completely stupid to talk about "all-time" when one knows nothing about "all-time". All the supposed experts do not know anything about pre-open era and Laver being chronologically the first player of the open era, he is the oldest to be remembered. Sure there isn't any contemporary now who has seen Tilden in his prime and even at the end of his life. The problem is how someone can say that Federer or Laver or Lendl is a greater player than Tilden when this same person doesn't know anything about Tilden's career. Those supposed experts even don't know anything about pre-open Laver's feats. They all stupidly cite his 1962 Grand Slam which worths nothing while they fully ignore that he superbly played and above all won the 1966 Wembley final. In conclusion if someone says that Federer or any open era player is the greatest one I will answer him or her do you know Larned's or Brookes's or Tilden's or Vines's or Budge's or Kramer's or Gonzales's or Rosewall's feats and if that person says no I will told her to shut up. You can show me all the articles you want stating that Laver is the greatest one you truly know that these experts didn't research almost anything prior to Laver or prior to their generation. I've already told you that Maskell's view is biaised : he ranked Perry, his countryman, 4th in his list and brushed Vines away. He thought Gonzales-Sedgman final in Wembley 56, was one of the greatest matches ever seen and he didn't rank Gonzales in his Top10 list but put Rosewall and Connors in that list. I can't understand Maskell who had been playing in the pro ranks so long but nevertheless didn't have a great opinion of his pro fellows. For Collins almost nothing has existed before Laver. In his encyclopedia there is almost nothing about a) pro tennis before 1968 and b) tennis before 1920. Finally Schroeder had perhaps not a great opinion of 1) Gonzales because he had beaten Pancho 7 times in their first 7 meetings and of 2) Tilden perhaps because, according to Robert Geist, Tilden at 50, would have beaten Schroeder in 1943 when the young player was Forest Hills titlist.

In http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,9910-1165988,00.html the oldest player is Laver.

In http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2006/09/13/SPGGPL4KST1.DTL of course as ever they've just picked amateur successes : the 1938 Slam and the 92-match win streak (in 37-38) of Budge but not his 1939 pro feats when he was at his peak, about Gonzales what is cited ? "twice winning the U.S. Championships" but nothing about his pro wins (just a remark : "he was the game's most commanding figure"), absolutely nothing about Tilden as a pro while he himself thought that his best years were from 1931 through 1934.

In http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/main.jhtml?xml=/sport/2007/01/15/stfede15.xml David Miller proposes "before the arrival of Federer, my top 10 players were Laver, Borg, Hoad, Sampras, John McEnroe, Rosewall, Edberg, Ivan Lendl, Jimmy Connors and Boris Becker." The oldest player is Rosewall and he doesn't take into account Ted Tinling's opinion. If I except Rosewall and Hoad, David Miller's opinion is that only open era players count in his ranking. He cites Hopman's opinion but does he know that Hopman considered that the best player he had ever seen was undoubtedly in his mind, John Donald Budge.

In fact all those experts' rankings are just rubbish. For them it's too hard to look at the records before the open era and especially the pro records.

All this to say that all the modern experts talk about somethig they don't know : if they want to rank open players, OK and in this case they have to talk about "the greatest players since 1968" but they don't have to say that such or such modern player is the greatest of all time because there are truly incompetent. I will accept to listen to someone's opinion when he be able to tell me something about Brookes's feats in 1907 or Tilden's in 1923 or Budge's in 1939 (and not in 38) or ... All the other persons are just unable to express a valuable opinion because they know NOTHING about the great players of tennis history.

Nevertheless everyone can add these links to corroborate their opinion in Misplaced Pages articles.

- I don't remember the Newport Wales winner in 1962 (I think it was Sangster) but I'm sure that the finalist was Tony Pickard (who was Edberg's coach in the 90s). 80.70.42.194 15:01, 22 January 2007 (UTC)Carlo Colussi

If You, Mr. Coloussi, carefully read, you may note, that i haven't put these internet-articles in the main Misplaced Pages-article, like it is done by others in the Borg article, because they are more or less substantiated recent opinions. It was an answer to question of sources in the dicussion section. Of course you are entitled to your opinion, but i would rank the opinion of people like Maskell, Collins, Trabert, Barrett, McCauley or Schroeder pretty high, because they saw a lot of tennis in their lives, Maskell saw or played against even Tilden. OK, you can critize the critiques, but you cannot deny their expert-status.There is indeed a media-problem: We have notice from players like the Dohertys, Brookes or Wilding (maybe he was better than Brookes) trough books and a few short clips, no living memory. So the sources are always a bit biased from the outset. Dame Mabel Brookes for example was a not always a loved person in Australian Tennis. She was a sort of grey eminence and had great influence on the Davis Cup team, even over Hopman. She was the reason behind the scenes to shut out your beloved Rosewall from the deciding DC doubles in 1953. Poor Wilding had no history writer like Brookes, he died on the Western front in WW 1. (German friend 23.1.2007) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.60.149.129 (talk) 04:19, January 23, 2007

You can be the greatest expert in a given discipline that doesn't mean you are perfect : for instance in Maskell's case it is clear that he clearly favors amateur feats to pro feats and that he has a very great opinion of Perry because the latter was his countryman so I can't accept his opinion about the greatest players. Idem for Collins he hadn't studied pro tennis before Laver and he relied on McCauley's and Geist's works. I have a better opinion of McCauley's view because he knew a lot about pro tennis. I don't know much about Trabert's opinions so I can't judge : all I know is his writings in Tennis de France in 1961-1962 but he didn't give his greatest players' list in the magazines I own.

So the people you cite are perhaps experts of tennis in general but they aren't experts about all-time greatest players' rankings when they don't take into account a) the whole story of the game from the very beginning and b) they ignore most of pro tennis before 1968. If people say that 1962 is one of the two best years of Laver's career then I answer they are awfully wrong and not expert in this particular case and you know that I am completely right, that Laver reached his peak between 1967 and 1969. You've written in the "World No. 1 Tennis Player Rankings" discussion page that "That Perry now has 5 Nr.1 rankings, is a farce. He never was the pro champion, always behind Vines..." so even you disagree Maskell's opinion who ranked Perry #4 in his list and didn't rank Vines at all. So I repeat and I maintain that many tennis experts are not "all-time greatest players' rankings" experts because they focuse mainly on their own era and brush away pre-open pro tennis. If I'm not mistaken (I will check it tonight) Tilden had a much better approach than modern experts : in his book "My story" edited in 1948, he just picked the twenty most oustanding players of all time and split the list in two : the first ten and the second ten and then he only listed these players in alphabetical order which is not a bad idea. As you've written before it's very speculative to compare players from different eras because nothing is comparable : environment, material, knowledge, technique ... so all we can really do is listing the greatest players without ranking them but one thing is sure : if someone forgets all the great players I've cited before then his list is wrong.

PS : I don't yet know much about Brookes and Wilding : if I haven't selected Wilding it's because I think Brookes was better given that in the two great meetings they had, Brookes defeated twice Wilding (the 2nd round of 1907 Wimbledon and the Wimbledon challenge round in 1914 where Brookes was said to have played the best match of his life). But even in this case comparisons are hard because a) Brookes didn't go overseas many times to challenge Wilding (Brookes didn't play Wimbledon between his two titles and I don't think he played in the US before the Davis Cup Challenge Round in 1914 and b) Wilding being a Londoner worker didn't play many Davis Cup Challenge Rounds held Down Under because Australasia kept the bowl so the two players didn't enter the same competitions and didn't face many times (in 1914 Wilding beat twice Brookes in Côte-d'Azur (French Riviera) tournaments but Brookes won the great match at Wimbledon. So it is possible that Wilding has won 4 Wimbledon in a row because a) Brookes stayed home and b) Larned and McLoughlin too stayed home. Finally at 43, Brookes was still able to extend Tilden, then the World #1 player, to 4 sets (8-10 4-6 6-1 4-6) in the 1920 Davis Cup Challenge Round : not bad. So on these little facts I can suppose that Brookes was better than the NewZealander but I can't affirm it because I don't know enough about their respective careers (but it will come). 84.96.87.77 15:21, 23 January 2007 (UTC)Carlo Colussi

Now, that Collins knows nothing about pro tennis pre 1960, is not true. In his book' My life with the pros' he describes, that he follows the game - and the pro game - since the late 40s. I find it only fair, that he cites McCauley and Geist on their statistical studies, because they have laid indeed some ground work here. On Perry: I have stated, that Perry wasn't the big thing on the pro tour, because he obviously had lost some of his competitive spirit. Perry was a very physical player, and imo he played indeed at his best as in amateur in the years 34-36, under the conditions of big draws, big DC matches with best of five format. Vines was a bit physically frail, and in some hard DC matches he had to retire, or lost out in the crunch.I think, he craved under the pro conditions with shorter matches, often indoors, where his big serve and flat forehand came to life. Perry and Vines were great friends and business partners, ok their tour matches were for real, but had maybe not the same incencitive as the DC matches. Maskell was not the only one, who had a high opinion on Perry: In the Encyclopedia of Tennis of 1974, Danzig, Hopman or Tingay, who give great credit to the pre WWII masters, all rank Perry at 3-6 in their top ten lists, behind Tilden and Budge (Danzig has Cochet at 2), but always ahead of Vines (Danzig and Hop has him at 9). In the time period after Kramer, only Laver (3,4,8) and Gonzales (4, 10, 10)are ranked by all in their top ten, sometimes Gonzales shares the place with Emerson at Nr.10. On Wilding: it would be indeed interesting to compare Wilding, Brookes and McLoughlin carefully. As far as i know, Wilding in his most famous outing beat the Comet at Wimbledon in straight sets, playing with the furious pace by the Californian (German friend 24.1.2007). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.60.174.182 (talk) 04:48, January 24, 2007

Your argument about Vines aren't wrong nevertheless he has been relatively good in Davis Cup : all the ties where he competed, except the USA-Canada meeting in 1933, were all played on clay, his least good surface, and Vines was able to beat Cochet, Roland Garros titlist, and Crawford next Roland Garros winner. He also defeated Prenn and the young von Cramm. His bad losses were against Borotra and Austin but against Perry he has almost won before retiring. I haven't 'Total Tennis' at hand but I think he never played Roland Garros amateur, this tournament being at the time less important than Forest Hills or Wimbledon. So in the amateur circuit he wasn't the best claycourt player but he was a good one. In the pro ranks, he was beaten several times by Nüsslein or Karel Kozeluh on clay but he also took his revenges against them on that surface : for instance Vines won the Paris tournament on November 30, 1934, beating Nüsslein in the final on indoor clay; Vines also won the 1935 French Pro at Roland Garros, overcaming Nüsslein 3 sets to 1 in the final. Then Vines didn't play a great clay tournament until 1939 (if we believe Bowers Vines didn't enter any tournament between Wembley in October 1935 and Wembley in May 1939 (others claim that Vines played 1936 Wembley)). In 1939 Vines played once again the French Pro with all the best except Perry and he reached the final only losing to Budge : what made the very slight difference between Vines and Nüsslein in the Ray Bowers's 1939 pro ranking, was that Stoefen beat Nüsslein at Roland Garros while Stoefen was defeated by Vines in the same tournament. In conclusion on slow surfaces Vines both could be beaten by any top player and also could defeat anyone. It seems that effectively Vines was physically fragile and often injured (it was one of the reasons of his early retiring) and that Perry had a strong constitution but the English had also a mental weakness : he could be easily demotivated. Kramer said that Perry was unaffected by a loss when he didn't care to win : Kramer was invited in 1936 to see the Perry-Budge final in Los Angeles and he said that Perry didn't fight at all when the two players had split the two first sets. Kramer also wrote that pro tennis reputation was bad and that pro matches were not considered as real ones because Perry and Kovacs played each other like clowns in a Caribbean tour. So possibly Perry doesn't deserve to be so highly considered because of his "unprofessional" behaviour. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Carlo Colussi (talk) 03:36, January 26, 2007

McLoughlin beat Brookes in 3 sets and Wilding in 4 in the 1914 Davis Cup Challenge Round but the Comet lost to James Cecil 'Jim' Parke in 5 sets the previous year. Carlo Colussi 09:00, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

hello, from German friend. I have myself problems with the rankings of Perry and Vines (and Budge for that matter), regarding their respective amateur and pro careeres.There is a good discussion in the book 'Topspin' by Eliot Berry (1994), who made an interview with Perry shortly before his death. Perry (and Cochet) seem to have turned pro, when a bit past their prime. Perry saw the shadows on the wall, when he almost lost to Budge at Forest Hills 1936, and lost at Los Angeles. Vines had the better pro career (and a hot, but short amateur career as well). Kramer is maybe not the best source, because he likes his mentor Vines enormously, he even stated in an article, that Vines was advised to 'carry' Perry in the pros, to make it more interesting. Nevertheless the older experts almost all rank Cochet and Perry higher. I have some old ranking lists in the book Tennis Faszination by Paula Stuck-von Resniczek, 1968. They were compiled in 1950 by Roderich Menzel (RG runner up 1938 and later a writer). He cites a list by Edgar Joubert (i think he was the biographer of Suzanne Lenglen) of ca. 1950, and some of ca. 1930 by F.G. Lowe, Arnold Herrschell, Lacoste, Maurice Blein, E.C.Potter, P.M. Harry in 'Revue de tennis' and Ph. Nutt. All have Tilden at Nr.1, most have D.H. Doherty as Nr.2. Between Brookes and Wilding there is no clear decision. Joubert (ca. 1950)ranks: Tilden, Cochet, Budge, Kramer, Borotra, Lacoste, Perry, R.F. Doherty,H.L. Doherty, Brookes, Wilding, Patterson. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.60.134.176 (talk) 06:34, January 26, 2007

Is he still the greatest since Federer won the French Open 1 week ago? I mean, it s ok to show those polls saying Laver was the greatest, but many guys - including experts and former players - changed their opinion. Sampras, Billie Jean King, Agassi, Jack Kramer and many others considering Federer now as the greatest ever. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.59.27.52 (talk) 16:38, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, he could be, http://en.wikipedia.org/Tennis_male_players_statistics

About Wilding

To Germanfriend (and others).

