Author Topic: Full Open Era Rankings (RESEARCH PHASE)  (Read 7147 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Slasher1985

  • Global Moderator
  • Tennis God
  • ******
  • Posts: 565
  • Gender: Male
  • Rankings Wizard
Re: Full Open Era Rankings (RESEARCH PHASE)
« Reply #220 on: September 12, 2013, 12:35:28 AM »
That's strange. Eight tournaments for each group plus Philadelphia for all - a maximum of nine per player. Or maybe not!

Can't see how Kodes would have qualified for Dallas without his mystery tournament win!

It appears that players were allowed to play another group as sometimes members of that group couldn't attend all their tournaments and there were 32 spots. Thanks for the list, it's most helpful. :)
« Last Edit: September 12, 2013, 12:36:37 AM by Slasher1985 »

Offline Slasher1985

  • Global Moderator
  • Tennis God
  • ******
  • Posts: 565
  • Gender: Male
  • Rankings Wizard
Re: Full Open Era Rankings (RESEARCH PHASE)
« Reply #221 on: September 12, 2013, 01:48:11 AM »
One other request, this may be tricky. :Confused:

Can anyone get me the full draw of the 1971 Johannesburg tournament?

Offline Litotes

  • Tennis God
  • ******
  • Posts: 686
  • Gender: Male
Re: Full Open Era Rankings (RESEARCH PHASE)
« Reply #222 on: September 12, 2013, 05:41:57 AM »
One other request, this may be tricky. :Confused:

Can anyone get me the full draw of the 1971 Johannesburg tournament?

That's not easy to find....all I have is this:

SFs:
Rosewall def. Gimeno 6-1 6-3 6-1
Stolle def. Moore 5-7 5-7 6-3 6-4 6-4

F:
Rosewall def. Stolle 6-4 6-0 6-4

Offline Slasher1985

  • Global Moderator
  • Tennis God
  • ******
  • Posts: 565
  • Gender: Male
  • Rankings Wizard
Re: Full Open Era Rankings (RESEARCH PHASE)
« Reply #223 on: September 12, 2013, 08:31:35 AM »
That's not easy to find....all I have is this:

SFs:
Rosewall def. Gimeno 6-1 6-3 6-1
Stolle def. Moore 5-7 5-7 6-3 6-4 6-4

F:
Rosewall def. Stolle 6-4 6-0 6-4

That's all I have as well. :Confused:

Offline JonG

  • Tennis Player
  • **
  • Posts: 57
Re: Full Open Era Rankings (RESEARCH PHASE)
« Reply #224 on: September 16, 2013, 05:43:04 PM »


Offline JonG

  • Tennis Player
  • **
  • Posts: 57
Re: Full Open Era Rankings (RESEARCH PHASE)
« Reply #225 on: September 16, 2013, 05:53:19 PM »














Offline JonG

  • Tennis Player
  • **
  • Posts: 57
Re: Full Open Era Rankings (RESEARCH PHASE)
« Reply #226 on: September 16, 2013, 05:57:29 PM »
That's strange. Eight tournaments for each group plus Philadelphia for all - a maximum of nine per player. Or maybe not!

Can't see how Kodes would have qualified for Dallas without his mystery tournament win!

It appears that players were allowed to play another group as sometimes members of that group couldn't attend all their tournaments and there were 32 spots.

No, it isn't that.

29 tournament winners not 25.

Newcombe, Kodes, Nastase 2 are the "extra" winners.

Offline Slasher1985

  • Global Moderator
  • Tennis God
  • ******
  • Posts: 565
  • Gender: Male
  • Rankings Wizard
Re: Full Open Era Rankings (RESEARCH PHASE)
« Reply #227 on: September 17, 2013, 03:18:05 AM »
Thanks a lot, Jon. This was a big thing I was missing. ://

Offline Slasher1985

  • Global Moderator
  • Tennis God
  • ******
  • Posts: 565
  • Gender: Male
  • Rankings Wizard
Re: Full Open Era Rankings (RESEARCH PHASE)
« Reply #228 on: September 17, 2013, 08:42:25 AM »
1973 is even more stable now.

I have concluded that Drysdale's final total of 20 is wrong on the ATP list, and 22 should have been the right amount. He had 16 at the time of August 23, both in my rankings and on the official list. After that, he scores points (more than 0) in 6 other tournaments and reaches the official count of 53 points. He couldn't have done without points from all 6 tournaments, so this is a confirmed mistake.

