Rankings Dec '65 - Dec '70 - TennisForum.com
Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
post #1 of 16 (permalink) Old Aug 9th, 2004, 03:37 AM Thread Starter
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Virginia
Posts: 1,551
                     
Rankings Dec '65 - Dec '70

I've gone through the tournament finals and GS records for '65 - '70 and given points according to tournament strength of field. Again this is not fool-proof, but if the rankings were available month by month, they would've looked a little like this.

Dec-65 1 Court 2 Richey 3 Turner 4 Bueno 5 Durr
Jan-66 1 Court 2 Richey 3 Turner 4 Bueno 5 Van Zyl
Feb 1 Court 2 Richey 3 Turner 4 Bueno 5 King
Mar 1 Court 2 Richey 3 Bueno 4 King 5 Turner
Apr 1 Court 2 Richey 3 Bueno 4 King 5 Turner
May 1 Court 2 Haydon-Jones 3 Richey 4 King 5 Bueno
June 1 Court 2 Haydon-Jones 3 King 4 Richey 5 Van Zyl
July 1 Court 2 Haydon-Jones 3 King 4 Richey 5 Van Zyl
Aug 1 Court 2 Haydon-Jones 3 Richey 4 Bueno 5 King
Sept 1 Court 2 Haydon-Jones 3 Bueno 4 Richey 5 King
Oct 1 Court 2 Haydon-Jones 3 Bueno 4 Richey 5 King
Nov 1 Haydon-Jones 2 Court 3 Bueno 4 Richey 5 King
Dec 1 Haydon-Jones 2 Bueno 3 Court 4 King 5 Richey
Jan-67 1 Bueno 1 Haydon-Jones 3 Richey 3 King 5 Court
Feb 1 Bueno 2 Haydon-Jones 3 Richey 4 King 5 Durr
Mar 1 Haydon-Jones 2 Bueno 3 Richey 4 King 5 Durr
Apr 1 Haydon-Jones 2 Bueno 3 Richey 4 King 5 Durr
May 1 Bueno 2 Durr 3 King 4 Haydon-Jones 5 Richey
June 1 Bueno 2 Durr 2 Haydon-Jones 4 King 5 Richey
July 1 Bueno 2 Durr 2 Haydon-Jones 4 King 5 Richey
Aug 1 King 2 Durr 3 Haydon-Jones 4 Turner 5 Richey
Sept 1 King 2 Durr 3 Haydon-Jones 4 Turner 5 Richey
Oct 1 King 2 Durr 3 Haydon-Jones 4 Turner 5 Casals
Nov 1 King 2 Durr 3 Haydon-Jones 4 Turner 5 Casals
Dec 1 King 2 Durr 3 Haydon-Jones 4 Turner 5 Richey
Jan-68 1 King 2 Durr 3 Haydon-Jones 4 Turner 5 Wade
Feb 1 King 2 Durr 3 Haydon-Jones 4 Turner 5 Tegart-Dalton
Mar 1 King 2 Durr 3 Turner 4 Haydon-Jones 5 Tegart-Dalton
Apr 1 King 2 Durr 3 Turner 4 Haydon-Jones 4 Richey
May 1 King 2 Richey 3 Haydon-Jones 4 Turner 5 Tegart-Dalton
June 1 King 2 Richey 3 Court 4 Tegart-Dalton 5 Haydon-Jones
July 1 King 2 Richey 3 Court 4 Tegart-Dalton 5 Haydon-Jones
Aug 1 King 2 Court 3 Tegart-Dalton 4 Richey 5 Wade
Sept 1 King 2 Court 3 Tegart-Dalton 4 Richey 5 Wade
Oct 1 Court 2 King 3 Wade 4 Richey 5 Tegart-Dalton
Nov 1 Court 2 King 3 Wade 4 Richey 5 Tegart-Dalton
Dec 1 Court 2 King 3 Wade 4 Richey 5 Tegart-Dalton
Jan-69 1 Court 2 Richey 3 King 3 Wade 5 Haydon-Jones
Feb 1 Court 2 Wade 3 Richey 4 King 5 Haydon-Jones
Mar 1 Court 2 Wade 3 Richey 4 King 5 Haydon-Jones
Apr 1 Court 2 King 3 Wade 3 Richey 5 Haydon-Jones
May 1 Court 2 King 3 Haydon-Jones 4 Wade 5 Heldman
June 1 Court 2 Haydon-Jones 3 King 4 Wade 5 Heldman
July 1 Court 2 Haydon-Jones 3 King 4 Wade 5 Heldman
Aug 1 Court 2 Haydon-Jones 3 King 4 Heldman 5 Wade
Sept 1 Court 2 Haydon-Jones 3 King 4 Heldman 5 Wade
Oct 1 Court 2 Haydon-Jones 3 King 4 Heldman 5Wade/Melville
Nov 1 Court 2 King 3 Haydon-Jones 4 Heldman 5 Wade
Dec 1 Court 2 King 2 Haydon-Jones 4 Heldman 5 Wade
Jan-70 1 Court 2 Haydon-Jones 3 King 4 Heldman 5 Melville
Feb 1 Court 2 Haydon-Jones 3 King 4 Heldman 5 Wade
Mar 1 Court 2 King 3 Haydon-Jones 4 Wade 5 Melville
Apr 1 Court 2 King 3 Haydon-Jones 4 Wade 5 Melville
May 1 Court 2 King 3 Haydon-Jones 4 Wade 5 Richey
June 1 Court 2 King 3 Wade 4 Haydon-Jones 5 Niessen
July 1 Court 2 King 3 Wade 4 Haydon-Jones 5 Niessen
Aug 1 Court 2 King 3 Haydon-Jones 4 Wade 5 Niessen
Sept 1 Court 2 King 3 Wade 4 Casals 5 Haydon-Jones
Oct 1 Court 2 King 3 Casals 4 Wade 5 Haydon-Jones
Nov 1 Court 2 King 3 Casals 4 Haydon-Jones 5 Wade
Dec 1 Court 2 King 3 Casals 4 Haydon-Jones 5 Wade
preacherfan is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #2 of 16 (permalink) Old Aug 9th, 2004, 03:40 AM Thread Starter
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Virginia
Posts: 1,551
                     
