Mathematical Goat - A respectful attempt... please read on.

Discussion in 'Former Pro Player Talk' started by Nathaniel_Near, Aug 27, 2012.

  1. Nathaniel_Near

    Nathaniel_Near Talk Tennis Guru

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2009
    Messages:
    25,598
    Location:
    Relax folks, ...
    MTF forum member allows members to come up with a points distribution to determine the greatest of all time.

    Some correct info is lacking in terms of wins, such as Rosewall's 71 and 72 WCT finals wins, but it's interesting anyway.


    Some Spanish dude called Cevi, went to these efforts.

    ''Make your own Top-10 Greatest Tennis Player All Time.

    Put the points you deems appropriate in each category and I will make for you a graphic with your 10 best players of all time...(based on your rating)

    Fill out this tab. (replace X by the points you think are just appropriate)

    OPEN ERA
    Gran Slam
    Champion: X
    Runner up: X

    2 GS diferents: X
    3 GS diferents: X
    4 GS diferents: X
    4 Gs one year: X

    AMATEUR ERA: Gran Slam
    Champion: X
    Runner up: X

    MASTER1000
    Champion: X
    Runner up: X

    GRAN PRIX CHAMPIONSHIP: (tournamentes before MS)
    Champion: X
    Runner up: X

    PROFESSIONAL ERA:
    Pro Slam -
    Champion: X
    Runner up: X

    COPA DAVIS:
    Champion: X

    OLIMPICS:
    Gold. X
    Silver: X
    Bronze: X

    MASTERS CUP:
    Champion: X
    Runner up: X

    FOR WEEKS Nº 1: X
    FOR YEARS ENDED N°1: X

    REST OF TOURNAMENTS: X''

    ***


    People chimed in with their thoughts and then Cevi would create the table of results.
     
    #1
  2. Nathaniel_Near

    Nathaniel_Near Talk Tennis Guru

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2009
    Messages:
    25,598
    Location:
    Relax folks, ...
    OPEN ERA
    Gran Slam
    Champion: 250
    Runner up: 80

    2 GS diferents: 50
    3 GS diferents: 100
    4 GS diferents: 300
    4 Gs one year: 400

    AMATEUR ERA: Gran Slam
    Champion: 150
    Runner up: 60

    MASTER1000
    Champion: 60
    Runner up: 25

    GRAN PRIX CHAMPIONSHIP: (tournamentes before MS)
    Champion: 40
    Runner up: 20

    PROFESSIONAL ERA:
    Pro Slams
    Champion: 90
    Runner up: 30

    COPA DAVIS:
    Champion: 60

    OLIMPICS:
    Gold. 90
    Silver: 50
    Bronze: 30

    MASTERS CUP:
    Champion: 90
    Runner up: 25

    FOR WEEKS Nº 1: 1
    FOR YEARS ENDED N°1: 10

    REST OF TOURNAMENTS: 5

    ---------- RESULT----------------------

    [​IMG]

    NOW DO YOURS..
    ***




    Without copying and pasting every single points distribution, here are further tables of results:

    [​IMG]

    [​IMG]

    My eventual result ...
    [​IMG]
     
    Last edited: Aug 27, 2012
    #2
  3. pc1

    pc1 G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2008
    Messages:
    11,341
    Location:
    Anywhere I can't be found.
    No Pancho Gonzalez, no Bill Tilden and others therefore major flaws. Also who sets the numbers? Not all the info is used for all players.

    Not a bad try but I like others better.
     
    #3
  4. Nathaniel_Near

    Nathaniel_Near Talk Tennis Guru

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2009
    Messages:
    25,598
    Location:
    Relax folks, ...
    #4
  5. Nathaniel_Near

    Nathaniel_Near Talk Tennis Guru

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2009
    Messages:
    25,598
    Location:
    Relax folks, ...
    #5
  6. Nathaniel_Near

    Nathaniel_Near Talk Tennis Guru

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2009
    Messages:
    25,598
    Location:
    Relax folks, ...
    #6
  7. Nathaniel_Near

    Nathaniel_Near Talk Tennis Guru

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2009
    Messages:
    25,598
    Location:
    Relax folks, ...
    I think they do appear in some lists, and I agree entirely. But I thought people would find this interesting anyway. Surprisingly, the guy who put it together is just 24. He admits he may not have all the info, and wants help in having a more reliable and accurate set of results and achievements.


