Originally Posted by pc1
I never wrote that the 39 straight sets are correct but I pointed it out as simply an example of how memory can distort the facts over a period of years.
There is no grasping for straws. I find it ironic that you write that when you grasp for straws whenever Lew Hoad loses. Did Hoad ever lose when he was in good shape in your mind?
Again I will point out that I believe Hoad very well could be the best ever when "on" his game. He had every shot in the book plus shots that weren't in the book. He had immense talent but he did play a very high risk game which can backfire on him. Do I believe Hoad was the most consistent player of all time in terms of playing level? No I do not think so but I also believe that Hoad was a far superior player in the pros than he was as an amateur.
I don't need interviews. I need newspaper or magazine articles to discuss the wins. I would prefer the scores of the matches. Recollections of players partial or impartial are not facts but recollections. It may point toward some possible results but it is far from definitive proof. I don't see your proof.
You make a good point.
I don't think that Hoad could lose a series when in good shape, and I think that the facts support that.
However, there is no doubt that after 1960, he was rarely in good shape, only in early 1963 when he spent a few weeks working out hard to prepare for Laver.
I am certainly partial to Hoad's playing abilities, which I agree with Rosewall, Laver, and Gonzales were the greatest ever.
Personally, I have little in common with Hoad, except for a stable marriage.