Discussion in 'Former Pro Player Talk' started by pc1, Sep 17, 2012.
Some people are averse to learning new facts about history.
Dan, are you the CEO of this Ampol company or something? I can't get over how many times you've mentioned Ampol on these forums, more times than CBS/NBC mention sponsors on their tennis broadcasts. An old propaganda trick is "Never tell a small lie. Tell a big lie and keep repeating it, and eventually people come to believe it's the truth."
That is because the sources stress AMPOL, the giant oil company and financial partner of Kramer. The points the players earned for their placing in the designated tournaments were called "Ampol points" by the press coverage, and the Toronto Star referred to them as "crucial Ampol points".
Even McCauley makes reference to "Final AMPOL points standings after 5 tournaments", where he appears to mistakenly believe that the Ampol series terminated in Feb. 1959, rather than continuing (from Jan. 10, 1959 to Jan. 7, 1960).
The final points after the final event (Kooyong 1960) determined the share of bonus money each player received.
When Hoad semi-retired in Jan 1960, it appears that Ampol severed its partnership with the Kramer tour, and the 14 tournament schedule of the 1959 season became the precursor of Kramer's 1969 Grand Prix proposal.
The pro tour had some financial difficulties in the early 1960s. Sponsors left, Jack March's finances went belly up as the US Pro got extremely weak by the time Buchholz won the tournament in 1962, and the tournament had to leave Cleveland. Holding it in Forest Hills the following year was a financial disaster, with none of the players paid apart from Gonzales negotiating a $5,000 appearance fee to come out of retirement. The French Pro had to leave Roland Garros and move to the Stade Coubertin. I believe even Jack Kramer himself resigned around this time and handed over control to Tony Trabert.
Thank goodness for Laver's arrival in the pros and Gonzales returning, eh?
Kramer apparently resented Hoad's semi-retirement, which cost the tour much credibility.
Kramer attempted to sign Laver in 1961 to play a tour against Rosewall in 1962, Laver refused, thinking his value would go up the following year.
Kramer, with no tour on tap for 1962, retired in 1961 and handed the reigns over to Trabert.
Even when you repeat it 100 times: Hoad did NOT win the 1959 tour. Gonzalez just said that Hoad won the hth IN this tour but not the tour itself.
All, I mean actually ALL EXPERTS wrote and said that Rosewall played his most brillant tennis in 1962 and 1963 (not only his best record then). Rosewall won only 1 pro major then but won 18 other pro and open majors in the 1960s and 1970s! Learn history!
Mal Anderson only brought the result of the 14 tournament tour but never said that Hoad was generally the No.1 in 1959.
I'm not sure if a 1960 event counted for 1959. Same Jimmy Connors' win at the masters in January 1978.
You have brought so many errors and wrong opinions that I doubt to trust you at this point.
Gonzales called the tour a "head to head" tour, by which he meant that the feature match at each stop was a Gonzales-Hoad match.
This was not a true round-robin tour, as Hoad and Gonzales played each other 28 times, while playing only 34 matches against the two rookies combined.
When a player dominates a match, he appears to be brilliant. When Rosewall controlled his matches in the early sixties, he APPEARED to be more brilliant than before, BUT he was getting more OPPORTUNITIES to look briliiant against Hoad and Gonzales after they passed their prime. They were no longer able to control their matches against Rosewall, as their abilities had declined. Simple.
Objectively, Rosewall playeed awseome tennis in 1958 and 1959, especially at Forest Hills, where he looked like winning both tournaments, the biggest of the year. Gonzales and Hoad had to get up off the canvas to pull out their wins against him.
And the Kooyong 1960 final between Hoad and Rosewall, the season finale, was described in the New York Times as the greatest match ever played at Kooyong stadium. It doesn't get any better than the best!
I wonder why Wembley should not have been included in the series. Are you sure? Do you have any proof?
However, Wembley was a pro major and more important than many of "your" tournaments.
I confess: I'm too averse to learn facts you have created in a bold way...
You are the record man with nine posts in a row. I guess that even GOD Hoad would not have been able to do this...
I agree totally.
Have you seen the full World Tennis article, not just the quote in McCauley? I have not, but I suspect it contains much more than we see here.
