Lew Hoad-A discussion on his career

Discussion in 'Former Pro Player Talk' started by pc1, Sep 17, 2012.

  1. BobbyOne

    BobbyOne Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2012
    Messages:
    7,773
    pc1,

    Your behaviour is not funny. Read your recent posts with all those insinuations and unfriendly words (I concede you never use insulting words).

    You are wrong: You and all other posters can disagree with me without getting me upset: if you and the others do it in a serious, not attacking way!

    You are wrong: I never said that Rosewall would be in front if he was of same age with Laver. I only claimed that the difference in age was a disadvantage for Muscles in most years. That's a fact.

    I did not fail to mention Gonzalez. He just was not in discussion. I'm aware that Gonzalez was extremely strong when being old (unlike to Laver, by the way). I respect his great wins in 1960. 1957 was a different case, as you know. By the way, Rosewall was 8:4 in 1959 against Pancho.

    I'm sure you cannot name more examples where I was "wrong".

    Anger is mostly bad but sometimes easily understood. By the way, I did not understand your anger against me in February (end of your friendship).

    Dan is wrong in his two main points (idee fixe): regarding Hoad the GOAT and regarding peak level as the key judging. I'm very surprised that a man of your analyzing capacity is supporting his wrong and ridiculous claims...

    You are wrong: Dan and I don't do the same thing. You know it because you have read his and my dozens of posts about that matter!!

    Dan often wrote that achievements and career stats are less important than peak level. He does NOT look at the achievements. Are you a jester?

    I don't think it's Rosewall. I believe it's Rosewall AND Laver plus Tilden and Gonzalez not far away.

    When did you give me an olive branch, you jester??? I wrote nice words recently but you answer with insinuations...

    You don't understand anything here: The discussion with Dan (and now also with yourself) is not over a simple disagreement on tennis. It's a matter of serious arguments vs. biased claims, and it's a matter of honesty vs. insinuations and wrong accusations!

    You almost never comment any of my serious arguments, and I know why: because you don't have serious contra-arguments. Therefore you blame me for my writing style (my harsh words) and for being courageous to critisize your behaviour and your kind of logic...
     
  2. BobbyOne

    BobbyOne Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2012
    Messages:
    7,773
    kiki, Do you know that photo where Ken's pro colleagues give him a cigar? Muscles looks a bit embarrassed when smoking it...
     
  3. BobbyOne

    BobbyOne Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2012
    Messages:
    7,773
    kiki, Thanks. I'm not the Bible, but I'm proud ( as you too are) of my knowledge about tennis which I want to give further to those (mostly younger) people who don't know that much about history.

    I don't think I'm dogmatic. I even hate dogmatic people and fundamentalists and sects.

    I think we all should be open to be taught from time to time because we all are not perfect (ask Billy Wilder)...
     
  4. kiki

    kiki Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2010
    Messages:
    18,714
    Cigar smoking was so common among top sportsmen in the 60´s and 70´s...remember Cruyff, for example? and there were a lot more.
     
  5. kiki

    kiki Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2010
    Messages:
    18,714
    That is the right focus.

    BTW, what is the real problem with islam in Austria ? is there a bigger problem than with eastern inmigrants?
     
  6. Dan L

    Dan L Professional

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2014
    Messages:
    1,087
    Bobby, let me be frank.

    I do not see your "serious" arguments.

    I have quoted great tennis experts like Max Robertson, Ken Rosewall, Rod

    Laver, Pancho Gonzales, Bob Bedard, Ramanathan Krishnan, Butch

    Buchholz, all of whom rate Hoad as "the greatest tennis player ever".

    You have simply avoided responding to these experts, and you strangely

    assume that they must have meant something else than what they said.

    That is not a serious response from you.
     
  7. Dan L

    Dan L Professional

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2014
    Messages:
    1,087
    Billy Wilder dedicated his films to God.
     
