Lew Hoad-A discussion on his career

[pc1]

Question for Dan Lobb and this is important. If Hoad won the tour against Gonzalez in 1959, why wasn't he invited to defend his "World Title" in 1960 which Gonzalez won over Rosewall, Segura and Olmedo?

My reasoning is if Hoad was considered to be World Champion wouldn't logic dictate that he be invited back to defend his World Title?

For the record Gonzalez was fabulous in 1960 in winning the tour with an exceptional 49-8 record, with Rosewall far behind at 32-25, Segura at 22-28 and Olmedo at 11-44.

[Mustard]

Hoad pulled out of the 1960 world pro tour injured, didn't he? I believe Rosewall took Hoad's place on the tour, if I'm not mistaken? The Tournament of Champions was discontinued, and soon sponsors started to leave and the US Pro's finances in Cleveland and the French Pro's finances at Roland Garros, began to suffer.

[pc1]

My opinion on Lew Hoad is that he is one of the most gifted if not the most gifted player in the history of tennis. There was almost nothing he couldn't do. He obviously had huge power on serve, volley, backhand and forehand. He was very quick, great stamina and good touch. Was he a consistent player with few errors, apparently not but that goes with the style.

The man was the only person to defeat Gonzalez in a head to head tour when Gonzalez was in his prime, beating him by a close score of 15 to 13.

Many people have called Hoad the BOAT. Now I believe if you look at career accomplishments I cannot logically think that Hoad is anywhere close to being the BOAT for career accomplishments because he simply didn't play enough. He was done in by back injuries. I also see that he seemed to have a lot of losses that a player of his great abilities shouldn't have had.

So if Hoad cannot qualify as the BOAT for most career accomplishments you have to look at peak value. Some believe that Hoad had his best year in 1959 when he beat Gonzalez more times than Gonzalez defeated him on the tour. The thing is that he did have a lot of losses that year and he did lose some other tours played. Does it qualify as a super peak year? Certainly by record it doesn't look as impressive as some peak years of greats however the Old Pro Tour was an incredibly tough level of competition. It was filled with great players like Rosewall, Gonzalez, Trabert, Cooper, Segura, Sedgman, Anderson among others. So the key here is how powerful was the competition. Gonzalez to me was around his physical peak or perhaps slightly past so certainly that qualifies as an awesome foe as is Ken Rosewall. Trabert was certainly a very powerful opponent and Sedgman is perhaps up there with anyone. Is it a more impressive year than let's say Agassi in 1999? Perhaps. Is it more impressive than some of Sampras' great years? Maybe. Is it more impressive than some of Federer's great years? Who knows?

One negative is that Hoad didn't win Wembley, the US Pro or the French Pro in 1959.

I'll leave it up for discussion whether Hoad in 1959 qualifies as a super great year.

Another possibility for Hoad as BOAT is whether he was the greatest for a single individual match or series of matches. Now of course it is a matter of opinion but many people believe this to be true of Lew Hoad, by that I mean he was possibly the greatest ever for a single match or a series of matches.

I am of the opinion this could very well be possible that he was the greatest for a single match but you can also argue Gonzalez, Laver, Vines, Tilden, Ashe, Kovacs, Richard Norris Williams and several others. There are stories about Hoad on how he seemed to do nothing but hit winners off everything for a little while and was unstoppable. Vines himself was of the opinion Hoad could even do this at times against Don Budge and Vines thought Budge was the best player after World War I so that comment is pretty impressive.

Of all the players I've read about I believe Hoad is the most likely candidate for being the Best Ever for one individual match or series of matches. We can't prove it but he would be my best guess if I had to make a pick.

[pc1]

Originally Posted by Mustard

Hoad pulled out of the 1960 world pro tour injured, didn't he? I believe Rosewall took Hoad's place on the tour, if I'm not mistaken? The Tournament of Champions was discontinued, and soon sponsors started to leave and the US Pro's finances in Cleveland and the French Pro's finances at Roland Garros, began to suffer.

So perhaps that was the reason. Thanks Mustard.

[Dan Lobb]

Originally Posted by BobbyOne

But you can't neglect that there was a 4 man world series to also determine the world's best.

I always have ranked Gonzalez and Hoad equal for that year (with Rosewall as possible Co.-No 1 as he was 8:4 against Gonzalez and had the best record against his opponents regarding to Rosewall's claim in the Rowley book)

In 1964 the situation was different as there was no world series but "only" a 14(?) tournament tour to determine the No.1.

Good point.
There were, in fact, TWO official world pro championship tours in 1959, the four-man (which was not really a four-man, as Hoad and Gonzales played a disproportionate share of their matches against each other) American tour, and the Ampol world tournament tour of 14 events, in which all pros took part.
Why?
Because of contracts and money.
Ampol was a financial partner of Kramer, and could demand a world championship of its own based on major tournaments, and Kramer's traditional system of head to head series had acquired a momentum of its own, and was a contractual arrangement with Gonzales and Hoad carrying over from 1957.
So in 1958 and 1959, Ampol comes on board (as financial partner) and we get two world championships.

