Whats your top 10 of all time right now?

Discussion in 'Former Pro Player Talk' started by 90's Clay, Aug 22, 2012.

  1. krosero

    krosero Legend

    Joined:
    Dec 3, 2006
    Messages:
    5,620
    If Hoad had genuinely beaten Laver 13 straight, it would have been known widely and gotten out immediately as one of Hoad's great achievements. It would have become a key piece in the legend of Hoad, as his legend grew.

    It is not convincing at all, this claim that a 13-0 score could have been kept secret for so long. You think it's enough to say that Hoad and Laver were good friends? What about Rosewall? What about all the people that Hoad and Rosewall knew, or talked to? What about Trabert and all the organizers and directors of the tour?

    Information gets out. Particularly sports stats. People go crazy over such things. If Hoad had beaten Laver 13 straight, it would have taken an extraordinary effort to keep that information unknown to the tennis community. The entire tennis world, both amateur and pro, were invested in how the pros matched up against the new rookie.

    You think that if Hoad had whipped the rookie 13 straight, that this information would not get out?

    You know it's interesting that you bring up the Buchholz interview, because Buchholz is not directly quoted as saying that Hoad won 13 matches. Bodo writes that in his article; he does not put the information in quotes.

    Here it is:

    Before we leave the Sony Ericsson Open. I just want acknowledge the man behind it, tournament founder Butch Buccholz. This is a great event - it has been, through its long and rich history. And Buccholz is one of the great men in tennis. You need to read some of the things he said in his traditional post-event presser to get a good idea of why I say that. BTW, a few weeks ago in the California desert, Dennis Ralston told me that Buccholz was one of the most underrated pros of the pre-Open era (Ralston also believes Pancho Gonzalez was the GOAT, denied that recognition by a now defunct system that kept amateurs and pros from competing against each other).

    While we waited for a few more reporters to join the session, Buccholz told us that he thought the late Lew Hoad was the greatest player of their time, with a couple of interesting caveats: He was injury prone, and not exactly a model of fitness, unless you can consider lifting beer mugs a kind of weight training. According to Buccholz, if Hoad thought he could beat you, he did. If he had any doubt, you did alright - which helps explain why Buccholz led Hoad in their H-2-H. Story: When Rod Laver finally joined the pro ranks, a group of pros, including Buccholz and Hoad, had an intensive, multi-week training session for the upcoming tour. Everyone worked hard, there was no carousing or slacking.

    On the night before the tour launched, they had a little party. Hoad got into the beer, and pretty soon Buccholz and Hoad’s wife, Jenny, were loading Hoad into a car at 4 AM, in order to get him home. Hoad got up at 7 the next morning and went for a long run on Sydney’s famous Bondi beach. Then he had a practice hit and went out and waxed tour newbie Laver - it was the first of 13 consecutive wins for Hoad over Laver. “If you had an Earth vs. Mars match and had to pick one man to represent the planet, I would send Hoad,” Buccholz said.​

    You argued once that Bodo's information was likely to come from Buchholz, and ever since then you've been naming Buchholz as a source for the 13-0 score.

    But your reaction was very different when I brought up the interviews of Rosewall and Laver from '63. You insisted that the Boston Globe's score of 8-0, printed in the interview with Rosewall, could not have come from Rosewall himself -- despite the fact that Rosewall demonstrates a detailed knowledge of many tour stats and was sitting down with the Boston Globe for the purpose of talking about all aspects of the tour.

    When the Boston Globe, a few days later, actually QUOTES Laver as speaking the 8-0 score, you still don't think the information came from Laver; you think that the journalist had his own information and that Laver sat silently and did not correct the mistake.

    Let's have some consistency here. If you're hyper-skeptical about these interviews in '63, then let me ask some reasonable questions about the Bodo-Buccholz interview. How do you know that Buccholz actually provided Bodo with the 13-0 score? Maybe Buccholz shared his general memories about Lew but cautioned Bodo to look up the actual stats because he himself (Butch) did not remember the precise numbers after so many decades had passed. How do you know it did not go that way? How do you know that Bodo did not get the 13-0 score from other sources?

    For example, one possibility is David Hernandez's online article about Pancho Gonzalez, which claims that Hoad won 13 consecutive matches from Laver, all in straight sets.

    Seriously, how do know it didn't go that way?

    If you tell me that you're confident that Buchholz, even decades later, would remember the precise figure since he was present on the tour; and that Bodo would simply have to ask Butch for the information; then I really want to hear you say that the Boston Globe had only to ask the two men sitting in their offices (Ken Rosewall and Rod Laver) for the information that was fresh in their minds.