Weeks at #1 during the period:
Court - 164
King - 60
Bueno - 22
Haydon-Jones - 22
(Bueno and Haydon-Jones shared #1 during one month)
preacherfan is offline  
post #3 of 16 (permalink) Old Aug 9th, 2004, 03:53 AM Thread Starter
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Virginia
Posts: 1,551
                     
Months in top five (out of a possible 61)
Court - 45
King - 59
Haydon-Jones - 51
Wade - 29
Richey - 37
Bueno - 18
Turner - 15
Durr - 16
Van Zyl - 3
Casals - 6
Melville - 4
Heldman - 10
Tegart Dalton - 10
Niessen - 3
preacherfan is offline  
 
post #4 of 16 (permalink) Old Aug 9th, 2004, 04:02 AM Thread Starter
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Virginia
Posts: 1,551
                     
Year-end Top Tens (only based on point accumulation)
1965
1. Smith Court
2. Richey
3. Turner
4. Bueno
5. Durr
6. Moffatt King
7. C. Truman
8. Van Zyl
9. Haydon-Jones
10. Baylon

1966
1. Haydon-Jones
2. Bueno
3. Smith Court
4. King
5. Richey
6. Van Zyl DuPlooy
7. Durr
8. Baylon
9. Melville
10. Casals

1967
1. King
2. Durr
3. Haydon-Jones
4. Turner
5. Richey
6. Casals
7. Wade
8. Tegart Dalton
9. Bueno
(tie) Melville

1968
1. Court
2. King
3. Wade
4. Richey
5. Tegart Dalton
6. Haydon-Jones
7. Bueno
8. Turner Bowrey
9. Casals
10. Van Zyl Duplooy
(interestingly, Smith Court did not win a Slam in 1968 yet accumulated most points in system)

1969
1. Court
2. Haydon-Jones
3. King
4. Heldman
5. Wade
6. Richey
7. Melville
8. Casals
9. Krantzcke
10. Turner Bowrey

1970
1. Court
2. King
3. Casals
4. Wade
5. Haydon-Jones
6. Niessen
7. Melville
8. Richey
9. Goolagong
10. Durr
preacherfan is offline  
post #5 of 16 (permalink) Old Aug 9th, 2004, 04:20 AM Thread Starter
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Virginia
Posts: 1,551
                     
Gail Sherriff Chanfreau Lovera -- interesting.
I would say, "always the bridesmaid, never the bride", but looking at her name that's not the case.
Had there been rankings, she would've been ranked in the top twenty for many years, but maybe never in the top ten.
Here's where her point totals had her.
1965 - 13
1966 - 14
1967 - 16
1968 - 11
1969 - 17
1970 - 16
1971 - 18
1972 - 18
1973 - NR
1974 - 10
1975 - NR

What would that make her? The Sandra Cecchini or Judith Wiesner of her day?

