Discussion in 'Former Pro Player Talk' started by pc1, Sep 17, 2012.
that´s good to hear about her health. she still living in spain?
Yes. Right next to the Lew Hoad club. I think she plays every day. The way she plays, you'd be hard pressed to think she was over 40! And very down to earth, as you'd probably expect. Dry sense of humour and interesting anecdotes of her tennis years, as wife & player. Fascinating to someone like me, who loves the history, & the stories!
i would have expected down to earth, given the aussie heritage
if you can share some of her stories or anecdotes, i think you´ve come to the right place for an attentive and thankful audience
I definitely second that;-)
Tennis is the fountain of youth, for those of us who don't pursue it too hard.
Yes i agree with lew hoad not having as good a record as the other players, however i have seen him play as well as the others if you wanted to see the best tennis come off a mans racquet HOADs the man.Tomwill
Yes, Jennifer a very ,very attractive lady and like her late husband would not be out place in hollywood.TomWill
Laver, Rosewall, Gonzales all agreed with you.
Do we know Muscles's all-time GOAT-list?
I only know the first four: Hoad, Gonzalez, Laver, Federer.
But I remember that Rosewall once made another list-about his greatest opponents- with Laver first.
I think that final continued on from the 1956 final when trailing 1- 4 in the fourth set and then he won 20 of the last 22 points played. TomWill
Muscles list as of January, 2010, in an interview at the Australian Open,
This is a very intelligent list, which I also accept.
If Muscles would rank 1) Gonzalez, 2) Hoad you would not agree and would not find it intelligent...
For once, you and I are in absolute agreement. Bravo.
In 1962, Rosewall said much the same thing.
"I would have to rate Gonzales a notch ahead of Hoad, but when the latter is "on", he is the greatest of all time."
In 2010, Rosewall stated, "and the greatest player of all time was my [friend], Lew Hoad". (In the computer translation, it came out "and the greatest player of all time was my fellow Lew Hoad." Obviously, a mistake in translation.
As earlier told, Muscles once ranked Laver first.
Where was this?
Dan, I don't remember the publication. Rosewall made that ranking in the 1970s.
I remember that Muscles ranked Gonzalez second, Hoad third, maybe Sedgman fourth.. he also ranked Emerson ahead of Newcombe (I wondered about that). I think Ashe was No.9 and Smith/Nastase split No.10. It surely was a list of Rosewall's best opponents.
With the perspective of time, Rosewall displayed the wisdom of age and gave the correct ranking. (Hoad #1, Gonzales #2, Laver #3, Federer #4).
I agree with the Muscles of 2010.
Ho ho! Good one.
Revisionism is alive and well.
Dan, I would be glad if you could get the wisdom of age....
I grant Rosewall the discretion due to any genius of the court and accept his latest appraisal.
Are you questioning Rosewall's right to revise his opinion? I think we should allow him the room to amend his views.
what the difference does it make?
Laver,Hoad,Gonzo and Rosewall all in the melting pot...and you get the greatest salade ever...does anybody care if the pepper, the tomatoe, the lettuce or the potato is the first one in the dish?
kiki, by the way, I think you rank Federer in the second tier which I can understand because in my own rankings Roger is also second tier as No. 6 or 7.
In my opinion the achievements of Tilden, Gonzalez,Rosewall and Laver are out of Roger's reach. I don't think that he will win a further major anymore, especially if Nadal will come back healthy...
Yes, federer is similar to Emerson.His record is the best in absolute terms but in real life, it is all relatively to the difficulty and competitiveness.Fed, not his fault, has the estigma of the weak era, certainly the weakest by far in open era and one of the weakest era, and being owned by Nadal.
That is why I have him second-third tier, along Rosewall,Tilden and Budge.
Laver,Sampras,Borg and Hoad or Gonzales share first tier.
kiki, If you rank Hoad first tier you also should rank Rosewall there. Rosewall played in very strong eras (your own list) and achieved much more that Hoad.
Against weaker opposition.
You could be right at the long term; I leaned towards peak play...
Weaker? Kramer, Gonzalez, Sedgman, Segura, Trabert, Laver, Gimeno, Newcombe, Roche, Ashe, Okker, Smith, Nastase, Kodes, Orantes. Weaker opposition?
Very strong opposition.
Kramer versus Rosewall? Not serious.
Gonzales? Rosewall had less success than Hoad against prime Gonzales.
Sedgman? In the fifties, neither Hoad nor Rosewall played an extended tour against Sedge. On the 1959 Ampol World Championship, Hoad was 5 wins, 2 defeats against Sedge, Rosewall was 3 wins and 2 defeats against Sedge, and Sedgman won two tours, New Zealand and Europe, in which Rosewall played.
Hoad was 2 wins, 1 defeat against Segura in both the 1958 and 1959 championship tours.
1959 being the most representative year for both, Hoad was 3 wins, 1 defeat against Trabert, 6 wins and 2 defeats against Rosewall, etc.
If you are going to simply list names, we should attach some dates and numbers to them.