  8. President

    President Legend

    Joined:
    May 18, 2009
    Messages:
    6,998
    Location:
    Philadelphia
    Dan L, even if Lew Hoad has a higher level of play than any other player, the vast gap in accomplishments between him and players like Gonzales, Laver, and Rosewall must surely put him below them. Do you really believe that level of play should totally supersede everything else? You don't hear people today saying that Marat Safin or Marcelo Rios should be put above Agassi or Nadal, so why should it be the same with Hoad?
     
  9. pc1

    pc1 Legend

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2008
    Messages:
    9,403
    I think that to find out greatness in a player of course we look at level of play. However level of play is evidenced by accomplishments. Great levels of play are indicated by great accomplishments. It's consistently great levels of play that makes a great player. In that way I totally agree with Dan.
     
  10. NatF

    NatF G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    May 10, 2012
    Messages:
    13,774
    Location:
    On the road from would of to would have
    Great play is useless unless it manifests in the biggest tournaments - more specifically on finals day. This is where Hoad falls short.

    I find it hard to believe a player who won only a handful of majors had a higher general level of play than someone who won 4x as many big tournaments.
     
  11. kiki

    kiki Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2010
    Messages:
    18,714
    Greatest: Achievements
    Best: Peak Play
     
  12. BobbyOne

    BobbyOne Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2012
    Messages:
    7,773
    kiki, That photo was shot in 1957 already and Kenny looks a bit strange with a cigar because he looks rather like a male teenager than like a tennis pro..

    They say that mature ladies as spectators mothered him because he looked so young and was so small and "helpless" against the tall guys but while they did it the Little Master had already cut his strong opponent into discs...
     
  13. pc1

    pc1 Legend

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2008
    Messages:
    9,403
    I agree and I may add the old head to head tours also aside from big tournaments. If we look at great play on a numerical level, let's say there was an inconsistent play like Frank Kovacs who could burn red hot one day and just be out of it mentally the next day. We'll give Kovacs a 100 for his hot day and a 24 for his cold day. He wins 50% of those matches and averages 62. Not that good. A Jimmy Connors may be an 80 to 95 consistently and this shows in his great consistent level of play and his great accomplishments.

    It's not great play for one match I'm thinking of but a consistently great level of play. And of course the assumption is that the high level of play will be rewarded in great accomplishments. A few possible negatives however. There is always the scenario in which there is an all time great player overshadowed by an even greater all time player. In this situation the lesser player may not have the accomplishments he or she deserves in a normal historical situation. This has happened a few times in tennis history.
     
  14. BobbyOne

    BobbyOne Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2012
    Messages:
    7,773
    kiki, The Islam tends to spread around the world. Today terror group ISIS (Iraq and Syria) said they want to conquer back Spain... The fundamentalists want to have the gruelling Sharia everywhere...

    In Austria we have problems with both the Eastern immigrants (some are criminals) and the Muslims: We now have a discussion about the terrible Burka (just like in France). We have got some radical imams and about 50 radical ex-soldiers who have fought in Syria and who are a threat now in our country. The Germans and French have the same problem.
     
  15. BobbyOne

    BobbyOne Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2012
    Messages:
    7,773
    ...but Dan does not agree with you, if you and he are honest...
     
  16. BobbyOne

    BobbyOne Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2012
    Messages:
    7,773
    NatF, I agree. Calling him the greatest is absurd and bizarre.Of course we should consider Hoad's many injuries. Without them I dare to say that he could have accomplished about the same as Laver and Rosewall did.
     
  17. BobbyOne

    BobbyOne Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2012
    Messages:
    7,773
    kiki, Well said. Hope Dan will consider this distinction.
     
  18. kiki

    kiki Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2010
    Messages:
    18,714
    Connors, when asked if he had treated him cruelly after their Wimbledon match just answered that " I have seen people in the stands pitty Rosewall, then see him win in the fifth"

    He was right, and Newcombe and Smith suffered that great ability of him to play his best during the fifth set.

    And everybody should know by now that John Newcombe was called " Mr fifth set " for some reason
     
  19. BobbyOne

    BobbyOne Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2012
    Messages:
    7,773
    pc1, "Connors may be an 80 to 95 consistently and this shows in his great consistent level of play (...)": nice tautology...