Hello. I've discovered 3 books about Anthony Wilding (that I've bought):

- Len Richardson; Shelley Richardson « Anthony Wilding: A Sporting Life »

- Myers, A. Wallis « Captain Anthony Wilding »

- WILDING Anthony F « On the Court and Off »

Carlo Colussi 10:31, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Hello again Germanfriend. To show the greatness of the tennis player Wilding I have listed in the english and french articles of Misplaced Pages his 105 (at least) singles titles as found by Len and Shelley Richardson in their magnificent book (see above); their work has been beautiful. Carlo Colussi 15:41, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Question about Rod Laver's Ties to Footwear?

I came to this article about Rod Laver because I was interested in why Adidas has a shoe named after him. This particular style of shoe is extremely popular for players of the game hackey-sack, calling them the unofficial hackey-sack shoes. However, this article does not mention anything about the subject. Perhaps it should? 63.246.176.26 07:42, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Photo of Rod Laver?

--myselfalso 22:09, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

-- yes photo is neccessary, for christ's sake the article seems like the one of caligula,roman emperor. no photo, only a statue.

and the guys isn't even dead yet.

also, why don't you have a grand slam performance table? it's the best thing in these pages about tennis player and it's missing here.

sure there is an amater, pro and open era but he needs to have table.

if a helen wills moody has it,why not laver? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.0.202.54 (talk) 04:40, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Part of the French version of the article

Hello GermanFriend.

I haven't written the French article of Rod Laver but when I've seen that in the original version it was written that Laver had won 39 singles titles in his whole career I jumped up to the ceiling : of course the writer had used the ATP statistics. Therefore I couldn't prevent myself to correct that assertion : I've then "copy-pasted" your "181 titles" section in the French edition (http://fr.wikipedia.org/Rod_Laver) in order to give back Laver his due. Carlo Colussi 14:18, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Opening paragraph

Earlier I removed the line

"For this achievement, Laver is considered by many tennis fans to be the greatest player of all time."

The sentence was put back but I am going to revert it. If you look at the Wikipeia policy - Misplaced Pages:Avoid_weasel_words - there is a paragraph which mirrors this situation almost exactly explaining why the sentence should be removed. I have copied this below:

Peacock terms are especially hard to deal with without using weasel words. Again, consider the sentence "Manchester United is the greatest football team in history." It's tempting to rephrase this in a weaselly way, for example, "Some people think that Manchester United is the greatest football team in history." But how can this opinion be qualified with an opinion holder? There are millions of Manchester Utd fans and hundreds of football experts who would pick Manchester Utd as the best team in history. Instead, it would be better to eliminate the middleman of mentioning this opinion entirely, in favor of the facts that support the assertion:

   "Manchester United has won 6 Premier League titles and a domestic and European triple -- almost two times as many as any other team."

This fact suggests that Manchester Utd is a superlative football team, rather than simply the greatest football team in history. The idea is to let readers draw their own conclusions about Manchester Utd's greatness based on the number of Domestic and European trophies they have won. Objectivity over subjectivity. Dispassion, not bias.

Additionally without a source the sentence prbably counts as origional research by an editor which is also against policy Misplaced Pages:No_original_research - maybe if there is a source from a reputable magazie showing a survey in which a certain percentage of tennis fans feel he is the greatest player that could be added. Guest9999 10:49, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Addition - I think Misplaced Pages:Avoid peacock terms is actually the policy directly refering to the sentence in question. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Guest9999 (talk) 05:05, June 26, 2007

From german Friend. If someone really will read the article, he will find that the sentence, that 'by many experts and polls, Laver is rated as greatest player of all time' is indeed sourced. OK, i will add all these sources now from Times, Daily Telegraph, Bud Collins, Tony Trabert, Bruce Jenkins and Associated Press (all from 2000-2007), and - if you will - book references from Maskell to Barrett. Its already all in the article or in the discussion pages. I find it rather stinky, that someone is now discrediting the pre open pro tour as not competitive. Tennis was played before Federer, who seems simply not capable to win a Grand Slam or at least one Roland Garros (german friend 6.7.2007). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.60.135.67 (talk) 07:06, July 7, 2007

Ok. Mr. Guess, You thinks, you are extremely clever, in changing words constantly. I will add further sources. Maybe you can say, when you think 'many' is right. How many sources you will have: 10, 12, 20? (german friend 12.7.2007). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.60.185.166 (talk) 11:45, July 12, 2007

About semi-competitive pro matches in the pre-open era

I'm not so sure that there were many arranged pro matches during the pre-open era. In his book Kramer said that only one match result in his pro career was fixed up : at the end of the Kramer-Segura tour both players were so tired that they decided that the winner of the first set of their next match (if my memory is good at Hawaii at the beginning of 1951) would be offered the second set and then the match in order not to play too long. Segura won the first one but didn't respect the initial deal because he did his best to lose the second set and then both players had to play a third set not expected.

If we have to believe Kramer all his pro matches were played at 100% except the one described just before. Carlo Colussi 12:03, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Carlo Colussi. Given the bitter rivalry between players like Gonzales and Trabert, it seems odd, to name these pro matches and tournaments semi-competitive. They were playing for their jobs. If someone lost a series, he was out of the game. Gonzales had to give tennis lessons and to turn to auto-racing, after he lost his series vs. Kramer, in order to survive. And in the 80s, the pro tournaments had prize money. Why should anyone give up money, in order to make matches more interesting. That matches were thrown, was maybe a factor in the mid 70s, when Nastase and even (a outburnt) Borg were accused to give away matches. Another question: Why has someone put a tag on the article without any argument? As in the Rosewall-article, all the stats here are founded and sourced. In fact, the article has gotten a B-Rating and is used by quite a few 'tennis journalists' today.That the numbers are different in different sources, see ATP or ITF stats, is not the problem of the article.I think, its all discussed here (German friend, 11.7.2007). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.60.151.122 (talk) 02:27, July 11, 2007

Indeed in the mid-70s some matches were given away : when Orantes challenged Connors in February 1976 and when the Spaniard discovered that the surface used was too fast for him he decided not to fight (beaten something like 62 61 60 by Connors) but he didn't refuse the $250,000 check.

Thank you for your support about the Rosewall's article. About your Laver's article I can say this is the best documented I've ever seen (of course I suppose there are Laver's books more complete than simple articles). Both we can deeply thank our different sources (McCauley, Sutter, Laver, Geist, Rowley, Collins ...). Carlo Colussi 11:20, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Pennsylvania 1960, Brisbane Hard Courts 1961 and Belfast 1965

Hello german friend and jeffreyneave.

Are you sure that Rocket has won "Brisbane Hard Courts" in 1961 (in 1962 against Ken Fletcher 86 63 ok) ? I've never seen it anywhere. Do you have any details : source, date, runner-up, score ? I just know that Hewitt defeated Laver 64 62 57 63 in the final of Rockdale national hard court on october 22, 1961.

Same questions for Belfast 1965 (4-man tournament) ?

Idem for Pennsylvania 1960 ?

Thank you for the answers. Carlo Colussi 06:38, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

hello I presume these events are not in sutter. They are covered in betty laver's book

In 1961 Laver defeated Emerson 7-5,6-3 in the Queensland Hard courts, which I assume to be the same event as the Brisbane Hard courts. However, it was not played in brisbane in 1961 but close to Laver's home town of Rockhampton in Gladstone. I can't belive Queensland is going to organise 2 hard court events so close togerther. Presumably they rotated the event around Queensland. This 1961 event attracted all the top players as Laver and emerson beat hewitt and stolle in the doubles.

In 1960 Laver beat Holmberg 9-7, 8-6 ,6-3 in pennsylvania

In 1965 late july Laver beat Gimeno 6-4,6-4 in the 4 man event in Belfast.

I also noticed another Laver victory in the autumn of 1960. He won the central Queensland champs over Frank Gorman. Gorman was Laver's Queensland tennis pal in the 1950's and was his practice partner throughout that period. However I'm not sure this is an international class event as Gorman never played outside of Australia as an adult, resrticting himself to the Aussie circuit often as Laver's double partner.

Did you see Raymond lee's all time greats list ? Not suprisingly I didn't particularly disagree about the overall results. However, I think he over uses the best 5 years performance treating it as equal to career results. To a certain extent, I presume he introduced it because of Borg who was the only player to retire at such a young age. Unlike the others borg was still a top 5 player in 1982. Nearly all the rest retired after leaving the world's top 10. In my view this 5 year best period is a proxy for being ranked world no1. I think that the number of years as world no1 should have been introduced instead. From a career prepective, the number of years in the top 5 would suggest the ability to remain as a really top class player. Both laver and Rosewall did enough to be ranked in the 10 in 1975, but they were not close to the top 5 as they were not really a threat in the big events or to the most consistent top players Connors, Borg and Vilas.

I noticed in the table that vines had more points than kramer, but was ranked below him. I also noticed that Vines' best performance of winning all his big events in his best 5 year period (1934-8) was not correct. He lost to Nuseillin in the sf US pro 1934.

I think he underates Kramer's win over Gonzales. Gonzales was a top player and was not just a novice in 1949-50. He had won 2 us champs and had been ranked as the world no1 amateur twice by the daily telegraph. I understand Schroeder had a very good record against gonzales going into the 1949 Us champs. But Gonzales deafeated him in 5 tough sets and repeated the win a acouple of weeks later at the PSW. Gonzales was a rapidly improving quality player. In 1950 Gonzales easily did enough to be ranked as the no3 pro behind Kramer and Segura. I've no doubt that he would be world no3 as Patty the top amateur of 1950 was never regarded as really quality player and never won another slam outside of 1950. Who else could Kramer play ? . He beat the world no3 in 1950 and the world number 2 in segura in 1951. Jeffreyneave 15 November 2007 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jeffreyneave (talk • contribs) 11:17, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Hello Jeffrey,

I have read Lee's article when germanfriend has given us the link a few weeks ago. Lee previously used "the best 5 years" criterion when he ranked the best players of the open era (Borg #1 in Lee's ranking). So it is very likely that he overuses this argument to judge the players. I have read the comments of Lee's all time greats article but I haven't checked the statistics and in particular Vines's. Lee isn't completely wrong when he states that Gonzales had little experience of the pro tours but nevertheless to beat Gonzales in 78% of their confrontations even in 1949-1950 wasn't a bad performance at all. Moreover players such as Kramer, Vines and others are underrated in Lee's statistics because they had almost no opportunity or no time to play tournaments. According to Bowers Vines has not played any tournament between november 1935 (Wembley) and may 1939 (again Wembley) and about Kramer Lee recalls that Kramer had just won 35 tournaments but for instance in 1950 Kramer just played (and lost to Segura) two tournaments : this is very understandable given that he played so many tour matches that year.

Thank you for the answers about the tournaments but there is still something ambiguous because Laver would have won Pennsylvania (but where : Philadelphia or elsewhere ?) against Holmberg 97 86 63 but also Southampton (NY) against the same player with the same score on August 7, 1961 : it's very odd. Could you give me the clue ? Thanks again.

Other similar questions about Berlin R.R in 1970, Hilton Head 1971 (and Hilton Head WITC 1973 : runner-up Smith (as in Hilton Head CBS), score ? date september ?). Carlo Colussi (talk) 13:44, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

hello carlo.

Pennsylvania was played at Merion( a tennis club in Haverford). It is definitely a different event from Philadelphia (indoors in february, although it seems laver won a summer version in 1960) or Southampton, new york state (like merion a grass court warm up event for Forest Hills). Merion was a long standing event and continued on the main circuit until 1974; the last year the us champs were played on grass. Laver had a 5 tournament winning streak on the us circuit in 1960 going into Forest hills . I think Bud Collins's Total tennis gives a description of this streak. He could easily have beaten Holmberg twice although the same score looks unlikely. Sutter probably made an error and confused the two events.

Laver beat Newcombe August 1971 in 4 man CBS Classic Hilton Head (don't know score)

Laver beat smith 6-2, 6-2 16 man CBS classic Hilton Head march 1973

Laver beat Smith 7-6 7-5 4 man WITC Hilton Head september 1973

I don't really know much about the german R.R in 1970. Our german friend is the source for this. All I know is Laver defeated Gimeno, okker and drysdale

Concerning Kramer and Vines lack of tournament wins, they get compensation in Lee's figures thru their tour wins. None of the open erea plaayers who all played a lot more tournaments score any points for tour wins. I assume, looking at gonzales, he gave 3 points for a win against a world no1 contender, 2 against a top player, 1 against a no hoper. Gonzales won 7 major tours, but I suspect the ones against Rosewall, trabert and gimeno only gave him 2 points, leading to total of 18 points. I feel Kramer deserves an extra 2 or 3 ponts. However, these tour players who played few tournaments do rather well in the %wins of touranemts category ,with open era players at the bottom. Not suprisingly the open era plaayers who play 20 to 30 a year, lose a greater proportion than players like Kramer, Vines and perry.