    Players from older generations are particularly hurt, and only Laver and to some extent Rosewall get something which begins to approach their full due. But as you can see, none of Borg's non ATP tour titles are included, same for other players who played in the WCT era. Both of Ken's 71 and 72 WCT Finals wins aren't included, and so on, and so on, and so on. EVEN SO, I think it's a nice effort and it's a shame this forum member over at MTF doesn't post here, because surely if he posted his attempt in this forum, he would be inundated with information and knowledge which would help inform his database. It's nice how they went to the effort of producing tables for everyone - I'm not sure how much effort that takes, or if he coded such a system himself.
     
    #7
  8. Limpinhitter

    Limpinhitter G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2010
    Messages:
    10,424
    The value of such a comparison depends greatly on the weight you give to the various titles throughout history. I don't know what method, if any, you used to decided how many points to assign to these different titles, or if it was just a random subjective opinion. But, for example, assigning an open era major title 250 points and a pro major title 90 points seems to assign an excessive discount to pro major titles compared to open major titles, IMO. Olympic titles are given the same weight as pro major titles. That, alone, puts the value of this exercise in serious doubt. Olympic tennis is at it's highest value now, and even so, the ATP assigns 750 pts. for an Olympic title, which is less than the masters events, much less the majors.
     
    Last edited: Aug 27, 2012
    #8
  9. Nathaniel_Near

    Nathaniel_Near Talk Tennis Guru

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2009
    Messages:
    25,598
    Location:
    Relax folks, ...
    Well, I had problems with assigning points to things, and I didn't spend a particularly long time thinking about it, but it was immediately apparent that an obvious problem in just assigning a blanket figure to a category doesn't aco**** for the changes in weight of various achievements over time.


    Here is my current points distribution, which lead to the results in table no.4

    ''Originally Posted by MatchFederer
    I am changing this due to misunderstanding the AM Pro part, where I was assigning scores based on when the tour split and you had slightly weakened fields existing concurrently. It isn't a perfect and malleable solution because then, for example, Laver gets overly rewarded for winning the 62 Slam in the absence of Rosewall AND Gonzales, who were playing on the Pro tour.

    Make your own Top-10 Greatest Tennis Player All Time.

    Put the points you deems appropriate in each category and I will make for you a graphic with your 10 best players of all time...(based on your rating)

    Fill out this tab.[/b] (replace X by the points you think are just appropriate)

    OPEN ERA
    Gran Slam
    Champion: 100
    Runner up: 50

    2 GS diferents: 50
    3 GS diferents: 100
    4 GS diferents: 200
    4 Gs one year: 500

    AMATEUR ERA: Gran Slam
    Champion: 80
    Runner up: 40

    MASTER1000
    Champion: 25
    Runner up: 15

    GRAN PRIX CHAMPIONSHIP: (tournamentes before MS)
    Champion: 25
    Runner up: 15

    PROFESSIONAL ERA:
    Pro Slam -
    Champion: 80
    Runner up: 40

    COPA DAVIS:
    Champion: 25

    OLIMPICS:
    Gold. 25
    Silver: 15
    Bronze: 10

    MASTERS CUP:
    Champion: 50
    Runner up: 25

    *i have taken out the weeks as no.1 stat*

    FOR YEARS ENDED N°1: 100

    REST OF TOURNAMENTS: any other lower level tournament victory: 5''
     
    #9
  10. Limpinhitter

    Limpinhitter G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2010
    Messages:
    10,424
    Why not use the current ATP points system and make an informed judgment about the points pre-ATP and non-ATP events should be assigned by the strength of the event? That would seem more reasonable than a random assignment of points based on subjective opinion that can change from day to day.
     
    #10
  11. Nathaniel_Near

    Nathaniel_Near Talk Tennis Guru

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2009
    Messages:
    25,598
    Location:
    Relax folks, ...
    It would do, but doesn't fit in with his system. It would be nice to take the time in a respectful forum to deduce a fair weighting for all these events in every single year of tennis tours. Currently his system is to assign whatever number is chosen, to EVERY Amateur, Pro and Open Era Major in 'name' rather than in 'weight'.

    It goes almost without saying that your proposed idea is superior to the current model which is exhibited in this thread. BTW, it would seem that no non ATP events, other than majors, have been included in Cevi's database of results for the period that it was running alongside the WCT. Also, other tournaments are all counted as X according to the system, and yet many of those non major titles would indeed be the equivalent of a Masters 1000 rather than just 'any other tournament', or indeed more still.
     
