Head to Heads - Hoad/Laver, Newcombe/Laver, Newcombe/Emerson

[pc1]

Originally Posted by Dan Lobb

The Bucholz interview was in 04/04/2007 in Bodo's Tennis World, where Bucholz describes his witnessing Hoad drink all night before his matches with Laver, and then win the matches, all 13 of them.
Bucholz rates Hoad #1 of all time, as does Laver himself, who claims he lost the first 14 of his matches against Hoad (in the DVD of the top ten all-time narrated by John Forsythe, 1997).
The Laver interview and the DVD is now available for general order.
The only scores I have seen were reported in the London Times and New York Times, and also the McCauley book, who wrongly claims that the final Hoad-Laver score was 8 to 0. This score also appears in Collins book on Laver, published 1971, perhaps the source for McCauley. Actually, 8 to 0 was the score of the Laver-Hoad tour of 1964 in Laver's home state, which was followed by a 3 to 1 edge for Hoad in the four-man tour of New Zealand. Perhaps Laver provided the faulty source of the 8 to 0 from his memory of the 1964 tour.

That's an interview and can be wrong. I don't see documented facts here. I've also seen interviews in which they mention that Laver didn't win any sets off of Hoad which is incorrect.

To state the obvious you're very partial to Hoad. I think Hoad was fantastic and I don't think he needs excuses to prove he was a superb player.

[Dan Lobb]

Originally Posted by pc1

That's an interview and can be wrong. I don't see documented facts here. I've also seen interviews in which they mention that Laver didn't win any sets off of Hoad which is incorrect.

To state the obvious you're very partial to Hoad. I think Hoad was fantastic and I don't think he needs excuses to prove he was a superb player.

There were also press reports, still available, that both Hoad and Rosewall signed contracts to play a 13 match series against Laver in January, 1963.
Combined with the recollections of Bucholz and Laver, who were both present throughout the series, this constitutes pretty strong documentation.
"Documentation" does not refer simply to press reports, but can include recollections.

[pc1]

Originally Posted by Dan Lobb

There were also press reports, still available, that both Hoad and Rosewall signed contracts to play a 13 match series against Laver in January, 1963.
Combined with the recollections of Bucholz and Laver, who were both present throughout the series, this constitutes pretty strong documentation.
"Documentation" does not reer simply to press reports, but can include player interviews.

A 13 match series could be the total of both Rosewall and Laver. Without scores there is no documentation. I have scores of only six wins in that series myself by Hoad over Laver. Many sources also have Hoad defeating Laver 8-0 on that tour.

I've seen recollections by players that are so far off that it's quite amusing. The years may fog the memories of the players.

[Dan Lobb]

Originally Posted by pc1

A 13 match series could be the total of both Rosewall and Laver. Without scores there is no documentation. I have scores of only six wins in that series myself by Hoad over Laver. Many sources also have Hoad defeating Laver 8-0 on that tour.

I've seen recollections by players that are so far off that it's quite amusing. The years may fog the memories of the players.

Cas Fish in Tennis Today recounts the series between Hoad and Laver, stating that they were contracted to play a 13 match series (and we know from other sources that Rosewall and Laver also played a 13 match series).
Fish also states that Hoad won 39 straight sets sometime during the run.
These facts are consistent with the recollections of Laver himself (and players do not usually forget getting skunked in a series 13 to 0, you are grasping at straws here).
Bucholz was also playing the same tour, and was an interested observer, hardly likely to forget such an unusual outcome as 13 to 0 (his own recollection, probably backed by written data), which caused Bucholz himself to rate Hoad as number one all-time.

[Dan Lobb]

Originally Posted by pc1

That's an interview and can be wrong. I don't see documented facts here. I've also seen interviews in which they mention that Laver didn't win any sets off of Hoad which is incorrect.

To state the obvious you're very partial to Hoad. I think Hoad was fantastic and I don't think he needs excuses to prove he was a superb player.

The quote of winning no sets is an incorrect quote from Cas Fish, who stated that Hoad won a stretch of 39 straight sets during the 13 to 0 skunking of Laver by Hoad.

[Dan Lobb]

Originally Posted by hoodjem

Speaking of Hoad and certain H2Hs, Hoad defeated Muscles in the finals at the Australian championship and Wimbledon in 1956, and Rosewall beat Hoad at the US championship that same year.

Why was Rosewall absent from the French championship in 1956?

Rosewall had trouble at Wimbledon in 1953 when he was number one seeded (upset by an average player, Nielsen) and again in 1955 (upset by Nielsen again).
He wanted to work on his grass game, which he did in Australia during the 1956 clay season.