    As for Laver knowing about the 8-0 score, I really don't think that champions think of their careers by doing statistical analysis, comparing their memories with stats in books. There are countless stats in these long careers, many of which are similar. It's hard enough for us to keep them all straight, and we study these details closely.

    We've said it before: it's a really easy mistake to make. Laver remembered playing 13 matches against Rosewall, which is true; he could easily assume over the years that he must have played 13 against Hoad too, on that first tour.

    Or, as Urban suggested, Laver might be confusing the tour with another accurate stat: namely that he lost to Hoad 13 times altogether in his first year as a pro.

    Or there was confusion with the 1964 tours; I think we said that some of the numbers are similar.

    So what about this Buchholz matter?
     
  2. Mustard

    Mustard Talk Tennis Guru

    Joined:
    Nov 12, 2009
    Messages:
    25,112
    Location:
    Cwmbran, Wales
    Henkel and Budge won Roland Garros in the amateurs in 1937 and 1938, respectively. Von Cramm won the title in 1934 and 1936.
     
  3. Dan Lobb

    Dan Lobb Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2011
    Messages:
    1,978
    As I state above, I don't think that Hoad or Laver were concerned about building a "legend" of Hoad. They were probably more concerned about meeting next week's bills.
    Perhaps (only perhaps) there were only 8 tour matches at this time on the hth. Could they not have added a few extra on the side to sweeten the pot? This was typical of pros on the PGA Tour at the time. Palmer and his pals would create a money pool for the practice rounds, to give them some motivation. Maybe Hoad and Laver wanted to capitalize on a good thing and extend their hth with some exhibition matches. It sure looks like they did so in early 1964, if you believe Andrew Tas and the Australian newspapers.
    You really must think there is a fancy conspiracy for the 1964 tour to have been invented with the connivance of the newspapers. Much more real to think that Hoad and Laver put their heads together and created their own little series. And, as in 1963, no reason to include the entire pro tour on the business. That would just water it down. I don't blame Laver or Hoad for keeping this private deal quiet. Why rub it in to the other pros? Why rub it in to Trabert? Of course, the other pros would know about it, but why rub it in? You suggest that it was their business, too, but was it really? Who did the public want to see? Think about it.
    Did Laver not know what was in his own book? That is what you are saying. Of course he did. He knew exactly what it meant to state the 14 to 0 number.
    The Boston Globe guy would have received a presentation and background stats from Trabert's office, of course. That is the point, my friend. Laver would not challenge it, for several reasons. Maybe 8 to 0 was the official tour number, but not the whole story.
    Did Peter Bodo read the Haernandez post? Unlikely, because I have just done a deep search on the internet, and the 13 to 0 score is swamped by other more official versions showing 8 to 0. Bodo is a good reporter, and would not buck the official number without reason. So whom do you think Bodo would ask? An eyewitness like Buchholz would have some memory of the score.
     
    Last edited: Aug 30, 2012
  4. krosero

    krosero Legend

    Joined:
    Dec 3, 2006
    Messages:
    5,620
    This doesn't even reply to what I said, because I did not claim that Laver and Hoad were personally concerned about building a "legend" of Hoad. I just stated how absurd I find the claim that such information would never get out despite the intense interest in their matches in the tennis community.

    So you're saying that in early 1963, when they had never faced each other and were extremely concerned with their imminent confrontations, they chummed up like like Palmer and his pals and made a side-deal that they agreed, like BFF's, to keep secret from everyone else?

    Please make up your mind what your argument is going to be. You've gone off deep into speculation with all this talk about Hoad and Laver creating a "side-deal" that was so secret the press never got wind of it. Yet you still claim that the newspapers reported Hoad being contracted for 13 matches against Laver. The tour's officials and players gave that information to the press, to the public, in that scenario. But in the other scenario, Laver and Hoad have created their own mini-tour of 5 matches that they are keeping entirely out of the public eye.

    Which is it?

    If Hoad was contracted to play 13 matches, then there is ABSOLUTELY no reason to be talking about secret matches. Yet you're pushing that idea shamelessly. Why? Are you confident or not, about the press reporting that Hoad was contracted to play 13 matches?

    I have no clue what you mean here? Conspiracy theory? You said you couldn't find a report on this tour, except for an obscure report from 2007. So what? Just because you can't find reports of individual matches does not mean that these matches were not reported in some publication of the time period. You think all the newspapers that ever existed have been scanned to Google News?

