Where does he state the 14:14 number? That number is nowhere to be seen, my friend.
Lew Hoad-A discussion on his career
- Thread starter pc1
- Start date
Where does he state the 14:14 number? That number is nowhere to be seen, my friend.
Laver is just not as ignorant as you sometimes are. That's all.
Of course Laver does know that Hoad has NOT the best career achievements.
All experts know that. Only our Hoad is God, pardon GOAT friend does not know even though many posters here have the matter explained to you.
Go to kiki! Maybe he can teach you a bit history...
Last edited:
It seems strange to me that Laver would "know that Hoad has not the best career achievements", and yet rank him number one pre-Open.
Do you not see the contradiction here?
Perhaps Laver evaluates Hoad's achievements differently than you do.
You again "forget" something. There also were matches between Hoad/Gonzalez and Anderson/Cooper. Is n't it a shame that Hoad lost several matches to the rookies while Pancho lost no single match to them?
You "forgetting Dan": Hoad also was often below his best in his BEST years. Therefore he lost many matches in 1958 and 1959 to Gonzalez and others...
No, I didn't forget, I stated that there were 34 matches COMBINED against the other two players.
That is, Hoad played Gonzales 28 times, and the two rookies a COMBINED total of 34 times. The same applied in reverse for Cooper and Anderson.
Thus, there were essentially two parallel tours, Hoad/Gonzales and Cooper/Anderson.
The Hoad/Gonzales matches were the featured matches, and headlined each stop on the tour.
You can't call me a friend. My friends use to be logical and not stubborn!
As I have given it to you earlier, you can find the 14:14 balance in McCauleys great book on page 80. Read and be quiet, my non-friend...
There is no contradiction here. I do know that Laver's opinions are more reasonable than yours.
If you really believe that Hoad has the best career achievements of all players you must be an idiot. I'm sorry for that insult.
We have more than 6 billions of human beings on the earth, but no single person believes that Hoad had the best career. Here you can be proud: You are really unique!!
Just a question: Do you believe that earth is flat? I could imagine you believe this...
Last edited:
There was only one tour.
First, this is supposedly a COMPOSITE number for several tours , and not a number for the European tour.
McCauley only gives an incomplete number for the European tour.
I would take Kramer's numbers in preference to McCauley's, because Kramer was not merely the tour organizer, but was a participant in the tour.
Happy reading.
You must think that Laver, Gonzales and Rosewall are all idiots. By choosing Hoad as the number one all-time, they were saying that his accomplishments justified such a selection. That is, he had the greatest career.
Again, simply looking at number of titles won does not give a full picture of greatness. It is necessary to look at the quality of opposition and the relative importance of the event.
Last edited:
One tour is not necessarily the same as another tour. Each has its own peculiarities.
Limpinhitter
G.O.A.T.
Have you ever asked yourself why Laver and Rosewall don't rank themselves in their respective lists of the all time greats? Or, is that too uncomfortable for you?
Good question.
Rosewall stopped at number five, putting Hoad, Gonzales, Laver, Federer at the top in that order.
Who was supposed to be number five? Personally, I would put Rosewall himself at number five, and possibly that is why Rosewall stopped there.
Laver is a great gentleman, and we have no clue where he would rank himself.
Limpinhitter
G.O.A.T.
Ridiculous! Hoad definitely did not have the greater, or greatest, career by any measure. You are the one who thinks Laver, Rosewall and Gonzales are idiots. The rest of us know that Laver and Rosewall are to humble to call themselves the greatest, and all three consider it bad form to judge themselves.
If you are going to insist that Hoad is the all time great because Laver and Rosewall rank him at the top, then you must also consider both Laver and Rosewall out of the top 10 because they don't rank themselves in the top 10, yes?
You forgot Gonzales, who also ranked Hoad at the top.
These three guys played against Hoad more than any other of Hoad's opponents, and they all concur in the designation of number one.
When three such different giants all agree on one choice, it carries a lot of weight.
Would they have all agreed if Hoad had a mediocre career? Not likely.
Last edited:
Well let's not get stuck on the word "peak" because the general point is that Hoad's best tennis is being emphasized. I really don't think Laver was thinking of a specific time period, defining it as Hoad's "peak," and then making all the detailed analysis we're doing. If he's emphasizing Hoad's dominance I'm sure he's referring to whenever that dominance occurred.
Simply put: he's talking about "dominance", not "peak."
And emphasizing dominance really is different from evaluating the full length of a player's career, weighing both wins and losses, giving significance to longevity, consistency, etc.
I'm not surprised you're disagreeing with BobbyOne since he appreciates the strengths of Rosewall, who has an extraordinarily long career full of achievements (more singles majors than anyone else); was known for great consistency, and for steady play more than spectacular shotmaking; was rarely injured and rarely took a bad loss. What could be more different from Hoad, whose calling card seems to be "peak play", and spectacular style, rather than consistency; who took bad losses even in his prime; who was chronically injured and declined far sooner than Rosewall.