[Dan Lobb]

Originally Posted by urban

The score of 8-0 for Hoad in January 1963 also appears in the 1964 Laver book Tennis- The winning way, by Jack Pollard. As Pollard was also the shadowwriter of Hoad, i assume, that this early reference is right. McCauley has the score of 7 matches in Australia/ NZ, maybe one more win for Hoad was played in the US later. If we are talking about the Australia-NZ series with the doubleheader Laver-Hoad, and Laver- Rosewall, Laver had to deal with both of them each meeting within two days, what he himself calls putting his head into a cement mixer. The score of the first Laver-Rosewall series in Australia and NZ was 11-13, 2-3 in Australia, 0-8 in NZ. Maybe that explains the false 13 matches score.

I believe that the 8 to 0 score refers to the Laver-Hoad tour of Laver's home state in early 1964, in which Laver defeated Hoad 8 to 0.
The following month, Hoad defeated Laver 3 to 1 in the four-man New Zealand tour, with Rosewall in third place (Hoad and Laver both finished at 7 and 5, but Hoad claimed first place on the 3 to 1 hth with Laver).
The 1964 book may have been confused.

[Limpinhitter]

Originally Posted by pc1

. . . . To state the obvious you're very partial to Hoad. I think Hoad was fantastic and I don't think he needs excuses to prove he was a superb player.

"Welcome back my friend,
To the show that never ends,
We're so glad you could attend,
Come inside, come inside."

***** are equally obnoxious no matter who they're tarding for.

[urban]

The book by Laver/ Pollard was written even before 1964, it ends with references to the Rosewall-Laver series in the USA in spring 1963. I would better say, that later recollections confused such things.

[pc1]

Originally Posted by Dan Lobb

Cas Fish in Tennis Today recounts the series between Hoad and Laver, stating that they were contracted to play a 13 match series (and we know from other sources that Rosewall and Laver also played a 13 match series).
Fish also states that Hoad won 39 straight sets sometime during the run.
These facts are consistent with the recollections of Laver himself (and players do not usually forget getting skunked in a series 13 to 0, you are grasping at straws here).
Bucholz was also playing the same tour, and was an interested observer, hardly likely to forget such an unusual outcome as 13 to 0 (his own recollection, probably backed by written data), which caused Bucholz himself to rate Hoad as number one all-time.

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.

[krosero]

In Google News there is a very early report from February 8, 1963, stating that Laver had lost 19 of 21 matches against Rosewall and Hoad. Since Laver played Rosewall 13 times, the remaining 8 can be inferred to be Hoad/Laver matches: http://news.google.com/newspapers?id...1534%2C3579706

On May 16 the New York Times reported that Hoad beat Laver 8-0:

The left-hander had made his pro debut Down Under. Lew Hoad knocked him off eight straight. Rosewall won 11 of 13. But during the months in between, the education of Rod Laver has made considerable progress. In the preliminary round-robin among the full pro troupe Rosewall compiled a 31-10 won-lost record while Laver, winning nine of his last 11 matches, finished with 25-16. They will meet at the Garden tonight in another match of their 21-match playoff series for the $35,000 top prize.

And then again on September 14, the Times:

The palace revolution in pro tennis will enter a decisive phase tomorrow in the final round of the $10,000 French international championships. Who is the second-best tennis player in the world? Is it Rod Laver, the 26-year-old pro rookie? Or is it Ken Rosewall, 29, the reigning king of the game?

Today, Laver – leaping, smashing, always on the move – cut down Frank Sedgman, 6-4, 6-3, 6-2. Rosewall, as brisk and economic as always, demolished Lew Hoad, 10-8, 6-2, 6-3.

Tomorrow, Laver and Rosewall will meet in the final. There is no question about Laver’s progress since he turned pro at the start of the year. He is at least the second-best player. Is he perhaps first best?

In January, Laver toured Australia and New Zealand with Rosewall and Hoad. He played one or the other nearly every night. Hoad beat him eight straight times. Rosewall beat him 13 of 15 matches.

Laver had turned pro for a guaranteed $110,000 over a three-year period. The January tour was designed to show fans Down Under in the most graphic way possible the difference between amateur and pro tennis.

Through the Tennis Mill

Also it was meant to put Laver through the mill, to make him into a top pro quickly, or break him. “We believe that all that hard traveling brings out character in a man,” said Tony Trabert, the director of the pro tennis tour.

“A top player must learn to play on grass one night, boards the next. He must learn to play when stiff from traveling all day, when he isn’t eating properly, when he hasn’t slept well.”

The January tour drew an average of 9,000 fans a match. It also made Laver into a pro overnight.

By the end of the spring, Laver was able to beat Hoad most times. In tournaments this summer, he managed to beat Rosewall, too. He won three tournaments – in Cannes, France; Kitzbuhel, Austria and Noordwijk, Holland. Andres Gimeno of Spain won the fourth tournament in Portschach, Austria.

