Draft talk:World number 1 ranked male tennis players

We have now added three more world No. 1 rankings for Gonzales, 1949, 1953, 1961. That means that Gonzales' total career No. 1 has reached eleven. Kramer now has seven world No. 1s.Tennisedu (talk) 16:53, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Why has color been added to 1953? It seems that would easily go against accessibility guidelines. Fyunck(click) (talk) 10:10, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What are we doing about 1951? The PTPA ranking has Kovacs at No. 1. Does that go in?Tennisedu (talk) 12:20, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Tennishistory1877 (talk) 12:55, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

In the summary table, we are really only counting the undisputed professionals, not amateur, and these are not necessarily year-end rankings or calendar year rankings. I have corrected the titles. Not sure why Cochet is listed here.Tennisedu (talk) 15:04, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Should we not also have a table for amateur No. 1?Tennisedu (talk) 16:15, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest reading Sod25's remarks on pre-1973 tables on the main talk thread. Tennishistory1877 (talk) 16:25, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Did that, do not see the relation here. He talks about the inability to add up titles for pre-1978. Okay. But should we not also have an amateur table?Tennisedu (talk) 17:32, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Removed column adding up titles. Is there a purpose now for this table?Tennisedu (talk) 17:40, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If there is a professional table there should be an amateur one. I would be quite happy with no tables. Tennishistory1877 (talk) 17:46, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I would suggest that pre-1978 tables serve no purpose here. I would remove them.Tennisedu (talk) 17:51, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Tennishistory1877 (talk) 18:00, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I notice that Gardnar Mulloy's personal opinion is being accepted as a source ranking for Rosewall in 1953. Should that also not apply for 1961, when Mulloy ranked Hoad No.1? We should be consistent about what we accept as sources for rankings.Tennisedu (talk) 00:07, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

For me, I have no problem with Mulloy as a source. But I have been thinking a lot about the timing of when rankings were made. I always try to find rankings between October and January. It is a problem if rankings are made with too much of the season remaining. But the official rankings ie USPLTA and PTPA are made mid season because that is when US Pros took place. I was thinking about a rule that any ranking not from an organisation (ie from an individual or newspaper, but excluding PTPA etc.) can not be included if the ranking is made for the current season between February and August inclusive. I am willing to remove any newspaper "world number one" references in this time period (there arent many). A ranking made, say, in April would be OK to keep but only if it was for the previous season. Tennishistory1877 (talk) 01:11, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That's what I've been thinking too. Some of those instances are clearly not year-end while the article is about year-end ranking specifically. Otherwise, we would need to list Safin, Rios and others. I would say rankings from November to January is what we should be looking for. Also, I'm starting to see Ricardo's point about the credibility of some of the sources we have on the article, I'm not sure all of them qualify as reliable source. McGregor never played or even saw Gonzales hit a ball, he just felt/thought Pancho was #1, that's no valid source. Same with Rosewall ranking himself #1. Such sources need to be removed as I don't think they meet Wikipedia's criteria for reliable sources. ForzaUV (talk) 04:59, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Tingay was September after US championships, so that should be the earliest point a ranking can be used. The whole point is that there were no regular reliable rankings on the pro tour! McGregor is better than many others. There are modern website articles used as sources on 1964 which are little more than mirrors parroting modern Laver hero worshipping attitudes. Remember that even Bowers said he only saw his first pro tennis matches in 1940, so all of his previous rankings prior to 1940 would have been based on what he read (almost no moving film of the pro tour prior to 1940). I am getting tired of hearing about the self-ranking, there are so few used, but as it such an issue I think I will concede and remove it. Tennishistory1877 (talk) 23:50, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The suggested February-August rule being proposed for citations would make some sense for the amateur season, which is how Tingay issued his rankings, right after the U.S. championships in early September. But the pro season was not neatly divided year by year into sections, the tours were different in their extent, and many important tournaments took place after August, so that does not seem like a good rule to fit for the pro seasons. Many world tours ended well before August in the pro world, so that does not fit the proposed rule. The Cleveland and PTPA rankings appear to be 12 month rankings going back from each year Cleveland event, so that does not fit the calendar year at all. The pro rankings themselves were not designed to fit any particular calendar schedule, they were not tied to any fixed regular period of time, so I suggest that we not try to find a rule which fits the pro season. The pro season changed year to year. I do have some concern about conflicted rankings, or about players ranking themselves. For obvious reasons. Rosewall 1962 is problematic because, if I recall correctly, Rosewall was not yet a tour official, as he would be after Trabert left, and then Rosewall could issue rankings in his capacity as tour secretary and manager. But 1962 was too soon for that. I notice that the Rosewall Wikipedia biography article does not make any mention of the 1962 self-ranking, not surprisingly. McGregor was simply reporting the assessments which he heard from other unidentified tour players, so that is a weak ranking, although it was an interesting article. Perhaps Budge was the source for McGregor, as Budge was always very positive about Gonzales' abilities.Tennisedu (talk) 21:20, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It appears that the tables have staged a reappearance, but we still have the problem of the summation of numbers which is outside Wiki rules. We are not supposed to add up the numbers of No. 1 rankings. The reason being is that each ranking is not comparable to other rankings, and there is no meaning to the summations. What is the thinking on this? What is the purpose of these tables in the first place? I cannot see that they help with anything. We should also add a table for the amateur players, if it is decided that these tables are worth anything and do not violate Wiki rules. Or perhaps we simply add undisputed amateur No. 1 players to this list, as it is supposed to be a combined amateur/pro list.Tennisedu (talk) 23:00, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am against having tables. Tennishistory1877 (talk) 23:51, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Just looking over the Undisputed No. 1 tables, it seems to me that we are giving readers a false impression with this list. The suggestion with this table seems to be that an Undisputed No. 1 year is a special achievement year, because it represents a year in which the ranking lists recognized a clear predominance of one player. However, that is not usually the case. Often for the pro years, a player is Undisputed No. 1 not because of superior achievement, but because there is a great lack or paucity of ranking lists available for that particular year. There were no regular rankings for the pros, in some years we have no real rankings, just passing references in newspapers. That does not justify the conclusion that the years are special for the No. 1 player, it is just that there are very few rankings available for those years. We are not showing in these tables what we want to show.Tennisedu (talk) 13:18, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I vote to remove the tables altogether. There's no way to do them where we can both give justice to the players and not violate Wikipedia verifiability policies. Sod25 (talk) 17:35, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Right now, the tables do not seem to be providing any interesting or useful information. There are now a long list of players, some of whom are not among the greatest players ever.Tennisedu (talk) 02:44, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

