Old pro tour, win-loss-stats

Discussion in 'Former Pro Player Talk' started by urban, Jul 15, 2014.

  1. urban

    urban Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Apr 22, 2005
    Messages:
    4,374
    Recovering from an illness, i have some time to look again into some stats of the old pro tour, mainly based on McCauley's book and on the fine stats of Andrew Tas, which pc1 provided. Its for me a valuable source to see the domination of the pro champs, of course this is not the end of the debate and there are some caveats for evaluation.
    1. The percentages seem lower than for some champs of open era, like Borg or Federer, who were over 90 % percentage in peak years, or like Nadal, who is over 83% lifetime. It was however a different structure of the tour, with small fields, many match series, always against the top players. Think for a moment, if Federer would still be on 90% with facing Nadal over 20 times a season. Players like Laver or Rosewall actually had better percentages in open era, when they were already quite old, than on the pro tour. Laver was 80% between 30 and 40 in open competition. You see the difference also to the Amateur Play, where those players won over 90% in some years with their many, many matches. Rosewall was 90-10 in his last am year 1956, Laver had a staggering 151-15 in his GS year 1962 (and 139-21 in 1961). In 1969 Laver was 102-15 in tournament play, 1970 90-15, when he was already 32. Rosewall was 54-23 in 1969 and 71-21 in 1970.
    2. There was a shift from match series to more tournament play since around 1964-1965, although until 1967 a mix between those formats further existed. Especially the World Series of hth matches should be considered, because those long series counted heavily on he stats, especially on the new pro who lost consistently to the older champ, like Gonzalez, Rosewall, Hoad or Laver did initially(i have marked them separately in my count).
    The numbers are still incomplete, and maybe my eyes were not good enough anymore, to see all the results properly. So i would be glad to get some help, corrections and additions by other posters, who are more familiar with the stats world.
     
    #1
  2. urban

    urban Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Apr 22, 2005
    Messages:
    4,374
    Gonzalez
    1950:35-99 (8-3 excluding WS he lost to Kramer 27-96)
    1951: 49-10
    1952: 10-0
    1953: Gonzalez 30-11 (World Series was between Kramer and Sedgman 54-21)
    1954: Gonzalez 82-49 (22-7 excluding WS, where Gonzalez each beat Sedgman and Segura 30-21)
    1955: Gonzalez 17-2 (no WS)
    1956: Gonzalez 112-42 (42-15 excluding WS, where he beat Trabert 74-27).
    1957: Gonzalez 70-30 (20-4 excluding WS, where he beat Rosewall 50-26).
    1958: Gonzalez 85-48 (34-12 excluding WS, where he beat Hoad 51-36).
    1959: Gonzalez 74-24 (27-9 excluding 4 men WS, which he won 47-15)
    1960: Gonzalez 52-8 (3-0 excluding 4 men WS, where he won 49-8)
    1961: Gonzalez 55-18 (22-4 excluding 4 men WS with 33-14).
    I give another year after his semi-retirement in 1962-63:
    1964: Gonzalez: 39-25 (no WS).
     
    Last edited: Jul 15, 2014
    #2
  3. urban

    urban Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Apr 22, 2005
    Messages:
    4,374
    Rosewall:
    1957: 85-87 (with 13-11 in tournament play, and 59-37 excluding WS loss to Gonzalez)
    1958 63-29 (with 21-15 in tou. play)
    1959: 62-32 (with 27-15 in tou. play)
    1960: 62-30 (30-4 in tou. play, and 30-5 excluding WS where he was 32-25).
    1961: 29-7
    1962: 52-7 (40-5)
    1963: 89-26 (30-10 in tou. play and 44-12 excluding WS, which he won overall 45-14)
    1964: 69-30 (46-15)
    1965: 50-30 (48-26)
    1966: 60-20 (56-18)
    1967: 59-24 (56-20)
     
    Last edited: Jul 15, 2014
    #3
  4. urban

    urban Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Apr 22, 2005
    Messages:
    4,374
    Laver

    1963: 81-66 (40-12 in tou. play, and 51-36 excluding WS, where he was second with 30-30)
    1964: 81-27 (49-16)
    1965: 75-18 (69-17)
    1966: 94-24 (78-18)
    1967: 94-26 (81-19)

