Lew Hoad-A discussion on his career

[tomwill65]

Originally Posted by treblings

coming back to Hoad.
i´m rereading ´golden boy´ and that 57 wimbledon final against Cooper must really have been something.
56 minutes and only 30 points for Cooper in the whole match. is that match on youtube?

I think that final continued on from the 1956 final when trailing 1- 4 in the fourth set and then he won 20 of the last 22 points played. TomWill

[Dan Lobb]

Originally Posted by hoodjem

Do we know Muscles's all-time GOAT-list?

Muscles list as of January, 2010, in an interview at the Australian Open,

1) Hoad
2) Gonzales
3) Laver
4) Federer

This is a very intelligent list, which I also accept.

[BobbyOne]

Originally Posted by Dan Lobb

Muscles list as of January, 2010, in an interview at the Australian Open,

1) Hoad
2) Gonzales
3) Laver
4) Federer

This is a very intelligent list, which I also accept.

If Muscles would rank 1) Gonzalez, 2) Hoad you would not agree and would not find it intelligent...

[Dan Lobb]

Originally Posted by BobbyOne

If Muscles would rank 1) Gonzalez, 2) Hoad you would not agree and would not find it intelligent...

For once, you and I are in absolute agreement. Bravo.
In 1962, Rosewall said much the same thing.
"I would have to rate Gonzales a notch ahead of Hoad, but when the latter is "on", he is the greatest of all time."
In 2010, Rosewall stated, "and the greatest player of all time was my [friend], Lew Hoad". (In the computer translation, it came out "and the greatest player of all time was my fellow Lew Hoad." Obviously, a mistake in translation.

[BobbyOne]

Originally Posted by Dan Lobb

For once, you and I are in absolute agreement. Bravo.
In 1962, Rosewall said much the same thing.
"I would have to rate Gonzales a notch ahead of Hoad, but when the latter is "on", he is the greatest of all time."
In 2010, Rosewall stated, "and the greatest player of all time was my [friend], Lew Hoad". (In the computer translation, it came out "and the greatest player of all time was my fellow Lew Hoad." Obviously, a mistake in translation.

As earlier told, Muscles once ranked Laver first.

[Dan Lobb]

Originally Posted by BobbyOne

As earlier told, Muscles once ranked Laver first.

Where was this?

[BobbyOne]

Originally Posted by Dan Lobb

Where was this?

Dan, I don't remember the publication. Rosewall made that ranking in the 1970s.

I remember that Muscles ranked Gonzalez second, Hoad third, maybe Sedgman fourth.. he also ranked Emerson ahead of Newcombe (I wondered about that). I think Ashe was No.9 and Smith/Nastase split No.10. It surely was a list of Rosewall's best opponents.

[Dan Lobb]

Originally Posted by BobbyOne

Dan, I don't remember the publication. Rosewall made that ranking in the 1970s.

I remember that Muscles ranked Gonzalez second, Hoad third, maybe Sedgman fourth.. he also ranked Emerson ahead of Newcombe (I wondered about that). I think Ashe was No.9 and Smith/Nastase split No.10. It surely was a list of Rosewall's best opponents.

With the perspective of time, Rosewall displayed the wisdom of age and gave the correct ranking. (Hoad #1, Gonzales #2, Laver #3, Federer #4).
I agree with the Muscles of 2010.

[hoodjem]

Originally Posted by Dan Lobb

With the perspective of time, Rosewall displayed the wisdom of age and gave the correct ranking. (Hoad #1, Gonzales #2, Laver #3, Federer #4).
I agree with the Muscles of 2010.

Ho ho! Good one.

Revisionism is alive and well.

[BobbyOne]

Originally Posted by Dan Lobb

With the perspective of time, Rosewall displayed the wisdom of age and gave the correct ranking. (Hoad #1, Gonzales #2, Laver #3, Federer #4).
I agree with the Muscles of 2010.

Dan, I would be glad if you could get the wisdom of age....

[Dan Lobb]

Originally Posted by hoodjem

Ho ho! Good one.

Revisionism is alive and well.

I grant Rosewall the discretion due to any genius of the court and accept his latest appraisal.

[Dan Lobb]

Originally Posted by BobbyOne

Dan, I would be glad if you could get the wisdom of age....

Are you questioning Rosewall's right to revise his opinion? I think we should allow him the room to amend his views.

[kiki]

what the difference does it make?

Laver,Hoad,Gonzo and Rosewall all in the melting pot...and you get the greatest salade ever...does anybody care if the pepper, the tomatoe, the lettuce or the potato is the first one in the dish?

[BobbyOne]

Originally Posted by kiki

what the difference does it make?

Laver,Hoad,Gonzo and Rosewall all in the melting pot...and you get the greatest salade ever...does anybody care if the pepper, the tomatoe, the lettuce or the potato is the first one in the dish?

kiki, by the way, I think you rank Federer in the second tier which I can understand because in my own rankings Roger is also second tier as No. 6 or 7.

In my opinion the achievements of Tilden, Gonzalez,Rosewall and Laver are out of Roger's reach. I don't think that he will win a further major anymore, especially if Nadal will come back healthy...

[kiki]

Originally Posted by BobbyOne

kiki, by the way, I think you rank Federer in the second tier which I can understand because in my own rankings Roger is also second tier as No. 6 or 7.

In my opinion the achievements of Tilden, Gonzalez,Rosewall and Laver are out of Roger's reach. I don't think that he will win a further major anymore, especially if Nadal will come back healthy...

Yes, federer is similar to Emerson.His record is the best in absolute terms but in real life, it is all relatively to the difficulty and competitiveness.Fed, not his fault, has the estigma of the weak era, certainly the weakest by far in open era and one of the weakest era, and being owned by Nadal.

That is why I have him second-third tier, along Rosewall,Tilden and Budge.

Laver,Sampras,Borg and Hoad or Gonzales share first tier.

[BobbyOne]

Originally Posted by kiki

Yes, federer is similar to Emerson.His record is the best in absolute terms but in real life, it is all relatively to the difficulty and competitiveness.Fed, not his fault, has the estigma of the weak era, certainly the weakest by far in open era and one of the weakest era, and being owned by Nadal.

That is why I have him second-third tier, along Rosewall,Tilden and Budge.

Laver,Sampras,Borg and Hoad or Gonzales share first tier.

kiki, If you rank Hoad first tier you also should rank Rosewall there. Rosewall played in very strong eras (your own list) and achieved much more that Hoad.

[Dan Lobb]

Originally Posted by BobbyOne

kiki, If you rank Hoad first tier you also should rank Rosewall there. Rosewall played in very strong eras (your own list) and achieved much more that Hoad.

Against weaker opposition.

[kiki]

Originally Posted by BobbyOne

kiki, If you rank Hoad first tier you also should rank Rosewall there. Rosewall played in very strong eras (your own list) and achieved much more that Hoad.

You could be right at the long term; I leaned towards peak play...

[BobbyOne]

Originally Posted by Dan Lobb

Against weaker opposition.

Weaker? Kramer, Gonzalez, Sedgman, Segura, Trabert, Laver, Gimeno, Newcombe, Roche, Ashe, Okker, Smith, Nastase, Kodes, Orantes. Weaker opposition?

[Mustard]

Originally Posted by BobbyOne

Weaker? Kramer, Gonzalez, Sedgman, Segura, Trabert, Laver, Gimeno, Newcombe, Roche, Ashe, Okker, Smith, Nastase, Kodes, Orantes. Weaker opposition?

Very strong opposition.