From what I have seen there is a majority for the removal of tables. In addition to the views expressed on this thread from myself, tennisedu and Sod25, Krmohan also voted for removal on the main talk thread. Tennishistory1877 (talk) 10:35, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Position of citations[edit]

Wolbo, I thought it was preferred that the ranking source was put next to the player's name as opposed to in the box. You removed all the ones next to the player's name. Fyunck(click) (talk) 09:57, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

With the new, clearer formatting of the "Source of ranking and tournament results summary" column, I prefer to have the citations at the end of each source's bullet point in that section (the status quo for most of this draft), rather than at the end of each player's name in the ranking columns. Whatever we choose, we shouldn't have both or a mixture of both. Sod25 (talk) 17:40, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Don't follow you...where is the bullet point? Also, most readers will not understand what is going on here.Tennisedu (talk) 18:29, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

In the "Source of ranking and tournament results summary" column, each source has a bullet point under "Rankings:" for each year. Sod25 (talk) 18:35, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The average reader will probably not get it. Some of the rankings sources are not tied to one player, but are multi-player. We need to tie the player name to a ranking source, the reader cannot wade through and find the right source. Multi-No. 1 years are confused.Tennisedu (talk) 18:42, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

So you would have the citations both in the ranking column and sources/results column? Sod25 (talk) 18:53, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Since we have a separate column specifically for ranking sources it is most logical to keep the references linked to the sources mentioned, just like it currently is. That keeps the No. 1 columns cleaner, certainly if you have multiple sources linked to a specific ranking. See no need to duplicate the references.--Wolbo (talk) 19:50, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This makes the most sense... just so long as we are on the same page. Fyunck(click) (talk) 21:22, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The need certainly exists in multi-player years, where you have two or three players joint NO. 1 and a huge long list of rankings, and it is impossible to see clearly which ranking sources are connected to which players. That is very confusing for the reader. As a minimum requirement, we should be providing immediate citations with the player names in multi-player years, that would simplify the task for the reader. If there is only one player ranked No. 1 then, of course, it is easier to connect the player with the ranking source without an immediate citation connected to the player's name.Tennisedu (talk) 20:50, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

An alternative for those years with multiple No. 1 players, is to group the citations supporting each player together, and perhaps label the groups of citations with the players' respective names. Otherwise the reader will be on an extended hunt to identify which citations belong to which player.Tennisedu (talk) 20:54, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think a simpler solution is to re-order each year's bullet points so that they match the order of the names in the pro and amateur columns, and put all pro citations above the amateur citations. Scanning the the sources lists to find those backing any given player would then be much easier. Sod25 (talk) 16:25, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have rearranged the material for the 1951 Rankings area as a Test, to see how it looks with some help to the reader to locate the particular player ranking citation for each player. Looks better to me.Tennisedu (talk) 16:36, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I like it. I've tested putting (P) and (A) in front of the names to distinguish the separate tours' rankings. Still think it'd be best if the order of the sources matched the order of the names. Sod25 (talk) 16:57, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have no objection to writing the nominated player's name at the start of the citation (or P and A), but each source prior to 1973 should be listed under a separate bullet point. Tennishistory1877 (talk) 18:10, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

We should probably list the citations and the left-hand ranking column for multi-player years in chronological order, players and rankings early in the season going on top.Tennisedu (talk) 19:00, 5 November 2021 (UTC).[reply]

Have tested 1952 with bullet points for each ranking.Tennisedu (talk) 19:24, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have altered the layout slightly for 1952. Yes, I agree about chronological order for citations in the right hand column, left handed column should probably be alphabetical by surname. Tennishistory1877 (talk) 20:59, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I presume that you mean alphabetical by surname, not first name.Tennisedu (talk) 23:25, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, thats why I wrote surname. It is the only way to list names in the left column, otherwise we would be seen to be judging the sources if we listed them in the order we felt they were ranked. I have no preference for the right column, but chronological order sounds sensible. Many will be end of year. Tennishistory1877 (talk) 23:49, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]