    Hoad:

    1957, second half: 28-31
    1958: 53-71 (17-20 excluding WS, which he lost 36-51)
    1959: 82-43 (42-23 excluding WS, where he ended second with 42-20)
     
    Last edited: Jul 15, 2014
    #4
  5. urban

    urban Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Apr 22, 2005
    Messages:
    4,374
    Some quick notes:
    Obviously in some years like 1953 or 55 or 61, and even in 62 the pro game was in a bit of a crisis, given the few matches the Champions played in those years. You also see the big problems for the new pros, when they first got into the WS with the old champ. All had to come to terms with the new Level of play, the new formats and surfaces. In Gonzalez' case he lost 27-96 to Kramer. For Gonzalez, he concentrated on the WS, and played outside the WS a relatively light schedule in some years. His most productive year seems to be 1956, where he won US pro, Wembley and reached final of RG pro, heavy schedule also in 1958. Rosewall seems to have quite consistent numbers since 1958, his second year on the tour, mostly in the range of 60-70 wins and 20-30 losses, there is no big difference between the match series structure in the 50s and the tournament structure in the 60s. In his maybe peak years 61 and 62 he played a lighter schedule than in other years. His most productive year seems to be 1963.
    Laver is always since 1964, his second year, in the 75-80 % percentage range. In 1963, he got better accostumed to the pro game, when the more tournament style of play began in mid year of 1963.
     
    Last edited: Jul 15, 2014
    #5
  6. pc1

    pc1 Legend

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2008
    Messages:
    9,411
    Excellent information Urban.
     
    #6
  7. BobbyOne

    BobbyOne Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2012
    Messages:
    7,773
    urban, Thanks a lot for your effort. It was a huge task to find out all those numbers and percentages.

    I cannot add for the moment.

    I wish you good health from now onwards!
     
    #7
  8. NatF

    NatF G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    May 10, 2012
    Messages:
    13,868
    Location:
    On the road from would of to would have
    Thats interesting, I find the number of matches for some of those years surprisingly low.
     
    #8
  9. Dan L

    Dan L Professional

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2014
    Messages:
    1,087
    There was a WS tournament series in 1959 and again in 1964.
     
    #9
  10. Dan L

    Dan L Professional

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2014
    Messages:
    1,087
    What happened to Gonzales' numbers before 1953?

    Actually, the "US Pro" in 1956 was listed in McCauley, correctly, as the "World Pro", and was simply the 4-man tour at Cleveland, Gonzales beating Hartwig and Segura to win.

    Gonzales' best years were 1957, 1958, 1959, winning at Forest Hills in 1957 and 1958.
     
    #10
  11. BobbyOne

    BobbyOne Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2012
    Messages:
    7,773
    Dan, You must have a different version of Joe's book: Of course in 1956 it was not a four man tour. It was an eight man tournament, listed in the book as World Pro (INCL. US Pro)!!
     
    #11
  12. urban

    urban Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Apr 22, 2005
    Messages:
    4,374
    Kramer

    1948: 85-22 (16-2 excluding Ws he won 69-20 over Riggs)
    1949: 15-2
    1950: 99-28 (3-1 excluding WS he won 96-27 over Gonzalez)
    1951:84-48 (20-20 excluding WS he won 64-28 over Segura, including a 3-14 hth with Kovacs, which is reported).
    1952: 3-1
    1953: 60-42 (6-1 excluding WS he won 54-41 over Sedgman)
     
    #12
  13. urban

    urban Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Apr 22, 2005
    Messages:
    4,374
    In some years the pros activity is indeed quite low. Two reasons: not all results are recorded despite all the efforts of McCauley, Robert Geist, Michel Sutter and Andrew Tas. There are still many years with missing links. Second: In some years the pros had trouble to form a real circuit. Kramer and later Gonzalez were more interested in hth series of toppers than on real circuits. When Kramer retired, who played a very light schedule outside the WS, pro Tennis fell into a deep crisis, similarily, when Gonzalez retired end 1961. In 1964 it was saved by the arrival of Laver and the Boston banker Ed Hickey, who helped to form a US circuit.
     