[Mustard]

Yet Kramer ranked Hoad in fourth place for 1959.

[Dan Lobb]

Originally Posted by pc1

Question for Dan Lobb and this is important. If Hoad won the tour against Gonzalez in 1959, why wasn't he invited to defend his "World Title" in 1960 which Gonzalez won over Rosewall, Segura and Olmedo?

My reasoning is if Hoad was considered to be World Champion wouldn't logic dictate that he be invited back to defend his World Title?

For the record Gonzalez was fabulous in 1960 in winning the tour with an exceptional 49-8 record, with Rosewall far behind at 32-25, Segura at 22-28 and Olmedo at 11-44.

The New York Times and London Times report in late 1959 about Kramer's attempts to sign Hoad for the 1960 season, and how Hoad responded that he had won ove $250,000 since turning pro, and wanted to spend more time with his family.
He TURNED IT DOWN, and Kramer had to ask Rosewall to fill Hoad's spot, with the result that the 1960 tour was a financial failure.
Hoad did not defend his 1959 Ampol championship because IT NO LONGER EXISTED. When Hoad semi-retired in Jan. 1960, Ampol apparently severed its relationship with the Kramer tour, and the Ampol series was not renewed.
Ampol came on board in 1957 when Hoad turned pro, and left in 1960 when Hoad pulled out of the tour.

[pc1]

Originally Posted by Dan Lobb

The New York Times and London Times report in late 1959 about Kramer's attempts to sign Hoad for the 1960 season, and how Hoad responded that he had won ove $250,000 since turning pro, and wanted to spend more time with his family.
He TURNED IT DOWN, and Kramer had to ask Rosewall to fill Hoad's spot, with the result that the 1960 tour was a financial failure.

Did either of the publications mention that Hoad was the World Champion?

[pc1]

Originally Posted by Mustard

Yet Kramer ranked Hoad in fourth place for 1959.

That's also a puzzle because if the head to head against Gonzalez was for the World Title you would figure Kramer would rank Hoad number one but the rankings could have been just Kramer's opinions of how good the players were. What was the exact order of the top four? I assume Gonzalez was number one and I assume Rosewall was there among the four. Was it Sedgman in the top four?

[Dan Lobb]

Originally Posted by Mustard

Yet Kramer ranked Hoad in fourth place for 1959.

Kramer was always frustrated with Hoad.
He tried to sign him to the pro tour in 1953, right after the Davis Cup, when Hoad had just turned 19!
He tried again in 1955 and 1956.
Kramer was not always informed of Hoad's back trouble, perhaps because it might undermine Hoad's bargaining power.
Kramer believed that Hoad tanked against himself and Segura on the 1957 European tour, that he "didn't give a damn" about beating the older players, and that Hoad was "never much interested in tennis".
I think that this explains the low ranking he gave, just after Hoad walked out on the 1960 tour, costing Kramer his partnership with Ampol and jeapardizing the pro tour.
Kramer's displeasure is understandable.

[Dan Lobb]

Originally Posted by pc1

Did either of the publications mention that Hoad was the World Champion?

They mentioned that Hoad won the bonus money pool for the 1959 season for having the best record in the designated events.
The idea that the Ampol series was designed to determine the world number one is given by Anderson in the World Tennis article.
Unfortunately, all I have is the McCauley quote of the Anderson article,.

[Dan Lobb]

Originally Posted by pc1

That's also a puzzle because if the head to head against Gonzalez was for the World Title you would figure Kramer would rank Hoad number one but the rankings could have been just Kramer's opinions of how good the players were. What was the exact order of the top four? I assume Gonzalez was number one and I assume Rosewall was there among the four. Was it Sedgman in the top four?

The order of finish on the Ampol tour is given by McCauley on p.97.
Hoad, Gonzales, Rosewall, Sedgman,Trabert, Anderson, Segura, Cooper.
This ranking reflects only the 14 Ampol tournaments.
The four-man American tour was for a separate world championship title, and not related to the Ampol tournament series. Gonzales was declared winner, with 47 overall wins, yet Hodgson claims that because Hoad defeated all three opponents, no winner could be declared.
So there were actually TWO world championships on the Kramer tour for 1959!

[pc1]

Originally Posted by Dan Lobb

They mentioned that Hoad won the bonus money pool for the 1959 season for having the best record in the designated events.
The idea that the Ampol series was designed to determine the world number one is given by Anderson in the World Tennis article.
Unfortunately, all I have is the McCauley quote of the Anderson article,.

Thanks Dan for this and the previous post.

[BobbyOne]

Originally Posted by Dan Lobb

Good point.
There were, in fact, TWO official world pro championship tours in 1959, the four-man (which was not really a four-man, as Hoad and Gonzales played a disproportionate share of their matches against each other) American tour, and the Ampol world tournament tour of 14 events, in which all pros took part.
Why?
Because of contracts and money.
Ampol was a financial partner of Kramer, and could demand a world championship of its own based on major tournaments, and Kramer's traditional system of head to head series had acquired a momentum of its own, and was a contractual arrangement with Gonzales and Hoad carrying over from 1957.
So in 1958 and 1959, Ampol comes on board (as financial partner) and we get two world championships.