    I agree with your second part.
     
  20. Dan L

    Dan L Professional

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2014
    Messages:
    1,087
    "Vast gap"?

    Where do you see this?

    And the comparison with Safin or Rios?

    No relation to this issue. Those guys were not on the same plane and did not win anywhere near the events that Hoad did.

    Sure, Gonzales won series over Segura, Sedgman, Trabert, Rosewall, Olmedo.

    But the five tours against Hoad were not favourable to Gonzales.

    Did you even know that?
     
  21. Dan L

    Dan L Professional

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2014
    Messages:
    1,087
    Again, you are accepting that the "World Pro Championship (incl. US Pro champs.)" in Cleveland was a "big" tournament.

    It was not. Not even close.

    Weak field, no official title. Not included in the Kramer championship series.

    Gonzales attempted twice to win the Australian Pro, and was beaten both times, by Sedgman and Trabert.

    The Australian Pro had a much stronger field, and was included in the championship series.

    Hoad had more legitimate major wins than Gonzales. I make it Gonzales 9 majors (including Davis/Kramer Cup), Hoad 12 major wins (including Davis/Kramer Cup).
    I give Gonzales the 1950 Philadelphia and 1951, 1952, 1956 Wembleys as majors. No majors after 1958.

    Here is their hth in majors (excluding the Cleveland US Pro and Australian Pro)

    1) 1957 Forest Hills, Gonzales won

    2) 1958 Kooyong, Hoad won

    3) 1958 Forest Hills, Hoad won

    4) 1958 Roland Garros, Hoad won

    5) 1959 Kooyong, Gonzales won

    6) 1959 Forest Hills, Hoad won

    7) 1961 Wembley, Hoad won

    eight) 1967 Wimbledon, Hoad won

    That is 6 to 2 for Hoad, a consistent record.

    Also, Hoad dominated their hth tours when not bothered by a bad back, taking a 19 to 8 lead on the 1958 tour, a 13 to 5 lead on the 1959 tour, and apparently winning the 1961 hth championship series.

    Did somebody say "inconsistent"?
     
    Last edited: Jul 10, 2014
  22. urban

    urban Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Apr 22, 2005
    Messages:
    4,371
    Now, Hoad contested both finals with Gonzalez at US pro in 1958 and 1959. Obviously he tried to win it. In 1958 he lost in five after leading 2 sets to nil, in 1959 he lost in 3 straight sets. The 1958 match is included by Steve Flink in his alltime matches list. I think, still the question has not found an answer, why Hoad lost all those finals, why he never won at least once the coveted Wembley tournament, despite competing and often coming close in all his peak and semi peak years. It seems that Hoad often took a lead, but could not finish the Job (also in his series with Gonzalez), and that he could not string some tough macthes in a row together. The fast surface and the draw format of 12 or 16 players at Cleveland or Wembley should have helped him. In his amateur days Hoad was big match player in Davis Cup Challenge Rounds and in Wimbledon finals, where he played his best tennis against Rosewall and Cooper. There is some discrepancy between his Amateur and pro Play here, a puzzle, which isn't simply solved, by declaring all these losses minor events.
     
    Last edited: Jul 10, 2014
  23. NatF

    NatF G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    May 10, 2012
    Messages:
    13,774
    Location:
    On the road from would of to would have
    How many of those wins were in finals?
     
  24. Dan L

    Dan L Professional

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2014
    Messages:
    1,087
    Urban, there was NO US Pro in 1958 or 1959, merely the "Cleveland World

    Professional Championship (incl. US pro champs.)"

    Not the same thing at all.

    The big pro tournaments were as listed above, with Hoad holding a

    comfortable 6 to 2 lifetime edge on Ganzales.

    On the pro tournament championship series for 1958-59, Hoad won 7

    tournaments, Gonzales won 5 tournaments.

    These were the important events for those two years.
     
  25. Dan L

    Dan L Professional

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2014
    Messages:
    1,087
    Finals?

    1958 Kooyong (decider)

    1959 Forest Hills

    Hoad winning both.
     
