Head to Heads - Hoad/Laver, Newcombe/Laver, Newcombe/Emerson

Discussion in 'Former Pro Player Talk' started by timnz, Feb 8, 2009.

  1. Dan Lobb

    Dan Lobb Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2011
    Messages:
    2,004
    My wife and I have just built a new house and my copy of McCauley is in a box somewhere.
    McCauley lists them, and sometimes the USPLTA sanctioned a "US Pro Clay Championship" in addition to the Us Pro.
    In 1962, the US Pro held at D.C. was labelled the US Pro Grasscourt Championship, and did not include the touring pros.
    However, this event may have prompted the Kramer/Trabert group to exercise their option on holding the US Pro at Forest Hills, or lose their option entirely.
     
  2. pc1

    pc1 Legend

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2008
    Messages:
    9,442
    Give us a link to see this source.
     
    Last edited: Aug 11, 2012
  3. Limpinhitter

    Limpinhitter Legend

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2010
    Messages:
    9,277
    For most of the posters here, yes. For you, no.
     
  4. Dan Lobb

    Dan Lobb Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2011
    Messages:
    2,004
    In that case, obtain a copy of "Kings of the Court", a 1997 DVD narrated by John Forsythe, readily available, and listen for yourself with your own sensitive ears.
    Satisfied? I thought you would be.
     
  5. Dan Lobb

    Dan Lobb Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2011
    Messages:
    2,004
     
  6. pc1

    pc1 Legend

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2008
    Messages:
    9,442
    I saw it. This is your idea of official? A little article written by I don't know who?

    Jack Kramer himself wrote the US Pro was in Cleveland in 1955 played by ping pong type rules with Gonzalez defeating Segura in the fifth set 21 to 19. The tournament was played with a one serve only rule. Last I checked 1955 was between 1952 and 1961.

    Let's see, who do I believe, this article you give me or Jack Kramer? The information was from Kramer's excellent book "The Game" on page 205.

    Here's the link to your article.
    http://uspta.com/(S(spfyfrfrzgqdwyq...301&startrow=4&&AspxAutoDetectCookieSupport=1

    Incidentally just because an organization doesn't sanction a tournament doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
     
    Last edited: Aug 13, 2012
  7. Dan Lobb

    Dan Lobb Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2011
    Messages:
    2,004
    First, it is authorized by the USPTA, officially.
    Second, it reiterates the same information I read in the late 1960's, remembered, and saw again on the USPTA website.
    Could anything be clearer?
    The 1955 "rules" were cooked up by James Van Allen, were strange, and did not add to the credibility of the event.
    Kramer himself applied for use of the US Pro title from the USPLTA in 1959, because it was dormant, and he was successful (see Allison Danzig in NY Times on coverage of Forest Hills Pro).
     
  8. Dan Lobb

    Dan Lobb Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2011
    Messages:
    2,004
    Of course it exists, as long as Jack March paid the players some money. But it was not the US Pro.
    Remember the official USPTA position "the US Pro WAS NOT HELD between 1952 and 1961". No equivocation here.
     
    Last edited: Aug 13, 2012
  9. pc1

    pc1 Legend

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2008
    Messages:
    9,442
    And the ATP didn't recognize WCT tournaments for a while also.
     
  10. Dan Lobb

    Dan Lobb Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2011
    Messages:
    2,004
    I wouldn't hold your breath waiting for the USPTA to retroactively resuscitate the Jack March events. Remember, when the USPLTA decided to go ahead without the touring pros and hold its own US Pro in 1962 with a weak field, Jack March promptly changed the name of his Cleveland event to "World Professional Championships" and dropped the "US Pro" billing.
     
  11. Dan Lobb

    Dan Lobb Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2011
    Messages:
    2,004
    It appears that the explanation of "private matches" contracted by the two pros themselves away from the official tour can account for several anomalies in the accepted statistics.
    In 1959, especially, Hoad and Gonzales are reported as playing 44 or 46 matches on the year, yet only 37 are reported on the official tour. What happened to the other 6 or 9 matches? We know that Gonzales and Rosewall played an exhibition match at Sydney (somewhere in Sydney) in December 1959, Gonzales winning, but the reported matches for these two on the regular, official tour was 3 wins for Rosewall and 1 defeat (excluding the Sydney exhibition). Yet it is generally reported that Rosewall had an 8 to 4 edge on Gonzales. Where were the missing 8 matches between these two?
    In 1962, Gonzales attempted to persuade Laver to play a series against him, just the two of them, and split the profits apart from the rest of the pro players.
    It appears also that in 1963, Hoad and Laver played some additional matches, apart from the 8 reported by Trabert for the Players Association tour.
    These private series would allow the two players to split the profits independently of the pro tour.
     
    Last edited: Oct 15, 2012
  12. krosero

    krosero Legend

    Joined:
    Dec 3, 2006
    Messages:
    5,639
    No, as I said above, the private matches which you believe that Laver and Hoad played in '63, were never reported by the press at the time. That is a completely different situation from Gonzalez/Hoad in '59, because the press did report that they played 46 matches, splitting them 23-23. That was reported in the LA Times, which we quoted above, and in British Lawn Tennis, as BobbyOne noted.

    Laver's supposed 13 or 14 match losing streak to Hoad in 1963 does not come up anywhere before the 1990s. In that case we are talking about decades-old recollections, and the simplest answer by far is to acknowledge how fallible human memory can be.
     