I'm sure she was a dangerous floater that no one wanted to see in their draw.
preacherfan is offline  
post #6 of 16 (permalink) Old Aug 9th, 2004, 06:41 AM
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 2,619
                     
If you do get the chance to p ost them I think many people would be interested to see how the positions 11-20 worked out.
chris whiteside is offline  
post #7 of 16 (permalink) Old Aug 9th, 2004, 07:30 AM
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 2,619
                     
Very commendable work, Preacherfan. You must have put a heck of a lot of time and effort into this.

As our No. 1 thtough most of the 60s I was a supporter of Ann Jones and despite being ranked higher in the world in 1967 and 1969 I have always maintained her best year was in fact 1966 so now there are some statistics to back this up. However much as I admired her I am under no illusions that she was ever No. 1 in the world except on the afternoon of Wednesday 2 July, 1969!

I am a little confused as to what your system is? The year rankings appear to be based on the standings as at December of that year, so does that mean King and Jones are joint No. 2 for 1969? Am I right in assuming that the monthly ranking is it an accumulation of the year's results to that point? At this time the world rankings were based on a year running from October through September for comparison purposes.

You could have an interesting debate here. Is it fair to base rankings solely on points accumulated or should it be on the points accrued in ratio to the number of tournaments played? My opinion on this would seem to differ from yours.

Margaret Court as No. 1 in 1968 and Frankie Durr as No.2 in 1967 have obviously benefitted from the no of tournies they played. In 1968 and 1969 even though they performed creditably in your lists especially BJ, King, Jones, Casals and Durr would have lost out on many points as they were absent from tournament play for many weeks, taking part in their small professional tour. Jones only gets to No. 1 at the end of 66 because I presume Smith had stopped playing and her points from 1965 are lost while Bueno loses out because she didn't enter the fray until May.

It's fascinating to try to analyse these. I think you've highlighted some failings inherent on ranking purely by statistics.

Last edited by chris whiteside; Aug 9th, 2004 at 12:01 PM.
chris whiteside is offline  
post #8 of 16 (permalink) Old Aug 9th, 2004, 12:18 PM Thread Starter
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Virginia
Posts: 1,551
                     
Quote:
Originally Posted by chris whiteside
If you do get the chance to p ost them I think many people would be interested to see how the positions 11-20 worked out.
Because I don't have results from earlier than the finals in any tournaments other than Slams, it's difficult to rank players below the top who might've made their livings off of being qf and sf -ists. I'd love to rank them all, but don't have the results to do that now. Probably, the best my stats do is to tell who might've been #1 if a 1 year computer ranking had existed. In 1966-67, Haydon-Jones, Bueno, Richey and King were so close together that any of them might've been #1 within a 6 month period. Of course, they were scrambling for supremacy with Court no longer in the picture.

The tournament results from 1966 were patchy and I didn't have as much to go on. 1965 and 1967 were easier to follow.
preacherfan is offline  
post #9 of 16 (permalink) Old Aug 9th, 2004, 12:44 PM Thread Starter
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Virginia
Posts: 1,551
                     
Norma Baylon??? Any info. Seemed to be one of the best clay courters. She and Richey played often. Interesting that there were often two S. Americans in the top ten in the mid-60's.
preacherfan is offline  
post #10 of 16 (permalink) Old Aug 9th, 2004, 12:55 PM Thread Starter
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Virginia
Posts: 1,551
                     
I based my ranking totally on accumulation of points. Chris, I agree, this is not the best way to determine the best player for the year (see Davenport #1 in 2001 over Capriati and V. Williams). I like the minimum divisor system or even the ATP system today. A top 5 player who plays 25 tournaments can be ranked higher than the best player who may only play 16 tournaments. The ranking in '66-67 is tight and any of King, Richey, Haydon-Jones and Bueno could've been #1. There seemed to be a free-for-all with Court out the mix. King eventually rose to the top. Also, throughout the period, players like Bueno and Richey might have been better than their rankings, but had periods of time where they played less than their competition.
preacherfan is offline  
post #11 of 16 (permalink) Old Aug 10th, 2004, 10:42 AM
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 2,619
                     
This probably proves that overall Margaret Court has the most weeks at #1, PF.