Yes, I rate the late fifties as the summit of tennis achievement, with the toughest field, tougher than the sixties or seventies.
Dan, Your attitude to "forget" results that "speak" against your God, pardon GOAT, is unique among of all of us. For instance you omit Rosewall's wins against Hoad in the European GP. Rosewall claims that he had the best balance in 1959 including against Gonzalez (8:4). I think that Rosewall and Hoad were about even that year.
How do you come to a 6:2 balance of Hoad vs. Rosewall?. Joe gives 5:5...
The Grand Prix de Europe was not insignificant, but it had no pretentions as a world championship, unlike the 4-man American tour or the 14 tournaments of the Ampol world championship. Gonzales did not play Europe that year, and Hoad coasted, only playing well at Roland Garros, which was part of the Ampol series, not the Grand Prix de Europe.
McCauley appears confused about the Ampol series, and makes no distinction for those events.
I stated that Hoad was 6 to 2 against Rosewall on the Ampol world championship series, as follows;
Won at Perth, Adelaide, Los Angeles, Forest Hills, Roland Garros, Kooyong.
Lost at Sydney, Brisbane.
Unless my math is very crazy, that makes 6 to 2.
1959 is a good year for comparisons because there was an extended world series featuring all 12 of the top pros, all of whom displayed their best tennis, and in no other year was there a similar wealth of matches.
Rosewall against Gonzales on the Ampol circuit;
Rosewall wins in Brisbane (twice), Los Angeles
Gonzales wins at Sydney
Thus, Rosewall had a 3 to 1 edge on the Ampol series.
Dan, Joe McCauley was not confused. He was very conscientious. You rate the events rather subjectively. F.i. you always belittle the Grand Prix in 1959 ( a long series of four top players).
Dan, I did not claim that Rosewall fared better against Pancho than Hoad did. I just contradicted you that Rosewall had weak competition.
No, this is not subjective. The Ampol series of 14 tournaments was designed to establish a world number one, and points were awarded according to a player's finish in each tournament. The final results were Hoad (6 wins), Gonzales (4 wins), Rosewall (2 wins), Sedgman (1 win), Trabert (1 win).
Dan, please wake up! It was you who claimed that Hoad was 6:2 against Rosewall for 1959 which is wrong. You make me tired...
My friend, Hoad was 6:2 against Rosewall ON THE AMPOL WORLD CHAMPIONSHIP TOUR, as indicated above, the results available from McCauley. There were other events in 1959, a New Zealand tour, the Grand Prix de Europe, both won by Sedgman, the South African tour, won by Rosewall, the US pro, Wembley, etc. None of these were part of the Ampol tour.
Dan, You maybe formulated inclearly in an older post. I see what you mean. I'm only reserved regarding counting the January, 1960 event to 1959.
McCauley got the dates wrong for the Kooyong event, which started in the last week of December and the final was played on New Year's Day 1960.
This was the final event of the 1959 season, and the bonus money was paid out after the final. (The New York Times called it the Ampol championship and bonus money pool).
Someone who could help us find newspaper reports of the Kooyong event in December 1959, is PC1.
Haven't heard from him lately.
I remember this match the local paper use to run overseas news on the front page that match was on it,it read [The blond powerfull Australian polished off the big American in 4 sets] TomWill65
Dan, I have got a paper from Joe McCauley with the date of January 2nd for the Kooyong 1960 event.
Your style of discussion is terrible. You ignore my results of the 1958 Perrier Cup that are verified results and claim:"I only counted verified results". I find this disgusting. You only rate results as "verified" which are positive for your darling. The Perrier Trophy shows that your God had some poor streaks (3:14!) and was not invincible as you sometimes insinuate...
"Guesses do not count", you write. But it's you who sometimes write about "facts" that are not facts but speculation. YOU wrote that Hoad has the edge against Rosewall on clay even though we still miss many results from the early 1960s when Rosewall dominated.
January 2 for the REPORT or the match?
McCauley stated that it was held Jan 2 to 7, NOT DECEMBER 25 to JANUARY 1, as the New York Times reported.
In other words, McCauley got it wrong and I corrected him.
Thank you for admitting this, FINALLY.
I only count results that are verified to have been played ON CLAY, and I think that you understand that, so I do not understand your complaint.
If you can get some data showing that the 1957 Europe tour was on clay, or the 1958 Perrier was on clay, or the 1963 Cannes, etc. then I will add them.
As of now, the VERIFIED clay events stand at 7 to 2 for Hoad against Rosewall in major clay events.
Dan, It's unclear if January 2nd is the date of the final or the report.
Dan, I told you already that the Perrier Trophy, at least till the numbers I have given you , was played on clay. Please accept this.
By the way, the series lasted from August 2nd to October 25 and was called also Le Tour de France and Tournament of Champions of the World.
The New York Times reports the FINAL on January 2, 1960.
It had less prestige than the the other two championship tours, and lacked Gonzales and Hoad played only part of it. The Roland Garros event was part of the Ampol series, not the Perrier.
I see your point, but McCauley's result should be corrected.
Separate names with a comma.