    As I said before, just because we can't find a contemporary report on a match, does not mean it didn't occur -- or that it occurred in some secret "side deal." You remember I said that we're missing scores and locations for 2 of Hoad's 8 wins over Laver. I said this does not mean that those two matches never took place. It also doesn't mean that these two matches were a mini-tour on the side, out of the public eye. It just means endless tons of newspaper content has not yet been found and archived and made accessible; or else has been lost permanently.

    I don't normally criticize speculation; I do a lot of speculating myself. But you're crossing into territory where you're expressing your speculations as if they were fact.

    Enough speculation already. Please spend a lot more time looking for actual evidence.

    There is no contradiction with what's in his book. The book gives the numbers for the tour in Australia. Laver, in his '97 interview, is speaking more broadly about losing to Hoad the first 14 times they played, not just on that tour. You have the DVD. Does he specify that the 14 matches were on the Australian tour?

    In the book he does not state how many times he lost to Hoad before beating him; he just talks about the matches in Australia: "Lew beat me seven out of seven. Kenny beat me four out of six." (Obviously the 7 Rosewall matches in NZ were excluded in this count).

    I don't find it plausible that these interviews did not come around, at some point (probably right at the beginning) to the final H2H tally. How badly the new rookie lost to the veteran pros was the central topic.

    Some time ago you were arguing that Laver did speak the stat himself, in the interview, but that he was "prompted" to do so. Now you've got Laver sitting silently.

    Can't keep up with your spinning arguments.

    This is a valid point, but keep in mind Bodo wrote his piece five years ago. The information available online about this tour might have been different then.

    Even if Buchholz provided the 13-0 stat himself, that just puts us right back where we were. But I am no longer willing to assume that Bodo got his information from the man sitting in front of him. Not when you still insist that the Boston Globe didn't even bother talking to Laver and Rosewall, in those interviews, about the most basic facts.

    In your scenario, everybody's silent. Laver and Hoad have a "secret" deal. Rosewall and Laver sit silently in their interviews as the 8-0 score is spoken. Or maybe you think that the interviewers never even bothered mentioning the score, so the topic never came up.

    Have I said how absurd I find all this?
     
  5. BobbyOne

    BobbyOne Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2012
    Messages:
    7,773
    I of course forgot the 1933 Berlin World's Pro Championships, also on clay.
     
  6. TennisLovaLova

    TennisLovaLova Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2011
    Messages:
    3,069
    Except Sampras and Nadal, no one in your top ten would win a set vs a prime federer
     
  7. BobbyOne

    BobbyOne Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2012
    Messages:
    7,773
    Have you ever seen Laver, Rosewall and Gonzalez play? I guess not.
     
  8. NadalAgassi

    NadalAgassi Guest

    Yes while Albert Costa, Richard Gasquet, Guillermo Canas (twice), David Nalbandian (about five times), and others have all beaten "prime Federer" (even if we go by what ****s dictate as his prime which is very limited), and a hip butchered Kuerten mauled prime Federer in straight sets, yet the likes of Laver, Gonzales, Rosewall, would not win any sets from prime Federer. Cute.
     
  9. larlarbd

    larlarbd Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 24, 2007
    Messages:
    595
    Location:
    Canada
    I can only comment on Players I've seen Live ( Sure player's of the yesteryears must have had better talents & etc ..... I've seen video's & yes some of them did, but My top 10 goes something Like this :

    1.Pete Sampras
    2.Marat Safin ( So Much Wasted Talent )
    3.Roger Federer
    4.Rafa
    5.Andre Agassi
    6.Stefan Edberg
    7.Boris becker
    8.Jim Courier
    9.Borg ( Even his old films are impressive )
    10.Ivan Lendl

    There Ever was only 1 Female Player I ever liked :

    1. Steffi Graf
     
  10. Talker

    Talker Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Oct 4, 2007
    Messages:
    2,986

    Only videos.

    How would those three last against Djokovic, Nadal?

    Running back and forth for 15 minutes is all it would take IMO.

    How would they be able to blast the ball for hours with great precision and skill?

    When comparing these players that is the type of questions that come to mind.

    The devil is in the details.
    Lets start with something simple.

    How would Lavers chances be against Djokovic in a five set match?
     
  11. BobbyOne

    BobbyOne Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2012
    Messages:
    7,773
    First you neglect the fact that the modern racquets favour the current players and caused more speed.

