Lew Hoad-A discussion on his career

[Dan Lobb]

Interesting account but it raises one question for me: how was Hoad able to take an even greater lead on Pancho (13-5) the following year?[/quote]

First, in the 1958 US Pro final, Hoad led two sets to none and was closing out the match when he pulled thigh muscles, which not only cost him the match, but continued to bother him on the tour.
Hoad himself used the same grip for ALL strokes, and did not have to shift forehand to backhand shots.
In 1959, Hoad paced himself better than in 1958, and when he led the series with Gonzales 13-5, and felt his back beginning to bother him, he coasted to rest his back, winning 15-13, and playing over 150 matches on the year.
In the two 1959 world championship tours, his combined record was 76 wins and 33 losses, against the toughest lineup of pros ever assembled. That is a 70% success rate, comparable to what Kramer and Gonzales achieved on their lopsided tour wins.

[Dan Lobb]

Originally Posted by krosero

Vines wrote in his book (p. 52), in '78:

His greatest tour was against Lew Hoad. Gonzales was behind 21 matches to 9 [actually 18-9, later 18-11, still later 20-16] on their 1957-58 tour, even though he was at his peak and playing a less experienced Hoad. The Australian was getting to his backhand. Says Hoad: “Gonzales was not a top-class backhand shotmaker, but he could control his backhand. It couldn’t hurt you, but he could set up the ball for forehand winners with it, and he had a tremendous forehand.”

He adds that because of Pancho’s hammer grip he could hit backhands only “up the sideline.” Hoad would force this side and just cut it off at the net. It looked like the tour was going to be a runaway as Hoad was getting stronger match by match. Once a player gets that far behind on a pro tour it is difficult to catch up; the leader has the psychological momentum.

At 21 to 9 Gonzales did an amazing thing – he changed his backhand grip. A grip is so fundamental to a tennis player that a change of this sort in the middle of a tour is unheard of; yet Gonzales did it. He knew he would have to hit crosscourt off the backhand or he’d never close the gap. Almost overnight he moved his hand to the back of the handle in the approved Eastern backhand fashion and started hitting crosscourt too.

His greatest match against Hoad was on May 5, 1958, in the U.S. Professional tournament. After losing the first two sets, 3-6, 4-6, Pancho – a few days away from his thirtieth birthday – managed to call on all his experience to edge the much younger Australian powerhouse in a fantastic 14-12 third set. This was the turning point of the match and eventually the tour; Pancho ran out the next two sets 6-1, 6-4. The tour ended with Gonzales ahead 51 matches to 37.

The grip shift was only on groundstroke exchanges; on returning service he struck to his hammer grip on both sides. The automatic reflex for the backhand switch on a service return has to be acquired early. A weird psychology is at work here; the grip change takes only a split second, but to the unaccustomed it seems an eternity. Budge, Riggs, Tilden, Schroeder, Patty, Kramer, and Trabert did it effortlessly; Gonzales realized it was too late in his career unconsciously to change grips on returning serve; however, the baseline duels allowed time for the adjustment. Also his old-style backhand was well-suited for handling kick second serves because it was a shorter, more deceptive stroke than a regular Eastern backhand.

Interesting account but it raises one question for me: how was Hoad able to take an even greater lead on Pancho (13-5) the following year?

Vines' account is contradicted by Kramer, who describes how the turnaround in results was caused by Hoad's back problem.
This explains the sudden change in fortunes.
In 1959, Hoad led at 13-5 until, again, his back acted up.

[Mustard]

Originally Posted by Dan Lobb

Vines' account is contradicted by Kramer, who describes how the turnaround in results was caused by Hoad's back problem.
This explains the sudden change in fortunes.
In 1959, Hoad led at 13-5 until, again, his back acted up.

Kramer and Gonzales are old rivals. Kramer wanted Gonzales to lose his crown as the best player on the professional tour. Are you sure you trust Kramer's account more than Vines' account?

[Dan Lobb]

Originally Posted by Mustard

Kramer and Gonzales are old rivals. Kramer wanted Gonzales to lose his crown as the best player on the professional tour. Are you sure you trust Kramer's account more than Vines' account?

Kramer's account (which is from 1978, I believe) is supported by several accounts by Hoad himself.
Gonzales did not support the Vines account.
Note that this is Vines, not Hoad himself, speaking.

[Dan Lobb]

Originally Posted by Mustard

Kramer and Gonzales are old rivals. Kramer wanted Gonzales to lose his crown as the best player on the professional tour. Are you sure you trust Kramer's account more than Vines' account?

According to Hoad's book, it was at the Tennis Club at Palm Springs where his back acted up, and the series turned around from that night. The score was 18 to 8 at that point, and Kramer believed that the result would be inevitable, as Gonzales had given up hope.
This is not to say that Vines' story is completely wrong, and Gonzales may have improved his game during the tour. But the drastic turnaround was due to Hoad's back.
Hoad would still win almost $200,000 in 1958 alone from prize-money, as his contract paid him more for a win than Gonzales' contract.
Despite the millions that Hoad and Gonzales won in tennis earnings, they were both school dropouts and lacking in financial skills, and both were temporarily broke when they died, in Hoad's case from trusting an old friend in a bankrupt commercial plaza deal.