[pc1]

Originally Posted by krosero

In Google News there is a very early report from February 8, 1963, stating that Laver had lost 19 of 21 matches against Rosewall and Hoad. Since Laver played Rosewall 13 times, the remaining 8 can be inferred to be Hoad/Laver matches: http://news.google.com/newspapers?id...1534%2C3579706

On May 16 the New York Times reported that Hoad beat Laver 8-0:

The left-hander had made his pro debut Down Under. Lew Hoad knocked him off eight straight. Rosewall won 11 of 13. But during the months in between, the education of Rod Laver has made considerable progress. In the preliminary round-robin among the full pro troupe Rosewall compiled a 31-10 won-lost record while Laver, winning nine of his last 11 matches, finished with 25-16. They will meet at the Garden tonight in another match of their 21-match playoff series for the $35,000 top prize.

And then again on September 14, the Times:

The palace revolution in pro tennis will enter a decisive phase tomorrow in the final round of the $10,000 French international championships. Who is the second-best tennis player in the world? Is it Rod Laver, the 26-year-old pro rookie? Or is it Ken Rosewall, 29, the reigning king of the game?

Today, Laver – leaping, smashing, always on the move – cut down Frank Sedgman, 6-4, 6-3, 6-2. Rosewall, as brisk and economic as always, demolished Lew Hoad, 10-8, 6-2, 6-3.

Tomorrow, Laver and Rosewall will meet in the final. There is no question about Laver’s progress since he turned pro at the start of the year. He is at least the second-best player. Is he perhaps first best?

In January, Laver toured Australia and New Zealand with Rosewall and Hoad. He played one or the other nearly every night. Hoad beat him eight straight times. Rosewall beat him 13 of 15 matches.

Laver had turned pro for a guaranteed $110,000 over a three-year period. The January tour was designed to show fans Down Under in the most graphic way possible the difference between amateur and pro tennis.

Through the Tennis Mill

Also it was meant to put Laver through the mill, to make him into a top pro quickly, or break him. “We believe that all that hard traveling brings out character in a man,” said Tony Trabert, the director of the pro tennis tour.

“A top player must learn to play on grass one night, boards the next. He must learn to play when stiff from traveling all day, when he isn’t eating properly, when he hasn’t slept well.”

The January tour drew an average of 9,000 fans a match. It also made Laver into a pro overnight.

By the end of the spring, Laver was able to beat Hoad most times. In tournaments this summer, he managed to beat Rosewall, too. He won three tournaments – in Cannes, France; Kitzbuhel, Austria and Noordwijk, Holland. Andres Gimeno of Spain won the fourth tournament in Portschach, Austria.

I've read that also and frankly I would tend to believe that over the 13-0 record.

Incidentally a young pro who is just introduced to the Pro Tour in those days often had a big losing streak. I believe Hoad was losing quite often in the beginning to top pros like Segura.

[Dan Lobb]

Originally Posted by pc1

I've read that also and frankly I would tend to believe that over the 13-0 record.

Incidentally a young pro who is just introduced to the Pro Tour in those days often had a big losing streak. I believe Hoad was losing quite often in the beginning to top pros like Segura.

Segura was no longer at the top when he played Hoad in 1957, and Kramer believed that Hoad tanked against him and Segura because of this.
Laver had an introductory series of practice matches against Hoad and Rosewall before the public matches began, and Laver won the most important match of the series against Rosewall at Kooyong (a televised match) in a four-set slugfest, after losing the previous evening a close five-setter against Hoad on the same court (also televised). Doesn't look like he had the rookie nerves.
Again, this 8 to 0 report conflicts with the press reports of a contract for 13 matches against Hoad, and the clear recollections of the participants of the series.
Someone like Laver doesn't say in public that he lost his first 14 matches to someone without being well aware of it. This is not something you would forget. Yeah, I still say it looks like grasping at straws.

[Dan Lobb]

Originally Posted by Limpinhitter

"Welcome back my friend,
To the show that never ends,
We're so glad you could attend,
Come inside, come inside."

***** are equally obnoxious no matter who they're tarding for.

I guess you must have a low opinion of Rosewall, Laver, and Gonzales, all of whom put Hoad at the top of their all-time list.
I will join my own opinion to theirs, rather than yours.
I hope that you are not offended by that.

[Dan Lobb]

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.

[Limpinhitter]

Originally Posted by Dan Lobb

I guess you must have a low opinion of Rosewall, Laver, and Gonzales, all of whom put Hoad at the top of their all-time list.
I will join my own opinion to theirs, rather than yours.
I hope that you are not offended by that.

"Come inside, the show's about to start.
Guaranteed to blow your head apart."

Laver and Rosewall do, indeed, put Hoad at the top of their pre open era lists. But, they politely don't rank themselves. So, you have to wonder what they really think about that. I personally put Laver above Hoad on any all time list, before and/or after open tennis. But, that's just my opinion. However, I'm pretty confident that Gonzales put himself at the top of his list, and I couldn't disagree with him.