I have concluded that Fairlie's presence on the Washington draw on the ATP site is incorrect, due to the fact that Brian was in the Davis Cup the week before against Romania and this tournament does not appear on the August 23 rankings list to his name. So, whoever Jim Delaney defeated in R1 there, it was not Fairlie, but rather (or maybe) John Fairchild (I have to take into account this name similitude again) or some other guy with a similar name.

Offline Slasher1985

  • Global Moderator
  • Tennis God
  • ******
  • Posts: 565
  • Gender: Male
  • Rankings Wizard
Re: Full Open Era Rankings (RESEARCH PHASE)
« Reply #229 on: September 17, 2013, 08:58:12 AM »
Also, the Seattle draw seems suspicious. Perhaps, Pilic was the 7th seed there, and not Fillol. It would adjust both their tournament counts.

Offline Slasher1985

  • Global Moderator
  • Tennis God
  • ******
  • Posts: 565
  • Gender: Male
  • Rankings Wizard
Re: Full Open Era Rankings (RESEARCH PHASE)
« Reply #230 on: September 17, 2013, 09:42:26 AM »
Riessen's tournament count is correct, so one way he could get at 82 is if his WCT final was actually a win, and it wasn't. Taylor has beaten him. But he also faced Pasarell at Las Vegas. ATP says Pasarell won, but I bet money that it was the other way around, cause this would fix both players.

Meiler's Berlin final was definitely not counted by mistake, because without it, both the total and the tournament total is correct at August 23 (9 with 27.5).

Bertolucci's Mediteranean Spring Circuit needs to be checked. There should be 6 tournaments: 3 R16, 2 R32 and 1 SF. If this is confirmed, Bertolucci's tournament total is also a mistake in the ATP rankings (he should have 18, and officially he has 17).

Van Dillen's Queen's looks strange. He withdrew, yet Emerson also withdrew but had the tournament counted. If his position is confirmed, ATP may have missed this on Aug 23 and the error duplicated itself later.

Parun. I'm missing a .5 for him, and I trace it before Aug 23. But, Parun is in the same pot as Fairlie. He was at the Davis Cup against Romania, so no, he didn't play Washington (maybe Tony Parun played in reality). And now I have him at 35 tournaments and 54 points. And now, I'm missing an entire .5 point tournament for him. Hampton looks like a probable tournament, but he needed a R16 to score .5 points.

Offline JonG

  • Tennis Player
  • **
  • Posts: 57
Re: Full Open Era Rankings (RESEARCH PHASE)
« Reply #231 on: September 17, 2013, 05:31:07 PM »
I have concluded that Drysdale's final total of 20 is wrong on the ATP list, and 22 should have been the right amount. He had 16 at the time of August 23, both in my rankings and on the official list. After that, he scores points (more than 0) in 6 other tournaments and reaches the official count of 53 points. He couldn't have done without points from all 6 tournaments, so this is a confirmed mistake.


I still think it would be unfair to count all the tournaments Drysdale missed through injury as first round defeats. Maybe the ATP did this in the initial list and Drysdale successfully appealed. That could make the 20 correct. Can you see at what point the two tournaments disappear from his record?


I have concluded that Fairlie's presence on the Washington draw on the ATP site is incorrect, due to the fact that Brian was in the Davis Cup the week before against Romania and this tournament does not appear on the August 23 rankings list to his name. So, whoever Jim Delaney defeated in R1 there, it was not Fairlie, but rather (or maybe) John Fairchild (I have to take into account this name similitude again) or some other guy with a similar name.


You are right. Not too similar name though - it was Victor Amaya.

« Last Edit: September 17, 2013, 05:32:21 PM by JonG »

Offline JonG

  • Tennis Player
  • **
  • Posts: 57
Re: Full Open Era Rankings (RESEARCH PHASE)
« Reply #232 on: September 17, 2013, 05:33:30 PM »
Also, the Seattle draw seems suspicious. Perhaps, Pilic was the 7th seed there, and not Fillol. It would adjust both their tournament counts.


The Times says it was Fillol.


Offline JonG

  • Tennis Player
  • **
  • Posts: 57
Re: Full Open Era Rankings (RESEARCH PHASE)
« Reply #233 on: September 17, 2013, 05:37:32 PM »
But he also faced Pasarell at Las Vegas. ATP says Pasarell won, but I bet money that it was the other way around, cause this would fix both players.


You've cracked another one!


Offline Slasher1985

  • Global Moderator
  • Tennis God
  • ******
  • Posts: 565
  • Gender: Male
  • Rankings Wizard
Re: Full Open Era Rankings (RESEARCH PHASE)
« Reply #234 on: September 18, 2013, 01:04:51 AM »
I still think it would be unfair to count all the tournaments Drysdale missed through injury as first round defeats. Maybe the ATP did this in the initial list and Drysdale successfully appealed. That could make the 20 correct. Can you see at what point the two tournaments disappear from his record?