    #11
  12. TMF

    TMF Talk Tennis Guru

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2009
    Messages:
    22,006
    I don't agree with having Davis Cup because it's a team effort. A player has DC title doesn't necessary means he has a better result(win/loss record) than a titleless player.

    And one poster had the Master Series value at 10 while the pro majors at 75 and amateur slam at 60. That's ridiculous.
     
    #12
  13. hoodjem

    hoodjem G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2007
    Messages:
    13,283
    Location:
    Bierlandt
    Hmm, I wonder why?.

    Let's see, which player has never been on a winning Davis Cup team?

    Nadal? no.
    Sampras? no.
    McEnroe? no.
    Borg? no.
    Laver? no.
    Lendl? no.
    Connors? no.
    Agassi? no.

    Rosewall? yes.
    Aha! TMF is a Rosewall-****. Plain as day!

    AHA!!! That's what TMF stands for--Triumphant Muscles Forever.
     
    Last edited: Aug 27, 2012
    #13
  14. hoodjem

    hoodjem G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2007
    Messages:
    13,283
    Location:
    Bierlandt
    BTW, one should make a gold medal in Olympic doubles worth at least 500 points.

    Not having it listed--that's ridiculous.
     
    #14
  15. Nathaniel_Near

    Nathaniel_Near Talk Tennis Guru

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2009
    Messages:
    25,598
    Location:
    Relax folks, ...
    Roger Federer, the greatest being who ever existed in the multiverse. That Olympic Doubles gold is worth at least 10000 points.
     
    #15
  16. hoodjem

    hoodjem G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2007
    Messages:
    13,283
    Location:
    Bierlandt
    Damn! Great idea! Brilliant!

    (Why didn't I think of that.)
     
    #16
  17. urban

    urban Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Apr 22, 2005
    Messages:
    4,546
    Maybe i don't understand the irony properly. But Rosewall was in the Davis Cup winning team 1953, 55 and 56, playing all singles in the Challenge Round, and was in the 1973 winning team.
     
    #17
  18. TMF

    TMF Talk Tennis Guru

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2009
    Messages:
    22,006
    Nope. No one in their right mind would include double.
     
    #18
  19. Nathaniel_Near

    Nathaniel_Near Talk Tennis Guru

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2009
    Messages:
    25,598
    Location:
    Relax folks, ...
    My new quoted signature doesn't include anything directly pertaining to the DC, so it still stands. ;)
     
    #19
  20. hoodjem

    hoodjem G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2007
    Messages:
    13,283
    Location:
    Bierlandt
    Ooops! I guess whoever made out the charts listed above was unaware of these facts.
     
    #20
  21. hoodjem

    hoodjem G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2007
    Messages:
    13,283
    Location:
    Bierlandt
    Irony? What irony?







    :wink:
     
    #21
  22. TMF

    TMF Talk Tennis Guru

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2009
    Messages:
    22,006
    Again, it's a team sport, not an individual achievement. If we want to include DC as another criteria, then the only objective observation is the win/loss record. But this will only complicated the system we have right now. So let's leave it out.
     
    #22
  23. BobbyOne

    BobbyOne Legend

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2012
    Messages:
    9,424
    I cannot accept that the amateur GS winners get (much) more points than the pro GS winners.
     
    #23
  24. BobbyOne

    BobbyOne Legend

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2012
    Messages:
    9,424
    I agree totally.
     
    #24
  25. BobbyOne

    BobbyOne Legend

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2012
    Messages:
    9,424
    Rosewall has one of the best Davis Cup balances. He stands 17: 2 in singles competition.
     
    #25
  26. Limpinhitter

    Limpinhitter G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2010
    Messages:
    10,424
    Irony noun: The profession of hot iron laundry finishing.
     
    #26
  27. Limpinhitter

    Limpinhitter G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2010
    Messages:
    10,424
    Here's what I wrote in the "top 10" thread that I think Nat Near should consider when re-assessing the appropriate points to be assigned to the various open and pre open events.