Where the tour players lose out is in % of matches won. Perry and vines played 2 years of just playing themselves in 37 and 38. They split the matches pretty evenly. A win % between 45-55% is not very helpful when comparing with open era players who all win at over 80-85%. Modern players play lots of matches against players outside the top 20. Not suprisingly Vines and perry finished bottom in this category. jeffreyneave 21 november 2007 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jeffreyneave (talk • contribs) 19:36, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Hello Jeffrey.

Thank you for the answers and for the comments. I particularly asked those questions because I help Jema on the French site who has decided to list all the wins and finals of modern players as Feardes had done for Lendl in the English site : so if you have time you can take a look at the tables in the french version of the Laver article and correct some errors (and eventually you can "copy-paste" the final versions in the English site). Once again thank you.

P.S.1 Are you sure of the CBS event score in 1973 : 6-2 6-2 or 6-2 6-4 ?

P.S.2 : well I've looked at the Collins's book and it seems that Laver has only won 4 tournaments in a row in summer 1960 : Pennsylvania Holmberg 97 86 63, Southampton NY Holmberg 1210 63 36 26 63, Orange Donald Dell 61 1210 64 and Newport Buchholz 61 68 61 62. In fact Sutter has not confused anything but as usual (for all the years) he's written "Philadelphia" instead of "Pennsylvania State (amateur) Championships, Haverford, Merion Club" (Haverford is in the suburb of Philadelphia). Except that the only difference between Collins and Sutter is that they reversed the score (but not the finalists) of Haverford and Southampton. So the Pennsylvania and Philadelphia wins mentioned in this article are probably the same one : so I will erase one. 212.23.162.39 (talk) 07:11, 22 November 2007 (UTC)Carlo Colussi

yes your right laver beat Smith 6-2, 6-4

Fair enough, on the confusion of the events in Pennsylvania. I think the event should be referred to as Merion, neither Philadelphia or Haverford have ever been used as an identifer for this event.Neither the ATP or Tingay's World of tennis yearbooks use it. Merion is used like Forest Hills or Queen's club.

I took a quick look at the french version. Very impressive. One or two points.

Laver beat Segura at Binghampton 1966 VASS scoring system 31-28 31-18

Gimeno beat laver 5 sets barcelona 1969

Louisville is clay (despite what ATP site states; ITF site has it correct)

Southampton ,merion , South orange and Newport are all grass court warm-up events for forest hills

US pro played on grass until 1969. Changed 1970 to uni-turf synthetic carpet, which can be used outdoors.

All South african events are hard courts i think; certainly the south african champs are.

I think all the european summer events in the amateur era are clay. (except Ireland which I think are grass) Cannes pro is indoors

I think all the state champs, played over 5 setss, Australia are grass.

Madison square garden indoors( probably carpet as that was surface 1967); hilton Head clay;

all wembley pro events up to 1968 indoor wood

St petersburg is a clay court event in florida,usa (amateur era)

PSW hard court. Jeffreyneave 23 November 2007 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jeffreyneave (talk • contribs) 13:44, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Hello Carlo and Jeffrey. I haven't seen this recent discussion before. Its very interesting. I just recently got a copy of Betty Laver's book by the Tennis Gallery. It has indeed many informations about matches, sadly no statistical appendix. It seems from p.59, that Laver in 1963 won the Johannesburg event as well as Capetown (over Olmedo), with Mike Davies in the final. I have put it on thewins list, now again at 181. I also wrote, that the latest count by Geist is 188 wins. And in the first phase of the US World Series in spring 1963, on p.58, there is another Laver-Rosewall match mentioned in Bermudas, which Laver won 10-8. MacKay and Ayala, Gimeno and Buchholtz played the other matches.Should be put on the Rosewall article and the Rosewall-Laver matches. On the other subjects i will post later. german friend 26.11.2007 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.60.142.26 (talk) 10:19, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Again German friend on the Lee-analysis. Indeed, he may overemphazise the 5 year criterion.On the other side, a shorter term domination line, as one aspect of evaluation, isn't that bad. I agree, that to be added, would be the reign as Nr.1, then maybe the best year on overall wins and/or percentage basis, and the span of top ten rankings, to have a real longevity criterion. Lee, however, seems to give credit points to the old pro tours, which is imo right (german friend, 26.11.2007). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.60.188.244 (talk) 10:30, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

I only just saw the statistical appendix in the French version. Its super. I always wanted to put in the final scores myself, but have limited time at the moment, and i am not really at home with the internet technique. Therefore, i would be extremely glad, if Carlo could put this stats into the English article. I will go through it all in the next days. The German round robin was played begin October 1970 at Berlin, Bonn and Saarbruecken between Laver, Okker, Gimeno and Drysdale. In the deciding match Laver beat Okker 6-3,6-7,6-2 at Saarbruecken.The event at Detroit in 1976 was played early in the year, in January shortly before the Philadelphia event, with Laver beating Cox and Borg in the process. I think, Sutter has it in his first edition, and i will prove it. Great effort, Carlo. (german friend 25.11.2007). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.60.164.8 (talk) 11:00, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the answers.

This is Jema974 who made the tables and not me (I gave him the results but he's done the job) in the French site and he is now doing the same for Rosewall (before he did it for Lendl, McEnroe, Connors, Nastase, Borg and perhaps others). germanfriend : before making Laver stats I will do Rosewall's stats in the english version (I will redo the existing table) and it will take time because I haven't much myself : I don't own a home computer but I use sometimes a professional one as at the right moment. Carlo Colussi (talk) 12:11, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Hobart 1960 won by Martin Mulligan and not by Laver

I've erased, under the IP Address 212.23.162.37, Hobart 1960 because this is Mulligan who won it and not Laver. Carlo Colussi (talk) 11:56, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Overwriting

Someone called Tennis Expert seemingly is overwriting some passages of the article, i think in good will. But he should be careful not to put facts on false places. I had never written that Laver didn't play many majors since 1970 due to injuries. He had back problems were dating back to spring 1971, when he was rushed to a hospital from the Chicago WCT tournament, and it got worse in late 1972, when he couldn' play the European segment of the WCT tour in autumn.Since 1973 he had great intervalles, when he didn't play the tour. In 1974 he had some knee injuries. In the Betty Laver book his business activities in tennis camps are detailled listed. But tennis Expert is now overly critical with citations. That the promotional disputes between the ITF and the WCT, prevented Laver from competing at AO and RG 1970 and Wim 1972, and that the tensions influenced his absence at RG 1971 and Forest Hills 1971, is a fact. That Laver was Nr. 2 to Rosewall in 1963, is established in the leading reference, the McCauley-book. That his 1968 LA win over Rosewall was one of his finest performances, is stated by McCauley, by Collins Total Tennis, and if you want a different source, by Arthur Ashe in at least two of his books, including Portrat in Motion. Ok, if you want citations for in my view pretty harmless,not biased comments, i will give them (german friend, 6.12. 2007). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.60.176.164 (talk) 13:52, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Hi. I confirm these statements : in particular Ashe indeed considered the 1968 LA final as a great Laver achievement. About Laver's injury we know he was handicapped in the 1972 US Open against Cliff Richey and then almost never played until the 1973 WCT circuit. Betty Laver who wrote the book "The Red-headed Rocket from Rockhampton" picked Laver's pro rankings (n°2 in 1963/1964, n°1 in 1965/1966/1967) from the pro organization of the time. All the sources are indicated in the small paragraph entitled "Overall singles titles of Rod Laver 1960-1976 (184):

Sources: Joe McCauley, History of Professional Tennis, London 2001; Michel Sutter, Vainqueurs-Winners 1946-1991, Paris 1992; Rod Laver (with Bud Collins), The Education of a Tennis Player, New York 1971; John Barrett, World of Tennis Yearbook 1970-1976, London 1970-1976; Betty Laver, The Red-headed Rocket from Rockhampton, Rockhampton 2001."

Ashe's source can eventually be added, Bud Collins's and World Tennis (USA) magazine too. Carlo Colussi (talk) 12:04, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Now, this Mr. tennis expert is going wild a bit. Why you don't answer or ask your questions on this discussion side? Carlo, Jeffrey and me, have our knowledge not only from the webside, but also from real, physical books, and from experience, because we saw them play and followed their careers back in the late 60s and 70s. All the sources are cited, but i think, an article becomes unreadable, if you add citations after every set or phrase. If some writes, that Federer had one of his finest performances, when he beat Hewitt at USO 6-0,7-6,6-0, I think its quite plausible, given two bagel sets in a final.If Laver beats Rosewall at LA 1968 4-6,6-0,6-0, i think, everyone except maybe Mr. tennis expert will assume, even without other sources, that this must have been a quite impressive performance. Please Mr.tennis expert, go to a library and read a real book (only one real book) on tennis, like Collins 'Total Tennis', and you will find all incriminated phrases as absolute true.(german friend 12.12. 2007) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.60.164.178 (talk) 20:52, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Hello german friend. How many wins have you for Laver over gonzales in 1969 . I have 4; 2 one night stands and 2 finals in the US summer season jeffreyneave 2007 31 dec —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jeffreyneave (talk • contribs) 20:24, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Jeffrey, i had commented on my addings on the discussion side, but it doesn't show up on the full side. I had added the citations of Ashe, for the numbers of titles won and my count of the Laver-Gonzales head to head, mainly because on many internet sides the myths exists, that Gonzales has a positive head to head over Laver. That's simply not true, especially it is not an indication for the superiority of a player. My count, based on McCauley, Laver/ Collins and the World of tennis yearbooks, was 34 to 16 (maybe 17,18). For 1968 i have 4-2, for 1969 4-0 (possible more wins for Laver in NTL tournaments in 1968 and 69), and for 1970 2-2: 2 wins for Gonzales at the New York Classic first round and the Las Vegas final, 2 wins for Laver at the Classic semi at MSG and in the quarters of Vancouver. By the way, on the Rosewall discussion side i have pointed to a new list of the Laver-Rosewall head to head by a poster on Tennis Warehouse Talk, which has more detailled information about the 1963 World Series. For 1963 he has 30-12 in favor of Rosewall, overall 76-58 in favor of Laver.In 1969 he has one more win of Laver at the Dutch pro round robin 6-3,2-6,6-1. On the Kramer assertations, which were put into the article by Hartford Peirce: in a interview with Steve Flink in 2002, it is available on the Steve Flink webside, Kramer had put Laver in between the best 5 of all time, togther with Vines, Budge, Gonzales and Sampras. Obviously he has changed his mind since 1978. Maybe we should make a link to this article (german friend 1.1.2008). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.60.129.31 (talk) 19:51, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Hello german friend. Thank you for confirming my 1969 count. My count is year by year '64 Laver 5 Gonzales 8 (includes scarborough); '65 9-4 ; '66 2-2; '67 8-2; '68 5-2 ; '69 4-0 ; '70 2-2. This gives Laver a 35-20 edge. The only ntl event I have not seen the full draw for in '69 is Laver's win at Orlando over Rosewall. I saw your link to the warehouse talk and I am very pleased that someone has tracked down this extra match at the Dutch round robin. I use to think this was a 4 man rr, but found out it was 8 man with 2 groups of 4 earlier this year. There were some upsets at this event with Ralston beating Rosewall on clay. On the 1963 results I am slightly suspicious of Laver winning twice by the same score 6-0, 6-3 at MSG; once in the 6 man phase and once in the final play-off phase. jeffreyneave 2 jan 2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jeffreyneave (talk • contribs) 19:12, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, Jeffrey, the 6-0,6-3 score at MSG could be a double citing or a typo. I was suspicious, too. But otherwise the results seem to be solid and quite complete. Apparently there were two phases of the World Series in 1963, with the second beginning in late April and ending in late May. McCauley, without results, has a count of 14-4 for the second phase. In the new list by Andrew Tas it is 10-2. Maybe one should somehow check the begin and end dates of the second phase, as they are known, to confirm a count here. But for the first phase and the Sydney match in February, the new list has valuable new information. The Dutch pro must have been the French Open warm up event at Amsterdam in May 1969, which was won by Gimeno. I didn't know, that it was a round robin. But it correspondents with Your findings.