[krosero]

Originally Posted by Dan Lobb

There were also press reports, still available, that both Hoad and Rosewall signed contracts to play a 13 match series against Laver in January, 1963.

Please produce those reports. Please quote from them.

In the meantime there is this press report from the last day of 1962, indicating that Laver was contracted to play only 22 matches, not the 26 you have claimed: http://news.google.com/newspapers?id...3578%2C4105455

Originally Posted by Dan Lobb

Combined with the recollections of Bucholz and Laver, who were both present throughout the series, this constitutes pretty strong documentation.

You haven't given us the press reports; the only evidence you've documented so far are the quotes from Laver and Bucholz. Both of those recollections took place decades after the events in question. That's really weak evidence.

Meanwhile we have documented press reports stating flat out that Hoad's final margin over Laver in that tour was 8-0.

Moreover, in August 1968 Sports Illustrated had this: "Laver lost all eight of his matches to Hoad and lost 11 of 13 to Rosewall."

McCauley reported those same numbers, and actually produced scores from 6 of Hoad's wins. No one as yet has produced more than 8, still less 13.

[krosero]

Originally Posted by Dan Lobb

These facts are consistent with the recollections of Laver himself (and players do not usually forget getting skunked in a series 13 to 0, you are grasping at straws here).
Bucholz was also playing the same tour, and was an interested observer, hardly likely to forget such an unusual outcome as 13 to 0 (his own recollection, probably backed by written data), which caused Bucholz himself to rate Hoad as number one all-time.

Originally Posted by Dan Lobb

Someone like Laver doesn't say in public that he lost his first 14 matches to someone without being well aware of it. This is not something you would forget.

To the parts I've bolded: I have to say something about this because I see posters doing it ALL the time. Assuming the very thing they're trying to prove.

Your argument that Laver would never forget being skunked 13 to 0 is not evidence -- and it's not even relevant.

If I said to you, "IMO Laver would forget being skunked 13 to 0. IMO he would forget it. I think he's forgotten that this happened to him," then it would be relevant for you to counter with this: "No, you don't forget something like that happening to you."

Otherwise it's irrelevant, because nobody here is claiming that Laver has forgotten getting skunked 13 to 0. IF you get skunked 13 matches to zero, you probably won't forget it. That is not the question. The question is, did it happen?

I'll make it as absurd as possible.

"I think New York was nuked in 1945."

"Why do you say that? Where's the evidence?"

"A survivor recalled it in 1971. His interview is online. His recollections were clear, and he was adamant about it. I don't think you would forget something like that happening to you. Impossible to forget."

"Well, uh, yeah ... IF such a thing happened, a survivor would probably never forget it. But that's not the question. The question is, did this thing happen?"

This is such a common line of argument: exclaiming that some event -- the very thing you're trying to prove -- would never be forgotten. You assume your own conclusion, say something about it ("no one could forget that"), and, voila .... it must have happened.

[urban]

Those press reports, Krosero found, correspond with my assesment of the 1963 pro season. After a rough baptism in January and at the beginnig of the US pro tour (with uncommon indoor courts), Laver slowly came alive as pro, and in the second part of the season in Europe, he came quite close in challenging Rosewall as pro Nr. 1. That early January tour in Australia/NZ was actually closer than the overall score would tell. In the big venues of Australia, Laver was only 2-3 against the pro king Rosewall, then broke down in NZ. Maybe the pro format of one match ervery night got to him, maybe the psychological burden of the young pro, which every new pro encountered, was too much. On the US spring tour, he did sometimes well against Rosewall, once beating him love and 3 at Madison Square Garden, when Allison Danzig, as refered by Jack Pollard, called his progress as pro astonishing. Overall Rosewall was clearly the Nr. 1 player in 1963, he won Paris in a very close affair over Laver, and later Wembley over Hoad. But Laver had a pretty good roockie season, although 1963 was numerically by far his worst season in all the 60s.

[hoodjem]

Originally Posted by Dan Lobb

Segura was no longer at the top when he played Hoad in 1957, and Kramer believed that Hoad tanked against him and Segura because of this.
Laver had an introductory series of practice matches against Hoad and Rosewall before the public matches began, and Laver won the most important match of the series against Rosewall at Kooyong (a televised match) in a four-set slugfest, after losing the previous evening a close five-setter against Hoad on the same court (also televised). Doesn't look like he had the rookie nerves.
Again, this 8 to 0 report conflicts with the press reports of a contract for 13 matches against Hoad, and the clear recollections of the participants of the series.
Someone like Laver doesn't say in public that he lost his first 14 matches to someone without being well aware of it. This is not something you would forget. Yeah, I still say it looks like grasping at straws.

Laver may be very humble, but he is also very honest and truthful. I believe him.