     
    #27
  28. urban

    urban Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Apr 22, 2005
    Messages:
    4,546
    Agree with those objections and reflections. Now, i give credit to those attempts, and i think, those above include more aspects than most of those lists, which almost always only count majors. But the systematic problem is, that it starts with the current calendar, which has a fix structure with Majors, Masters, YEC, Olympics, normal events, DC, and uses it as parameter. But this structure dates back imo only to 1983 or so, when the ATP began to take over as the most influential promoting group, and along with the ITF arranged a firmer 4 majors structure as cornerstones over the season. And even since then some lucrative and important events like the Grand Slam Cup or the Antwerp Golden racket fall under the table. The players before this time frame (around 1983) are all hurt by this system, because they had a totally different approach to the calendar. A firm 4 majors system was not established yet, nor a 9 Masters series with obligation to participate. Not that i find the old "system" better, no way - it was nothing less than chaotic. But it wasn't the player's fault. The ATP computer had a percentage ranking system, so that sometimes it was better for them to play less ATP events, because all results, and possible losses were telling and could bring a player down in the ranking, while now in the year race only positive results matter. And all top modern players build their own seasons around this firm structure. All this makes it very difficult to level the field even in open era.
     
    Last edited: Aug 27, 2012
    #28
  29. Mustard

    Mustard Talk Tennis Guru

    Joined:
    Nov 12, 2009
    Messages:
    25,389
    Location:
    Cwmbran, Wales
    It's best to list their achievements:

    Pancho Gonzales
    Won all World Pro Tours from 1954-1961
    Won 8 US Pro titles
    Won 4 Wembley Pro titles
    Won 3 Tournament of Champions titles
    Won 2 US Championships titles
    I personally have Gonzales as world number 1 for 8 calendar years

    Bill Tilden
    Won 2 US Pro titles
    Won 2 French Pro titles
    Won 7 US Championships titles
    Won 3 Wimbledon titles
    Won 1 World Hard Court Championships title
    I personally have Tilden as world number 1 for 7 calendar years

    Roger Federer
    Won 4 Australian Open titles
    Won 1 French Open title
    Won 7 Wimbledon titles
    Won 5 US Open titles
    Did the "Channel Slam" in 2009
    Won 6 World Tour Finals/Masters Cup titles
    Won 21 masters series events
    Been world number 1 for 5 calendar years (290+ weeks)

    Ellsworth Vines
    Won all World Pro Tours from 1934-1938
    Won 1 French Pro title
    Won 3 Wembley Pro titles
    Won 1 US Pro title
    Won 1 Wimbledon title
    Won 2 US Championships titles
    I personally have Vines as world number 1 for 6 calendar years

    Rafael Nadal
    Won 1 Australian Open title
    Won 7 French Open titles
    Won 2 Wimbledon titles
    Won 1 US Open title
    Did the "Channel Slam" in 2008 and 2010
    Won 21 masters series titles
    Been world number 1 for 2 calendar years (102 weeks)
     
    Last edited: Aug 28, 2012
    #29
  30. timnz

    timnz Legend

    Joined:
    Oct 17, 2008
    Messages:
    5,467
    Yes, but

    I like systems but I have some questions...

    1/ where is the column for wct finals

    2/ what do these mean?

    2 GS diferents: X
    3 GS diferents: X
    4 GS diferents: X
    4 Gs one year: X

    3/ masters 1000's they should work off equivalents not just 1990 and more recent. Hence lendl has 22 equivalents but gets rated zero for them.

    For equivalents go to

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grand_Prix_Championship_Series

    4/ olympics are rated far too highly.
     
    #30
  31. pc1

    pc1 G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2008
    Messages:
    11,341
    Location:
    Anywhere I can't be found.
    I've seen much more logical formulas for this in some magazines and webiste.
     
    #31
  32. Nathaniel_Near

    Nathaniel_Near Talk Tennis Guru

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2009
    Messages:
    25,598
    Location:
    Relax folks, ...
    That's cool man, I hope I can catch them sometime.
     
    #32
  33. pc1

    pc1 G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2008
    Messages:
    11,341
    Location:
    Anywhere I can't be found.
    As you wrote earlier this formula rewards players of recent times more than the past and tennis has been around for ages.

    For example the tennis of the 1920's was for all intents and purposes (with some exceptions) Open Tennis when all the top players played each other.

    Amateur Majors are really not even close to the Old Pro Majors in general. In most years the Pro Majors was clearly stronger than the Amateur Majors, often by a huge margin.

    Many other flaws that I see but prefer not to mention some of which is because it has been discussed so often that I'm getting sick of writing it.
     
