Discussion in 'Former Pro Player Talk' started by pc1, Sep 17, 2012.
Shame we can't watch the full matches. Would be a treat.
Kramer was concerned that televising these matches would hurt ticket sales.
Actually, I think that television would have increased the ticket sales, especially at Forest Hills.
Yes, televising would have increased interest and audience, and thus eventually would have increased ticket sales.
I think that not televising Pro tennis was probably the biggest error Kramer made. The audience would have eventually demanded Open Tennis.
The Wimbledon Pro in 67 was televised surely? Surprised there are not any videos of that around.
There are..check the doubles final on YTube, also a brief look at the singles final.
The Hoad/Gonzales masterpiece from Wimbledon '67 should also exist, I tried to get it in the late 70's, but the BBC guy I contacted warned me that it would be illegal for me to get a copy.
It must still exist.
Wimbledon should try to make a DVD of all the matches at the Wimbledon Pro in 1967. It's historic.
That Wimbledon Pro was the first colour broadcast in Europe so it has huge historical relevance beyond tennis.
Interesting, and the first national colour broadcast by NBC of anything was the 1955 Davis Cup final match between Hoad and Trabert, which drew 10 million viewers, the first mass TV audience for tennis.
I would nominate this behind-the-back half-volley of Hoad in the 1954 U.S. Doubles final as the greatest ever reflex shot.
In that same 1957 Forest Hills tournament, here is Hoad's first match, against Sedgman, who would nearly win this event.
Notice how fast Hoad's foot-work is, and the speed around court...far above Sampras or most recent champions.
A little bit of Gonzalez versus Hoad here.
There was no pro tour in 1962, but there was a poll taken by UPI of 85 U.S. sports editors to determine the top player for 1962, and here are the results, reported on Jan.30, 1963.
1) Hoad 74%
2) Laver 72%
3) Rosewall 55%
4) Segura 43%
5) Olmedo 28%
Check the link,
I'm amazed Segura was so well respected considering his age.
Its a bit curious, how this poll worked, Who were these sports Editors, what knew they about the pro circuit, what basis they had? Maybe they took the first month of 1963, when Laver was clobbered by Hoad and Rosewall. In reality, Rosewall was the clear pro king at that time, although there was indeed not much of a pro circuit in 1962. Better, don't show this poll to certain former posters here.
Of course, he would be infuriated but it's simply a poll and indicates how Hoad and Laver were more impressive in the eyes of the fan than Rosewall was. Clearly Rosewall was the best player in 1963 although it's possible that Laver overtook him in actual strength by the end of the year. What people don't realize about the Laver/Rosewall head to head was that Rosewall was ahead on their tour by a huge margin of 34 to 12 and yet Laver finished clearly ahead in their overall meetings. To me that means that once Laver reached his prime Rosewall couldn't match him. Yes I know Rosewall was four years older to be fair.
My guess would be that it was a simple "best player in the world" rather than who had the best year, so it took into account previous years. Like how you could say Laver was still the "best player in the world" in 70/71 or McEnroe in 82/85.
No one really knew what was going on in the Pro Tour in those days so asking that question would have a lot of people remembering for example how great Hoad was in the amateurs and how Laver on the Grand Slam that year. So in that way I can understand the results of the poll.
Good question, but we cannot assume that sports editors did not read what was published about the tennis events of 1962.
There was no official tour in 1962, the closest thing being the Facis tour of Italy, which Hoad won against a full field of pros.
Hoad also won two significant matches over Rosewall, a tournament final at Adelaide, and the final of a TV tournament on Australian Broadcasting Corporation.
Rosewall won major tournaments at Kooyong, Roland Garros, and Wembley.
I think the editors also considered the January 1963 results, in which Laver lost the biggest match at Kooyong to Hoad, and beat Rosewall on the same court the following day.
The Kooyong results could explain this rating.
Dan, you're right that we can't assume that and we should HOPE that Sports Editors should know but we also know that many of the current sports media are woefully unaware of the game's past, especially the Old Pro Tour.
Olmedo was apparently ranked ahead of Gimeno, presumably because Olmedo led South America to the Kramer Cup final.
Hoad worked on his conditioning in Novermber and December, and had great results in the Kramer Cup against Gimeno and Olmedo.