  13. Dan Lobb

    Dan Lobb Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2011
    Messages:
    2,004
    The point is that it is POSSIBLE to explain how a private series could exist and add numbers to an official tour.
    Note, The press reports of 46 matches between Hoad and Gonzales conflicts with the official tour count. Again, where were the missing 10 matches between these two?
    Was the press using a mistaken source? Or were there additional private matches between these two OFF the tour? If the latter, then it would seem to be a routine type of occurrence.
    Also, the Rosewall/Gonzales numbers do not add up.
     
  14. Dan Lobb

    Dan Lobb Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2011
    Messages:
    2,004
    We do not know that Laver came up with the 14 number only in the 1990's, perhaps he always had the 14 number in his mind from day one. Likewise Bucholz.
    And, of course, "the press" is only reliant upon what they are given by those they interview, and the 13 and 14 numbers also come from "the press".
     
  15. krosero

    krosero Legend

    Joined:
    Dec 3, 2006
    Messages:
    5,639
    Of course anything is possible, but that is hardly an argument. What we're debating is how probable these things are -- and I don't think you've realized yet that you're undercutting your own argument here.

    You're claiming that Hoad beat Laver 13 or 14 straight times in '63: in 8 official matches, the rest of the time in privately arranged matches. Your support for this is the possibility of private matches among Hoad, Gonzalez and Rosewall in 1959 or other years.

    But those matches were reported in the press at the time that they occurred. That immediately highlights the fact that your proposed private matches for 1963 were not reported. And that lessens the probability that they actually took place.

    In other words, you're proposing that certain matches reported by the press at the time (in 1959 for example) were privately arranged. But if all these matches reported by the press were private, why weren't your proposed private matches for 1963 reported? As I said in some other thread, the Laver/Hoad/Rosewall tour of '63 was as big a ticket as any from that era; the matches we know about sold many tens of thousands of tickets; the tour featured 3 great Aussie champions facing off in Australia, a tennis-crazy nation. How is it possible that these private matches you're proposing, in '63, escaped the attention of all media, when you're proposing that all these other matches from other years were private matches and were reported by the press?

    You've got a basic contradiction here. The more you want to propose "private matches" in order to explain H2H numbers that were reported in that era, the more it becomes a glaring contradiction that the press did not report any "private matches" for Laver and Hoad in '63.

    You just seem to go back and forth on this. There's no consistency in your concept of what a privately arranged match was. On the one hand you say that a bunch of private matches were reported by the media in 1959 and other years; but in '63 you're proposing private matches that were NOT reported by the media -- and ironically it's in this tour where we would expect private matches to be reported, if they're going to be reported anywhere. That was a tour that generated tremendous interest globally, and took place in a tennis-crazy nation, featuring 3 Aussie idols. It just makes no sense that the entire nation followed the 8 known matches, and flocked to them by the tens of thousands, but nothing was said in the media about other matches -- despite the fact that in your scenario, privately arranged matches were dependably reported in the media of the time period, in '59 and in other years.

    Anything is possible, I agree with that. I'm just not buying.
     
    Last edited: Oct 16, 2012
  16. Dan Lobb

    Dan Lobb Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2011
    Messages:
    2,004
    Let's wait a minute here. Did the press really report the apparent "private" matches I suggest happpened in 1959? All we have is a TOTAL number, 21 to 20 for Hoad/Gonzales as of July 1, reported in the London Times, and a 23 to 23 number reported, not in the London Times or New York Times, but from an unidentified source in two regional newspapers, not the wire services. Again, we know that only 37 of these matches were on the tour. I would suggest that the remaining matches, 9 or 6, were probably private affairs. Likewise for the missing Gonzales/Rosewall matches, about 8 matches. And these missing 8 matches have never been identified by the press, and the source never identified.
    How much credibility can you put on unidentified matches?
    You seem to have no trouble accepting them.
    But the source that these missing matches existed in 1959 is just as tenuous as for the 1963 matches. No scores or locations have been provided for the 1959 matches. All we have is an offhand number.
    We DO know that exhibitions were played in 1959, one at Sydney between Gonzales and Rosewall in December.
    Some 1963 exhibitions between Hoad and Laver are reported in McCauley, at Nottingham and Scarborough and European locations.
    Also an "unreported" (by the international press) series between Hoad and Laver in February 1964, dug up by Andrew Tas, but not mentioned anywhere in other sources.
    I think you have to give some credibility to the independent recollections of two participants which support each other, and we do not know that these recollections were pulled out in the 1990's, they could have existed from 1963 onwards.
     
  17. BobbyOne

    BobbyOne Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2012
    Messages:
    7,773
    Dan, You are not serious. The 23:23 balance was not in an unidentified source.. I'm tired to explain it so often...
     
  18. Dan Lobb

    Dan Lobb Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2011
    Messages:
    2,004
    The quality of the source is at issue. The London Times and New York Times and the wire services do not report the 23 to 23 result.
    But you are avoiding the real issue. Regardless of whether the final number was 23:21 or 23:23, there are unidentified additional matches off the tour for both Gonzales/Hoad, and Gonzales/Rosewall, and this appears to be a routine type of arrangement for the touring pros in those days.
    Thus, no surprise that there would be "unofficial", off-tour matches in 1963.
     
  19. krosero

    krosero Legend

    Joined:
    Dec 3, 2006
    Messages:
    5,639
    I have to repeat what BobbyOne has said -- the 23:23 balance does not come from an unidentified source. I even gave the sources again: they are the Los Angeles Times and British Lawn Tennis.

