Whats your top 10 of all time right now?

[pc1]

Originally Posted by TennisLovaLova

How can you analyse tennis strokes when EVERY SINGLE SHOT is unique and different than any other one?

What is world team tennis btw?

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

[Dan Lobb]

Originally Posted by krosero

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?

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?

[Dan Lobb]

Originally Posted by BobbyOne

Do you know that Lew Hoad had a bigger playing arm than even Nadal and that Roy Emerson could run faster than even Federer?

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.

[hoodjem]

Originally Posted by Dan Lobb

Hoad did pushups with fifty pound weights on his back.

Didn't this start his back problems?

[Dan Lobb]

Originally Posted by hoodjem

Didn't this start his back problems?

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.

[BobbyOne]

Originally Posted by Dan Lobb

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.

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...

[Dan Lobb]

Originally Posted by BobbyOne

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...

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.

[BobbyOne]

Originally Posted by Dan Lobb

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. 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.

I guess you meant Toto Brugnon, not Tito who was a Yugoslavian dictator...

[Iron Man]

Originally Posted by pc1

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-R...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.

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 .

[BobbyOne]

Originally Posted by Dan Lobb

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. 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.

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.

[BobbyOne]

Originally Posted by Iron Man

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 .

I would like to see Federer playing with a wooden racquet.

[pc1]

Originally Posted by Iron Man

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 .

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.

[pc1]

Originally Posted by BobbyOne

I would like to see Federer playing with a wooden racquet.

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.

[Iron Man]

Originally Posted by pc1

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.

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 ...

[BobbyOne]

Originally Posted by Iron Man

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 ...

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.

[pc1]

Originally Posted by Iron Man

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 ...

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.

[Iron Man]

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

[BobbyOne]

Originally Posted by Iron Man

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 relax , 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

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".

[krosero]

Originally Posted by Dan Lobb

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?

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?

[Iron Man]

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