[Dan Lobb]

Originally Posted by Mustard

Kramer and Gonzales are old rivals. Kramer wanted Gonzales to lose his crown as the best player on the professional tour. Are you sure you trust Kramer's account more than Vines' account?

By the time Kramer published his book in 1978, he no longer cared about promoting one player or the other.

[Dan Lobb]

Originally Posted by BobbyOne

YET, McCauley contradicts because he stated that Hoad and Rosewall were 14:14 for ALL pro matches, not only for the European tour. Your claim that Hoad beat Rosewall 16:7 cannot be right!

McCauley does not provide a source for these numbers.
Also, McCauley is wrong for the 1959 tour. The final event at Kooyong was played in the last week of 1959, and ended on New Year's day 1960.

[BobbyOne]

Originally Posted by Dan Lobb

McCauley does not provide a source for these numbers.
Also, McCauley is wrong for the 1959 tour. The final event at Kooyong was played in the last week of 1959, and ended on New Yera's day 1960.

Dan, Why do you repeat your doubt again and again? You are the only one who doubts that 14:14 balance given by McCauley. It also concured with a 10:8 balance earlier which I had found in British Lawn Tennis and Badminton.

[Dan Lobb]

Originally Posted by BobbyOne

Dan, Why do you repeat your doubt again and again? You are the only one who doubts that 14:14 balance given by McCauley. It also concured with a 10:8 balance earlier which I had found in British Lawn Tennis and Badminton.

McCauley does not give a final number for the 1957 European tour, nor a source for the 14 to 14 number. He states that the 14 to 14 was in DECEMBER, and represented the full year, not the European tour. McCauley only lists 16 matches for 1957 between Hoad and Rosewall, with at least 12 matches unaccounted for. What happened to these 12 missing matches, and where were they played? Plenty of room here for Kramer's claim that Hoad won two-thirds of the European matches, on red shale clay, no less!
McCauley reports Hoad and Rosewall being tied at 3 wins each on the European tour as of Oct. 19, with no further reports until Nov. 15, and that means that there was about 20 days for the European tour to continue unreported, and plenty of space for Hoad to win two-thirds of his matches with Rosewall.
What was the date given for the supposed 10 to 8 number?
And how did McCauley miss the dates for the December 1959 Kooyong event? This is very strange.

[Dan Lobb]

Originally Posted by Dan Lobb

McCauley does not give a final number for the 1957 European tour, nor a source for the 14 to 14 number. He states that the 14 to 14 was in DECEMBER, and represented the full year, not the European tour. McCauley only lists 16 matches for 1957 between Hoad and Rosewall, with at least 12 matches unaccounted for. What happened to these 12 missing matches, and where were they played? Plenty of room here for Kramer's claim that Hoad won two-thirds of the European matches, on red shale clay, no less!
McCauley reports Hoad and Rosewall being tied at 3 wins each on the European tour as of Oct. 19, with no further reports until Nov. 15, and that means that there was about 20 days for the European tour to continue unreported, and plenty of space for Hoad to win two-thirds of his matches with Rosewall.
What was the date given for the supposed 10 to 8 number?
And how did McCauley miss the dates for the December 1959 Kooyong event? This is very strange.

Consider also, that Hoad lost his first several matches to Rosewall in the U.S. and Britain, and apparently lost most of the Asian tour matches to Rosewall, so how could the final number for 1957 be 14 to 14?
Obviously, Hoad must have won most of the European matches against Rosewall. Simple math, my friend!

[BobbyOne]

Originally Posted by Dan Lobb

Consider also, that Hoad lost his first several matches to Rosewall in the U.S. and Britain, and apparently lost most of the Asian tour matches to Rosewall, so how could the final number for 1957 be 14 to 14?
Obviously, Hoad must have won most of the European matches against Rosewall. Simple math, my friend!

"Strange" Dan, you once wrote that Hoad beat Rosewall on clay 16:7. This balance is impossible if you accept the 14:14 December 3rd hth.

Unfortunately I can't give you the exact date of the 10:8 balance. But I assure you I have read it long ago in British Lawn tennis and Badminton magazine. It concures with the 14:14 balance.

[hoodjem]

Originally Posted by Dan Lobb

By the time Kramer published his book in 1978, he no longer cared about promoting one player or the other.

I'm not so sure. Maybe not about "promoting," but Kramer does seem to have a few idiosyncratic opinions occasionally that serve to elevate or diminish certain players in the history of the game.

(The only common thread I can detect among them is that it appears that Kramer wished to diminish the reputations/achievements of those who might be compared with himself.)

[Dan Lobb]

Originally Posted by hoodjem

I'm not so sure. Maybe not about "promoting," but Kramer does seem to have a few idiosyncratic opinions occasionally that serve to elevate or diminish certain players in the history of the game.