    #13
  14. Dan L

    Dan L Professional

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2014
    Messages:
    1,087
    Because they did not have permission to use "US Pro" as their designation. The bogus "US Pro" only in brackets, as "incl. US Pro champs."

    What? Included US Pro champions like Segura, Budge, Riggs?

    See the subtlety of the language?

    NOT the "US Pro" which was not held between 1952 and 1961, according to the USPLTA.
     
    Last edited: Jul 20, 2014
    #14
  15. Dan L

    Dan L Professional

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2014
    Messages:
    1,087
    It was THE 4-man, en route through Cleveland, not a true major.
     
    #15
  16. BobbyOne

    BobbyOne Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2012
    Messages:
    7,773
    Dan, Yes, Segura was included and reached a very tough final. Budge and Riggs were old men.
     
    #16
  17. BobbyOne

    BobbyOne Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2012
    Messages:
    7,773
    Jester Dan, read McCauley page 204: EIGHT men.
     
    #17
  18. Dan L

    Dan L Professional

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2014
    Messages:
    1,087
    Four including Segura on the tour.

    Weak field.
     
    Last edited: Jul 23, 2014
    #18
  19. Dan L

    Dan L Professional

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2014
    Messages:
    1,087
    Four tour players.

    This did not justify the sub-billing "incl. US Pro champs."

    Ambiguous language.
     
    #19
  20. Dan L

    Dan L Professional

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2014
    Messages:
    1,087
    Ambiguous, because "incl. US pro champs." could mean a number of things.

    1) US Pro champions from the past are included in the field?

    2) Professional champion players of US origin are in the field?

    3) This tournament is a championship for US pro tennis players?

    Has NO legal meaning, and therefore dodges the issue of using the official

    designation, which was not sanctioned by the USPLTA.
     
    #20
  21. BobbyOne

    BobbyOne Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2012
    Messages:
    7,773
    Dan, Why so difficult? The Cleveland event is widely regarded as the US Pro.

    I know USPLTA had an own event in some years but that "US Pro" only had teaching pros involved!!
     
    #21
  22. urban

    urban Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Apr 22, 2005
    Messages:
    4,374
    The problem with the pro 'majors' is, that they had not always good fields, and were not as established as modern Majors are today. The Cleveland US pro had sometimes weak fields, Sedgman and Rosewall for instance played it very seldom, Kramer was reluctant to play the US pro, then mostly played outdoors. Wembley wasn't played at all for a few years in the 50s, and the French pro was hampered by the shifting from RG to Coubertin, and the date, it was often played immediately before the Wembley event, which carried more weight. I can understand, that McCauley was reluctant with the title pro Majors and I have discussed that question frequently with Carlo Colussi, and he proposed to name 4 events for every single year per quality of fields. I am more a "tour man" and prever to look at the results over the whole year.

    That said, in 1958 and 59 the US pro at Cleveland had Gonzalez and Hoad, Segura and Trabert (resp. Cooper) in the draw, and had a relative good field. Its noteworthy to look at the overall stats of 1959, Gonzalez had 74-24, Hoad 82-43. Here Gonzalez had a clear better percentage (around 75%), while Hoad maybe the tougher schedule.
     
    Last edited: Jul 26, 2014
    #22
  23. Dan L

    Dan L Professional

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2014
    Messages:
    1,087
    No, it was not regarded as the US Pro, but the "World Pro".

    The USPLTA made many statements to the effect that NO US Pro was played between 1952 and 1961.

    The USPLTA had its own event for teaching pros "US Pro Grasscourt".

    The USPLTA sanctioned "US Pro" was held by the Kramer/Trabert group in 1963 at Forest Hills.
     
    #23
  24. Dan L

    Dan L Professional

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2014
    Messages:
    1,087
    Joe McCauley used the term "World Pro" for the Cleveland event, not US Pro.
     
    #24
  25. Dan L

    Dan L Professional

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2014
    Messages:
    1,087
    Hoad's percentage on the two championship tours was 70%.

    Gonzales skipped the Roland Garros and the second Kooyong tournaments on the Ampol/Qantas series, so it is difficult to get his percentage.
     
    #25
  26. BobbyOne

    BobbyOne Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2012
    Messages:
    7,773
    urban, Rosewall played the US Pro in six (of 11) years. Wembley was not played only for two years.