I think that the UPI poll took consideration of the Australian tour in January 1963, in particular the matches at Kooyong and Adelaide.
At Kooyong, Hoad df. Laver 6-4, 6-2, 3-6, 2-6, 6-3
and Laver df. Rosewall 6-3, 3-6, 7-5, 6-2
At Adelaide, Hoad df. Laver 6-4, 6-3, 9-11, 4-6, 6-2
and Laver df. Rosewall 6-1, 6-2, 6-2.
These were the two five-set series in the tour, and appeared to vindicate the UPI standings.
It would appear that the UPI sports editors considered the Australian tour as a year-end type of event for 1962, and allowed a comparison of the top amateur and pros of 1962.
Okay but logically they should have picked Rosewall since they are evaluating the entire year of 1962. Why am I thinking a former poster here is still upset by the results of this poll?
There was no pro tour in 1962..the closest thing being the Italian Facis Tour won by Hoad, so the results of 1962 are unclear.
However, there was great anticipation for the 1963 Australian tour, featuring Laver, the grand slam winner. Those results appear to have influenced the UPI poll of sports editors.
I suspect that the former poster would be magnanimous and acknowledge the strength of the data shown above.
Remember, it was Rosewall himself who stated, in a 2010 interview, "...and the greatest player of all was my [friend] Lew Hoad."
Yes Dan, I suspect he would be very magnanimous.
You are right, it had to be a general idea of who was the greatest player around, because the 1962 year was a fallow year in pro tennis.
Hoad did not really get wound up and into shape until October, when Laver agreed to turn pro, and the Kramer Cup was in play. Hoad made mincemeat of Gimeno and Haillet on red clay at Turin, and clobbered Olmedo in the Kramer Cup final on grass at Adelaide in December.
The question is , WHY did UPI wait until late January 1963 to do a poll of sports editors for the best player of 1962?
Presumably because of the Australian pro tour, which gave a chance to compare Laver with Hoad and Rosewall.
This makes sense.
Now, wasn´t Olmedo a nightmare for Lew Hoad in the early 60´s? I maybe wrong but I recall some comments like that.Olmedo: the man Hoad can´t beat.
The results in McCauley do not support that, Hoad won their first meeting in 1959, and really demolished Olmedo in the 1962 Kramer Cup final.
They toured in 1961, but who knows the results.
I can see that.
It has further logic in that the 1963 pro championship tour began AFTER the Australian and NZ tours in January.
These early tours were like a book-end for the previous year.
And Hoad was injured and unable to play until months later.
What was Hoad's injury Dan?
Hoad injured his serving shoulder while beating Laver 8 to 0 (or 14 to 0) on the 1963 Australian tour.
He took several months off to heal.
Hoad skipped the New Zealand tour with the injury, and returned to action in early June.
Very important to know. Thank you.
Hoad returned to action on June 12, at Los Angeles, where he lost in straight sets to Laver.
Hoad continued to lose to Laver until Nottingham, where he beat Laver on July 15, by scores of 5-7, 7-5, 6-4.
Also, at Scarborough where Hoad beat Laver on August 30, by scores of 3-6, 6-1, 6-0. Obviously, Hoad had recovered his form by the end of August.
The pro series of the 40´s and 50´seem like they were more or less full non official, exhibitionals but players took ´em very seriously.Like Golden Era players did in regards of Golden Era traditional invitationals.
You're far off. By that logic you can say the Pepsi was an exhibition. They were serious matches. It was the way the game was set up but the pro played their best in these matches. Laver learned a lot from that in giving his full effort every match. It's very clearly stated in Laver's last autobiography that the pros tried their hardest in the matches. They were official matches.
It appears that the UPI poll of 85 sports editors in January 1963 took the early Australian series as determinative of the top ranking.
I clearly mentioned their importance.And seriousness.Now that you mention Pepsi, yes, the top 10 exos of that time were hard fought and had a lot of prestige and tradition.Not one night stands...
I think we're having a problem with definitions here. To me an exos is an exhibition and to me an exhibition is not a real competing tournament. From what I gather you are calling them legit competitions and I agree.
That is why I separated one night stands and what I call tradition rich unofficial events.
Here is a look at the Hoad/Darmon match which opened Wimbledon in 1957...Darmon would later be runner-up at Roland Garros to Emerson.
Separate names with a comma.