    I can't understand your objection here. You say the source was not the New York Times. You have a problem with the Los Angeles Times, or with British Lawn Tennis? There is nothing wrong with those sources, and they are no more "regional" than the New York Times. Jeane Hoffman wrote the piece in the LA Times. Yet you have a problem because the report was not from the "wire services." What?

    So let me see, if the 23:23 balance had been found in the New York Times, in an article labeled "Special to the New York Times", not credited to the Associated Press or to the wire services, then this would be a problem for you, right? You would dismiss the story as coming from a "regional" source, because it did not come from "the wire services", and you'd start questioning its validity.

    Completely mystifying what you're doing here.

    As for the matches being "unidentified", we've come up on this before. There is nothing unusual about that. You've seen yourself how McCauley notes for several tours in history, something along these lines: "Complete results are not to hand but we know that Tilden won the tour with ___ wins and ___ losses." Sometimes all that is known is the ultimate winner of the tour.

    None of that means that the matches for which we have no specifics were privately arranged -- or that they were not reported in the press of the time period. All it means is that decades later we can find most, but not all, details.

    You see that even in Hoad and Laver's official confrontations. Hoad took 8 matches, as reported everywhere -- but we don't have scores or dates for two of those matches. We have some possible locations, but nothing more. And yet none of that, obviously, means that the two "missing" matches in question were private matches, unreported by the press. You don't need to use that explanation at all: the simplest explanation is that details of those two matches have not survived or have not yet been archived (or if archived somewhere, they are not yet found). That is an extremely common situation in historical research.

    There is no need whatsoever, when you see missing historical details, to start insisting that the matches must have been private affairs unreported to the press.

    You familiar with Occam's Razor, the principle that entities should not be multiplied unnecessarily? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam's_razor

    That's what you're doing here. Whenever you come across a perfectly normal situation -- missing detail -- you throw in this new entity, "private matches," as a necessary explanation. The truth is that missing information is nothing more than missing information. The possibility that some of these matches were privately arranged is a mere possiblity, and not even necessarily the most likely one. It is FAR more likely that missing information is simply missing information.

    And when there's missing information about matches, it's not a good idea at all to start making specific claims about the matches, like you're doing, when you go into detail about how Hoad or Laver or Pancho must have made private deals in which they split profits, with the media not learning the details of these matches for such-and-such reasons. All that is heavy speculation, nothing more.
     
  20. BobbyOne

    BobbyOne Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2012
    Messages:
    7,773
    krosero, You are the man to explain an issue seriously and logically. Hope that Dan will be impressed by your words...
     
  21. hoodjem

    hoodjem G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2007
    Messages:
    12,764
    Location:
    Bierlandt
    " 'unofficial', off-tour matches"?

    Sounds like malarkey to me!:wink:
     
    Last edited: Oct 16, 2012
  22. kiki

    kiki Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2010
    Messages:
    18,714
    Just for a little change besides the never ending Hoad vs Rosewall story here...can anybody post the H2T Newcombe vs Roche at majors ?
     
  23. BobbyOne

    BobbyOne Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2012
    Messages:
    7,773
    Dan Lobb values all pro matches beside of tournaments and tours as exhibitions.

    He does not accept that there were many tour matches beside the series.
     
  24. Dan Lobb

    Dan Lobb Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2011
    Messages:
    2,004
    You miss the point. WE KNOW which Hoad/Gonzales matches were on the official tours in 1959, and we can count them; 36 precisely. Further, we know that Gonzales did not play matches in Europe in 1959. That leaves ONLY the possibility of off-tour matches, one of which is reported in McCauley in Sydney in December. The only question remaining is HOW MANY off-tour matches were there, and in what locations.
    The point remains, it was COMMON PRACTICE for the touring pros to add additional off-tour matches to their schedule, not as a charitable exercise, but to pick up some extra bucks.
    I fail to see your objection to this, and this makes it credible that Hoad and Laver would do the same thing in 1963, as they demonstrably did in February 1964.
     
  25. krosero

    krosero Legend

    Joined:
    Dec 3, 2006
    Messages:
    5,639
    Dan, you keep undercutting your own argument. If you insist that the 1959 matches were privately arranged, then what you've done is you've established that privately arranged matches were known to the press and reported in the press -- which then underscores the lack of press reports for the private matches you're proposing in '63. In short, the more you insist on private matches in '59 or other years, and the more you succeed in establishing that these were indeed privately arranged matches -- the weaker your case for '63 becomes.

    You think your case for '63 becomes stronger when you can point to exos, or to the possibility of privately arranged matches, in this era generally. But as far as I'm concerned that is no argument at all, because it was never in question that the pros of the period could play exos, here or there, in addition to the official tours. No one disputes that possibility, because the officially arranged tours were not the only tennis that was taking place in those days. Apart from those tours, there were also conventional one-week tournaments, as well as other exos: matches which McCauley and Andrew Tas and other historians have uncovered for us. They found documentation for these matches: but there is no contemporary documentation for these matches you're proposing in '63. All we have is vague numbers given in decades-old recollections.

    By contrast, the 23:23 balance in 1959 was reported at the time, in two good sources that we know of. The 1964 tour that you refer to, was reported in the local press of the time, which is how AndrewTas found it. The '63 matches you're proposing are phantom matches, as far as reports from the time period. That's a hard fact about your proposal, until and unless you or someone else can find some documentation from the time period.