    Then you are not aware that the players from decades ago were in top condition, at least the top players like Laver, Rosewall, Gonzalez, Emerson.

    And the skills of the past players were at least as good as those of the current stars.

    A Rosewall had more precision than Federer...
     
  12. escii_35

    escii_35 Rookie

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2008
    Messages:
    209
    Live top 10.

    1. Fed
    2. Sampras
    3. Borg
    4. Lendl
    5. J Mac
    6. Nadal (Could still jump a few spots)
    7/8. Agassi/Conners
    9. Edberg
    10. Santoro {Live quote X-man Indian Wells} "Why doesn't he F%#@'ing play normal like everyone else."
     
  13. Talker

    Talker Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Oct 4, 2007
    Messages:
    2,986
    Everyone knows the equipment is different.

    There isn't a way to compare Rosewall's precision to Federer's, different equipment takes different skills.

    What do you use to determine Rosewall's precision?
    And how is this used to determine that Rosewall had better precision than Federer?
     
  14. TennisLovaLova

    TennisLovaLova Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2011
    Messages:
    3,069
    Your last 2 posts were exactly what I would say to prove my point.
    Even when you watch the vids of those tennis dinosaurs, you cant sincerely think they can resist physically to federer or djokodal. Even with modern tech equipement. They were not athletes.
     
  15. hoodjem

    hoodjem G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2007
    Messages:
    12,743
    Location:
    Bierlandt
    Ooooh. Aaahhh!

    It's all about who would beat whom, not about achievements or records.:roll:
     
  16. pc1

    pc1 Legend

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2008
    Messages:
    9,402
    It's amazing how John McEnroe over age 50 almost beat Roddick in World Team Tennis a few years ago. Must have been an optical illusion.

    http://www.tennisnow.com/News/Andy-Roddick,-John-McEnroe-Deliver-Crowd-Pleasing-.aspx

    When I was a kid I didn't assume the players of the present were not necessarily the best ever in any sport because I figure most of the players that played any sport were NOT playing in the present. That may have been the case but I didn't assume that to be a fact. Tennis has changed tremendously over the years but especially the racquet technology and string technology. Look at the Women playing today, they can hit serves way over 120 mph regularly. They can hit groundies with great pace and spin. Now here's the big question, does anyone not believe that guys like Gonzalez, almost 6'4" tall and a physical specimen couldn't hit with much greater power and spin than the women? Get real, Pancho Gonzalez would hit huge serves and huge groundies today. Do people actually believe that guys like Laver and Gonzalez would hit first serves at 80 mph and pity pat groundies?

    I guess the guy below is a wimpy player. :-?

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nd0gJzm_EQY

    Vic Braden the noted tennis coach and a man who does computer analysis of tennis strokes says Gonzalez would serve regularly in the 140 mph range and that was in the year 2000.
     
    Last edited: Aug 31, 2012
  17. TennisLovaLova

    TennisLovaLova Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2011
    Messages:
    3,069
    How can you analyse tennis strokes when EVERY SINGLE SHOT is unique and different than any other one?

    What is world team tennis btw?
     
  18. Talker

    Talker Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Oct 4, 2007
    Messages:
    2,986
    There are all kinds of statements like this regarding the past players in Laver's ERA.

    Lets see what the response is and move from there.
     
  19. BobbyOne

    BobbyOne Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2012
    Messages:
    7,773
    Do you know that Lew Hoad had a bigger playing arm than even Nadal and that Roy Emerson could run faster than even Federer?
     
  20. BobbyOne

    BobbyOne Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2012
    Messages:
    7,773
    A huge amount of tennis experts and fans have witnessed Rosewall's precision and can easily compare it to Federer's.
     
  21. pc1

    pc1 Legend

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2008
    Messages:
    9,402
    Look at the link I provided in the post earlier.

    Yes, every shot is unique, the Federer forehand is unique, the Nadal forehand is unique, the Djokovic backhand is unique, the Pancho Gonzalez serve was unique, so what? You made the analysis that they wouldn't win a set from Federer so I disagreed.