  26. pc1

    pc1 Legend

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2008
    Messages:
    9,403
    Level of Play

    A lot of very emotional (to be nice) comments have been made about Dan's assertion that Level of Play is the key factor in determining the greatness of a player. I agree with him of course. Now with level of play I mean consistently great level of play and the assumption is often that a super high level of play will give that great player many great accomplishments.

    Many of us of course use accomplishments of the player to analyze and judge the strength of a player for a peak period and career. We of course have to take into account the level of the competition that the player faced. We don't have a machine to measure the level of play in tennis like a timer in horse racing for example. The stats are our only option.

    The conclusion that the player with the most peak and lifetime accomplishments is the GOAT regarding highest level of play may be true and probably is but not necessarily. Sometimes just assuming the one with the greatest accomplishments is the greatest player is putting the horse before the cart.

    Let's give a hypothetical example. Let's say there are two weightlifters. One lifts 710 pounds all the time and the other lifts 700 pounds all the time. No one else in history has ever lifted over 550 pounds. However Mr. 710 and Mr. 700 lifted in the same years and in the same competitions most of the time. Well in this case Mr. 710 wins almost all the tournaments while Mr. 700 almost never wins anything unless he competes in a tournament Mr. 710 doesn't enter.

    Let's say the other great Mr. 550 wins all his competitions in the past. Mr. 550 is not even close to Mr. 700 in level of lifting but his accomplishments are FAR GREATER. Yet Mr. 700 is by far the better weightlifter and the second best of all time. If Mr. 700 competed in Mr. 550's time Mr. 700 wins everything.

    I'm not saying that we are all wrong about the greatest accomplishments being the best ever but I wanted to use that as an example how it's very possible the one who has the most accomplishments may NOT necessarily be the GOAT.

    It's just a theoretical example but I just wanted to bring it up.

    The other thing I would like to mention is that we have to analyze accomplishments relative to the times. A World Championship tour had great importance in the old days. The WCT Championships were of great importance in the 1970's. The World Hard Court was the top clay court major at one point. We cannot just go by number of majors alone because that severely penalizes past players. Conditions are far different today.
     
    Last edited: Jul 12, 2014
  27. BobbyOne

    BobbyOne Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2012
    Messages:
    7,773
    urban, excellent analysis.

    I fear Dan will never solve that puzzle or riddle. His main mistake seems to me his tendency to bend major and minor events according to his wishes.
    He belittles prestigious US Pro (which we can find in all serious books), Wembley ("both not organized by Kramer or not in the Kramer series" which fact says nothing about their importance!), the long four man series of 1958 (Perrier Cup) and 1959 (European Grand Prix, even organized by Kramer himself) and other events. And do you know the reason for that attitude? Because Hoad has LOST all those important events.

    Dan even omits totally the important Masters r.r. tournament at L.A. Again: because Hoad played terribly the first two years in 1957 and 1958 when he lost all twelve matches he played (!!!) and finished only second in 1959 (lost to Gonzalez). A consistent player?

    On the other hand he pumps up some events that were not really big tournaments: Australian Pro 1958 had only six players (albeit tough ones) to show that Gonzalez did not win that biggie (even though he lost in five sets whereas Hoad lost in three, both in SFs), Kooyong which was just a very good tournament, equal with other Aussie tournaments like Brisbane and Sydney. Why? Because Lew ain twice at Kooyong...

    Dan mentions wins of his idol against Pancho G. at Forest Hills 1958, French Pro 1958 and Wembley 1961 but does not tell that Hoad lost all these three majors.

    I doubt that Hoad had the edge against Gonzalez in the 1961 World Series. They played only a few matches because Lew got injured soon.

    Dan's claim that Hoad won more majors than Gonzalez is of course wrong.
     
  28. BobbyOne

    BobbyOne Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2012
    Messages:
    7,773
    NO US Pro but an US Pro Champs. ???? Please explain us that interesting enigma!
     