    Until then all you have is a possibility. I hear you insisting: "It's possible!" But I think you're misunderstanding something basic about historical research. This is not science, where you can point to the laws of physics and say with absolute certainty: "No, what you're proposing is impossible. It can't happen." In historical research it's very rare that you can absolutely rule out something. If all you're saying is that Laver and Hoad could have picked up their tennis racquets and gone out there to play a few extra matches for quick dough, well, no historian can say that such a thing is impossible. Historical questions are all about whether something is probable. That's the gold standard in history. Not whether something is possible. If all you're saying is that these exos were possible, well then essentially all you have is the theory -- the mere idea, or proposal, or whatever you want to call it. Backing up the theory means documenting your proposed matches the way that AndrewTas and other historians have documented tennis matches: with real documentation from the time period.
     
  26. Dan Lobb

    Dan Lobb Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2011
    Messages:
    2,004
    What do you mean by "tour"?
    Not every professional match was part of a "tour".
    Some were obviously one-off exhibitions, not related to any series or tour.
    I think that is obvious from the scores.
    In 1959, we have one clear example in December, when Gonzales beat Rosewall at an UNIDENTIFIED location in Sydney (perhaps a private club, but not White City). Also, Hoad defeated Olmedo in a one-off exhibition the same week.
    Neither of these was part of a tour or series.
    Also, in 1963, Hoad and Laver played several exhibitions in Europe leading up to Wembley, none of which was connected to a tour or championship series.
    I hope this is clear.
     
  27. Dan Lobb

    Dan Lobb Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2011
    Messages:
    2,004
    It appears that off-tour matches were only SPORADICALLY reported by the press, judging from McCauley's smattering of results.
    The point is that the 1959 private matches were NOT reported by the press, we can only INFER them by subtracting the known number of tour matches from the offhand reporting of some greater total.
    By the way, I still do not see the source for the supposed 23:23 Hoad/Gonzales matches; the L.A. reporter must have some source for her report. If it was a substantial source, why did she not mention it?
    I am suggesting that the quality of evidence for additional 1963 matches is the same as for the supposed additional 1959 matches; all we have is a larger number, some substantiated matches of a smaller number, and a number of presumed off-tour matches obtained by subtraction. The same process for BOTH years.
    The presumed 13 or 14 matches of 1963 is supported by two independent witnesses, both identified, whereas the 1959 additional matches is inferred by an UNIDENTIFIED source, which you are assuming is authentic.
    In any case, an identified witness is superior to an unidentified witness, by any scientific methodology.
     
  28. BobbyOne

    BobbyOne Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2012
    Messages:
    7,773
    Dan, it's not usual to give the sources for every result a newspaper is printing. You should accept this at last...
     
  29. krosero

    krosero Legend

    Joined:
    Dec 3, 2006
    Messages:
    5,639
    As BobbyOne just wrote, there is nothing unusual about a newspaper report not naming the ultimate source for a H2H tally. There is nothing in the least suspicious about that.

    You're trying to say that the evidence for your proposed '63 matches is no worse than the evidence for other matches, like those in '59, which we accept as having taken place. You're trying to cast suspicion on perfectly normal, acceptable reports from 1959 in the LA Times and British Lawn Tennis. Honestly, it's bizarre. Just because the LA Times reporter didn't say exactly whom the H2H tally came from, you downgrade the report as "unidentified." And because we don't have individual reports of all the matches played in '59, you call some of the matches "unreported." All so you can say, "It's no big deal that the '63 matches that I'm proposing were unreported in the press; the '59 matches were unreported too, and you accept them as taking place! So why not accept the '63 matches as taking place too!"

    I apologize for putting words into your mouth, but please correct me if I have misunderstood your argument. As far as I can see that is exactly what you are saying.

    Problem is, it's utter nonsense. The '63 matches that you're proposing really are unreported: there are no reports that we can find; and we should expect to find them in the context in which they took place (a popular tour in a tennis-crazy nation, attended by tens of thousands of fans and by journalists from all over the world). That's the situation for your proposed '63 matches.

    There is no way to minimize that problem by attempting to depict the '59 matches as unreported, or "unidentified." The two sources for our information -- the LA Times and British Lawn Tennis -- are first rate sources. And though we do not have details about all the matches, we do not need them. A match can be considered reported even if we no longer have any details about it and we know about it only through the final H2H tally of the tour. Countless results from tennis history are known that way, including two of Hoad's 8 official victories over Laver in 1963, as I have pointed out to you again and again.

    You have yet to acknowledge the implications of those two Hoad wins. By your own standards they should be "private matches." After all, they are "unreported" in the sense that you're using: we no longer have details about them, and we know about them now only through the final H2H tally of the tour. You are saying that such matches must have been privately arranged affairs. And yet these two Hoad matches were not private. They were part of the tour, and everyone acknowledges that they took place.

    I'm really sorry, Dan, but I just am not persuaded by your arguments. In an effort to hang on to the possibility that Hoad swept Laver 13 or 14 straight, you've taken to depreciating known results from other years as "unidentified," or "unreported." All so you don't have to deal with this basic problem: those '59 matches (and the ones in '64 found by AndrewTas) were witnessed by the media at the time that they took place, and incorporated into final H2H tallies reported in the press, while we have no such thing for your proposed '63 matches. We do not have ANY evidence for your matches until the 1990s.

    And yes, of course Laver's memories, attested in the 1990s, could go back to the 60s. That's a given about such memories, in any such debate. But it's a mere possibility. You don't have anything backing up that possibility. All sources from '63, including Laver himself (as you well know, although you find every way to dismiss it), say that it was 8 straight wins, not 13. In the 90s Laver said it was 14 straight. We also find that information an article by Bodo, interviewing Buchholz -- but that is not necessarily independent corroboration, though you keep repeating, as if it were a certainty, that Buchholz is an independent witness verifying what Laver said.