    Here's another link and this one is to the World Team Tennis website.
    http://www.wtt.com/page.aspx?article_id=1235
     
    Last edited: Aug 31, 2012
  22. Dan Lobb

    Dan Lobb Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2011
    Messages:
    1,978
    I am not suggesting that they kept it secret, but that they didn't broadcast the information to other players on the tour, who were not involved. Perhaps originally it was supposed to be 13 matches, but Hoad and Laver played only 8 for the tour and Trabert, who was manager of the Professional Tennis Players Association, and organized a further 6 under their own auspices, managed by themselves. Is that clear? This appears to be what they did in February 1964, and perhaps what they did in 1963.
    The 1964 hth tour of Laver's home state is mentioned in a 2007 blog by Andrew Tas, who relied on newspaper reports in Australia. No reason to doubt this.
    This 1964 tour of Laver's home state looks like a tour cooked up between Hoad and Laver themselves, yes, a side tour. Afterwards, they joined Rosewall and Anderson for a four-man tour of New Zealand, a tour formally organized by the PTPA and Trabert.
    When Laver spoke in 1997, he made no equivocation,
    "When I turned pro in 1963, Hoad beat me in 14 STRAIGHT matches, and this was at a time when he was supposedly no longer interested in tennis."
    Could anything be clearer?
     
    Last edited: Aug 31, 2012
  23. Dan Lobb

    Dan Lobb Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2011
    Messages:
    1,978
    Hoad and Sedgman were super athletes, and trained harder than tennis players today. They were weight lifting fanatics, did five-mile jogs, Hoad did pushups with fifty pound weights on his back.
     
  24. hoodjem

    hoodjem G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2007
    Messages:
    12,743
    Location:
    Bierlandt
    Didn't this start his back problems?
     
  25. Dan Lobb

    Dan Lobb Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2011
    Messages:
    1,978
    It surely did. The exercise caused two herniated discs in his back, which was not cured until a spinal fusion operation in 1983, long after his retirement.
    Hoad made a great impression on the Aussie tennis team with this exercise, especially on the women's team, one of whom became his wife.
    Hoad began to experience back trouble in 1955, and cost him the 1956 US final at Forest Hills, and the grand slam.
     
  26. BobbyOne

    BobbyOne Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2012
    Messages:
    7,773
    I read the then actual report in World Tennis about the 1956 US final and there is no hint that Hoad suffered from back problems in that match. It just seems that you try to make your darling unbeatable, especially against Rosewall...
     
  27. Dan Lobb

    Dan Lobb Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2011
    Messages:
    1,978
    No, there is a recent biography of Hoad by Hodgson and Jones, 2001, that gives the whole story. There are many "inside" stories in this book.
    For example, Hoad stayed up drinking all night before the 1956 French final, was seriously drunk, and asked Laver to help him work the booze out of his system before the final.
    In the 1956 French final, he whipped Davidson, the 1957 champion, in straight sets, the third set 6 -1 [sic. should be 6-3]. Tito Brugnon watched the final, and then stated that none of the Musketeers or even Tilden could have taken more than a few games off Hoad on clay.
    Hoad experienced serious pain and stiffness immediately after the Wimbledon final, and took a slow boat trip to America to rest the back, which still bothered him in the US final against Rosewall. This severe stiffness would continue and even grow with the years, although he could play long stretches of matches without discomfort.
     
    Last edited: Aug 31, 2012
  28. BobbyOne

    BobbyOne Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2012
    Messages:
    7,773
    I guess you meant Toto Brugnon, not Tito who was a Yugoslavian dictator...
     
  29. Iron Man

    Iron Man Rookie

    Joined:
    Aug 23, 2009
    Messages:
    231
    pc1 , racquet technology allow players to hit with much power , but who has benefited from it? All the players nowadays use these modern racquets so they are equal on this basis , it's not as if Federer for example has a magic racquet that allows him to win all these titles . Federer is a very talented and unique player regardless he uses a modern or a wood racquet . if someone has benefited from technology I'm sure it's not him .
     
  30. BobbyOne

    BobbyOne Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2012
    Messages:
    7,773
    Noone then saw any sign of injury or illness of Hoad. I tend to believe that on that day the strength of Rosewall and the windy conditions told the story.
    At least Muscles referred to the blowing wind at Forest Hills and that he reacted better than Lew to the wind.

    Rosewall was extremely strong in the second half of 1956 and clearly the best amateur.
     
  31. BobbyOne

    BobbyOne Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2012
    Messages:
    7,773
    I would like to see Federer playing with a wooden racquet.
     
  32. pc1

    pc1 Legend

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2008
    Messages:
    9,402
    Never said Federer wasn't talented however when some people see the players from the past and think the quality of play is low they also have to realize the racquets of the past only allowed you to do so much. To use myself as an example, I hit the ball with far more spin and consistent power than I did when I was younger. I have far more consistent groundies and mishit far less. I may look like I'm a better player than I used to be but I know I am not nearly as good as I was, not that I was ever good but relatively speaking I know I was a lot better than I am now but with the equipment I may look like I play the game better now.