Yeah, unfortunately I cannot see when Richmond and Philadelphia disappear from his record, nor can I count them away, since it would seem unfair to other players with similar Walkovers that have not been forgiven by the ATP. Yes, it is unfortunate and it seems that Van Dillen was also forgiven once (at either Gothenberg or Nottingham). That was perhaps the problem that has lead to the creation of the first round walkover rule in 1974. Drysdale may have been the first to be forgiven for this, ATP noted the problem and decided to not count any first round withdrawing starting 1974. I don't know how to make this thing differentiate between these walkovers apart from modifying the draw and placing Unknown, Unknown or Bye in their stead.

Regarding the Fillol/Pilic thing.

Fillol's only 0-point is there, the other tournaments with 0 points are present in the Aug 23 rankings, so goes for Pilic. Might it be possible that ATP made the confusion at the rankings, making this a valid ATP rankings error? Or maybe Fillol also appealed one of his withdrawals and Pilic's error is another?

Ross Case didn't participate at Merion as it is shown on the ATP draw version, but who played there in his stead?
« Last Edit: September 18, 2013, 05:00:08 AM by Slasher1985 »

Offline Slasher1985

  • Global Moderator
  • Tennis God
  • ******
  • Posts: 565
  • Gender: Male
  • Rankings Wizard
Re: Full Open Era Rankings (RESEARCH PHASE)
« Reply #235 on: September 18, 2013, 03:13:28 AM »
I think I solved the Smith mystery.

Jonathan Smith played at Newport in 1973. It is obvious he was the correct Smith there since Stan was busy in Sweden in the same week. Peculiar is that Jonathan has made the R16 there and scored exactly .5 points. Searching the original Aug 23 rankings, Jonathon is nowhere to be seen. He should have been there if he indeed played the R16 in Newport. The fact that another Smith gets an extra tournament and extra .5 pts make me 100% sure that ATP confused the two players and awarded Stan Smith the .5 pts that should have been given to Jonathan Smith.
« Last Edit: September 18, 2013, 03:14:08 AM by Slasher1985 »

Offline Slasher1985

  • Global Moderator
  • Tennis God
  • ******
  • Posts: 565
  • Gender: Male
  • Rankings Wizard
Re: Full Open Era Rankings (RESEARCH PHASE)
« Reply #236 on: September 18, 2013, 03:26:26 AM »
Now for Pilic and Johannesburg WCT.

I'm seeing a Lucky Loser there named Krog. Krog is in the stead of the number 9 seed. I bet that withdrawn number 9 seed was in fact Pilic (who was number 9 seed in Brussels the week before), who didn't manage to reach Johannesburg in time. Is there a way to confirm this?

Offline Slasher1985

  • Global Moderator
  • Tennis God
  • ******
  • Posts: 565
  • Gender: Male
  • Rankings Wizard
Re: Full Open Era Rankings (RESEARCH PHASE)
« Reply #237 on: September 18, 2013, 04:47:30 AM »
Proisy is solved as well.

I found somewhere that Proisy didn't participate in Toronto before USO. In his stead I see that Humphrey Hose was defeated by Rayno Seegers. Can you confirm this, Jon?

Offline JonG

  • Tennis Player
  • **
  • Posts: 57
Re: Full Open Era Rankings (RESEARCH PHASE)
« Reply #238 on: September 18, 2013, 06:30:07 PM »
I think I solved the Smith mystery.

Jonathan Smith played at Newport in 1973. It is obvious he was the correct Smith there since Stan was busy in Sweden in the same week. Peculiar is that Jonathan has made the R16 there and scored exactly .5 points. Searching the original Aug 23 rankings, Jonathon is nowhere to be seen. He should have been there if he indeed played the R16 in Newport. The fact that another Smith gets an extra tournament and extra .5 pts make me 100% sure that ATP confused the two players and awarded Stan Smith the .5 pts that should have been given to Jonathan Smith.

Yes. That must be right. Slides Smith above Okker at 73 y/e.

Offline JonG

  • Tennis Player
  • **
  • Posts: 57
Re: Full Open Era Rankings (RESEARCH PHASE)
« Reply #239 on: September 18, 2013, 06:32:04 PM »
Proisy is solved as well.

I found somewhere that Proisy didn't participate in Toronto before USO. In his stead I see that Humphrey Hose was defeated by Rayno Seegers. Can you confirm this, Jon?

Both WOT and The Times have Proisy beating Hose and losing to Pasarell.