However, let me quote Anderson (in McCauley)
"Kramer established a tournament points system TO DECIDE THE BEST PLAYERS IN THE WORLD"
"The Pros played in 14 tournaments with the winner earning 7 points,, the runner-up 4 points, third place 3, 4th place 2, and each quarter-fianlist 1 point each. This resulted in the following FINAL POSITIONS--
So, the whole purpose of the Ampol series was to determine the world ranking of the constituent professional players.
The bonus money pool was distributed according to the point system, and The New York Times and London Times report on the money following the Jan. 7, 1960 conclusion of the tour.
As you can see, finishing first gave a huge 7 points, 3 more points than 2nd place.
Hoad won six tournaments, so he had a bulge over the field (Gonzales in second place had four tournament wins.)
Check the New York Times and London Times for a report of the bonus money pool following the end of the 1959 tour on Jan. 7, 1960.
Right there in black and white.
Don't trust me, check the papers.
The Cleveland Arena event and the Wembley event were not managed by the Kramer tour, and were thus not included in the Ampol series.
Anderson finished well back, behind Trabert, in the final points.
You write "simple". It's just too simple for me. You now belittle even the best experts who witnessed both the 1958/1959 Rosewall and the 1960 plus Rosewall. Why don't you trust them when they say that the latter Rosewall was more brillant? A top expert is able to judge if Rosewall is brillant regardless if he wins much or little when "appearing" brillant. Most experts are not stupid!
I doubt if that Kooyong final was the best ever match of Rosewall. I would have thought that his best ever match was an encounter WON by Rosewall, f.i. his 1963 win against Laver in the US Pro final. After the match Bobby Riggs said that Rosewall in that form would have beaten any great of the past.
But you can't neglect that there was a 4 man world series to also determine the world's best.
I always have ranked Gonzalez and Hoad equal for that year (with Rosewall as possible Co.-No 1 as he was 8:4 against Gonzalez and had the best record against his opponents regarding to Rosewall's claim in the Rowley book)
In 1964 the situation was different as there was no world series but "only" a 14(?) tournament tour to determine the No.1.
This is a great compliment;-)
I remember watching closely the Mc Namacs during a changeover:they drank beer not water
My Glass Slam:
Pilsener: a terrific 5 setter that lasted 10 hours and Emerson beat Stolle
And Jack Crawford wins the Masters:-D
Did Kodes survive?
Do you know who invented it? Ask bobbyone he surely knows
Sorry, I'm not a politician....
there´s that story i heard about Emerson and Stolle at the u.s.open in 77 or 78. they played doubles together, reached the semis where they lost a tight match against Mc/Fleming and brought a cooler of beer to all their matches.
i´m totally against drinking beer before or during a match. but stories like the one above still amuse me and make me reminiscient of the old days
True.that match is probably 81 US Open and Stolle teamed Newcombe.2 of the best ever doubles players and 2 of the best returns in doubles too
you´re right. checked the ITF database. the internet can be your friend
81 Stolle/Newcombe played Mc/Fleming in the semis 26 26 75 76 67
79 Stolle/Emerson played Lutz/Smith in the semis 57 63 57
Newk had a big fh and Stolle a great bh return.of course,noth great s&v players
coming back to Hoad.
i´m rereading ´golden boy´ and that 57 wimbledon final against Cooper must really have been something.
56 minutes and only 30 points for Cooper in the whole match. is that match on youtube?
First of all if you read correctly instead of repeating yourself all the time you would realize I gave information for the Kooyong event in 1960 in one of the posts.
Do me a favor, just give some decent information instead of your little pointed remarks for once. I understand what you constantly write about Ampol. I gave the information and you gave information. This is suppose to be a discussion on Hoad, not the Lew Hoad is the winner of the most Ampol points contest.
Reading your posts makes you seem like a broken record.
You have a thread which I created which is a forum for discussion on Hoad. Give your points logically and if your points are decent posters may actually agree with you. This is your challenge. Do it without your little remarks if you're capable of it.
In other words I'm offering you an olive branch, please take it. Just gave facts and some opinions and others will do the same. If you make some little insults I won't answer. We're discussing the merits and the negatives of the great and interesting Lew Hoad.
I would definitely put Lew Hoad in my top 10-15 all time for pre-open greats.