    I was just trying to point out the illusion sometimes that better equipment make you often think players are better when they may not be. The perfect example was aluminum bats in baseball. They are allowed in high school and college but many of the great hitters with aluminum bats can't make it with wood bats.
     
  33. pc1

    pc1 Legend

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2008
    Messages:
    9,402
    I think he probably could be he would have to change his style of play somewhat. Would he be able to play the same as now? I don't think he could play with the same style.
     
  34. Iron Man

    Iron Man Rookie

    Joined:
    Aug 23, 2009
    Messages:
    231

    the difference between the past and the present is not about the quality of play but about physical condition , today's players are more athletic than before . watching matches in the 60's and 70's ( videos) I have the feeling that they play more relaxed as though they're training not playing an official match . tennis was back then like a pastime not a profession you devote your life to .

    the equipment help players somehow but not to the extent that make average players excellent ones , and it isn't the only difference between past and present players .

    it's not the racquet that makes a good player ...
     
  35. BobbyOne

    BobbyOne Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2012
    Messages:
    7,773
    If you watch the players from the past and have the impression they are training, you quickly should visit an optician...

    Your statement is a scandal.
     
    Last edited: Aug 31, 2012
  36. pc1

    pc1 Legend

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2008
    Messages:
    9,402
    Playing with a wood racquet is far more demanding than playing with the racquets of today, trust me on this. The wood racquets were smaller but heavier than the racquets of today. Try hitting with that type of racquet for thousands of swings and there is a major difference.

    And actually tennis was a battle to make a living in those days. They didn't make the huge sums of money that they make today. It was not leisurely but a battle to survive. Guys like Pancho Gonzalez, when he play the major head to head tours knew he had to win or he would be a has been. How's that for pressure?

    Of course it's not the racquet that makes a good player but a great racquet can improve your level of play and what you can do with the ball. Do you think it was easy to hit heavy topspin with the older racquets? They had to hit flatter shots because the racquets wouldn't allowed them to hit the heavy topspin easily.

    I am trying to point out to you that the equipment often make you think the present players were FAR superior to the players of the past when it, imo isn't true. It's an illusion caused by the superior equipment. That's why I pointed out how McEnroe, over age 50 almost beat Andy Roddick two years ago in World Team Tennis in another post. John McEnroe in his prime lost to Tony Roche, past his prime. Not saying Roche was better than McEnroe but he would have been competitive if both were in their primes. It would be tough for both.

    That's why I also point out how the women today can belt the ball like heck and look FAR better than the male players of the 1960's and 1970'a when you know the men would destroy them if they used the same equipment.
     
    Last edited: Aug 31, 2012
  37. Iron Man

    Iron Man Rookie

    Joined:
    Aug 23, 2009
    Messages:
    231
    pc1 , I definitely agree with you . wood racquets are heavier and playing with them is more difficult but players ( in those eras) were used to them , the same thing with modern racquets .

    now concerning modern racquets , don't you think that things have become more difficult for players to defend since these racquets give more power and spin ? maybe big hitters have benefited from it but players like Federer for instance who belongs to the old school ( all court player, one-hand backhand ) what benefit did he get comparing to such players , or other players like Nadal who has crazy spinny shots ?

    So what I wanted to say is that everything has advantages and disadvantages .

    the second point is about money , tennis in the past was a sport for the rich and it was played in a few countries , that's why they used to play with more relaxation , but of course there are exceptions .

    Finally a great player is the player who can adapt to all conditions
    the other details are not that important .

    thanks pc1
     
    Last edited: Aug 31, 2012
  38. BobbyOne

    BobbyOne Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2012
    Messages:
    7,773
    Tennis was played in many countries also in earlier decades. For instance in 1977 there were 50 participants in the Davis Cup.

    I cannot understand your opinions about the "older times".
     
  39. krosero

    krosero Legend

    Joined:
    Dec 3, 2006
    Messages:
    5,620
    I don't know why it's taken me months to realize it, but none of your sources indicate that the 13 straight matches all took place on that first tour. None of them contradict the official 8-0 score of that tour. Laver doesn't, in that '97 interview. Nor does Bodo: he writes that Laver lost his first 13 matches against Hoad, but he doesn't specify that these matches all took place on the tour.