I would say that the 1959 4 man tour was not a full r.r. but yet a true 4 man tour. (sorry for this tautology)

[BobbyOne]

Originally Posted by pc1

That's also a puzzle because if the head to head against Gonzalez was for the World Title you would figure Kramer would rank Hoad number one but the rankings could have been just Kramer's opinions of how good the players were. What was the exact order of the top four? I assume Gonzalez was number one and I assume Rosewall was there among the four. Was it Sedgman in the top four?

pc1, Kramer ranked Gonzalez, Sedgman (why so high?), Rosewall, Hoad, Trabert, Segura, Cooper, Anderson.

If I recall correctly he ranked exactly the same for 1958!

[BobbyOne]

Originally Posted by Dan Lobb

Kramer was always frustrated with Hoad.
He tried to sign him to the pro tour in 1953, right after the Davis Cup, when Hoad had just turned 19!
He tried again in 1955 and 1956.
Kramer was not always informed of Hoad's back trouble, perhaps because it might undermine Hoad's bargaining power.
Kramer believed that Hoad tanked against himself and Segura on the 1957 European tour, that he "didn't give a damn" about beating the older players, and that Hoad was "never much interested in tennis".
I think that this explains the low ranking he gave, just after Hoad walked out on the 1960 tour, costing Kramer his partnership with Ampol and jeapardizing the pro tour.
Kramer's displeasure is understandable.

Dan, at last a post where I can fully agree!

[BobbyOne]

Originally Posted by Dan Lobb

The order of finish on the Ampol tour is given by McCauley on p.97.
Hoad, Gonzales, Rosewall, Sedgman,Trabert, Anderson, Segura, Cooper.
This ranking reflects only the 14 Ampol tournaments.
The four-man American tour was for a separate world championship title, and not related to the Ampol tournament series. Gonzales was declared winner, with 47 overall wins, yet Hodgson claims that because Hoad defeated all three opponents, no winner could be declared.
So there were actually TWO world championships on the Kramer tour for 1959!

Dan, pc1 asked about the Kramer rankings.

[urban]

Pc1 makes a valuable point, when he calls Hoad one of the best or maybe the best player for one match. Its hard to prove positively or negatively, because me and most people here haven't seen him play in his prime (except for short clips). Me and some here have seen performances of Laver, Borg, mostly on clay, Mac 1984, Sampras at Wim 1999, Federer USO 2004, Nadal RG 2008, which came close to perfection.
What we have about Hoad are sources by fellow players, like that of Gordon Forbes, who argues in similar lines as pc 1. Nevertheless we all here believe this statement. Over a year, there were clearly better years than that of Hoad in 1959, although it is given, that the competition was a high as possible. That Hoad never won Wembley, the most prestigious title of the pro tour, is a blemish on his record, more than his failure to win the classic Forest Hills major (he shares this with Borg). He had many tries at London, but never could overcome Rosewall there.
It is interesting, what may be the best way to constitute the best player, one match, one tournament, one series of hth matches or a tournment series? I would advocate the latter option, for the match i would probably nominate Hoad (or some others), for the hth series Gonzalez, for one tournament, it would depend on surfaces, clay Borg, Rosewall or Nadal, hard Federer or Laver, grass Sampras or Laver, for a tournament series across all surfaces probably Laver.

[BobbyOne]

Originally Posted by urban

Pc1 makes a valuable point, when he calls Hoad one of the best or maybe the best player for one match. Its hard to prove positively or negatively, because me and most people here haven't seen him play in his prime (except for short clips). Me and some here have seen performances of Laver, Borg, mostly on clay, Mac 1984, Sampras at Wim 1999, Federer USO 2004, Nadal RG 2008, which came close to perfection.
What we have about Hoad are sources by fellow players, like that of Gordon Forbes, who argues in similar lines as pc 1. Nevertheless we all here believe this statement. Over a year, there were clearly better years than that of Hoad in 1959, although it is given, that the competition was a high as possible. That Hoad never won Wembley, the most prestigious title of the pro tour, is a blemish on his record, more than his failure to win the classic Forest Hills major (he shares this with Borg). He had many tries at London, but never could overcome Rosewall there.
It is interesting, what may be the best way to constitute the best player, one match, one tournament, one series of hth matches or a tournment series? I would advocate the latter option, for the match i would probably nominate Hoad (or some others), for the hth series Gonzalez, for one tournament, it would depend on surfaces, clay Borg, Rosewall or Nadal, hard Federer or Laver, grass Sampras or Laver, for a tournament series across all surfaces probably Laver.

urban, I can agree totally.

[Mustard]

For the one match GOAT, Hoad and Vines are strong contenders. Vines could extend that into tournaments and head-to-head tours better than Hoad, though.