    I have to repeat myself constantly in our debates, but I'll do it again: Bodo does not quote Buchholz on this matter, and no one knows with any certainty who Bodo's source was. It could be Laver, or someone connected to Laver. It could be Buchholz, and yet even so Buchholz would not necessarily be an "independent" source, because for all we know Buchholz did not remember the number of consecutive wins himself but got it from Laver or from someone connected to Laver. There is NO justification for repeating with certainty, as you do, that Laver and Buchholz are two independent witnesses to the 13-0 (or 14-0) tally. All you can say is that they are both possibly independent sources for it.

    We're just going around in circles, I'm afraid. You never show yourself willing to deal with the problems that other people point out in your evidence or in your arguments. You're going to extremes now, depicting results from '59 and other years as "unreported" or "unidentified", just so you won't have to deal head on with the fact that your proposed '63 matches are, in fact, unreported and unidentified.

    I think you need to deal with that head on, and acknowledge squarely what the difficulties are.
     
  30. Dan Lobb

    Dan Lobb Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2011
    Messages:
    2,004
    Yes, of course, but that means that what we have is only a SECONDARY source, not a primary source, and therefore of lower value. To give greater credibility, a reporter should cite her sources.
     
  31. Dan Lobb

    Dan Lobb Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2011
    Messages:
    2,004
    No, you would not expect to see the supplementary matches (assuming that Laver and Bucholz are correct) to be reported, if they were private matches at clubs, with no tickets sold to the public. And we would not expect the unreported matches in 1959 (about 9 matches Hoad/Gonzales, 8 matches Gonzales/Rosewall) to appear in the press for the same reasons.
    Just to reiterate, the 1959 23:23 cannot be considered a "known result" for the simple reason that no source is cited by the reporter, and this is just basic criteria for any student of history or journalism. A sourced statistic is worth more than an unsourced statistic. Just common sense.
    The 8 to 0 number from 1963 appears to be amply supported by numbers from Trabert and the Association, which strongly suggests that any further matches at this time would be outside the auspices of the Association.
    Bucholz has to be considered an independent witness, even if he merely supports Laver, because Bucholz was present at all the matches (or possibly just 13 of them, please observe that Bucholz appears to support 13, not 14 matches, so he is not just aping Laver).
    If Bucholz is not aping Laver, than where does he (or Bodo) get the 13 number? There is no logical source apart from Bucholz' independent memory.
     
  32. BobbyOne

    BobbyOne Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2012
    Messages:
    7,773
    We can accept such "secondary" sources as first-class sources at least if we don't have other sources which contradict. In our case we only have the 23:23 balance for the WHOLE year. Thus it's a well-reported source.
     
  33. krosero

    krosero Legend

    Joined:
    Dec 3, 2006
    Messages:
    5,639
    Once again the same self-contradiction. The '63 matches, you say, were so private that we shouldn't expect reports in the press. The '59 matches, you say, were also private and also should not have been reported in the press.

    But tho '59 matches WERE reported, in H2H tallies. And that just underscores the fact that the '63 matches you're proposing do not appear in any H2H tallies given at the time. If the press in '59 knew about matches that were private, then we'd expect the press in '63 to know about the matches you're proposing: BUT THERE IS NO SIGN THAT THEY KNEW. That's a negative against your argument, and I'm not sure why you can't see that.

    To sum up: if the press knew about and reported private matches, then the fact that we have no reports about the '63 matches suggests strongly that those matches never took place.

    How the LA Times and British Lawn Tennis found out about the 23:23 tally of '59 is an open question. Perhaps they attended the matches -- which would be a knock against your idea that private matches were not attended by journalists. Or perhaps they got the '59 tallies from Kramer -- which again would be a knock against your argument that the tour organizers in '63 would only talk to the press about official numbers.

    As for the LA Times not giving a source, look, it's not as if they were producing a college paper with footnotes. They were just reporting the sports. You're really making a mountain out of nothing here.

    That's particularly true because the LA Times is not alone in reporting 23:23. British Lawn Tennis also reported it.

    Both publications probably got the number from some official source (like Kramer).

    You assume that Buchholz is independent of Laver because he reports the streak to be 13 matches, while Laver says 14. But the number 13 had already been out there for some years: you can see it in David Hernandez's article (apparently put online sometime shortly after the 2002 USO). So it is not enough to say that because Bodo uses the number 13, he must be relying on an independent recollection from Buchholz. He might be, and he might not be. You don't know.

    No one knows how the number 13 originated in this debate. I am not saying that Bodo relied on David Hernandez's innacurate piece (I know you're going to object about that because we've been running around this circle so many times now). I'm just saying that Hernandez's piece shows that the number 13 had been put out there by someone (possibly Cas Fish, of Tennis Today). To put it simply: 13 is not unique to Buchholz.
     
    Last edited: Oct 18, 2012
  34. krosero

    krosero Legend

    Joined:
    Dec 3, 2006
    Messages:
    5,639
    Jeane Hoffman gave the 23:23 balance in the LA Times piece below. She did not say in her piece that she interviewed Pancho or Kramer, though she may have. She quotes both of them, and appears to be directly talking to Pancho ("he shook his head.") That would be no surprise, given that Pancho lived in Los Angeles.