  29. BobbyOne

    BobbyOne Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2012
    Messages:
    7,773
    pc1, You are a tough enigma for me: First you say Dan is "of course" right in considering peak level (edit: "level of play") as the main measure. But second you write many sentences where you focus on achievements and only analyse (correctly, but maybe it could be shorter explained) that we must consider the different times, different events and different competition to value the greatest players. Of course a true expert will not count only numbers as the Federer fans and some others do now. Of course we need a proper and intelligent examination of tennis history, as you, I and many others here are trying since years (pro majors included, pro majors bigger than amateur majors, weak or strong era etc).

    It's not clear in your recent posts what is more important in judgement: Peak level (or playing level generally) OR achievements!!! There is a self-contradiction as you claim both categories!

    In any case you are ill-adviced to follow a troll with his bizarre "only peak level" claim....
     
    Last edited: Jul 11, 2014
  30. borg number one

    borg number one Legend

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2007
    Messages:
    7,640
    Location:
    Houston, Texas
    This is very on point as to level of play and accomplishments. Great post PC1. It is appropriate to consider both total accomplishments and also level of play when assessing a player's greatness. Your hypothetical is interesting to consider and illustrative. Also, one must acknowledge that different eras had different priorities and special challenges. How would today's players handle no sitting down on breaks and 15 seconds between points with much heavier frames and leather grips and paper thin shoes?

    Let me posit another example. Suppose one player has 10 Australian Opens and 6 U.S. Open titles. Meanwhile, another player has 6 Wimbledon titles and 10 French Open titles. They both have 20 majors and say 6 years at year end #1. Suppose they never played one another. Even there, with seemingly "equal" accomplishments, subjectivity enters the analysis. Which majors are more important? Tougher competition? Surface versatility? Better game/serve/strokes/fitness/mental toughness? Hypo match ups across surfaces? So, this tends to happen when accomplishments are roughly equal, yet also when accomplishments are not "equal". It should in my opinion.

    It's important to assess accomplishments, yet also sustained, consistent high level of play. High level of play tends to translate into dominance, relative to both peers and also relative to other greats. With different eras, and even different years, the competition and conditions vary. Every year, you have a different composition in terms of who the top players are and how well they are playing. Assessing accomplishments necessarily involves subjectivity, just as it does when trying to determine a player's level of play. Look at any "objective criterion" you can use to rank a player and you'll find subjectivity quickly introduced. So, you should always consider level of play and accomplishments, while not completely ignoring either side of the equation.
     
    Last edited: Jul 11, 2014
  31. pc1

    pc1 Legend

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2008
    Messages:
    9,403
    Essentially that's it. Very clear and concise.
     
    Last edited: Jul 11, 2014
  32. Dan L

    Dan L Professional

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2014
    Messages:
    1,087
    No, not an excellent analysis, as I pointed out above. No puzzle or riddle, except why you decide to cling to a failed argument.

    The Cleveland World Pro Championship was not prestigious, except in someone's dreams. It was not even labelled "US PRO", but the "World Pro". Some joke.

    The Perrier and Europe Grand Prix were not championship tours, agreed by all.

    Wrong about L.A. Masters, which was included in the 1958 and 1959 series.

    Where did you get that idea?

    Kooyong Pro had special PRESTIGE as the historic centre of Australian

    tennis, which it still is today, like Forest Hills and Roland Garros, although

    not more POINTS than Brisbane or Sydney in the 1958 or 1959 tournament

    series.

    Hoad had a positive hth in prestige events against Gonzales of 6 to 2.

    Everyone acknowledged that Hoad/Gonzales was the premier match-up in

    pro tennis 1957-61.

    Mulloy appears to indicate that Hoad had a positive hth against Gonzales on

    the 1961 championship tour.

    You have some odd theories, Bobby, which appear wrong, for sure.
     
  33. Dan L

    Dan L Professional

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2014
    Messages:
    1,087
    Get the full title in, Bobby.

    "World Professional Tennis Championship (incl. US Pro Champs.)" is not the "US PRO".