Question for Dan Lobb and this is important. If Hoad won the tour against Gonzalez in 1959, why wasn't he invited to defend his "World Title" in 1960 which Gonzalez won over Rosewall, Segura and Olmedo?
My reasoning is if Hoad was considered to be World Champion wouldn't logic dictate that he be invited back to defend his World Title?
For the record Gonzalez was fabulous in 1960 in winning the tour with an exceptional 49-8 record, with Rosewall far behind at 32-25, Segura at 22-28 and Olmedo at 11-44.
Hoad pulled out of the 1960 world pro tour injured, didn't he? I believe Rosewall took Hoad's place on the tour, if I'm not mistaken? The Tournament of Champions was discontinued, and soon sponsors started to leave and the US Pro's finances in Cleveland and the French Pro's finances at Roland Garros, began to suffer.
General Opinion on Lew Hoad
My opinion on Lew Hoad is that he is one of the most gifted if not the most gifted player in the history of tennis. There was almost nothing he couldn't do. He obviously had huge power on serve, volley, backhand and forehand. He was very quick, great stamina and good touch. Was he a consistent player with few errors, apparently not but that goes with the style.
The man was the only person to defeat Gonzalez in a head to head tour when Gonzalez was in his prime, beating him by a close score of 15 to 13.
Many people have called Hoad the BOAT. Now I believe if you look at career accomplishments I cannot logically think that Hoad is anywhere close to being the BOAT for career accomplishments because he simply didn't play enough. He was done in by back injuries. I also see that he seemed to have a lot of losses that a player of his great abilities shouldn't have had.
So if Hoad cannot qualify as the BOAT for most career accomplishments you have to look at peak value. Some believe that Hoad had his best year in 1959 when he beat Gonzalez more times than Gonzalez defeated him on the tour. The thing is that he did have a lot of losses that year and he did lose some other tours played. Does it qualify as a super peak year? Certainly by record it doesn't look as impressive as some peak years of greats however the Old Pro Tour was an incredibly tough level of competition. It was filled with great players like Rosewall, Gonzalez, Trabert, Cooper, Segura, Sedgman, Anderson among others. So the key here is how powerful was the competition. Gonzalez to me was around his physical peak or perhaps slightly past so certainly that qualifies as an awesome foe as is Ken Rosewall. Trabert was certainly a very powerful opponent and Sedgman is perhaps up there with anyone. Is it a more impressive year than let's say Agassi in 1999? Perhaps. Is it more impressive than some of Sampras' great years? Maybe. Is it more impressive than some of Federer's great years? Who knows?
One negative is that Hoad didn't win Wembley, the US Pro or the French Pro in 1959.
I'll leave it up for discussion whether Hoad in 1959 qualifies as a super great year.
Another possibility for Hoad as BOAT is whether he was the greatest for a single individual match or series of matches. Now of course it is a matter of opinion but many people believe this to be true of Lew Hoad, by that I mean he was possibly the greatest ever for a single match or a series of matches.
I am of the opinion this could very well be possible that he was the greatest for a single match but you can also argue Gonzalez, Laver, Vines, Tilden, Ashe, Kovacs, Richard Norris Williams and several others. There are stories about Hoad on how he seemed to do nothing but hit winners off everything for a little while and was unstoppable. Vines himself was of the opinion Hoad could even do this at times against Don Budge and Vines thought Budge was the best player after World War I so that comment is pretty impressive.
Of all the players I've read about I believe Hoad is the most likely candidate for being the Best Ever for one individual match or series of matches. We can't prove it but he would be my best guess if I had to make a pick.
So perhaps that was the reason. Thanks Mustard.
There were, in fact, TWO official world pro championship tours in 1959, the four-man (which was not really a four-man, as Hoad and Gonzales played a disproportionate share of their matches against each other) American tour, and the Ampol world tournament tour of 14 events, in which all pros took part.
Because of contracts and money.
Ampol was a financial partner of Kramer, and could demand a world championship of its own based on major tournaments, and Kramer's traditional system of head to head series had acquired a momentum of its own, and was a contractual arrangement with Gonzales and Hoad carrying over from 1957.
So in 1958 and 1959, Ampol comes on board (as financial partner) and we get two world championships.
Yet Kramer ranked Hoad in fourth place for 1959.