One question to all the people who are more familiar with the Misplaced Pages politics: Is it possible to make links to you tube websides? In the last months, some valid historical matches of Laver were put on you tube, including his matches with Roche (AO), Rosewall (RG) and Ashe (Wimbledon) in 1969, with Connors (Las Vegas) in 1975 and with Borg (Hilton Head) in 1977. It would be useful historical source material as appendix to the article(german friend 2.1.2008) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.60.185.107 (talk) 19:57, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

You cannot add links to youtube materials unless you can prove that the video on youtube does not violate copyright law. This is a legal thing, not a "Misplaced Pages politics" thing. Tennis expert (talk) 20:15, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the information. Sad, that there are legal problems, would be usefull additional video material. Now, Mr. Expert you seem to change or regroup the whole article, now the titles numbers. I cannot say, that it is more readable now. In the titles section, it is quite irritating, that now no real numbers are put in for the open years. Maybe we should shut out the faulty ATP webside dates as a whole, some had put them in before i saw the article for the fisrt time. On the ITF (International tennis Federation) webside, there are accessable some of the open title wins of Laver (with full draws), which the faulty ATP webside doesn't have. I would like best, that the fine data of the French Misplaced Pages edition could be copied into the English article (german friend 2.1.2008). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.60.173.168 (talk) 21:22, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Why don't you just call me "Tennis expert" (my user name) instead of "Mr. Expert" or "So-called Expert" or whatever other disparaging (implicitly or explicitly) names you guys consistently throw my away? Honestly, I don't like separating the ATP website results from the full results, either. I just cleaned up the information while retaining the format that someone else had put in the article. If those results are going to be combined, then I definitely believe that the table format should be preserved. Tennis expert (talk) 22:03, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Carlo and Jeffrey and Tennis expert, I think, it would be best, if the data of the French version could be copied into the article. They have the table format and dates of wins with final opponent and results. In regard of the Gonzales and Hoad head to heads and the problem of placing it, this could be integrated together with the Rosewall head to head in a section "Main rivalries", substituting the existing Rosewall rivalry. We could add on the basis of all main sources (not only the ATP webside) the head to heads with Emerson, maybe Fraser, Gimeno, Newcombe, Ashe and others. This could ba a good overview over the main competition in Laver's career. I have seen such section in the Sampras and Federer article.(german friend 4.1.2008) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.60.146.31 (talk) 10:03, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

I have been working on an English language version of the French table for Rod Laver's career singles titles. You can see my progress in my sandbox. Tennis expert (talk) 03:25, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

• • • • • • LAVER V. GONZALES

a search through the London Times and the google archives produced additional information on the Orlando pro played on the 10 and 11 Feb 1969. In the sf Laver beat Gonzales 9-7 ,6-2 and Rosewall beat Emerson 6-4, 6-2.. As we already know Laver beat Rosewall in the final. In the 3rd place match Emerson beat gonzales. This extra win for Laver gives him a 5-0 edge in 1969 over Gonzales. In the open era Laver has 12-4 edge and overall a career edge of 36-20.

jeffreyneave 17 feb 2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.157.222.217 (talk) 19:54, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Nice new information, Jeffrey, for Emersons head-to-head with Gonzales, too, of which the myth says, that Emmo didn't have a win. I would also support, that all Laver titles should be counted for every year, and that the ATP list, which is suspect, should not be given priority. These 'additional' titles are to the greater part highly important titles over the years. Mr Tennis expert should edit his English version of the French data or simply copy the French data. If some can copy them,i will make the English translations.I am also working on a Laver-Emerson head to head, which is difficult for the amateur period.I principally rely on Sutter and Betty Laver, wo cover foremost the finals. (German friend 18.2.2008) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.60.139.133 (talk) 20:37, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Do you guys actually read this talk page? See my posts above. I AM WORKING ON IT! Tennis expert (talk) 20:52, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Hello Tennis expert. Perhaps you should precise where your sandbox is, users aren't all used to every Misplaced Pages tool  : User:Tennis expert/Sandbox. Carlo Colussi (talk) 12:47, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

hello german friend, Looking forward to seeing your Laver/Emerson list. I hope I can add some extra ones once you have finished it. My head to head for Gonzales/Emerson at the moment is 3-1 for Gonzales 1968; 2-0 for Emerson 1969; and 3-0 for Emerson 1970. jeffreyneave 20 feb 2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.157.222.217 (talk) 20:48, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Hello Germanfriend and Jeffreyneave. I've first answered you in the Talk page of Pancho Gonzales but at the time I hadn't noticed the Orlando meeting between Laver and Gonzales. So if I trust your latest records (12-4 and 36-20), then the new ones are 12-5 in the open era and 36-21 because Gonzales defeated Laver in spring 1970 at Cape Town, see Talk:Pancho Gonzales for details. Carlo Colussi (talk) 13:03, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

French to English

Because it would take too much time for me to translate the French passage I've added into English I let everyone who want to do it instead of me : because it is mainly tables it isn't hard to translate but the main thing to change is the flags templates.

The French passage is coming from the French site and has been done by Jema 974, my French colleague

Few indications

Herbe = Grass Terre battue = Clay Dur = Hard Ciment = Cement Titre = Title Année = Year banlieue = suburb

(you can translate very easily the months)

If some words aren't understable don't hesitate to ask me in the talk page.

Thank you very much in advance and sorry for the added work but it would save me very much time. Carlo Colussi (talk) 13:49, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

As I've already said, I am working on this in my sandbox. No need to add French language information to English Misplaced Pages. Tennis expert (talk) 20:03, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks a lot. If you have time, courage and pleasure, you or anybody else can do the same for Pancho Gonzales because my French colleague has done it too for the American player in the French site. Carlo Colussi (talk) 10:51, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

There is still no English version of the French stats. And I cannot find any sandbox by Tennis Expert. The current state with the false prevalence of the incomplete ATP stats is not amusing, and is a big disadvantage for the article. As i said before, i will translate the French stats into English. What i cannot do - i am no computer expert - is the thing with the flags, colours and other details. So, if someone can copy the French version into the English text, i will translate it. One other thing: Has anyone an idea, to delete or remove the precaution above the article. The article has got a B rating in various wiki projects, and apparently is inscribed in an 0.7 version of Misplaced Pages(what ever that means). Its apparently pretty good. And it is - as is the Rosewalll article - frequently cited in newspapers, tennis blogs (Tennis Magazine for example) and forums.(German friend, 10.4.2008). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.62.106.183 (talk) 18:44, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

You apparently did not look very hard. My sandbox for the Rod Laver statistics. The Rod Laver article is not very good. That is why it has a "B" rating instead of a higher one. The Rosewall article is even worse. The criteria for a "B" article is as follows: "Has several of the elements described in 'start', usually a majority of the material needed for a completed article. Nonetheless, it has significant gaps or missing elements or references, needs substantial editing for English language usage and/or clarity, balance of content, or contains other policy problems such as copyright, NPOV or NOR." Tennis expert (talk) 23:18, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I could see it now on the sandbox. If you put it on the real side, i will make slight corrections, especially for surfaces. For example, Cannes in 1963 was played on an indoor court. Anyway the Federer article has also B rating, and no precaution remark. And its quite laughable, that these articles with real good information (like the Rosewall article) is rated as worse, while the bloody awful ATP side is cited as a Holy Bible. Go to Tennis warehouse forum past players, and you find good contrubions by many editors here along with remarks by famous tennis journalists and encyclopedists.And i tell you, that the tennis publications are waking up on these questions, and they will cite these complete stats. The truth will win(german friend, 11.4.2008). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.60.142.165 (talk) 08:43, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

The quality of a Misplaced Pages article is only partly dependent on the accuracy of the statistics therein. This is an encyclopedia, not a forum; therefore, article quality depends on many different factors that Misplaced Pages editors have adopted by consensus. A Misplaced Pages article should not be like the Association of Tennis Professionals website or a tennis-related forum. The objectives are completely different. Like it or not, Misplaced Pages is about verifiability, not truth. See WP:V. The sooner you realize this, the more productive and less frustrated you'll be on Misplaced Pages. Tennis expert (talk) 16:22, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

I cannot understand, why people always try to undermine reasoanable statements. The Wembley pro and the US pro were the most prestigious events in 1964. Why try to diminish this clear achievement? The pro had three majors, but there was also a hierarchy between these events, not for all years i accept. The Us pro had a slump around 1960 before going to Boston. Write that on the Gonzales article or seomewhere else. But for 1964 the statement is correct, going by all accounts of Collins, McCauley and others. So simply leave this things, its better (german Friend 4.6.08) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.60.165.27 (talk) 18:59, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Talking of quality. Is there any tennis related article, which has got more than a B rating? And whoever gives these ratings, this article seems quite good. Tere are many articles with much more subjective opinions as the Federer article, the Borg or the Gonzales article. And they have no precaution remark. And i still think, that truth matters.And not, what one can find on other internet sides (german friend, 11.4.2008). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.60.156.192 (talk) 17:33, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Talking of ecyclopedic. If i read on the Federer article things like : he kicked around footballs as a kid, or he is a Roman Catholic and met the Pope, and other nice or weird, but absolutely non essential things, i really doubt, if that is a kind of encyclopedic in the tradition of the great French encyclopedists like Diderot (german friend 12.4.2008) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.60.153.32 (talk) 08:21, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

I hadn't visited the side since a few days, now the stats data seem to be put on the main side, thanks to tennis expert. Why has someone put a precaution mark on the section? I will do, together with Carlo and Jeffrey, from my sources a few corrections regarding the surface question, which indeed is often difficult to answer.On tennis warehouse just yesterday, Andrew Tas has put a solid list of Laver-Emerson confrontations with a score of 43-18. Jeffrey and myself have added 4 additional wins for Laver.I have put the overall stats 47-18 on the main side, together with the head to heads with Gonzales and Ashe. We should add the head to heads with famous players, who were long time contemporaries of Laver, like Newcombe, Hoad, Roche, Gimeno maybe Fraser, to get a fuller picture of his career. (German friend 25.4.2008) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.60.184.113 (talk) 15:14, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

It's my work that Carlo copied and pasted from my sandbox into the main article, without my permission and over my objections. I put the precaution on it because my work was incomplete when Carlo did this. Jeffreyneave is blocked for a couple more days from editing due to personal attacks and incivility. Tennis expert (talk) 15:29, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Mr "Tennis expert", please let my inputs stand, if you don't have an understanding of tennis history. Please read the wikipedia article on the Wembley tournament, in which it is cited, that the Wembley event was indeed the most prestigious pro event. I simply cannot understand, that someone for the whole day is looking for these tennis articles, to cancel contributions. Please go to other articles like the Federer article and delete all the crap, which is written there (German friend, 6.6.2008) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.60.171.19 (talk) 08:51, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Stop being incivil. WP:AGF All you have to do is cite verifiable sources for your opinions. Otherwise, your opinions cannot be included in Misplaced Pages. Pretty simple policy, really. Tennis expert (talk) 20:33, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

I cannot find any incivility in my comments.But better than always looking to delete contributions, keep an eye on the ATP webside. Because they begin to change their stats for the early open period, your own statistical articles in Misplaced Pages are becoming obsolete. According to our friend Lucio, the ATP will now include more WCT events and early open and pro events for the late 60s, the 70s and early 80s. So better look on your own articles of tennis statistics to correct the obsolete numbers (German friend 9.6.8) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.60.190.184 (talk) 14:42, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

I guess I have to spell-it-out for you. The following statements of yours were incivil: (1) "if you don't have an understanding of tennis history" (2) "someone for the whole day is looking ... to cancel contributions" (3) "Please go to ... the Federer article and delete all the crap ... written there." Finally, your belief that I rely on the ATP for my tennis contributions is completely and utterly erroneous and ridiculous. Tennis expert (talk) 17:54, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Uh, Uh, you are not relying on the ATP stats, which the articles 'Tennis statistics' say? What else are your sources, in cannot find sources properly cited anywhere? Now, is your work original research? Can this aply to the Misplaced Pages rules? And to the Federer article: That Federer makes his holidays in Dubay or on the Swiss Alps or somewehre else, is that in any way of any encyclopedic interest? That he played football as a kid, that he met the Pope, that he eats Swiss chocolate or likes black underwear or something, is that encyclopedic? I think, it is crap. (German friend 10.6.8). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.60.137.96 (talk) 14:15, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

(1) There is nothing to prevent YOU from editing the Federer article. Be my guest. (2) Geez, Tennis statistics is not "my" article, just as the Rod Laver article is not "your" article. And where exactly does that article state it is relying on the ATP website? Where? If you want an idea about the huge variety of sources I use, have a look at my hundreds of contributions to the Billie Jean King article. Tennis expert (talk) 18:28, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

FRENCH PRO AND WEMBLEY PRO

temmis expert has nade the assertion that french pro is as prestigous as wembley and us pro . this is plain wrong > I cited bud collins in his tennis history , where he explicilty states that in 1963 rosewall won the two nost important pro events, wembly beating hoad and us pro over laver. no mention of french pro

betty laver who discussing laver's 1967 year mentions his wembley wins (1964-7) us pro wins (64, 866,67) and wimbledon pro 1967. and no mention of french pro which laver won in 1967.

world of tennis yearbooks 1970 and 1971, where the rosewall and laver biographies list their wembley pro wins along with their slam wins ; no mention orf their french pro wins.

Alan trengove's art of tennis published in the mid 1960sm which interviewed all the leading pros who uniformnly named wembly as the most prestigous event.