    Joe McCauley mentioned Rosewall's and Laver's three pro majors run.

    But I agree that the four events with quality field is an alternative even though there would be several events without the prestige and tradition of the pro majors.
     
    #26
  27. BobbyOne

    BobbyOne Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2012
    Messages:
    7,773
    Dan, "World Pro" including "US PRO"...

    USPLTA was not God...
     
    #27
  28. BobbyOne

    BobbyOne Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2012
    Messages:
    7,773
    Wrong: He wrote World Pro (including US Pro Champs.)
     
    #28
  29. Dan L

    Dan L Professional

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2014
    Messages:
    1,087
    No.

    (incl. US pro champs.)

    Ambiguous.

    Could mean that US pro champions were in the field.

    No legal meaning.
     
    #29
  30. kiki

    kiki Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2010
    Messages:
    18,714
    which players beat Olmedo to win the US pro in his first year of pro play? I mean, other than TT in the finals.
     
    #30
  31. urban

    urban Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Apr 22, 2005
    Messages:
    4,374
    Giammalva, Cooper and Trabert. Segura was in the field, who was around 40 in those years, also Parker, who also was quite old then. Absent were Gonzalez, Rosewall, Hoad and Sedgman.
     
    #31
  32. NatF

    NatF G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    May 10, 2012
    Messages:
    13,868
    Location:
    On the road from would of to would have
    I've worked out the win/loss records for Laver/Rosewall/Gonzalez inclusive of the h2h tours.

    Could probably do with some double checking but by my count I have...

    Laver = 72%
    Rosewall = 68%
    Gonzalez = 66%

    Gonzalez's is impressive considering the amount of long h2h series he played IMO.
     
    #32
  33. urban

    urban Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Apr 22, 2005
    Messages:
    4,374
    Good work. I was interested in Gonzalez' prime years in the 50s, and may add a list of further results from 1965-1967 later. It could well be, that still some results are missing, in years like 1952 or 1955 for instance. In the 60s, the pros also played a good amount of hth one night stands, in addition to their tournament schedule. This is visible in the second count.
     
    #33
  34. Dan L

    Dan L Professional

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2014
    Messages:
    1,087
    Here is Gonzales' MATCH record for the two 1959 championship series:

    4-man U.S. tour: 47 wins, 15 losses

    Ampol/Qantas tournament series: 25 wins, 10 losses (2nd in points)

    Overall: 72 wins, 25 losses (74.2 %)

    For Hoad;

    4-man U.S. tour: 42 wins, 20 losses

    Ampol/Qantas series: 34 wins, 13 losses

    Overall: 76 wins, 33 losses (70 %)

    Gonzales skipped the Roland Garros and Kooyong (Dec.) events, so the match percentages are not comparable.
     
    #34
  35. pc1

    pc1 Legend

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2008
    Messages:
    9,411
    Laver's percentage is about 77.95%.

    Rosewall's is about 73.24%.

    Theses are lifetime percentages. Laver's of course would be higher if you don't include the head to head tour he played in.
     
    #35
  36. Dan L

    Dan L Professional

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2014
    Messages:
    1,087
    Considering the quality of the competition that year, this is probably the greatest year ever for pro tennis.
     
    #36
  37. NatF

    NatF G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    May 10, 2012
    Messages:
    13,868
    Location:
    On the road from would of to would have
    Thanks for that, still fairly high despite the unfavorable set up of the old pro's and playing into old age.
     
    #37
  38. BobbyOne

    BobbyOne Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2012
    Messages:
    7,773
    Dan, You are wrong. I knew Joe very well and his kind of writing: He meant US Pro.
     
    #38
  39. BobbyOne

    BobbyOne Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2012
    Messages:
    7,773
    pc1, Yes, but also Rosewall's % would be higher if he would not have played the 1957 tour as a rookie against Gonzalez.

    I find Rosewall's % very high since we should consider he played as a 15 years old to a 46 years old.
     