The New York Times and London Times report in late 1959 about Kramer's attempts to sign Hoad for the 1960 season, and how Hoad responded that he had won ove $250,000 since turning pro, and wanted to spend more time with his family.
He TURNED IT DOWN, and Kramer had to ask Rosewall to fill Hoad's spot, with the result that the 1960 tour was a financial failure.
Hoad did not defend his 1959 Ampol championship because IT NO LONGER EXISTED. When Hoad semi-retired in Jan. 1960, Ampol apparently severed its relationship with the Kramer tour, and the Ampol series was not renewed.
Ampol came on board in 1957 when Hoad turned pro, and left in 1960 when Hoad pulled out of the tour.
Did either of the publications mention that Hoad was the World Champion?
That's also a puzzle because if the head to head against Gonzalez was for the World Title you would figure Kramer would rank Hoad number one but the rankings could have been just Kramer's opinions of how good the players were. What was the exact order of the top four? I assume Gonzalez was number one and I assume Rosewall was there among the four. Was it Sedgman in the top four?
Kramer was always frustrated with Hoad.
He tried to sign him to the pro tour in 1953, right after the Davis Cup, when Hoad had just turned 19!
He tried again in 1955 and 1956.
Kramer was not always informed of Hoad's back trouble, perhaps because it might undermine Hoad's bargaining power.
Kramer believed that Hoad tanked against himself and Segura on the 1957 European tour, that he "didn't give a damn" about beating the older players, and that Hoad was "never much interested in tennis".
I think that this explains the low ranking he gave, just after Hoad walked out on the 1960 tour, costing Kramer his partnership with Ampol and jeapardizing the pro tour.
Kramer's displeasure is understandable.
They mentioned that Hoad won the bonus money pool for the 1959 season for having the best record in the designated events.
The idea that the Ampol series was designed to determine the world number one is given by Anderson in the World Tennis article.
Unfortunately, all I have is the McCauley quote of the Anderson article,.
The order of finish on the Ampol tour is given by McCauley on p.97.
Hoad, Gonzales, Rosewall, Sedgman,Trabert, Anderson, Segura, Cooper.
This ranking reflects only the 14 Ampol tournaments.
The four-man American tour was for a separate world championship title, and not related to the Ampol tournament series. Gonzales was declared winner, with 47 overall wins, yet Hodgson claims that because Hoad defeated all three opponents, no winner could be declared.
So there were actually TWO world championships on the Kramer tour for 1959!
Thanks Dan for this and the previous post.
I would say that the 1959 4 man tour was not a full r.r. but yet a true 4 man tour. (sorry for this tautology)
pc1, Kramer ranked Gonzalez, Sedgman (why so high?), Rosewall, Hoad, Trabert, Segura, Cooper, Anderson.
If I recall correctly he ranked exactly the same for 1958!
Dan, at last a post where I can fully agree!
Dan, pc1 asked about the Kramer rankings.
Pc1 makes a valuable point, when he calls Hoad one of the best or maybe the best player for one match. Its hard to prove positively or negatively, because me and most people here haven't seen him play in his prime (except for short clips). Me and some here have seen performances of Laver, Borg, mostly on clay, Mac 1984, Sampras at Wim 1999, Federer USO 2004, Nadal RG 2008, which came close to perfection.
What we have about Hoad are sources by fellow players, like that of Gordon Forbes, who argues in similar lines as pc 1. Nevertheless we all here believe this statement. Over a year, there were clearly better years than that of Hoad in 1959, although it is given, that the competition was a high as possible. That Hoad never won Wembley, the most prestigious title of the pro tour, is a blemish on his record, more than his failure to win the classic Forest Hills major (he shares this with Borg). He had many tries at London, but never could overcome Rosewall there.
It is interesting, what may be the best way to constitute the best player, one match, one tournament, one series of hth matches or a tournment series? I would advocate the latter option, for the match i would probably nominate Hoad (or some others), for the hth series Gonzalez, for one tournament, it would depend on surfaces, clay Borg, Rosewall or Nadal, hard Federer or Laver, grass Sampras or Laver, for a tournament series across all surfaces probably Laver.
urban, I can agree totally.
For the one match GOAT, Hoad and Vines are strong contenders. Vines could extend that into tournaments and head-to-head tours better than Hoad, though.
Separate names with a comma.