Tennis expert repeatedly reinserts his assertion with no evidece whatsoever; he provides no defence.he is basically lying and that a lot worse than incivility. stop liying stop being arrogamt and behave youself LEAVE 1964 ALONE

jeffrey neave —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jeffreyneave (talk • contribs) 14:43, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

I've never made the assertion that any tournament is as prestigious as any other. Asserting otherwise is a figment of your incivil imagination. Here are the facts. On April 20, 2006, the "two most prestigious" language was first added to the article by 84.60.162.104. On June 2, 2008, Fyunck(click) got rid of the "two most prestigious" language, presumably because it was unsourced. Your sockpuppet then added back the "two most prestigious" language, only to be reverted by 66.81.202.123. Yet another sockpuppet of yours added back the "two most prestigious" language, which I reverted because your edit was "unsourced opinion". Still another sockpuppet of yours added back the "two most prestigious" language, which I reverted because you still were not adding sources to the text to support the idea that some tournaments were more important than others. With a seemingly endless supply of sockpuppets, you then added back the "two most prestigious" language, still without sourcing the prestige statement in the text of the article, and then called me a "liar" in your edit summary! I then reverted your incivil vandalism. Shockingly using your registered account, you added back the "two most prestigious" language, still without sourcing the prestige statement in the text of the article. I then reverted you, with the following edit summary: "Unless you cite IN THE ARTICLE the source for saying the US Pro and Wembly were more prestigious than the French Pro, you cannot make that statement." Clearly, I have no opinion about whether the French Pro was more prestigious, just as prestigious, or less prestigious than Wembly and the U.S. Pro. My only objective is to ensure that if the article includes opinion about two tournaments being more prestigious than the other tournament, the opinion must be sourced IN THE ARTICLE. Sourcing cannot be done IN AN EDIT SUMMARY. This is elementary Misplaced Pages policy that an experienced editor such as yourself should know already. And stop being incivil or I will open a "request for comment" on your behavior. Tennis expert (talk) 20:23, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

the most prestigous has stood for 2 years. your challenge of this has been totally obscure; you must expain logic fully every time you edit.. it took 4 edits from me to get a logical response from you. in that time you rudely and uncivilly reverted my edits with no explanation. Instead you resorted to abuse like vandalism which the edit clearly was not (thart's a lie by you) and the use of it was for pure intimadation ; again against the rules of decency. This was not sockpuppettry; I at no time hid my identity; others in this dispute have failed to sign in ; its not a legal requirement.

All the time your obsession with citations its what its all about. well, the point here is that you should have made that dead clear and you did not. i listed sources in my edits.Wewmbley's superiority is a fact that is common knowedge with anyone with any knowledge of pro tennis (ie geman friend or carlo) / Thae main point is that 2 of the sources I listed are main sources for this article. The logic of main sources is to keep citations to a minimum; and in this case they are doing their job. No citation is required in this instance and that's pure logic. logic comes before your views on wiki rules every time. logic and truth arec supreme and the assertion about wembley is true. your argument is bogus and reflects a fanaticism with citations which is totally pedantic.

jeffreyneave 27 july 2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.23.152.44 (talk) 21:25, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

I have been "dead clear" the whole time. Your failure or refusal to understand plain English is not my responsibility. And it is you who regularly resorts to incivility. Just have a look at your sockpuppet-master discussion page (Jeffreyneave) for a discussion of this serious problem that you appear to be dead against reforming. Tennis expert (talk) 07:34, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

your obession withsockpuppetrs is pathetic; i never use sockpuupets and you know it; i never hide my identity; its no law not to sign in; german friend never does so either. your obsession is intimadtion of the worst source; you use it to threaten people who disagree with you; its irrelevant to this debate . your the one one who uses sockpuupets; like july 27 when another person reninserts your edict with no locial explanation and trahes my edit; that's sockpuuppetry -decpetion and devious tactics by you; what i do is not socksuppetry. your the one with the problem'; i weas cleared of sockpuupetry you liar.++

your edits are never clear, fully explained or logical -your the uncivil one because that is extremely uncivil aznd very arrogant. "unsourced" is not good enough. my edit of most prestigous stood for two years before you messed it up; with no explanation and no logic for four dumb edits by you which implied that the french pro was as prestigous as the other 2; and you know you were wrong because your sockpuppet removed that implication. your the one who needs to reform (sockpuupetry is irrelevant) but full logical explanationa are always required; you got it wrong and you won't admit it

As to the debate about the us and wembly pro, I have produced 4 sources to state their prestige over the long term. Its not 1964 stupid, its the whole history of post 1950 pro tennis up to 1967. These sources confirm that generally there were 3 major events, but that wembley was most important and the french the least.jiust as wimbledon was the most prestigous slam in the 60s so wembley was the most prestigous pro major; its bloody obvious. andf your idea that they varied from year to year is wrong; pro majors had status built up over the yeasrs just like slams; that's how you get prestige and you don't lose by one year's weaker field. in 1964 wembley and us pro had all the best players anyway and confirmed their status as the mosy prstigous.

the four sources i stated are talking about prestige over the years(1950-67) and so am I; that's what prestige is - nothing to do with prestige in one year in the stupid, nonsensical response you gave to german friend on august the ninth

jeffreyneave 17 august 2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.140.81.34 (talk) 19:30, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

I am also a bit tired by the constant correctional reedits by tennis experts, as soon as i make an input, he mechanically makes corrections not to the better. I cited the new Lee article, because it threw a light on the situation of the pro game in 64, which had been heavily discussed on this page and the world Nr. 1 page. And it confirmed the arguments, made here about Lavers status as pro Nr. 1 in 1964. The core of the article is the changing of the guard aspect, not the best match aspect, as i resumed in my original input. To make three citations to the aricle is imo obsolete. That Wembley and US pro had the most prestige, is cited now in the brand new Bud Collins History of Tennis, Chapter Press 2008, page 108, 116 and others.(German friend 2.8.08) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.60.153.110 (talk) 11:06, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Woh, Mr Expert, you think, you are most clever. Now you pretend to falsify cristall clear citations. Can't you read properly? In The History of Tennis, Page 128, Collins writes for the year 1963 regarding Rosewall: "Rosewall was supreme, seizing the two biggest tourneys. He beat Lew Hoad at Wembley.., and Laver in the final of the US pro..." What do you want more. Your re-editions are absurd. On page 116, Collins refers to 1959 and Gonzales win at US pro. Next sentence: "Anderson took the biggie, Wembley, in a tight one with Pancho Segura". On 626: "Twice he (Sedgman) won the pros highest regarded championship, Wembley at London". Same page about Segura: "he lost in the finals of the pros biggie, Wembley". (German friend 9.8.08) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.60.147.210 (talk) 19:18, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Cleverness or the lack thereof has nothing to do with it. We're talking about 1964, not 1963 or 1959. The point has often been made here and elsewhere that the relative importance of the professional tournaments varied from year to year. Care to cite something directly about 1964? Tennis expert (talk) 21:33, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

I think, its a sort of vandalism, what this self proclaimed expert is doing. I must say its sad, that wikipedia must suffer by such ignorant and arrogant people, who obviously are unaware of some reasonable thinking and tennis history. 1963 abolutely not comparable to 1964, what a joke. I will cite, in addition to Collins two further Tennis Historys by Gallery and Hewlatt.(german friend 10.8.08) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.60.153.177 (talk) 11:16, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Hello,

I haven't the courage and time to read all your above arguments but I will just say that : Bud Collins has perhaps an American view. This possibly explains why he considers the US Pro superior to the French Pro but in the French view, the French Pro was not only considered greater than the US Pro but also superior to Wembley. Tennis de France simply considered the French Pro as the World Pro Championship and Rosewall was entitled by the French magazine as World Champion 7 years in a row. Only in 1967 when Rosewall lost the tournament to Gimeno in the semifinal, Paul Haedens, who reported the tournament, wrote in Tennis de France that from this moment Laver had a claim for the number 1 spot. Though I'm a Frenchy I don't concur with the French opinions but I also don't agree many Collins statements.

If he consider that the US Pro in 1963 was greater than the French then I think he is completely wrong. The US Pro had only 5 or 6 of the best 10 pro players, in particular Gimeno and Sedgman were missing : all that because the organizers preferred to invite Gonzales and Segura both virtually retired. The 1963 US Pro field was weak compared to the French Pro field (all the best 10 pro present). Moreover the 1963 US Pro was just a 8-man tournament.

You can note that Collins for each year wrote just one small paragraph about pro tennis whereas he devoted at least almost two pages to amateur tennis. For me he seemed almost to disdain pro tennis in his Encyclopedia, though one of you, told me that he had witnessed pro tennis since the late 40s. In his Encyclopedia he just copied-pasted year after year the Wembley and US Pro finals results (and added World tours results). That's all he has done in that book. Being an American he had always favoured US results and his US Pro but this tournament had for almost a decade weak or very weak fields. During the Rosewall-Laver era the US Pro have had at least fields worthy of the supposed reputation of the tournament only in 1964 when it was held at Chestnut Hill (thanks to the Boston Bank). Just to give an indication : Rosewall didn't play that tournament from 1958 to 1962. This gives an indication that the US Pro wasn't as prestigious as Collins suggested. In the last 10 years before the open era, the French had almost always better fields than its US counterpart. Carlo Colussi (talk) 13:54, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

carlo, the point about collins is that he is making a general point about prestige ie wembley and us pro were over years the 2 most prestigous (the french dissappeared for more years than the other 2); he is not specifically referring to 1963. In 1963 with laver, rosewall hoad and gonzales in the us field you have the four great pros of the era anyway. Once laver joined in 1963 all 3 had strong fields every year; the absences of hoad say in 1965 from all 3 does not matter. Laver and rosewall won every major from 1963 onwards and were completely dominant. no other pro was ever a legitmate candidate for the top 2 spots. I admit all the sources I have are anglo saxon, but its clear aussies, brits and americans all had the same view - ie wembley and us pro the best. Its probably a bit unfair on the french, but the french pro needs other supporters beyond its compatriots.

jeffreyneave 16 sept 2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jeffreyneave (talk • contribs) 20:47, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

My statements above regarded the absurd statement by a citations obsessed contributor , that Collins didn't wrote, that US pro and Wembley were the two prominent events. In the context of the article the point is actually quite marginal, not worth of a edit war (There are bigger problems in the Federer article for instance: In the opening paragraph are "citations" for best ever, which simply don't say it). On a bigger scale, the specific weight of the so called pro majors is indeed a problem, and its of course a media and perspective problem. In most Tennis histories i have read, from 1968 onwards including World of Tennis yearbooks,Gallery, Hawlett, Wembley and US pro are mentioned as most prolific pro championships, while French Pro are almost neglected. The books are written mostly by Anglo-Saxon authors. Wembley as outstanding autumn event was covered by the great British writers of the era, like Bellamy, Gray, Tingay, Pigneon and others, and regarded as pro Wimbledon. The French journalists went to Paris, maybe to Cannes, to see pro tennis. The Americans like Anderson or Collins went to Cleveland and Boston. But Wembley's fame went above Anglo-Saxon pride. Even in Spanish encyclopaedias for years sports events, only Wembley is mentioned as pro event. I must say, from French writers of that era, i don't know Paul Haedens, only Judith Elian and Christian Quidet.And in Quidet's book there is no preeminent honoring of the French pro.The problem, i have with the French is the change of surface in the 60s, and the (often practiced) scheduling one week before Wembley. It looked to me as a sort of warming up event to Wembley. Maybe i am false. One word to Collins new book. Collins has great merits a historical voice of tennis. But i am a bit disapointed, too, by the lack of pro tennis covering in his new book. Its simply a re-edition of his encyclopedias and Total Tennis.(german friend 26.8.08) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.60.136.93 (talk) 20:48, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Hello german friend and jeffreyneave.

It seems that Wembley Pro prestige comes much from the British and Bud Collins. But as you can see in his encyclopedias he copied-pasted the Wembley and US Pro paragraphs each year and just changed the finals results so Collins for me isn't a good source of pro tennis at all.

Quidet's book is just a copy-paste of the Slam and Davis Cup results. In the very few pro results there are, from memory, the 1960 French Pro final, possibly the 1961 final (not sure) and the 1967 Coubertin result (the Paris Pro and not the French Pro at Coubertin) and in fact Quidet didn't honor any pro event in his book.

If I believe some New York Times clippings, the French Pro was considered as a World Pro event in the early 60's while the US (Cleveland) Pro seemed less prestigious at that time. World Tennis considered that Rosewall was the new king in 1961 when he won the French and Wembley.

What's sure is that Wembley as always been the most prestigious (with often the best field).

Paul and Kléber Haedens were Tennis de France writers.

Thank you for the information about Collins's new book : I won't buy it because if I believe you it hasn't any interest. Carlo Colussi (talk) 12:57, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Place among greats

Some guy wrote crap about fans who argue, that Laver and his generation had the standard of college players, without any references. I deleted that.Also someone partly deleted the reference to the World Nr. 1 article, so the paragraph is unreadable now, with the refrences to Tilden and Gonzales hanging in the air now. I will rewrite this paragraph and put on references to R. Lee and others (German Friend, 10.10.08) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.60.162.69 (talk) 15:06, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Newly found Titles

Thanks to the contributor Andrew Tass on tennis warehouse, 12 more tournaments won by Laver can be documented. Especially the time prior to 1960 is covered, and some additional pro titles .Andrew has 2 more wins: Queensland in 1956 and La Paz 1965, with no results yet available. It would be somewhat strange, if indeed the Australian Champs of 1960 would have been the very first Tournament, Laver has won. At least Mal Anderson, who was the US champ 1957 and World Nr 2 amateur in 1957/58, and Ken Fletcher were players with world or international renommee. Jeffrey is also informed on these titles. I don't know, how to precisely put these findings into the scheme, and ask for some help by other contributors. I give here Andrews findings with date, place, final oponent, and final score.The overall number would increase to 197 titles for Laver, more than Robert Geist has found yet.Also 3 more wins of Laver over Gonzales can be documented for 67 and 69, bringing the overall head to head to 39(or 40) to 20 in favor of Laver.