(The only common thread can detect among them is that it appears that he wishes to diminish the reputations/achievements of those who might be compared with himself.)

He seems to be very negative about both Gonzales and Hoad.
He claims that Hoad "didn't give a damn" about less important events, and "was never very interested in tennis", an opinion echoed by Laver this year. He rates Hoad and Laver in the second level tier of greatness, below even Perry. This cannot be serious.
He rates Gonzales below several players as well, including Hoad when playing well. Again, hard to believe.

[Dan Lobb]

Originally Posted by BobbyOne

"Strange" Dan, you once wrote that Hoad beat Rosewall on clay 16:7. This balance is impossible if you accept the 14:14 December 3rd hth.

Unfortunately I can't give you the exact date of the 10:8 balance. But I assure you I have read it long ago in British Lawn tennis and Badminton magazine. It concures with the 14:14 balance.

Unfortunately, we do not have comprehensive numbers to reach a conclusion, but if we take the 14 to 14 number, and note that McCauley lists 3 wins for Hoad in a partial view of the European tour, and 3 more in Asia and Australia, then it follows that Hoad could have won 8 more matches against Rosewall on the 20 unreported days of the European tour, that is, 11 wins against Rosewall on the European tour. So it could have been 11 to 5 for Hoad on European red shale clay. (If you deduct from this the five-set final on clay in Cairo, it would be 10 to 5 in Europe, exactly what Kramer reported.)

[BobbyOne]

Originally Posted by Dan Lobb

Unfortunately, we do not have comprehensive numbers to reach a conclusion, but if we take the 14 to 14 number, and note that McCauley lists 3 wins for Hoad in a partial view of the European tour, and 3 more in Asia and Australia, then it follows that Hoad could have won 8 more matches against Rosewall on the 20 unreported days of the European tour, that is, 11 wins against Rosewall on the European tour. So it could have been 11 to 5 for Hoad on European red shale clay. (If you deduct from this the five-set final on clay in Cairo, it would be 10 to 5 in Europe, exactly what Kramer reported.)

That could be but would contradict the earlier 10:8 balance. It remains a riddle.

Hoad d. Rosewall 5 times in South Africa and 3 times in Asia, together 8 times. Thus for Europe remain only 6 Hoad wins...

Maybe it is 6:3 for Hoad in Europe.

[pc1]

Originally Posted by Dan Lobb

He seems to be very negative about both Gonzales and Hoad.
He claims that Hoad "didn't give a damn" about less important events, and "was never very interested in tennis", an opinion echoed by Laver this year. He rates Hoad and Laver in the second level tier of greatness, below even Perry. This cannot be serious.
He rates Gonzales below several players as well, including Hoad when playing well. Again, hard to believe.

Well you have to take into account that while no one can reasonably dispute that Kramer didn't know his tennis that many of the top ranked players in Kramer's list were his friends. He ranks Ted Schroeder, perhaps his best friend, with the second tier which is the same level he ranks Hoad, Laver and Rosewall. He ranks his heroes Don Budge and Vines as the two best which actually is an opinion echoed by many so I can't say it was a bad choice but still he could have been partial toward them.

He ranks Bobby Riggs, another friend slightly ahead of Pancho Gonzalez. Now Riggs is a very underrated player but I don't think he can rank ahead of Pancho Gonzalez.

[Dan Lobb]

Originally Posted by BobbyOne

That could be but would contradict the earlier 10:8 balance. It remains a riddle.

Hoad d. Rosewall 5 times in South Africa and 3 times in Asia, together 8 times. Thus for Europe remain only 6 Hoad wins...

Maybe it is 6:3 for Hoad in Europe.

Hoad defeated Rosewall 5 times in South Africa? Is this in addition to the Cairo tournament?
I do not see these matches reported in McCauley.

[Dan Lobb]

Originally Posted by pc1

Well you have to take into account that while no one can reasonably dispute that Kramer didn't know his tennis that many of the top ranked players in Kramer's list were his friends. He ranks Ted Schroeder, perhaps his best friend, with the second tier which is the same level he ranks Hoad, Laver and Rosewall. He ranks his heroes Don Budge and Vines as the two best which actually is an opinion echoed by many so I can't say it was a bad choice but still he could have been partial toward them.

He ranks Bobby Riggs, another friend slightly ahead of Pancho Gonzalez. Now Riggs is a very underrated player but I don't think he can rank ahead of Pancho Gonzalez.

I think that he rates Riggs and Perry so high so that his absolute personal favourites, Budge and Vines, get pushed up to the top.

[BobbyOne]

Originally Posted by Dan Lobb

Hoad defeated Rosewall 5 times in South Africa? Is this in addition to the Cairo tournament?
I do not see these matches reported in McCauley.

Dan, Andrew Tas has given me the results from South Africa.

I can give you details another time.

[Dan Lobb]

Originally Posted by BobbyOne

Dan, Andrew Tas has given me the results from South Africa.

I can give you details another time.

Please give us the results, it sounds interesting and not at all to be found in McCauley.