    The USPLTA did not sanction or give permission for the Cleveland event to be the "U.S. Professional Tennis Championship" so another moniker was adopted.

    See that? A different title description.

    Kramer applied in 1959 to the USPLTA to have the vacant "U. S. Pro" designation applied to the Forest Hills Pro event, which was granted, and put into force in 1963.
     
    Last edited: Jul 11, 2014
  34. Dan L

    Dan L Professional

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2014
    Messages:
    1,087
    Bobby, not "peak level" but "level of play".

    And, yes, it is important to draw a distinction between major and minor

    events, which you desperately avoid doing.

    Perhaps the best way to compare two players is their hth won/lost in major tournament meetings, where Hoad had a 6-2 edge on Gonzales over the period 1957 to 1967.
     
    Last edited: Jul 11, 2014
  35. BobbyOne

    BobbyOne Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2012
    Messages:
    7,773
    borg number one, As you support your buddy pc1, I must congratulate you for understanding his enigma statements (even though you are almost as enigmatic as him). Maybe my IQ is not high enough to understand pc1's reasoning. I envy you for seeing clearer than I can see.

    I still claim that judging level of play is more subjective than studying and intelligently interpreting achievements, results and records (even though I'm aware that some things must be considered when examining achievements as pc1 and you rightly write).

    There is a tough match Hoad vs. Gonzalez, both players playing extremely well. I guarantee you: one spectator or even tennis expert will say Hoad is the stronger player and another expert will say Gonzalez is stronger. The result of that match does not matter too much because even if, say Gonzalez loses that match his admirer will say "but a week ago Pancho beat Lew", and vice versa.

    One expert says Hoad is the greatest for one match, the other will claim Gonzalez is stronger for a whole year, just another will say Laver (or Borg or Federer and so on) is stronger for a whole career....

    Even a true expert like Bud Collins has difficulties to decide if Hoad or Gonzalez (or Laver?) was the strongest he has watched.

    We can see that Dan L writes since Adam and Eve that Hoad had the highest level of play whilst urban is doubting this as he (rightly, by the way) writes that Hoad lost so many important finals. I find urban's approach more reasonable than Dan's, pc1's and your's because he refers to facts instead of opinions.

    However, I'm at least convinced that my IQ is high enough to realize that Dan is (often) a troll in his claims and manipulated stats.

    My advice for pc1 and you: don't follow trolls even if they are friendly people!
     
  36. BobbyOne

    BobbyOne Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2012
    Messages:
    7,773
    Dan, Okay, "level of play". But in one match or one tournament od one year or a whole career?

    Of course there is a distinction between major and minor events, but the problem is you often change them...

    The hth in majors is an important criterion but not the main one. Nadal leads against Federer but is he the greater player (as of now)??
     
  37. urban

    urban Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Apr 22, 2005
    Messages:
    4,371
    First. We all are no youngsters anymore and we all need no advice nor teaching lessons. This style is boring and unnerving. Dan knows his Tennis history, he is of course biased, but that we all are more or less. He is right that some experts declare Hoad the best or greatest, including Robertson or Richard Evans, and they make no caveat, at his best peak or so. Nevertheless it is difficult for me, to follow them, because i haven't seen a full match of Hoad in this period, nor one of Gonzalez. But who can really say he has seen those on the pro tours? Both Gonzalez and Hoad have a disadvantage and at the same time an advantage, that nobody has seen those matches. I say advantage because through oral transmission things often get bigger than they were.
    I have studied clips of Hoad, however, and indeed from all the players of the 50s he had to my eyes the most complete game, with a strong serve, very short backswings, early taken returns, combining power and speed. Standing out was to me his forehand volley, again with a short backswing, the second volley was hit very near to the net (like Newcombe's) and looked deadly.
    The problem remains, why Hoad never won those finals, and why he never was clearcut pro champion. Germany won 7-1 in the WC semis, but if they lose the final, its not much worth. Even in Dan's own (selective) stats, Hoad has won only twice in these events, and lost all others despite beating Gonzalez.
    To show an indication, how dominant the pro Champions really were i will try over the next week to count their per year percentages in the 50s and 60s, excluding the World Series for a while, because those hth series will certainly lower the percentages (one can add them if one wants to). I have the McCauley results, and hope i get some help here, Andrew Tas gave his sometimes more complete numbers for Laver and Rosewall, i have lost those numbers i must say, but i think Hoodjem and pc 1 have written them down.
     