1957 Feb 24-25- Mar 2-3: Redcliffe, Queensland, B. Green (Aus)6:1, 6:4;

April 19-22: Central Queensland, Ken Fletcher (Aus)7:5, 6:3

1958 Feb 22-23- Mar 1-2: Redcliffe, Queensland, G. Gaydon (Aus) 4:6,6:4,6:3;

Mr. 4-6 Nambour, Queensland, Mal Anderson (Aus,World Nr.2 amateur that year)6:3,6:2

Oct. 9-12-13: Southport, Queensland, N. Gibson (Aus)

1959 Mar. 27-30: Central Queensland, Frank Gorman (Aus)6:1,6:2

1960 Mar 25-27- Apr 2-3: Wynnum, Queensland, N. Gibson (Aus)6:3,6:0

Apr. 30-May 1-2: Nambour, Ken Fletcher (Aus) 3:6, 7:5,6:3

1963 Oct. 5-6: Salisbury (Rhodesia), Alex Olmedo (Peru)6:3,10:8

Act. 10-12 Johannesburg: Mike Davies (GB) 4:6, 8:6,6:2

1965 Oct. 22-28 Natal Pro, East London, Andres Gimeno (Spain) 6:1, 6:3

1967 Mar 30-31: Montreal, Dennis Ralston (USA) 17:15,6:0

All results due to the findings of Andrew Tass.(German friend, 19.10.08)

Hello German friend. Above I've written that "Gonzales defeated Laver in spring 1970 at Cape Town", this meeting seems not to be counted in your stats' therefore if I believe your win-loss record Laver led 39 or 40 - 21.

I've given Andrew Tas (and not Tass) 's statistics to my french colleague who counted 199 titles (see the French version) but perhaps he made a mistake.

Other info, Ralston would have defeated Rosewall in a pro set in Montréal 1967 (cited just above). Carlo Colussi (talk) 10:36, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

• • • • • • hello german friend and carlo

The 2 wins in one night stands for Laver in 1969 are already included in the statistics. These two wins were listed in Laver's book with collins, which was used as a source for the original calculations. The only extra win is the one in Montreal in 1967. The gonzales wins in cape town 1970 is also already included in the statistics. This means that head to head now stands at 37-21 for Laver.

jeffreyneave 21 october 2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.141.193.109 (talk) 19:15, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Many thanks Jema, to put Andrew Tas new findings into the box. Hello, Carlo and Jeffrey. I had 197 wins, because i hadn't counted the 1956 Queensland win with no exact result. To Jeffrey: Is the sf Oakland win of Laver over Gonzales already counted in the head-to-head estimation? And i thought that the 1970 Cape town result was already counted, but maybe i am wrong. I think, that the begin of the place among greats section should be rewritten. There are now very loose references to some article, which isn't exactly mentioned.(German Friend 27.10.08) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.60.147.51 (talk) 16:07, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

• • • • • hello german friend

Laver beat Rosewall in sf Oakland in 1969. Laver has 5 wins in 1969 over Gonzales: Orlando SF; Seattle one night stand; Portland one night stand: Binghampton Final; Baltimore Final. All of these wins are included in Laver's 37. Gonzales win in cape town 1970 is already included in his total of 21 wins.

jeffreyneave 29 october 2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.84.210.2 (talk) 13:50, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Playing style

Tennis expert has obviously made a tag, whatever that is, to the section Playing style, citing, that no sources are given. All the sources (Bellamy, Maskell, Heldman) however are in the bibliography at the end of the article.Do you want page ciatations are what? (german friend 5.3.2009) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.60.133.99 (talk) 09:23, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

the above comments by the man who whorships at the shrine at wkik editing editing rules are being removed. his comments amount to nazi style censorship. wiki eduiting rules are totally unacceptable . original research is great; commemts do need to be neutral only factually correct; citations should kept to an absolute minmimum as the rod laver does and a bliography should always be used instead. a citation for every fact is a completye joke and no book has ever being written in that way; use main sources. fundanemetally the above editor's actions and behaviour breals the fiundamental rule of thesees factual pages (it us not an enclyclopedia becaiuse its for everyone to contrbute their original research and not have articles written by so called experts) this r4ule whivh he should learn by heart is

"never touch another editor's work umless you yourself can prove it to be factually incorrect. you leave it completely alone as log as it makes sense in terms of basic english. When editing you should show respect, reverence and total trust in another editor's work

jeffreyneave 16 may 2009

for german friend

LAVER'S TITLES

laver's titles now stand at 199 with the addition of sao paulo as his first title of 1968 where he beat gonzales in the final in a 4 man mtl event. This sao paulo title came fron andrew tas whose' research is the main basis for this total ; he has counted 197 titles for laver;

jeffreyneave 21 june 2009 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jeffreyneave (talk • contribs) 13:20, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Question: are you counting shared titles? Thanks. To german friend: please check the book "2009 OFFICIAL GUIDE TO PROFESSIONAL TENNIS", and you can see many many WCT events included; now Laver has 47 "ATP titles". Many tournaments of 68 and 69 were included, but be advice that the ATP website is changing very slow, I mean they are in progress in getting better their database. --Lucio Garcia 19:51, 1 September 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lucio Garcia (talk • contribs)

At Wimbledon in 2009

Why is it notable that Laver attended Wimbledon in 2009, or at least notable enough that it warrants its own header? Retired tennis pros attend tennis matches all the time. Was there a special presentation of some kind? — Preceding unsigned comment added by NewkirkPlaza (talk • contribs) 04:23, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Rod Laver. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061011200242/http://www.wimbledon.org/en_GB/about/history/rod_laver.html to http://www.wimbledon.org/en_GB/about/history/rod_laver.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:17, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

What to include in the lede

This is a section for the IP editor to discuss his lede addition (since reverted) if they or anybody else wish to do so. The content is already covered in the article body, with a reference, . Samsara 08:53, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

It's not important enough to mention in the lede. The referenced statement in the article body is appropriate and sufficient. Thanks for posting that here. -Testpored (talk) 18:00, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Rod Laver. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/multimedia/photo_gallery/1009/top.ten.tennis/content.8.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090628080700/http://www.tennisweek.com/news/fullstory.sps?inewsid=503656 to http://www.tennisweek.com/news/fullstory.sps?inewsid=503656

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:44, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Rod Laver. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160105060419/http://www.ninemsn.com.au/article/8945826 to http://www.ninemsn.com.au/article/8945826

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:37, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Article lede

This is a great article about a great tennis player. The lead-in had an issue that was in violation of MOS:PUFF and WP:WEASEL.

Fyunck(click) added the line "Given these achievements, some players and analysts consider Laver the greatest tennis player of all time." There are no sources attributed to this claim.

The first line of the article states "an Australian former tennis player widely regarded as one of the greatest in the history of the sport". There are sources to back up this claim, however, many of them are either incredibly outdated (some from 2000) or from obscure websites.

It's fine to include the first line, however old the sources are, because it's consistent with several articles about famous tennis players on Misplaced Pages.

The line Fyunck(click) added, however, is a clear violation of MOS:PUFF and WP:WEASEL.

This is a clear violation of WP:NPOV.Zerilous (talk) 01:55, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

There are plenty of sources given for that claim. They are in the full section on his achievements. I even added more since they are so easy to find for players like Federer and Laver. These are the same accolades used in articles such as Roger Federer and Serena Williams. I have not remove "one of the greatest" but I do usually make sure whether it's based on fact or not, changing them to "some".Fyunck(click) (talk) 02:08, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

You did not provide sources to back up the claim "Given these achievements, some players and analysts consider Laver the greatest tennis player of all time." that you inserted into the lead. Zerilous (talk) 02:29, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

Already did, there are sources all over the section below. This is just like in many other tennis articles such as Federer, Nadal, Serena, etc... Why aren't you protesting those articles, or is this bias on your part? Work on removing it from those and we'll see the sincerity or hypocrisy, because right now this is the only article you have edited in your life. Nothing else in all your Misplaced Pages history. Fyunck(click) (talk) 04:56, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

You have continued to make disruptive edits to this article promoting your own biased point of view. Please refrain from continuing to make these disruptive edits until consensus is reached here. Misplaced Pages is not the place to promote your own feelings and beliefs, it is an encyclopedia that is based upon factual information. I recommend you read the following pages from the Misplaced Pages Manual of Style: Zerilous (talk) 05:42, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

I recommend you stop believing your own falsehoods and say why you are being biased against only Rod Laver. Is it a problem with Australians? A problem with guys who wear hats? Is it a problem with players who are old? Because you aren't following your own mantra with other articles I mentioned. Only Rod Laver is in your cross-hairs of your disruptive editing. It's fully sourced for the statement I wrote. It is a fact. This blatant hypocrisy and bias of yours must stop. It is not fair to all the other articles to single out one player. Other encyclopedias don't seem to have an issue with his greatness. Encyclopedia 1, Encyclopedia 2, so this is not my opinon. It is the opinion of "many", yet I only put "some" as that is much easier to source and was already in the article. Fyunck(click) (talk) 05:47, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

The two "encyclopedias" you linked are either incredibly out-of-date or in no way qualify is a quality, neutral encyclopedia. The first one you referenced was written in 2004. The second one is titled "The Encyclopedia of Sixties Cool", has 0 reviews, is clearly biased towards the sixties, and is obviously not intended to be a factual source of information. Also, it is clear from the URL you provided that all you did was search "enyclopedia greatest rod laver" and tried to find any low-quality sources you could to justify your opinion. What is also clear is that you have an extreme bias in favor of Rod Laver. Looking at your Misplaced Pages user page, you state that the 60's was the golden era of tennis. Looking through your past edits, you have continuously, again and again and again, made disruptive edits against other player's articles removing any claims they have to that player being one of the greatest of all time.

You are the one who is biased. You are the one violating the Misplaced Pages Manual of Style. You are the one who is clearly upset that you can't insert your own unsourced, biased opinions into the enyclopedia. You are the one making disruptive edits. You are the one trying to make this some competition between your favorite tennis player and several others when I have done nothing but bring up valid points as to why your disruptive edits violate established Misplaced Pages guidelines.

Again, I suggest you read the following pages from the Manual of Style that clearly lay out the guidelines for editing Misplaced Pages: Zerilous Zerilous (talk) 13:43, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

I am so glad you have a fetish on everything I write. Make me feel tingly all over. Basically what you posted was a ream of blatant lies. You simply attack me at every chance and are so biased against Rod Laver as to be blind to any kind of constructive talk. It's quite sad to see someone ignore facts and disrupt Misplaced Pages in this way. I'm not sure whose sock you are, but this is the only article you edit and the hypocrisy is blatant, so there must be some hidden hatred towards poor Laver. Well, this article will suffer because of it. Your cruelty and bad faith have permeated this discussion board, and your continual lies make me wonder at your agenda. I think it's time you leave me alone. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:23, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

I'm here to offer a third opinion from Misplaced Pages:Third opinion#Active disagreements. In an of itself, the phrase would not be MOS:PUFF if it was supported by the body of the article or inline citations in the lead. The problem here is that only half of it is supported: the body checks out for "some players and analysts consider Laver the greatest tennis player of all time". But the body doesn't support the claim that these assessments are due to the specific victories enumerated in the lead ("Given these achievements"). None of the people cited in the body of the article are saying that the 11 singles victories, the 1962 and 1969 Grand Slams, the eight Pro Slams, or the five Davis Cups specifically are what makes him "the greatest tennis player of all time". Only the two Grand Slams are directly related in the quotes given for the "greatest player of all time" status: Bodo makes this connection, as well as the Australian Sports Medal citation. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 21:09, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

Good comment. The point you address could easily be fixed by changing "Given these achievements" to "Due to his achievements". The essence of the sentence is the part "some players and analysts consider Laver the greatest tennis player of all time" and it is good to have a third-party opinion confirming that this is not MOS:PUFF and is supported in the article body.--Wolbo (talk) 21:22, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

Now that's constructive, and something we can work with. My concern has always been consistency among articles. Certainly we have players considered THE greatest of all-time or in a group of greatest of all-time. Usually easy to source. Be it Tilden, Gonzalez, Wills, Lenglen, Connolley, Laver, Borg, Sampras, Court, Evert, Navratilova, Graf, Federer, Nadal, Williams, etc... The question is how do we express that? In the lead? In a legacy section in the middle of the article? Where exactly? I had felt that it is best to express these things in a legacy section, and not the lead, however that opinion was shown to be in the minority in articles such as Federer, Nadal, and Williams... articles that get edited on a almost daily basis. They have become the norm. What we don't want is bias in how we handle this item with these great players. I was also taught here that the lead is more a summary of the sections below and that it doesn't need additional sourcing if it is properly sourced in the main body. That's how I handled this situation. But perhaps you are right that "given these achievements" should either be removed or sources should be added that specifically address the titles and two Grand Slams. Fyunck(click) (talk) 21:30, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for taking the time to visit the article and give your input Finnusertop. I made the request on the Misplaced Pages:Third opinion#Active disagreements in order to reach a consensus here, something that Fyunck(click) has refused to do. I am perfectly fine with Rod Laver or any of the other great players listed here being described as "one of the greatest players of all time" so long as there are accurate, current sources for that claim. I have brought this up several times and all Fyunck(click) has done is harass me, report me, make false claims, and try to make this personal between him and I.

If we can find some credible sources for the claim "some analysts and former players consider Rod Laver to be the greatest player of all time" I'm all for leaving it in the lead of the article. I've looked for some sources myself and haven't been able to find any, but I'll continue looking. I've found a few references from 15-20 years ago (from guys like Jack Kramer, Bud Collins, etc.) but those men revised their opinions a few years later.