    Whether Hoffman interviewed Kramer too is unclear, though this was right before the tour came to LA, so interviewing Kramer is not unlikely. And I know that Kramer's wife, Gloria, did write to Hoffman on at least one occasion, about the pro tour.

    Los Angeles Times
    Jan. 12, 1960

    Pancho Gonzales Plans to Pass Up Fortune by Quitting Tennis

    ... Then there's Pancho Gonzales. According to Kramer's figures, Gonzales collected a grand total of $58,500 for last year's racqueteering. But wait. He sat out the matches from July to November and Kramer estimates that Pancho could have collected another $17,500 for that period plus an additional $10,000 had he not cut short his Aussie appearances this December.

    You think $27,500 is a hefty sum to pass up?

    That, amigo, is nothing. Senor [sic] Gonzales, five-time world champ, is about to bypass thrice that sum (Kramer's office estimates his earning potential at $80,000) by a very simple expedient: he's quitting tennis. He will shoot for his 6th straight world title in 1960 then retire to the simple life about July 1st....

    Says Kramer of Pancho's proposed exit, "Fine, that's his business." Kramer's business is also fine: he has Lew Hoad, who tied Pancho 23-all last year, coming up, plus a stable of stars who'll make their first local appearance in the Junior League-Youth Tennis Foundation sponsored World Championships at the Sports Arena Jan. 29-30.

    Gonzales isn't quitting because of old age. "I'm playing better than I ever have in my life," he stated. "I only wish some of our upcoming juniors were playing as well. Tennis in America is in terrible shape. You know what? If we play down in Mexico City in this year's zone Davis Cup matches, I think they'll beat us!

    "We're not strong enough, and they have that altitude on their side. Sure, we have Buchholz and MacKay, but what kind of player is Buchholz when he loses to Gardner Mulloy, 45, at Wimbledon? The Mexicans have Rafael Osuna and the Palafox brothers, and that altitude---" he shook his head.​
    No reason, in general, to think Hoffman didn't have reliable access to Pancho and/or Kramer and to the official stats: and this supports the 23:23 tally.
     
  35. BobbyOne

    BobbyOne Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2012
    Messages:
    7,773
    I strongly guess that Dan woun't accept the 23:23 tally because it contradicts his theory that Hoad dominated Gonzalez in 1959...
     
  36. Dan Lobb

    Dan Lobb Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2011
    Messages:
    2,004
    We cannot accept them as "first-class" or primary sources regardless of whether or not other sources exist. They are what they are.
    They are not well-reported, but are, in fact poorly reported, because the reporter does not cite a source.
    Sometimes reporters do not cite a source due to confidentiality, but that does not appear to be a problem here. It's just sloppy reporting.
    But that is not unusual in sports reporting.
    Frankly, I do not see a gap in time for the two extra Hoad/Gonzales exhibition matches in Australia.
    As I pointed out earlier, McCauley has bungled the dates in December, so that the Kooyong tournament has to be pulled back to the last week in December, and that leaves no space for two more Hoad/Gonzales matches.
    There is your contradiction.
     
  37. Dan Lobb

    Dan Lobb Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2011
    Messages:
    2,004
    And possibly Cas Fish got the 13 number from Bucholz.
    This underscores how important it is to source a statistic.
    The 23:23 number was not widely reported, I do not see it in the standard references, and individual matches are not listed. It could merely be an offhand remark by Gonzales when he was interviewed by the lady reporter.
    It is unlikely that the 23:23 number came from Kramer, who was promoting the American championship tour as the principal head to head tour, and the press generally quoted the 15 to 13 number from that tour for 1959. We need something more substantial than offhand remarks.
    This does not suggest that the press covered private matches, indeed the paucity of references suggests the opposite for both 1959 and 1963.
    And Bodo would not challenge the official 8 to 0 number without some reliable source, and that could only have been Bucholz.
    Again, I do not see a gap in the schedule to allow more Hoad/Gonzales matches, since McCauley has bungled the dates for December.
     
  38. Dan Lobb

    Dan Lobb Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2011
    Messages:
    2,004
    Funny, because Kramer did NOT have Lew Hoad under contract for 1960, quite the opposite. Hoad walked out on the 1960 tour.
     
  39. BobbyOne

    BobbyOne Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2012
    Messages:
    7,773
    Dan, I give you 1000 Dollars if you give up your stubborness. I can't stand it anymore...

    The Australian pro tour was a long one and there are many "free" days before the first tournament and between the tournaments. The tour lasted from November 26th till January 1st as you say. Thus many days free for two additional matches!
     
    Last edited: Oct 19, 2012
  40. Dan Lobb

    Dan Lobb Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2011
    Messages:
    2,004
    Yes, if they were off-tour matches.
    Better to save your money.
     
  41. krosero

    krosero Legend

    Joined:
    Dec 3, 2006
    Messages:
    5,639
    Ok firstly I have to say something about your manner of debating: I have pointed out to you more times than I can remember an obvious fact, not an opinion but a fact: namely, that Bodo's article, as it stands, does not contradict Hoad's 8-0 record over Laver in the January tour. All Bodo says is that Hoad won his first 13 matches from Laver: no timespan is specified, therefore there is no contradiction.

    You have never disagreed with me on this, but what you have done is simply repeat your unqualified statement that Bodo is contradicting the official number of the January tour. You merely ignore what I'm saying and repeat your statement as if nothing contradicting it had ever been said. Not good form, to put it kindly.

    As for the possibility that Cas Fish got his number from Buccholz, that's right, that's what it is: a mere possibility. More speculation.