Yes, I think you are right about Laver's intent.
Hoad was very inconsistent to the point of indifference in minor events, which he himself admitted. He had a better record in events he considered important, although his efforts at Wimbledon in 1954 and 1955 were disappointing.
Hold on there. Gonzalez ranked Hoad at the top, so to speak. But these were his exact words: "probably the best and toughest player when he wanted to be."
When he wanted to be. You cannot ask for someone to be more explicit about the fact that they're talking about best level of play and definitely not talking about the full career.
Pancho came from the same era, very roughly speaking, as the other gentlemen. If they all place Hoad at the top in one way or another, I suggest they are all thinking about it similarly -- and I'll go further and suggest that Pancho's qualification ("when he wanted to be") makes clear how they were thinking about the question.
He meant when Hoad thought the event was important.
For example, in 1959, his best year, he had a great record on the two world championship tours, 76 wins and 33 losses, was the top money-winner in the game, but played poorly on the European phase of the season, except for Roland Garros, where he beat Rosewall. He had a great tournament record on the Ampol circuit, where the big prizes were, but a poor record in tournaments off the prime circuit.
Obviously, Laver , Rosewall, and Gonzales believed he had a great enough career to rate as number one.
Last edited:
pc1
G.O.A.T.
It's so hard to say. Gonzalez did pick Lew Hoad as the best and toughest when he wanted to be. He also put Hoad, Laver, Budge, Kramer and Sedgman on the same competitive plateau.
But the key is he said when he wanted to be so it's hard to know what to make of that.
Then again he did pick Lew Hoad as one of the singles players in a Davis Cup all time to represent the Earth.
Sure, I agree with that. That is not any different from what I said: Pancho was talking about Hoad when he was at his motivated best.
BrooklynNY
Hall of Fame
I don't know much about Lew Hoad, but I will say Fred Stolle talks about him alot in the Sampras vs Martin 1994 AO final on youtube.
He said that all the great Aussies know that Lew Hoad was the was the greatest Aussie, among other things
He said that all the great Aussies know that Lew Hoad was the was the greatest Aussie, among other things
Dave Anderson's phrase, "the same competitive plateau," is not specifically explained in the article. Presumably Gonzalez, in that interview, grouped Hoad, Laver, Budge, Kramer and Sedgman together -- perhaps in a top tier or something like that.
Rosewall is missing from that group, and from Anderson's article it seems that Gonzalez placed Ken in a group below the other players. I say that because of this paragraph, which comes right after Pancho's comments on the first 5 players are finished:
Of his other opponents, including Ken Rosewall, the swarthy Californian commented that "none of them could come close to beating Segura at his best," meaning around 1954.
That phrase, "other opponents," seems to refer to everyone outside of the top 5 (Hoad, Laver, Budge, Kramer and Sedgman). Neither Pancho nor the interviewer say explicitly what was the link among those five, in Pancho's mind. But everything Pancho says about those five has to do with their games, ie, their strokes, how they played, etc.
You formulate better the matter than I have done.
I also did not mean the best period of Hoad (probably 1958/1959) but I meant that Laver, Rosewall and Gonzalez and Bud Collins for that matter referred to the question which player was the best for ONE match when every player is at his very best. Unfortunately Dan ignores the difference between best for one match and best regearding a whole career. Usually such rankings (if not otherwise is stated) are referring to the total career of the players.
Last edited:
One thing to keep in mind is that Pancho picked Kramer, not Hoad, as the best player of all time in the interview five months earlier, with Arthur Daley of the NY Times.
I just think that's a good reminder of how great champions speak about these things. They're not making exact lists, with great analysis and proofing. They're just sharing their reflections. In two interviews they can pick two different players as the best.
In fact Hoad's name does not appear anywhere in the first Times interview. That doesn't mean that Pancho never mentioned him in the interview, but it implies that if he said anything about Hoad it was brief or in some other way left on the cutting room floor.
"I never got to see Don Budge until he was over his peak. But there still was enough left to make me appreciate what an exceptional player he must have been in his prime. When it comes to great players, though, I don't know how anyone could have been better than Jack Kramer."
I just think that's a good reminder of how great champions speak about these things. They're not making exact lists, with great analysis and proofing. They're just sharing their reflections. In two interviews they can pick two different players as the best.
In fact Hoad's name does not appear anywhere in the first Times interview. That doesn't mean that Pancho never mentioned him in the interview, but it implies that if he said anything about Hoad it was brief or in some other way left on the cutting room floor.
Gonzales seems to have cooled about Kramer by the time of the NY Times article,
"Kramer wasn't a natural player, he wasn't too fast or too quick, but he knew the knack of winning", end of a very brief statement.
And then he picks Hoad at number one.
Perhaps he reevaluated Kramer.
I never said the opposite. The 14:14 refers to all pro matches of the two till December 3rd and contradict your balance of 16:7 for only the European tour.