What we can't do is make this personal and inject our own opinions into the enyclopedia. We can't attack another editor's character simply because we disagree with their opinion. I ask Fyunck(click) again to please stop harassing me and disruptively editing the article until consensus is reached here. Zerilous (talk) 22:33, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

Knock off the whoa is me lies and baloney Zerilous. It's pathetic and worn out and your harassing me is well documented. Try to be part of the solution. Fyunck(click) (talk) 22:59, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

Continuing to harass me is not constructive Fyunck(click). Please, can we stay on topic and not make this personal? Zerilous (talk) 23:06, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

If you can refrain. Fyunck(click) (talk) 23:11, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

Very good. I've reached out to an administrator here on Misplaced Pages with advice on how to resolve this situation. She was extremely courteous and recommended I give suggestions about how to re-word the article to make it more in-line with Misplaced Pages standards. I read two sources, one here: http://www.tennis.com/pro-game/2018/03/50-greatest-players-open-era-m-no-2-rod-laver/72424/ and one here: http://www.news.com.au/sport/tennis/australian-open/rod-laver-sends-social-media-abuzz-with-adorable-moment/news-story/416531d3beb20b45be31a3cbc1537434 that I feel are pretty credible. The first lists Rod Laver as the #2 tennis player of all time. The other is a quote from Roger Federer saying "Rod Laver is the best" (I don't know if he meant best as in the best tennis player ever or just a general "Oh he's the best" but regardless, I think it's noteworthy).

How about changing the lead-in to state something like "Laver's significant career achievements have led Tennis magazine to list him among the greatest tennis players of all time, and led some players, namely Roger Federer, to consider him the greatest player of all time"? Zerilous (talk) 01:01, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

If, all the other champion articles, including Roger Federer, use the same exact wording, then we could do that. Otherwise it would be demeaning and biased to single out Rod Laver as something less than the others. More than Tennis Magazine and Roger Federer have called Laver the greatest... many more. This styling would need to be followed for ALL the greatest tennis players... whether it's Federer, Williams, Nadal, Sampras, etc. Fyunck(click) (talk) 04:26, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

So you would need to change Roger Federer's line from "Given these achievements, many players and analysts consider Federer to be the greatest tennis player of all time" to something like "Federer's significant career achievements have led some sources to list him among the greatest tennis players of all time, and led some players, such as John McEnroe, to consider him the greatest player of all time." If that was done, and you can get editors there to agree with it, at least there would be no bias between subjects with how we present these articles to our readers. But we look at the whole enchilada at Tennis Project where we try to make sure the standards are equal across the board of all our tennis articles, no matter what century a player participated in. Fyunck(click) (talk) 04:41, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

If we go that direction, I guess we would first need to put this discussion on the talk pages of those articles that would be affected so we could get input from editors that may not be seeing this. We don't want to surprise anyone. Fyunck(click) (talk) 04:55, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

Sounds good, let's start having that discussion on the other talk pages as well. I'm glad we agree that the lead in needs to be re-worded to better fit the manual of style. Zerilous (talk) 11:39, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

Several things. 1) I would NEVER put it in the first few sentences of the lead. 2) Per Federer sourcing in the article he called Laver the "greatest of all time." That's the common term. And before we limit Laver we need to limit Federer, etc.. So we would need to open this up for discussion at all the articles before setting limitations here. And consensus has not been reached yet as I'm not the only person here. I would use "Because of Laver's significant career achievements, he is considered among the greatest tennis players of all time, and it has led some analysts and players, one being Roger Federer, to call him the greatest player of all time" but I would put it at the end of the third paragraph of the lead, not in the first. Putting the name of magazines in the lead is a little tacky when we are simply summarizing the prose. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:52, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

And, if we went by the third party suggestion we would remove the career achievement stuff and simply say "Laver is considered among the greatest tennis players of all time, and it has led some analysts and players, one being Roger Federer, to call him the greatest player of all time." If we do it that way, we really don't have to go through the other player talk pages for input. It would be different than other player bios, but I wouldn't go so far as to say it was radically different enough to warrant massive editor input to change all articles. Fyunck(click) (talk) 00:18, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

Good idea on keeping that line in the third paragraph of the lead. It makes more sense to put it there and we don't want to duplicate the same thing multiple times in the intro.

Unfortunately we can't add "it has led some analysts and players" until we have more credible sources to back it up. I found the one yesterday that I linked where Roger Federer described Laver as his greatest player of all time, which is definitely credible. If we want to be able to say "some analysts and players", we'll have to find a couple of more sources to go along with it. I'll keep looking for some more credible sources for that claim, and if you come across any definitely list them here. Zerilous (talk) 00:38, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

How many hundreds do we need? The Federer quote and source is already in the article. So are others. I can list more such as The Greatest Tennis Player Ever, or Hall of Fame, or Agassi Calls Laver God-like, Slammin' Sampras. I think famous tennis historian Robert Geist picks Rosewall over Laver. And every one of the sources whether they talk about Laver, Federer, Nadal, Tilden, Gonzales, Sampras, etc. say one thing one day, and something else the next. They try to sell stories and GOAT water-cooler talk brings in the money. That's why all player talk about GOAT is simply subjective fun. But the fact remains that we have many sources in print that call a handful of players the greatest of all time. Laver is one of those players. Fyunck(click) (talk) 01:33, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

I did not say we need a hundred sources, please stop making this personal. WP:GF and WP:EQ. If we want to insert "some analysts and players consider Rod Laver the greatest tennis player of all time" then we need some credible sources to back-up that claim.

The first source, The Greatest Tennis Player Ever, is from Bleacher Report, which is not a credible website. It's a sports blog. Further, that source does not argue that Rod Laver is the greatest player of all time, it says he belongs in the discussion. Which he does, 100%. What we're looking for is credible sources that state Rod Laver is the greatest player of all time.

The second source, Hall of Fame, does not state that Rod Laver is the greatest player of all time. It says that "some fans consider him the greatest ever" which is certainly true, but that's true of hundreds of athletes across any sport. Any popular athlete will have fans who regard him/her as the greatest ever, that doesn't make it a credible claim that "some players and analysts" consider him the greatest ever.

The third source, Agassi Calls Laver God-like, is not credible because Andre Agassi does not state that Rod Laver is the greatest player ever. Furthermore, that source was from 2009, and Andre has revised his claim on who he feels is the greatest player ever. Here is a more recent source from 2017 .

The fourth source, Slammin' Sampras, is not credible because it is very out-of-date and the subject of the source, Pete Sampras, has more recently revised his opinion on who the greatest player of all time is. Here's a reference for that: .

Rod is definitely one of my favorite players (his 1969 US Open final against Tony Roche is one of my favorite matches from the Wooden racket era ). We'll just need to keep looking for a couple of credible sources to verify the claim that Rod Laver is "the greatest tennis player of all time" before we can insert it into the article. I'm going to continue looking and let me know if you find any. Zerilous (talk) 02:11, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

If you are looking for exact wording, I'm sorry but that is ridiculous. This is getting really nick-picky on your part. The Bleacher Report IS a reliable source. Run by Sports Illustrated. That is a source for GOAT. It says " "Rod", "The Rocket", the "Rockhampton Rocket" is considered by most folks who saw him play and many who've heard of his accomplishments, to be as great a tennis player that ever lived—current players included." The article title is point blank too. "The Greatest Tennis Player Ever: Rod Laver Still Belongs In Discussion." The Hall of Fame is another credible source saying "Laver is considered by many tennis fans to be the greatest player of all time."

100% wrong on Agassi. It matters ZERO on mind swapping. ZERO! I said in the last post that that issue happens all the time with every single goat player. I can't count how many times it was written about Federer or Nadal that was later retracted. You'll note how I wrote the revised item.... "and it has led some analysts and players, one being Roger Federer, to call him the greatest player of all time." To call someone the greatest player of all time does not mean that it's current to 5 March 2018. It means a player was called at some point in time the greatest ever. That's it.

The Sampras issue is the same thing. If you are not going to allow old newspapers and magazines quotes and writeups we are completely at an impasse and that limitation would be against Misplaced Pages Policy. You can't do that. Those sources are credible and you are the only one who doesn't think so, so far as I can tell. We do not need more sources. Right now consensus is to use the original wording I wrote or to remove the achievement part and use the rest. You will need to convince the rest of us your way is best. You have reverted two different editors now on that issue. I have given you several ways it could be written so as not to diminish players from the past. Fyunck(click) (talk) 03:18, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

When you say "If you are looking for exact wording, I'm sorry but that is ridiculous.", it is not ridiculous at all. Again, WP:GF and WP:EQ. That is exactly the discussion we are having here. The wording is everything. There is a huge difference between "is considered one of the greatest players of all time" and "is considered the greatest player of all time". You know that and I know that.

If you don't feel there is a difference between the two, why did you insert the latter line into the article to begin with? The article was perfectly fine before you edited it. It was consistent with the sources and with the other articles about great tennis players on Misplaced Pages. The whole issue arose because you chose to insert the line "Rod Laver is considered the greatest tennis player of all time" into the article, even though it already contained the line "widely regarded as one of the greatest in the history of the sport".

If you find it so important to insert that additional line, then we have to find credible sources to back it up.

We can discuss the Bleacher Report article for sure. It says "Rod Laver Still Belongs In Discussion". He absolutely does. I agree. It does not argue that Rod Laver is -the- greatest tennis player of all time which is what you are trying to insert.

We can also discuss the hall of fame article you referenced. I agree that it says "some fans consider Rod Laver the greatest player of all time". I also agree that many of his fans consider him the greatest player of all time. Like I said earlier, there are hundreds of athletes across dozens of sports who have fans that consider him/her the greatest in the history of their sport. If you want to insert the line "many fans consider Rod Laver the greatest player in the history of the sport" then I'm perfectly fine with that. However, fans are not "analysts and players". We can't insert "Many analysts and players" because no credible sources have been provided to back that up.

As for your claim "100% wrong on Agassi. It matters ZERO on mind swapping. ZERO!" I ask you again, please, WP:GF and WP:EQ. It absolutely does matter what Agassi feels today. Agassi today does not feel Rod Laver is the greatest tennis player of all time. I provided sources to verify that. If you want to insert into the article something like "Given his many achievements, some fans consider Rod Laver the greatest player in the history of the sport. At one point, some former players, including Andre Agassi, described him as the greatest tennis player of all time" then I'm perfectly fine with that. That's consistent with the sources you've provided.

Your claim "if you are not going to allow old newspapers and magazines quotes and writeups we are completely at an impasse" is totally incorrect. I didn't say we couldn't use them for anything, I said that they don't justify stating that "many players consider Rod Laver the greatest tennis player of all time" because they don't. Andre Agassi and Pete Sampras do not consider Rod Laver the greatest tennis player of all time. The sources do justify saying "At one point, some former players, including Pete Sampras and Andre Agassi, considered Rod Laver the greatest tennis player of all time".

Your claim "Right now consensus is to use the original wording I wrote or to remove the achievement part and use the rest" is inaccurate. You chose, on your own without any discussion, to insert the line "Rod Laver is considered the greatest tennis player of all time" into this article. Your single opinion is not consensus and you know that. You should have taken it to Talk first before inserting it. WP:OR The other editor who commented on this article agrees with me. When I brought this up on the notice board a few weeks ago the administrators who weighed in agreed with me as well. Let's continue the discussion here until we actually reach a consensus. Zerilous (talk) 03:50, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

Agreed that "is considered one of the greatest players of all time" and "is considered the greatest player of all time" are two different items altogether. But that is not what those sources say. But it matters a big zero on the agassi quote. If I wrote, "On March 18 Agassi claimed that Laver is the greatest of all-time"... you would have a huge point. That is not what I proposed at all. I wrote "and it has led some analysts and players, one being Roger Federer, to call him the greatest player of all time." That is sourced at will. No problem. My goodness. There are sources that have called Bill Tilden the greatest of all time. Of course those people are dead. That doesn't mean we can't use it. Tilden has been called the greatest player ever. Gonzales has been called the greatest of all time. Those are facts that can be sourced. Those sources that we use for Federer... you'd have to throw those out and update all the links because those people change their minds all the time. McEnroe swings like a pendulum between Federer, Nadal and Laver. It depends on his mood. Those sources work great for my proposals on changes. Unless you can convince us otherwise, the original will wind up going back in by consensus. I'm willing to work on the wording, but those sources are fine. No one has agreed with you here. Fyunck(click) (talk) 05:43, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

You say "it matters a big zero on the Agassi quote". It absolutely does matter. Agassi does not consider Rod Laver to be the greatest of all time. I've provided sources to back that up. If Agassi doesn't consider Laver to be the greatest of all time, then we can't use him a credible source for the claim "some players and analysts consider Rod Laver the greatest tennis player of all time".

Yes, if an analyst from 50+ years ago claims that someone is the greatest player of all time and then passes away without revising their claim, then sure, we can use that as a credible source. We could say something like "At one point, Rod Laver was described by some analysts as the greatest tennis player of all time" or "Some now deceased analysts have described Rod Laver as the greatest tennis player of all time". We could also insert the line "Shortly after his career ended, some analysts considered Rod Laver the greatest tennis player of all time". Those claims are accurate and backed up by sources.