    But careful now, because you know how much is wrong in Fish's account. If you think Fish was in contact with Buchholz, then you're raising the strong possibility that Buccholz recalled Hoad sweeping Laver in 39 straight sets, as Fish says, and as we all agree did not happen.

    Seriously, think about what would have happened if Fish was in contact with Buchholz, who actually participated in the tour. For me this is not a problem because I have never claimed that Buchholz's memories (or anyone's memories) can be crystal clear after the passage of decades. But for you this is a real problem, because you've been insisting hard that Buchholz had a clear recollection of the events -- which makes is possible, even probable, that Fish would simply have gotten all those details from him when they were in contact. Why would he ask only for the number of matches? In your scenario, after all, Fish is lucky enough to be in contact with someone who actually participated in the event (and it makes sense that Fish would seek out those who were there). So in your scenario it looks like Buchholz either told Fish it was 39 straight sets -- thus showing poor memory, and a bias toward Hoad -- or he did not remember anything about the scores -- which is a knock against your argument that Buchholz, as a firsthand witness, has exact, confident recall of these events.

    Which option would you like to take?

    Now, your dismissal of the 23:23 tally as an "offhand remark" by Gonzalez: you were gung-ho some time ago when we were debating whether Hoad or Gonzalez won their H2H in the American tour by the score of 15 to 13. If I recall correctly, you told BobbyOne that it was impossible to imagine that these two men could be unclear at any given moment about where the H2H stood. You said they would know the exact H2H as surely as they knew the time of day, or something like that.

    But now you'd like to think that Pancho was not at all clear what his total record against Hoad was for the year. Or, since you think that Hoad had the edge for the year, you must be suggesting that Pancho was lying when he said it was 23:23.

    Which option would you like to take? Was Pancho's memory unclear, or was he lying?

    Now let me state for the record, we don't know that the 23:23 tally came from Pancho. All we know is that 23:23 appeared in the LA Times and in British Lawn Tennis. One or more of the sources used by these two publications may have provided the number; and these two publications may have done their own research.

    I don't think it's important that the 15-13 H2H was the more commonly reported stat. The media, particularly the American press, was covering the World Professional title every year, so naturally when they talked about who was world champion, they referred to the tally of the spring tour. Year-round tallies, taking into account all tour matches, as well as tournament meetings and exos, and anything else you like, would be a broader category. That broader stat would not be very relevant when the press came around every year to reporting the spring tour; the most relevant stat would be what the H2H had been on the spring tour twelve months earlier.

    Also, the year-round stat got reported in two sources in January: a perfectly natural time for such a stat to be tabulated, discussed, and reported. That's when you'd expect to find a stat covering the full year: and bingo, that's when we find it.

    There's no contradiction between 15-13 as the H2H for the spring tour and 23-23 as the H2H for the whole year. You're trying to manufacture tension between the two stats, when there is none.

    You'll see what I mean if I ask you this: what do you think was the correct stat for all of 1959? It was something like 23-21 for Hoad, right? The exact number is not my issue. I'm just asking you to apply what you said above to your own stat. Do you think it's a problem that the press generally reported the 15-13 stat for the spring tour, instead of 23-21 for the whole year? That's what you said above, isn't it? (See your remark in bold.)

    There's no contradiction: each stat has its own context, its own uses.

    And for the love of tennis, I don't know why you're stating yet again, "This does not suggest that the press covered private matches". You're suggesting that press did NOT learn about the private matches? You've said several times that the press DID learn about those matches, and that this was a way to explain several H2H tallies that the press published in that era. And yet here you're asserting that the press did not learn about these matches?

    What's going on? Are you even clear where you're going with this?

    This is what I gather to be your argument: certain matches in H2H tallies reported in that era must have been privately arranged.

    Yes?

    OK.

    That's your argument.

    Therefore, according to your argument: the results of private matches in '59 were given to the press, and reported in the press.

    Which leaves us with this inescapable fact: we have no indication that the press was given results for any private Hoad/Laver matches in '63. Nothing.

    That's the problem here that you have YET to face squarely.
     
  42. krosero

    krosero Legend

    Joined:
    Dec 3, 2006
    Messages:
    5,639
    If you're suggesting that Jeane Hoffman was mistaken here, I do not see the mistake. Read the text carefully. She says that Kramer "has Lew Hoad ... coming up," which is merely a general statement about Hoad being in Kramer's corner for the foreseeable future. And he was. Hoad played more tours for Kramer and in fact signed up for 7 more seasons with Kramer on February 8, 1960: http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=zP1kAAAAIBAJ&sjid=W3YNAAAAIBAJ&dq=hoad kramer&pg=6121,1933814.

    Hoffman says that other Kramer pros were scheduled to make their first appearance in LA shortly, but she does not say that Hoad was among them. Therefore, she was not saying that Hoad was on board for the 1960 tour. And covering the tennis scene in LA, she would have known that Hoad was not on the billing for the Kramer matches scheduled for January 29-30 in the Sports Arena.

    Online I have found several articles in which Jeane Hoffman quotes Gloria Kramer -- and at least one occasion on which she interviewed Jack.

    Pancho Gonzalez's book, Man With a Racket (1959), quotes from at least two letters that Gloria Kramer wrote to Jeane Hoffman about the Kramer pro matches in Australia in '57 and '58. She wrote about the matches she saw, and in the second letter she gave the opinion that Hoad was better than Gonzalez. She also predicted that the Australian portion would end with Hoad leading 8 to 5, which turned out to be the correct number.

