View Single Post
Old 05-22-2012, 08:55 AM   #46
Dan Lobb
Hall Of Fame
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 1,955

Originally Posted by pc1 View Post
Tanking means purposely losing. I don't think Hoad tanked against Segura. I just think he plain lost. Frankly according also to Jack Kramer, Hoad won a few matches at the beginning of his pro career and then went on a long losing streak. Now why would Hoad want to lose to start off his pro career? I don't think so. The thought of that makes absolutely no sense to me. Segura was still a great player in 1957. He won the Australian Pro Champs by defeating Hartwig, Gonzalez and Sedgman. He was in the finals of the US Pro defeating Pails and Rosewall before losing to Gonzalez in the final. He crushed Hoad in a round robin tournament 6-3 6-0 and in Cannes 6-1 6-3. He reached the finals of Wembley losing in five sets to Rosewall after defeating Gonzalez to reach the final. Segura won another Round Robin in Manila by going 3-0 defeating Hoad in three sets. Segura also defeated Rosewall and Kramer in the same tournament.

So Segura was in two finals of the three pro majors and won a number of tournaments. Doesn't sound that bad to me.

This is not grasping at straws by the way. This is grasping for the truth. I love tennis history but I don't like fantasy in tennis history. Never cared for stories that I thought didn't make sense like the invisible serve of Vines against Bunny Austin in the early 1930's. If Laver truly lost 13 I would like documentation not hearsay.

Hoad's accomplishments can stand on their own, including his losses. Every player can make excuses for losses. I find it amusing that it seems you want to explain away every loss of Hoad. Hoad's is a rare talent in tennis. Arguably he is the best when he is on his game. Very few players had the variety of tennis weapons that Hoad had. He could hit offensive shots from anywhere and his strength was legendary. With the tennis racquets today he might not have to hit passing shots, the power of his shots might go through his opponent's racquets.
Laver and Bucholz recounting their own experiences does not constitute hearsay, but testimony. Obviously, you have not been to court lately.
This is the definition of testimony, quite different from hearsay.
Laver would hardly forget a 13 to 0 skunking, but he did not mention this number until 1997, after the deaths of both Hoad and Gonzales.
Dan Lobb is offline   Reply With Quote