This is no different than it is for famous athletes across any sport. 50 years ago we could have found dozens of sources saying Jim Thorpe was the greatest football player of all time. Today, experts who've studied his career and the careers of players who came after him don't consider Jim Thorpe the greatest player of all time. Could we insert a line in Jim Thorpe's article saying "At the time of his death, many analysts considered Jim Thorpe the greatest football player of all time"? Absolutely. Would it be accurate to insert the following line in his article: "Jim Thorpe is widely regarded as the greatest football player of all time". Not at all because there are countless sources from experts on the subject who feel that the achievements of more recent players have exceeded his.

You can find dozens of examples like this across multiple sports.

I have absolutely no problem with inserting the following lines into Bill Tilden or Panco Gonzalez's articles: "At the time of his death, Bill Tilden was considered by many analysts to be the greatest tennis player of all time." or "At the time of his death, many analysts considered Pancho Gonzalez to be the greatest tennis player of all time."

Your claim "McEnroe swings like a pendulum" isn't accurate. I've heard him describe Nadal and Federer as the greatest of all time. Since he listed those two, not once have I heard him call Rod Laver the greatest of all time.

Your claim "No one has agreed with you" is completely inaccurate. When I posted about this on the notice board a few weeks ago there was very broad consensus that I was correct, which is why you didn't revert my changes right away. You waited over a month, waited for the discussion to disappear from the notice board, figured that I had gone away, and then inserted your opinion back into the article.

Your claim "the original will wind up going back in by consensus" is a bully tactic and breaks WP:OR. Your single opinion is not consensus and you know that. At every step I have tried to reach consensus by posting on the notice board, reaching out to neutral Administrators to come and post here, posting on WP:3, etc. You have done none of these things. What you have done is insert your own opinion into the article with no credible sources to back it up (WP:OR) and then repeatedly tell me that your opinion alone is consensus and you're going to keep it in there. It's not consensus, so let's continue the discussion here and keep looking for credible sources to back up your claim. Zerilous (talk) 11:58, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

It matters zero When Agassi said it per the way I suggested it written. Zero.

You took another thing out of context. I said no one has agreed with you here, where the discussion is taking place, and where consensus matters. You have been doing that a lot and it's causing problems. That said, let's look at your Jim Thorpe comparison, because that can work. First of all, in the books I read he was called the greatest athlete of all time, not so much the greatest football player. There would be no problem at all today saying "Many fans, athletes and annalists have called him the greatest athlete of all-time" just like I suggested with Laver. The old news sources would work just fine. That is why, for you, I had suggested "Laver is considered among the greatest tennis players of all time, and it has led some analysts and players, one being Roger Federer, to call him the greatest player of all time" but you seem to ignore that, and I don't know why. And back to Thorpe, if we talk greatest athlete, you would be incorrect in your assessment of his abilities even today. The Washington Post from 2012 calls him the greatest Olympic athlete in history. As an athlete you are judged against your peers in events that were the most important at the time.

You asked for a third opinion and that person came here and said "some players and analysts consider Laver the greatest tennis player of all time" is supported by the article sources. I have reverted you on that and Wolbo has reverted you on that. You refuse to accept it and I see no no one else here. I suggested "Laver is considered among the greatest tennis players of all time, and it has led some analysts and players, one being Roger Federer, to call him the greatest player of all time" to try and appease you. That has been rejected by you or you refuse to see it. You and I had discussed changing the terminology in every article, not just Laver's. We talked of changing ALL articles to something like "Laver's significant career achievements have led Tennis magazine to list him among the greatest tennis players of all time, and led some players, namely Roger Federer, to consider him the greatest player of all time." As long as all articles were written the same way, where we'd get consensus among all those articles to do so. What did you do? You seemed to take that as consensus here and added it to the article. One it was not consensus since it was only you and me and none of the other parties here said they agreed. And none of the the other article talk pages were informed of the changes that might be forthcoming. Plus did you add what we discussed to the article? No. Instead you added "TENNIS Magazine listed him second on its list of greatest players, and Roger Federer has described him as the "best" tennis player in history." That's not even close to what we discussed!

All that said, what may have to happen is to list your suggestions and my suggestions in an RFC that brings all our sports editors here and simply let them pick one of four choices. They may not care about tennis at all, but at least more than four people will attend. Since we are getting nowhere, I'll start working on the wording in the next couple days. It's not my avenue of choice but at least one of the four will get picked, and that's what will be used. Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:23, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

Let's go through your points here one by one.

You took another thing out of context. I said no one has agreed with you here, where the discussion is taking place

Incorrect, your friend Wolbo agrees with you, because he agrees with you every time you ask him to come post in your defense. The other users that I've reached out to for additional opinions agree with me that the sources you continue to cite are not enough to make the claim that "some analysts and players consider Rod Laver the greatest player of all time".

This is a bold-faced LIE Fyunck(click) (talk) 01:25, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

You have been doing that a lot and it's causing problems.

WP:GF and WP:EQ. I ask you again to please stop making this personal.

I suggested "Laver is considered among the greatest tennis players of all time, and it has led some analysts and players, one being Roger Federer, to call him the greatest player of all time" to try and appease you

I was the one who suggested that edit, not you, and you know that. Look up the chain to when I posted on 01:01, 5 March 2018. "Laver's significant career achievements have led Tennis magazine to list him among the greatest tennis players of all time, and led some players, namely Roger Federer, to consider him the greatest player of all time."

Not the same sentence. Fyunck(click) (talk) 01:25, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

That line is consistent with the credible sources I provided. The fact that you would take my suggestion, claim it as your own, then accuse me of not agreeing with it is clearly not WP:GF and WP:EQ.

And back to Thorpe

My example for Jim Thorpe is perfectly valid and you know that. If you want to make this a discussion about Jim Thorpe then I'm more than happy to do so on Jim Thorpe's Talk page. Calling Jim Thorpe one of the greatest football players of all time is correct because we can find dozens of credible sources to back that up. Calling Jim Thorpe the greatest football of all time is not accurate because there are no current credible sources to back up that claim. Calling Rod Laver one of the greatest tennis player of all time is correct because we can find dozens of credible sources to back that up. Calling Rod Laver the greatest tennis player of all time is only valid if we can find credible sources to back up that claim. I've been looking for credible sources to back up that claim, and you still have not been able to find any. If one of us is able to find those sources, then we can certainly update the article with the proper lead-in.

There are sources, you just don't like them. Fyunck(click) (talk) 01:25, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

You and I had discussed changing the terminology in every article, not just Laver's. We talked of changing ALL articles

I'm more than happy to go through each and every tennis player's articles and verify that the claims made in them are backed up by credible sources. If I see any, I'll go ahead and start a section on the talk page like here and discuss how we can improve them. If you find any please do the same. If you'd rather not be the one to start the conversation let me know and I'd be more than happy to.

We would put all of them through an RfC together to make a common sentence for all of them. That's what I talked about. Fyunck(click) (talk) 01:25, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

All that said, what may have to happen is to list your suggestions and my suggestions in an RFC

An RFC is probably the way to go at this point. The more thoughts and ideas on this, the better. I've tried at every step of the process to reach out to neutral third parties and get their opinion. I'm glad that you've finally come around to that line of thinking. Zerilous (talk) 23:47, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

LOL. Fyunck(click) (talk) 01:25, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

WP:EQ please. We've been having a constructive discussion, let's continue to do so. Zerilous (talk) 01:32, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

Effect of ban

The lead says Despite being banned from playing the Grand Slam tournaments for the five years prior to the Open Era, he won 11 singles titles. While it is true that Laver suffered from missing many slams in his prime due to his own ban, in an identical way he benefited from the best players being banned in 1960-1962, when he won 6 of his 11 slams. For balanced coverage, shouldn't both factors be mentioned, or neither? Gap9551 (talk) 11:59, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

I agree. I changed it to something a little more neutral, I hope to your liking. "Laver won 11 Grand Slam singles titles, though he was banned from playing those tournaments for the five years prior to the Open Era." The word "despite" was over the top since he might not have won any of the 6 titles that came before the ban. I moved his 11 titles to the front since they seemed more important than the ban. Any more detail should be down in his legacy section. Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:06, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

These discussions need to be less personal and heated

Zerilous has reached out to me for advice. And just advice, it's not been suggested that I act in an Administrative capacity in any way. Frankly I think that both Fyunck(click) and Zerilous need to tone down their language. Fyunck(click), you need to drop the suggestion that Zerilous is a sock - preferably by retracting it and removing it from your talk page. I've got something I don't think you have, and that is the ability to look at the history of the article and see if there are any blocked editors in it. Just looking at the last 500 edits going back to October 2013 there is only one block I can see, and that's the recent IP who thinks that you and Wolob are socks, which is a bit ironic. And I can't see that Zerilous is aided by any other account either. If you and Wolob are socks than I can't understand how the argument between the two of you led to the page being protected, so I think we can toss that accusation out also. Note I also read User:Swarm's last comment at the ANI thread and agree with it.

If you can't settle this amicably then I suggest either WP:DRN or an RfC. Doug Weller talk 17:22, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for coming here and giving us your advice Doug Weller. I 100% agree that Fyunck(click) and I need to keep the conservation on topic and not get personal. I've been trying very hard to keep it so, and I hope Fyunck(click) and I can come to an agreement here and make this article the best that it can be and in-line with the Misplaced Pages Manual of Style.

Thanks again! Zerilous (talk) 18:28, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

As an administrator you have access and insight to items that I can't see. And Zerilous has obviously emailed you and discussed things privately I'm not privy to. Based on your administrative abilities I will retract the sock accusation that Zerilous has edited here before under another guise, and attribute his knowledge of wikipedia as simply reading all our rules and style-guides before making his first post here at Rod Laver. Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:35, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

RfC on article intro and statement "the greatest player of all time"

Please consider joining the feedback request service. An editor has requested comments from other editors for this discussion. This page has been added to the following list: Society, sports, and culture When discussion has ended, remove this tag and it will be removed from the list. If this page is on additional lists, they will be noted below.

This article about Rod Laver has long been consistent with other articles about great tennis players. It contained the line "widely regarded as one of the greatest in the history of the sport", which is backed up by credible sources. Recently, an additional line was inserted at the end of the intro, "Given these achievements, some players and analysts consider Laver the greatest tennis player of all time." No sources were provided to verify that claim. A long discussion took place on the Talk page and no consensus could be reached. Editors have scoured the internet for credible sources to back up the claim that Laver is the greatest tennis player of all time. None have been found. There are a couple of sources from dozens of years ago where a player claimed that Laver was their pick for greatest of all time, but those players then later changed their opinion because they felt another player surpassed Laver, with sources verifying their change in opinion. We've found several sources that claim Laver "is one of the greatest tennis players of all time" or "among the greatest tennis players of all time". We haven't found any credible sources that claim Laver is -the- greatest tennis player of all time. A suggestion was made to change the added line to something like "At one point, some analysts and former players considered Rod Laver the greatest tennis player of all time" but that suggestion was not accepted. Zerilous (talk) 00:00, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

This is not a neutral RfC in the least. I like how I mention that I'm going to form a proper one and then this terrible one is created. Very bad faith imho. Sentence one is incorrect. Sentence 3 is incorrect. sentence 4 is incorrect. The rest is horrific. I was going to create one in a sandbox that we could all agree to before posting it. And then this atrocity of an RfC appears. I'm not surprised, but I'm very disappointed. Fyunck(click) (talk) 01:18, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

WP:GF and WP:EQ. If you'd like to weigh in and give your opinions on whether or not adding the statement "Rod Laver is the greatest tennis player of all time" to the article is valid and backed by credible sources then please do so. Do not make it personal and attack other editors. Again, please, WP:GF and WP:EQ. Zerilous (talk) 01:31, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

This is the worst RfC setup I have seen in probably the last 5 years. Non-neutral and biased. It should be scrapped as it is against Misplaced Pages guidelines. I can't believe any administrator would think otherwise. Fyunck(click) (talk) 01:36, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

WP:GF and WP:EQ. Please Fyunck(click), I'm asking you again, let's discuss the topic at hand and hear what other users have to say and try to reach a consensus. Please do not criticize me and try to make this personal. WP:GF and WP:EQ. Zerilous (talk) 01:40, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

Not with this horrific RfC. It has no place at Misplaced Pages. Fyunck(click) (talk) 01:44, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

If you do not want to weigh in then that's 100% your decision. I would really prefer that you do because you have a lot to add to the discussion. Just please do not make it personal. WP:GF and WP:EQ. Zerilous (talk) 01:45, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

Not with this horrific RfC. It has no place at Misplaced Pages. Fyunck(click) (talk) 01:57, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

I'm not sure why you copy and pasted your last entry, but please, let's discuss the article, build consensus, and figure out the changes we can make so it fits the Manual of Style. Zerilous (talk) 02:01, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

Not with this horrific RfC. It has no place at Misplaced Pages. Fyunck(click) (talk) 02:06, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

• Biography articles of living people
• All unassessed articles
• B-Class biography articles
• B-Class biography (sports and games) articles
• Top-importance biography (sports and games) articles
• Sports and games work group articles
• WikiProject Biography articles
• B-Class tennis articles
• High-importance tennis articles
• WikiProject Tennis articles
• B-Class Australia articles
• High-importance Australia articles
• B-Class Queensland articles
• Mid-importance Queensland articles
• WikiProject Queensland articles
• B-Class Australian sports articles
• High-importance Australian sports articles
• WikiProject Australian sports articles
• WikiProject Australia articles
• Misplaced Pages requests for comment