    And The Independent's interview with Laver in '93 actually refers to a time period after the tour:

    'It was a shock to see their game unfold in front of me,' Laver remembers. 'I was playing Hoad and Rosewall on alternate nights, and I didn't really know much about their game. I'd played them as a kid, before they turned pro in '57. Hoad was probably the person I most looked up to and tried hardest to emulate. It seemed to me that they never missed a ball, they hit it a little harder, and they were more accurate. So you had to play your best tennis all the time.'

    To start with, he didn't win much. It took him two or three months and more than a dozen matches to beat the glamorous Hoad, who had turned pro after beating Rosewall in the 1956 Wimbledon final. 'When he was in shape, Hoad was the most difficult. By the time I turned pro, he'd lost the desire to be a day-in, day-out competitor. He'd had a lot of injuries. But he said to himself that I'd won the grand slam, whereas in 1956 he'd won three grand slam tournaments - he'd lost the final of the fourth to Rosewall. To an extent, he was representing the pros. It wasn't exactly a vendetta, but it was a very concentrated effort on his part. And on Rosewall's, too.'​

    This means a few things.

    - Bodo was not "bucking the official number" when he reported 13 straight.

    - Laver, when he said that he lost 14 straight to Hoad after he turned pro, was not contradicting his book, which only mentions the January tour.

    - You have not produced a source stating that Hoad beat Laver in 13 matches on that tour. One of your sources, The Independent, even implies that the streak took place over two or three months, which would obviously extend well beyond the tour.

    However there's a problem with extending the streak beyond the tour. Laver beat Hoad on June 15 in Los Angeles. Hoad was reported to be returning at that time from four months with a shoulder injury. If he was out for four months, it means he got injured very shortly after the tour with Laver, which ended February 3. Laver, we know, went directly to the American tour, which fully occupied him well into April. So there's no opportunity for them to have met before Los Angeles, where Laver broke the streak.

    Indeed AndrewTas has no record of a Laver/Hoad meeting between the January tour and the Los Angeles tournament.

    I know of one source that claims a streak of 13 matches all taking place in the January tour. That was Cas Fish, writing in Tennis Today. I don't recall you presenting him as one of your sources (did you?), and no wonder, given how much in his article is wrong. He wrote that all the matches were best-of-five, and that Hoad won them all in straights.

    Fish was David Hernandez's source:

    Cas Fish describes the debacle in Tennis Today: "Contracted to play Hoad 13 best-of-five set matches, Laver won the first set of the first match, but was unable to win another. It doesn't take a mathematical genius to work out that this meant that Hoad won 39 con-secutive sets from Laver. . . . Hoad at that time had virtually retired from the game, was suffering with a chronically bad back, and had had only three weeks to practice before the match. . . . It rather makes nonsense of Laver's first grand slam."​

    Question for you, Dan. When did Fish write his article?
     
    Last edited: Aug 31, 2012
  40. Iron Man

    Iron Man Rookie

    Joined:
    Aug 23, 2009
    Messages:
    231
    present players are not much superior to old players but don't portray ( past players) them as superhumans that if given modern racquets the'll do miracles .

    the match between Roddick an Mcenroe was an exo for God's sake ; it's not taken seriously so we can't use it as a reference ..

    and it's not that we didn't watch matches in the past eras to have illusion , I said that there are other factors apart from racquets that make the difference ..

    ( I have to go to bed now , it's too late )

    good night pc1 , Bobby and everybody
     
    Last edited: Aug 31, 2012
  41. BobbyOne

    BobbyOne Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2012
    Messages:
    7,773
    I never claimed that Laver, Rosewall, Gonzalez, Newcombe, Ashe &Co. were superhumans. I just contradicted that they played as though they were practicing. The older tours had all you need: blood, sweat and tears...

    Have a good night too.
     
  42. TMF

    TMF Talk Tennis Guru

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2009
    Messages:
    21,212
    The modern equipment force the players to be more athletic, faster because the increase of the pace. Top players all have great movements, great court coverage, great defense. A player with average movement would suffer, but in the wooden era he should be less effected because the pace was slower, less pressure.

    The Big SERVE too. It's a major weapon today, and a player must have one to be great. Huge groundstrokes, if you don't have one, your game suffer too. New equipment doesn't help the players to play the game, but it force them to be a better player. And players who are undersize are at a disadvantage.
     
  43. Dan Lobb

    Dan Lobb Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2011
    Messages:
    1,978
    I used to believe that story, too, but the information in this new biography is more convincing and well sourced by someone who knew the truth.
    Rosewall was clearly the bestter player when Hoad was injured and couldn't bend his back.
     