From December 65 your figures give her 242 weeks total. She would have gone to No.1 in 1962 around March. (In fact it is even possible she might have finished 1961 at No.1 on the computer). Both Mortimer and her reached the semis at Forest Hills and Angela didn't play the French or Australian. So from April 62 - November 65 is 3 yrs 8 mths roughly 190 weeks. It might be close on the computer but say Maria Bueno did grab No.1 in 64 after the US and held it until the following Wimbledon then take off 42 weeks and Margaret has a total of 390 and that's the worst scenario.
chris whiteside is offline  
post #12 of 16 (permalink) Old Aug 10th, 2004, 11:28 AM
Moderator - BFTP
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 24,846
                     
Great job Preacherfan

I'd be intersted in the points system too. I'm reworking my own ranking system after getting some feedback here in the Blast.
Rollo is offline  
post #13 of 16 (permalink) Old Aug 10th, 2004, 06:26 PM
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 2,619
                     
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rollo
Great job Preacherfan

I'd be intersted in the points system too. I'm reworking my own ranking system after getting some feedback here in the Blast.

What years are you talking about for your own system?
chris whiteside is offline  
post #14 of 16 (permalink) Old Aug 10th, 2004, 06:51 PM Thread Starter
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Virginia
Posts: 1,551
                     
Each decade seems to have it's own pecking order as far as the tournaments. In the 60's, I'm giving Wimbledon winners 35 pts, USO and FO winners 30 points, AO winners 24 or 18 pts depending on the strength of the fields. Other tournaments are worth 1, 2, 4, 8 or 12 pts. These depend on the field quality and how many results are posted for the year. For example, we have great results in finals from '64 so the Ital Open and the SA Open get 12 pts. However, in the early 60's the database is sketchy, so most tournament winners get 1, 2, or 4 pts. When that happens, the Slams dominate the rankings picture. I give half points to runners up in all tournaments. In Slams, Rof16, QF, and SF players all get points. It's pretty consistent. However, if a player makes a Slam Sf and does nothing else, they may be ranked higher in points than they should be. (ie Kormoczy in '61 my #13? Susman in '62 my #2? Sukova in '62 my #7? Palmer in '62 my #13? Catt in '63 my #9? Ebbern in '63 my #7? Moffitt in '63 my #5? Where do these players rank in other rankings during the time?
preacherfan is offline  
post #15 of 16 (permalink) Old Aug 11th, 2004, 07:59 AM
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 2,619
                     
Quote:
Originally Posted by preacherfan
Each decade seems to have it's own pecking order as far as the tournaments. In the 60's, I'm giving Wimbledon winners 35 pts, USO and FO winners 30 points, AO winners 24 or 18 pts depending on the strength of the fields. Other tournaments are worth 1, 2, 4, 8 or 12 pts. These depend on the field quality and how many results are posted for the year. For example, we have great results in finals from '64 so the Ital Open and the SA Open get 12 pts. However, in the early 60's the database is sketchy, so most tournament winners get 1, 2, or 4 pts. When that happens, the Slams dominate the rankings picture. I give half points to runners up in all tournaments. In Slams, Rof16, QF, and SF players all get points. It's pretty consistent. However, if a player makes a Slam Sf and does nothing else, they may be ranked higher in points than they should be. (ie Kormoczy in '61 my #13? Susman in '62 my #2? Sukova in '62 my #7? Palmer in '62 my #13? Catt in '63 my #9? Ebbern in '63 my #7? Moffitt in '63 my #5? Where do these players rank in other rankings during the time?

As more data is posted you will be able to adjust your rankings. A Wimbledon Champion would never be ranked below about 4 no matter what else they did. Kormocxy was listed in top 10s in 1961, Sukova in 62, Catt just outside in 63, samr with Ebbern so they are showing a picture. In compiling the rankings heavy emphasis was placed on the Slams.
chris whiteside is offline  
Reply

Quick Reply
Message:
Options

Register Now



In order to be able to post messages on the TennisForum.com forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.

User Name:
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.

Password:


Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address for yourself.

Email Address:
OR

Log-in










Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page



Posting Rules  
You may post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On

 
For the best viewing experience please update your browser to Google Chrome