    #33
  34. Nathaniel_Near

    Nathaniel_Near Talk Tennis Guru

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2009
    Messages:
    25,598
    Location:
    Relax folks, ...
    Relax a little, all these things have already been brought up or implied more or less. I also wish it was better, but I still thought it would be interesting to share Cevi's efforts with you guys. It's a shame his database is so incomplete, let alone all the other pitfalls. But if you have links to the other formulas and stuff, please post them here. I'm interested in looking at as many as possible. Thanks.
     
    #34
  35. hoodjem

    hoodjem G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2007
    Messages:
    13,283
    Location:
    Bierlandt
    M, I like this list. (You should do Laver, Rosewall, Kramer, Sampras, and Borg.)

    I do agree that years as world no. 1 is an important statistic.

    Of course Davis Cup is a team effort, but one great player can completely transform and lift a team--look at Borg for Sweden in '75.
     
    Last edited: Aug 28, 2012
    #35
  36. Dan Lobb

    Dan Lobb Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2011
    Messages:
    3,324
    The Davis Cup was the most followed tennis event prior to Open tennis.
    Players reserved their best for it.
     
    #36
  37. Dan Lobb

    Dan Lobb Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2011
    Messages:
    3,324
    Gonzales finished second on the Ampol world championship tours of 1958 and 1959.
    This was the biggest money tour of its time, and Kramer himself accepted it as the official world championship. (Because Ampol was funding most of Kramer's tournaments.)
     
    #37
  38. urban

    urban Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Apr 22, 2005
    Messages:
    4,546
    Going by todays ranking and point system i would give 200 points for each singles match win in Davis Cup World Group from quarters upwards and maybe 250 for each singles match win in the DC final. I think 1300 points for all singles matches in a DC series including the final won is a fair reward. Its the ultimate test for a player to go into a DC final match. In earlier years the ATP rewarded such points for DC matches.
     
    #38
  39. NonP

    NonP Professional

    Joined:
    Jul 22, 2009
    Messages:
    1,427
    And Becker for Germany, Sampras for the US (in '95) and even Ljubicic for Croatia.

    Hate to say it, but Dan Lobb is right for once. Of course we all know how he arrived at the conclusion.
     
    #39
  40. TMF

    TMF Talk Tennis Guru

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2009
    Messages:
    22,006
    But winning DC title is about the strength of a team(nation), and 1 player can't carry the entire country alone. Like I said, if included, then it's best to use player's win/loss record.
     
    #40
  41. Mustard

    Mustard Talk Tennis Guru

    Joined:
    Nov 12, 2009
    Messages:
    25,389
    Location:
    Cwmbran, Wales
    Rod Laver
    Won 2 Australian Championships (as an amateur)
    Won 1 French Championships (as an amateur)
    Won 2 Wimbledons (as an amateur)
    Won 1 US Championships (as an amateur)
    Won 1962 Grand Slam (as an amateur)
    Won 1 French Pro title (pre-open era)
    Won 4 Wembley Pro titles (pre-open era)
    Won 3 US Pro titles (pre-open era)
    Won Wimbledon Pro title (held in 1967)
    Won 1967 Professional Grand Slam
    Won 1 Australian Open (in open era)
    Won 1 French Open (in open era)
    Won 2 Wimbledons (in open era)
    Won 1 US Open (in open era)
    Won 1969 Grand Slam (in open era)
    I personally have Laver as world number 1 for 7 calendar years

    Ken Rosewall
    Won 2 Australian Championships (as an amateur)
    Won 1 French Championships (as an amateur)
    Won 1 US Championships (as an amateur)
    Won 8 French Pro titles (pre-open era)
    Won 5 Wembley Pro titles (pre-open era)
    Won 2 US Pro titles (pre-open era)
    Won 1963 Professional Grand Slam
    Won 2 Australian Opens (in open era)
    Won 1 French Open (in open era)
    Won 1 US Open (in open era)
    Won 2 WCT Dallas titles
    I personally have Rosewall as world number 1 for 2 calendar years, and as the second best player for 8 calendar years.