    Last edited: Aug 31, 2012
  44. Aeropax

    Aeropax Rookie

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2011
    Messages:
    356
    Location:
    United States
    1. Federer
    2. Everyone else
     
  45. Dan Lobb

    Dan Lobb Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2011
    Messages:
    1,978
    Ken Rosewall rates Federer at #4, behind #1 Hoad, #2 Gonzales #3 Laver. Fourth place is pretty good behind these giants, no reason to complain.
     
    Last edited: Aug 31, 2012
  46. NonP

    NonP Professional

    Joined:
    Jul 22, 2009
    Messages:
    1,146
    Yes, it is indeed an illusion. You only need watch the old-timers' recent exos between themselves and against today's players to see how much more pace they're generating on average than they ever did even at their absolute peaks.

    The problem with these youngsters or relative neophytes is that most of them have a superficial or limited understanding of the game, so they simply can't see how its slower version or its practitioners from times past can compare with the superior pace and athleticism on display today, or how the stats alone don't tell us anything about the systematic changes that the sport has undergone over its long history. I mean, just earlier this year some people were seriously arguing that McEnroe (current version or not) wouldn't have it so easy against a modern 5.0 player. Given such a level of ignorance it's no wonder why they're so confident that even players from just 10 years ago would struggle against the superheroes of today, despite all the evidence and common sense to the contrary.

    And speaking of which, it really shouldn't take a genius to realize just how silly all these "discussions" are, because even if what the youngsters say is true it doesn't mean the former players were clearly inferior.

    The following comment from this YouTube page is typical:

    Now it's highly implausible that geriatric Edberg (or any other player, for that matter) is hitting his FH much better than he ever did in his salad days, but let's assume this is true for the sake of argument. But then it raises the question: if Edberg can somehow improve his FH so much in his 40s, what makes you think he wouldn't have done it had his prime coincided with today? And if today's training, equipment, nutrition or whatnot is so much better, as the familiar argument goes, what makes you think Edberg wouldn't have taken full advantage of it?

    Again this is just common sense, not rocket science. But no matter how much you point out the absurdity of the typical era comparisons it usually falls on deaf ears, either because the youngsters aren't very open to any opposing opinions and frankly because some of them are plain dimwits. Either way unless you have time to waste it's best to see if they show any willingness to engage in a serious discussion. That also goes for the more knowledgeable posters, who can be even worse since they tend to be more clever and slyly disingenuous.
     
  47. Dan Lobb

    Dan Lobb Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2011
    Messages:
    1,978
    Cas Fish appears to be unreliable. However, he may have picked up the 13 number from someone who had a better knowledge, (possibly Buchholz?), and exaggerated the actual results. Buchholz came out with the 13 number in 2007, after Hoad's death. It appears that Hoad did not want the information put out, perhaps because the six extra matches were part of a private commercial deal between Laver and himself.
    I have seen the Fish article only in the quote you give here.
    As I suggest above, Hoad and Laver, close friends, may have made their own arrangements for a supplementary tour of six matches, almost concurrent with the PTPA tour, while the official tour organized by Trabert and the PTPA would have been 8 matches. It appears that Hoad and Laver made their own private deal for the February 1964 hth tour of Laver's home state, which Laver won 7 to 1.
    Laver often pointed out that Gonzales had approached him in 1962 about joining him in a private tour of just the two of them. Laver preferred to deal with his close friends Hoad and Rosewall, and Trabert, also close to Hoad and Rosewall. Hoad was best man at Laver's wedding, and they had been close friends since 1956.
     
    Last edited: Aug 31, 2012
  48. Dan Lobb

    Dan Lobb Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2011
    Messages:
    1,978
    Yes, I see that it was Newk who squeaked out a five-set (11-9 in the fifth) win against Emmo. I think that Rosewall squeaked out a five-setter against Emmo in the TCC shortly before Wimbledon in 1970.
     
  49. Talker

    Talker Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Oct 4, 2007
    Messages:
    2,986
    When was this? The year will be good enough.
     
  50. Talker

    Talker Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Oct 4, 2007
    Messages:
    2,986
    Many experts have said directly that Fed has the best game ever played also.

    Do you agree with the experts?

    Don't forget Laver himself said this ERA is much more difficult than when he played.

    There are so many others saying the same thing about the present ERA.
    If you accept what experts say then you have to agree.
     

Share This Page