    Last edited: Jul 31, 2014
    #39
  40. urban

    urban Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Apr 22, 2005
    Messages:
    4,374
    I find both pretty high, Rosewall's for his indeed ultra long career, Laver's for his enormous bulk of matches he played in most years of the 60s and early 70s. To play over 100-120 matches over several years, takes a lot of energy, and normally it reduces the percentage. Take a look at Djokovic' 2011 year, i think he was 60-2 for some time until the late season, and at the end of the season he had to settle for "only" 70-6. That is still only two third of the matches, Laver played for a whole series of years.
    I think it took a price for Laver. In the Collins book, he tells about the early thought of retirement during a pro event in Grenoble in 1967. If open Tennis hadn't arrived, which gave him new incentitive, he probably would have retired around 1970. He had a sort of a breakdown in form in mid 1971 and then in mid 1972. In his new book, he refers to severe back problems. He reacted to this problems with a reduced schedule and more rest time. When he played a reduced schedule in 1974 or 1975, his percentage went up high again (over 80%) despite advancing age.
    In the case of Gonzalez you can see, that he had several years with quite low activity or some rest time and even some years of semi-retirement. Maybe this was one (not alone) factor for prolonging his career for so long. Another would be of course style of play, which was in the case of Rosewall and Gonzalez easy for the body.
     
    Last edited: Jul 30, 2014
    #40
  41. BobbyOne

    BobbyOne Banned

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

    I believe that Rosewall played as many matches as Laver in 1960s and early 1970s with exception of 1966, 1967 and 1969.
     
    #41
  42. hoodjem

    hoodjem G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2007
    Messages:
    12,743
    Location:
    Bierlandt
    I find this to be a thought-provoking statement.

    Not because it is untrue. But because it is very probably true--while their games are so dissimilar.

    (I sit doing mental comparisons of each player's style of play right now.)
     
    #42
  43. Dan L

    Dan L Professional

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2014
    Messages:
    1,087
    Bobby, Joe used the term "World Pro", as Jack March did, for Cleveland.

    Read his book.
     
    #43
  44. Dan L

    Dan L Professional

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2014
    Messages:
    1,087
    Laver's back arthritis was used to explain his loss in the 1972 WCT Final.
     
    #44
  45. pc1

    pc1 Legend

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2008
    Messages:
    9,411
    Laver was clearly a shadow of his normal self (of course age does that to you) I suppose because of the back problems. It also explains clearly why Stan Smith (and Smith did play well during the 1973 WCT schedule) dominated the WCT tour and won the WCT Championship. When Newcombe got in shape and Laver got back to full health and tournament shape they were still better than Smith as shown in the 1973 Davis Cup.
     
    #45
  46. BobbyOne

    BobbyOne Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2012
    Messages:
    7,773
    Dan, ??????????????????????????????

    By the way, your thought that Joe meant "US pro players participated at Cleveland" instead of "US Pro Championships"
    is extremely ridiculous.

    I can assure you: I have already read his book...
     
    #46
  47. BobbyOne

    BobbyOne Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2012
    Messages:
    7,773
    Dan, Only in the 1972 final? What about the 1971 one?
     
    #47
  48. BobbyOne

    BobbyOne Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2012
    Messages:
    7,773
    pc1, If Laver was so much handicapped ("clearly a shadow..."), Bud Collins and other experts would not have praised the 1972 Dallas final as the best match of Open Era.

    I find it a bit unfair to minimize Rosewall's great efforts in the 1972 Dallas final (and maybe also in the 1971 final).

    People should realize that Rosewall was able to beat even healthy top players at times...

    pc1, Rosewall was almost four years OLDER than Laver in that final...
     
    #48
  49. urban

    urban Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Apr 22, 2005
    Messages:
    4,374
    I have never heard that special back problems were cited for the WCT final, Laver had played pretty well in early 1972, leading the WCT race. Laver had some problems with his back since 1970/71, which affected his serve and overhead. I know, that he was carried to a hospital during a WCT tournament in Chicago in spring 1971, and that he got massive problems in summer 1972 at Forest Hills, so that he abandoned the WCT tour in Europe in late 1972.
     
    #49
  50. pc1

    pc1 Legend

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2008
    Messages:
    9,411
    I heard of the back problem in 1973 but not in 1972. Age generally takes its toll in the form of injuries and slowly recovery from them. But you never know. I believe I read somewhere that Rod's wife Mary said Rod won Wimbledon one year with a severely strained wrist
     
    Last edited: Jul 31, 2014
    #50

Share This Page