    Jack Kramer
    Won all World Pro Tours from 1948-1953
    Won 1 US Pro title
    Won 1 Wembley Pro title
    Won 1 Wimbledon title
    Won 2 US Championships titles
    I personally have Kramer as world number 1 for 5 calendar years

    Pete Sampras
    Won 2 Australian Open titles
    Won 7 Wimbledon titles
    Won 5 US Open titles
    Won 5 World Championships
    Won 2 Grand Slam Cups
    Won 11 masters series titles
    Been world number 1 for 6 calendar years (286 weeks)

    Bjorn Borg
    Won 6 French Open titles
    Won 5 Wimbledon titles
    Did the "Channel Slam" for 3 consecutive years
    Won 2 Masters titles at Madison Square Garden
    Won 1 WCT Dallas title
    Won 15 Championship Series titles
    I personally have Borg as world number 1 for 3 calendar years (112 weeks)
     
    #41
  42. BobbyOne

    BobbyOne Legend

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2012
    Messages:
    9,424
    Since you have mentioned the 3 times Channel Slam for Borg (I did not hear that term before) you should also mention Rosewall's 3 Pro Channel Slams (1960 to 1962) (French Pro and Wembley). I rate this as one of Rosewall's greatest feats...
     
    #42
  43. kiki

    kiki Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2010
    Messages:
    18,708
    Very true.and a player like John Mc Enroe should have the right to benefit from his contribution to it ( and a guy like Connors get some penalty)
     
    #43
  44. Dan Lobb

    Dan Lobb Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2011
    Messages:
    3,324
    Just for good measure, let's include a list for the greatest player ever, assuming that the number one needs it.

    Lew Hoad
    Won classic Davis Cup matches against Trabert in 1953 and 1955, deciding the Cup
    Won 1 Australian singles title
    Won 1 French singles title
    Won 2 Wimbledon singles title
    Won 15 major doubles titles with Rosewall (the most ever by a doubles team)
    Won European clay tour against Rosewall in 1957
    Won 2 Kooyong Pro singles titles
    Won 1 Forest Hills Pro Tournament of Champions
    Won 2 Ampol World Professional Championship tours against all top pros in 1958 and 1959 (a season-long series of designated tournaments funded by Ampol, the oil company)
    Won a four-man New Zealand tour in both 1960 and 1964 against the top pros
    Won Italian clay tour in 1962
    Won Australian tour against Laver 13 to 0 (14 to 0? 8 to 0?)
    Won British clay court tour against Hewitt in 1969

    The above excluded a great number of doubles titles with partners other than Rosewall, ending with the Barcelona doubles title in 1970, won with Santana against Laver and Stolle.

    The above
     
    #44
  45. Dan Lobb

    Dan Lobb Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2011
    Messages:
    3,324
    The 1969 British clay tour featured a number of players (Hoad, Hewitt, Cox) with a total points from a series of tournaments in Wales and Cornwall. Hoad won two of the tournaments, and the overall championship. He could still play on clay, and the following year defeated a 21-year old Orantes in a five-set marathon at centre court in the Italian Open.
     
    #45
  46. BobbyOne

    BobbyOne Legend

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2012
    Messages:
    9,424
    Good list.

    But Hoad did not decide the 1953 Davis Cup. It was Rosewall.

    In 1955 both Hoad and Rosewall decided the Cup.

    Do you have numbers for the 1958 AMPOL tour?

    Do you have details of the 1960 New Zealand tour?

    I thought the Dewar Cup in 1969 was indoors.
     
    #46
  47. BobbyOne

    BobbyOne Legend

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2012
    Messages:
    9,424
    Cox won the 1969 Dewar Cup. Hoad emerged 3rd. I only know of Hoad's win at Aberavon. Where happened the second win?
     
    #47
  48. Dan Lobb

    Dan Lobb Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2011
    Messages:
    3,324
    True, about the two Davis Cups, but Rosewall himself declared the Hoad/Trabert matches as the marquee events.
    In 1953, the USA led 2 to 1, and the Hoad/Trabert classic kept the series alive.
    The 1958 Ampol numbers were referred to in a Sports Illustrated article, in a general way, with Hoad as winning the bonus pool.
    I should think that Ampol may still have the records.
    Ampol entered into partnership with the Kramer tour as funder of the major tournaments for the 1958 and 1959 seasons. When Hoad semi-retired after the 1959 season, Ampol apparently severed the relationship, and the Kramer era essentially ended.
    The 1960 New Zealand results are given by McCauley, with Hoad and Anderson finishing at 7 and 3, Hoad getting first place by beating Anderson.
     
    Last edited: Aug 29, 2012
    #48
  49. Dan Lobb

    Dan Lobb Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2011
    Messages:
    3,324
    He won at Port Talbot.
    I remember reading in London Times that he won the series. Certainly at least two tournaments.
     
    #49
  50. BobbyOne

    BobbyOne Legend

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2012
    Messages:
    9,424
    Thanks, I forgot the small tour.
     
    #50

Share This Page