    As I said above, it looks like Jeane Hoffman had regular, even close ties to the Kramers, and had regular access to Pancho Gonzalez who was, after all, a local sports hero.

    All of that supports the accuracy of her 23:23 stat.
     
  43. Dan Lobb

    Dan Lobb Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2011
    Messages:
    2,004
    Intersting point about Cas Fish and Bucholz.
    I would suggest that Bucholz' memory was slightly off, not as to the number of wins, but to the close level of play in the EARLY matches.
    In the Bodo article, Bucholz says that Hoad "waxed" Laver in the early matches, which is demonstrably wrong. Laver played Hoad tough in several of the early matches, two of which went five sets.
    The most important matches were at Kooyong and were televised, and Hoad won a close five-setter at 6-3 in the fifth set over Laver, and Laver went out the next day and outslugged Rosewall in a four-set victory.
    As the tour progressed, Laver tired and THEN he got "waxed" by both Hoad and Rosewall. Perhaps these were the matches that Bucholz remembers best, and were the origin of Cas Fish's remarks about straight-set wins.

    As to the press reportage on private matches, there was very little reportage on the YEAR-LONG results. The 23:23 result does not appear in the London Times, New York Times, Sports Illustrated, most others. Only in L.A. Times (Wasn't L.A. Gonzales' hometown? I believe so.) and in some unidentified section of World Tennis.
    Where was the Rosewall/Gonzales result published? I am still waiting for this unidentified source for the 8:4 (?) result.
    In short, there was little or no coverage for these year-long results.
    I would suggest that the most relevant number is the combined meetings in the TWO championship tours, and for 1959 that would emerge as 18:18 for Hoad/Gonzales. These were the matches which counted for something, much more than the unreported exhibitions.
    But yes, indeed, the press WAS given results for the full 1963 series between Hoad and Laver, although these numbers were only reported in the 1990's, by a Laver in full command of his memories and speaking without any hesitation. That is where the press stands.
     
    Last edited: Oct 20, 2012
  44. Dan Lobb

    Dan Lobb Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2011
    Messages:
    2,004
    This new contract for Hoad ran from 1960 to 1966, and actually Hoad would play for the Kramer/Trabert organization until his official retirement in 1966, after which he played sporadically as an independent pro.
    However, this 1960 contract did not have the terms Kramer was seeking, namely a return by Hoad to the 1960 pro Championship tour against Gonzales, and Kramer had to settle for Rosewall, and a box office bomb.
    Further, Gonzales refused to play in tournaments, the only venue which Hoad would agree to, so the pro tour lost its most important drawing matchup. This was disastrous, and Ampol and Qantas and other funding partners withdrew from the tournament phase of the pro tour, which ended the Grand Prix-style world championship from 1959.
    In 1961, Hoad agreed to play the championship tour, but was in poor condition due to a layoff, following an injury in the 1960 Tokyo final, and withdrew with a broken foot.
    The absence of Hoad and Gonzales undermined the major pro tournaments and stalled the movement for open tennis described in the article.
     
    Last edited: Oct 20, 2012
  45. BobbyOne

    BobbyOne Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2012
    Messages:
    7,773
    Stubborn Dan,

    The 23:23 balance is well reported (in two sources).

    You urge exact data and use to write Bucholz. There never was such a player!

    Here five missing Rosewall/Gonzalez matches of 1959:

    Cairns, January 2: Rosewall d Gonzalez 6-4,3-6,6-1

    Townsville, January 3: Rosewall d Gonzalez 6-3,3-6,8-6

    MacKay, January 4: Rosewall d Gonzalez 4-6,6-2,6-2

    Toowoomba, January 25: Gonzalez d Rosewall 2-6,8-6,9-7

    Hobart,February 9: Gonzalez d Rosewall 6-3,3-6,10-8

    We also know that Rosewall beat Gonzalez 5:2 in tournament play (New York Times). Two matches are missed. It's probable that those tournaments were held in July in the USA.
     
    Last edited: Oct 20, 2012
  46. Dan Lobb

    Dan Lobb Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2011
    Messages:
    2,004
    Sorry. I have great respect for Buchholz, who had the great perception to rate Hoad #1 all-time, a perception he gained by close personal observation.
    These early January matches appear to be one-offs, exhibitions, not related to tournaments.
    There is a gap in July, I see.
     
  47. krosero

    krosero Legend

    Joined:
    Dec 3, 2006
    Messages:
    5,639
    The "waxed" remark seems to refer only to the first match, but yes I agree there seems to be some exaggeration there. Hoad won that first match in four sets, 6-8, 6-4, 6-3, 8-6.

    Yes, the year-round totals do not seem to have received much press. Naturally all the talk about H2H tallies focused on the mano-a-mano Kramer tours.

    Did Buchholz rate Hoad #1 for all time? Bodo wrote that Buchholz thought Hoad was "the greatest player of their time."
     
  48. krosero

    krosero Legend

    Joined:
    Dec 3, 2006
    Messages:
    5,639
  49. Dan Lobb

    Dan Lobb Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2011
    Messages:
    2,004
    Buchholz actually said that if there was a Mars/Earth match, and he had to send one player to represent the planet, he would pick Hoad. Sounds like an all-time recommendation, and made in 2007, post-Sampras, and Fed-peak years.
     
  50. Dan Lobb

    Dan Lobb Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2011
    Messages:
    2,004
    Correct spelling: Buchholz
     
    Last edited: Oct 21, 2012

Share This Page