By the way, Dan: Most of the many, many alltime rankings don't give Hoad the No.1 place. More than that: they don't include him in the top ten! It's clear why: most rankings refer to career achievements while Gonzalez, Rosewall and Laver referred to top level at the best day of the players.
Maybe.
He does say something else about Kramer, besides not being a natural player; he notes that only two men were able to beat Sedgman consistently: Kramer and himself (Gonzalez).
That fits right in with Kramer having a "knack for winning."
IMO Pancho's thoughts in that second interview are more about playing style, and level of play. In that first interview, where he picked Kramer, he talks about play, but only in the most general terms: how Laver couldn't handle soft shots or had a tough time reading Pancho's serve. In the second interview, in which he picked Hoad, he's really getting down into the basics of play, and picking out a best player for each stroke.
Perhaps Dave Anderson's questions moved the second interview in that direction -- to a meat and potatoes discussion of who had the best forehand, best backhand, etc., and finally who had the best game overall. Hoad's a natural choice there.
The first interview, when Pancho refers to "great players" in a general sense and then speaks so well of Kramer -- I think there he's talking somewhat more generally about everything that goes into a great champion. Not just the best set of strokes.
And what does he say about Kramer later in the interview? It's all about Jack's killer instinct -- and how much Pancho learned from that.
That's why I say that in the first interview Pancho is thinking more broadly than just the best game, the best set of strokes.
I don't say my reading of this is the only one. Just my opinion.
Last edited:
Achieving a very high level of play, even for only a few years, IS a great career achievement.
Gonzales, Rosewall, Laver, played Hoad more often than any other players or observers, and were therefore better qualified to judge his stature of play.
Many of the all-time rankings were made by people who did not play against Hoad, and could not properly evaluate his play.
Kramer ranks him fairly low, but Kramer was annoyed that Hoad "tanked" against Kramer in their 1957 encounters, and Kramer didn't experience the best Hoad could achieve.
Last edited:
Yes, I agree.
Limpinhitter
G.O.A.T.
All 3 had greater careers than Hoad, and all 3 had winning records h2h against Hoad.
Strange, then, that all three select Hoad as number one.
Limpinhitter
G.O.A.T.
I've already explained it. You just can't handle the truth. In any event, there is no reasonable basis to argue that Hoad had a better career, or had a winning record, over either Laver, Rosewall or Gonzales no matter what they say.
Last edited:
It's good that you say this because maybe Dan will understand the matter better when several posters agree about Hoad not the alltime greatest achiever and when they try to convince Dan that his view here is wrong. Thanks.
I guess that Dan Lobb is the only person worldwide to exercise a sort of brainwashing towards himself till he really believes that wrong opinion about Hoad the greatest...
Or is there a Hoad society that sponsors him in order to praise Hoad in an exaggerated way? It's not wrong to praise Lew but Dan is beyond any reasonable praising and discussing...
Last edited:
CyBorg
Legend
I don't think player opinions matter. Players don't follow history in any kind of systematic fashion.
A player can give useful and real impressions of performing against a particular opponent. But I think the only really rigorous way of assigning value to players is that which is based on historical data. Impressions are too phenomenological.
A player can give useful and real impressions of performing against a particular opponent. But I think the only really rigorous way of assigning value to players is that which is based on historical data. Impressions are too phenomenological.
I totally agree.
For example John Newcombe once ranked the Aussie top ten players. He included Stolle, Fraser, Anderson and Fraser but not his doubles partner and friend Tony Roche even though Roche was the strongest of those five, but I concede that the four above mentioned achieved a bit more than Roche.
Last edited:
Limpinhitter
G.O.A.T.
Like Hoad, Tony Roche's career was hindered by injury. As a result, Roche never fully realized his potential. IMO, Roche had the game to challenge Laver as the greatest Aussie of all time, and to be a legitimate GOAT candidate. Like Hoad, Roche had every shot in the game, and his athleticism nearly rivaled Laver's. But, when you look at some of his tough losses to players with lesser games you have to wonder if those losses were due to lack of mental toughness (he did have a tendency to get down on himself), or injuries that we just didn't know about until later.
pc1
G.O.A.T.
Roche clearly had the talent to be number one for many years. I think his overall volley was perhaps actually slightly better than Laver's and his serve was fantastic.
You're right Roche was a super gifted player. One of the few players who could give Laver and Rosewall big problems. He also beat a young (but still superb) John McEnroe in the final of the Queens Club on grass in 1978.
Last edited:
Road
pc1
G.O.A.T.
I think the only thing we just about all agree on (except for probably TMF) is that Hoad is clearly one of the few that if motivated and healthy that at his best may very well have been invincible.
It's also clear that no matter what Hoad did have a great record as an amateur and a superb record as a pro.
I only wish the tennis world got to see a totally healthy Hoad for his entire career.
It's also clear that no matter what Hoad did have a great record as an amateur and a superb record as a pro.
I only wish the tennis world got to see a totally healthy Hoad for his entire career.
Limpinhitter
G.O.A.T.
Similar threads