    Last edited: Jul 12, 2014
  38. BobbyOne

    BobbyOne Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2012
    Messages:
    7,773
    urban, I must contradict: First: I don't think to be biased. Second: I believe that there are some posters and experts who are not biased: Bud Collins, Krosero, borg number one (maybe a bit regarding his idol) and others.

    Third: Our damned world will not become a better world if we are not ready to learn from others and to be taught by them!!! I was always ready to learn from others: Joe McCauley, Ray Bowers, pc1 and so on.

    Fourth: Dan behaves like a child. Everybody can see his bias. Everybody can see (as I wrote in my recent post to you) that he is manipulating even clear stats. Everyone can see he sometimes is a troll (like TMF, SoBad and others).
    I don't understand why I'm not entitled to say the truth and to call a troll a troll. If we "agree" with Dan he never will be ready to learn and to think his wrong claims over!!!

    Fifth: If one is an expert in a field he/she is entitled to teach other people, especially if these use troll arguments.

    Of course there is no single expert who claims that Hoad is the GOAT regarding achievements.

    I appreciate your efforts regarding the old pros and their percentages.
     
    Last edited: Jul 12, 2014
  39. Dan L

    Dan L Professional

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2014
    Messages:
    1,087
    I admit that it is difficult in the old pro tour to identify major/minor events.

    I choose the venues of the major titles, Kooyong, Forest Hills, Roland Garros, Wimbledon, plus Wembley or Philadelphia in SOME years.
     
  40. Dan L

    Dan L Professional

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2014
    Messages:
    1,087
    But Gonzales won, by my reckoning, fewer majors than Hoad, 12 for Hoad (including Davis/Kramer Cup), 9 for Gonzales.

    You should distinguish hth tour results from tournament series. Different formats and different tours.
     
    Last edited: Jul 12, 2014
  41. Dan L

    Dan L Professional

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2014
    Messages:
    1,087
    Bobby, learn from Max Robertson, Richard Evans, Ken Rosewall, Rod Laver, Pancho Gonzales.

    These guys are miles ahead of your idols. These ARE real experts.

    Awake!
     
  42. Dan L

    Dan L Professional

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2014
    Messages:
    1,087
    Welcome to the 55,000+ viewers of this thread.....the best thread.
     
  43. NatF

    NatF G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    May 10, 2012
    Messages:
    13,774
    Location:
    On the road from would of to would have
    Did Hoad have any good results in the Open Era?
     
  44. kiki

    kiki Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2010
    Messages:
    18,714
    He was spent when open tennis arrived.
     
  45. NatF

    NatF G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    May 10, 2012
    Messages:
    13,774
    Location:
    On the road from would of to would have
    I thought he might have had a couple of good wins.
     
  46. kiki

    kiki Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2010
    Messages:
    18,714
    Hoad didn´t play top tennis by 1967 although he may show up here and there.
     
  47. NatF

    NatF G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    May 10, 2012
    Messages:
    13,774
    Location:
    On the road from would of to would have
    I recall he had an epic match at the Wimbledon Pro 1967 with Gonzalez? His last great match?
     
  48. pc1

    pc1 Legend

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2008
    Messages:
    9,403
    And don't forget who started the thread. lol.
     
  49. Dan L

    Dan L Professional

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2014
    Messages:
    1,087
    1968 runner-up to Okker at Irish Open

    1969 champion at Port Talbot (beating Cox and Hewitt)

    1970 Italian, beat Orantes 6-2 in fifth set

    1970 French Open, beat Pasarell 6-4, 3-6, 6-4, 6-4
     
  50. Dan L

    Dan L Professional

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2014
    Messages:
    1,087
    Thanks, PC1!
     

Share This Page