Lew Hoad-A discussion on his career

[Dan Lobb]

Originally Posted by BobbyOne

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

Kramer versus Rosewall? Not serious.
Gonzales? Rosewall had less success than Hoad against prime Gonzales.
Sedgman? In the fifties, neither Hoad nor Rosewall played an extended tour against Sedge. On the 1959 Ampol World Championship, Hoad was 5 wins, 2 defeats against Sedge, Rosewall was 3 wins and 2 defeats against Sedge, and Sedgman won two tours, New Zealand and Europe, in which Rosewall played.
Hoad was 2 wins, 1 defeat against Segura in both the 1958 and 1959 championship tours.
1959 being the most representative year for both, Hoad was 3 wins, 1 defeat against Trabert, 6 wins and 2 defeats against Rosewall, etc.
If you are going to simply list names, we should attach some dates and numbers to them.
Yes, I rate the late fifties as the summit of tennis achievement, with the toughest field, tougher than the sixties or seventies.

[BobbyOne]

Originally Posted by Dan Lobb

Kramer versus Rosewall? Not serious.
Gonzales? Rosewall had less success than Hoad against prime Gonzales.
Sedgman? In the fifties, neither Hoad nor Rosewall played an extended tour against Sedge. On the 1959 Ampol World Championship, Hoad was 5 wins, 2 defeats against Sedge, Rosewall was 3 wins and 2 defeats against Sedge, and Sedgman won two tours, New Zealand and Europe, in which Rosewall played.
Hoad was 2 wins, 1 defeat against Segura in both the 1958 and 1959 championship tours.
1959 being the most representative year for both, Hoad was 3 wins, 1 defeat against Trabert, 6 wins and 2 defeats against Rosewall, etc.
If you are going to simply list names, we should attach some dates and numbers to them.
Yes, I rate the late fifties as the summit of tennis achievement, with the toughest field, tougher than the sixties or seventies.

Dan, Your attitude to "forget" results that "speak" against your God, pardon GOAT, is unique among of all of us. For instance you omit Rosewall's wins against Hoad in the European GP. Rosewall claims that he had the best balance in 1959 including against Gonzalez (8:4). I think that Rosewall and Hoad were about even that year.

How do you come to a 6:2 balance of Hoad vs. Rosewall?. Joe gives 5:5...

[Dan Lobb]

Originally Posted by BobbyOne

Dan, Your attitude to "forget" results that "speak" against your God, pardon GOAT, is unique among of all of us. For instance you omit Rosewall's wins against Hoad in the European GP. Rosewall claims that he had the best balance in 1959 including against Gonzalez (8:4). I think that Rosewall and Hoad were about even that year.

How do you come to a 6:2 balance of Hoad vs. Rosewall?. Joe gives 5:5...

The Grand Prix de Europe was not insignificant, but it had no pretentions as a world championship, unlike the 4-man American tour or the 14 tournaments of the Ampol world championship. Gonzales did not play Europe that year, and Hoad coasted, only playing well at Roland Garros, which was part of the Ampol series, not the Grand Prix de Europe.
McCauley appears confused about the Ampol series, and makes no distinction for those events.
I stated that Hoad was 6 to 2 against Rosewall on the Ampol world championship series, as follows;
Won at Perth, Adelaide, Los Angeles, Forest Hills, Roland Garros, Kooyong.
Lost at Sydney, Brisbane.
Unless my math is very crazy, that makes 6 to 2.
1959 is a good year for comparisons because there was an extended world series featuring all 12 of the top pros, all of whom displayed their best tennis, and in no other year was there a similar wealth of matches.
Rosewall against Gonzales on the Ampol circuit;
Rosewall wins in Brisbane (twice), Los Angeles
Gonzales wins at Sydney
Thus, Rosewall had a 3 to 1 edge on the Ampol series.

[BobbyOne]

Originally Posted by Dan Lobb

The Grand Prix de Europe was not insignificant, but it had no pretentions as a world championship, unlike the 4-man American tour or the 14 tournaments of the Ampol world championship. Gonzales did not play Europe that year, and Hoad coasted, only playing well at Roland Garros, which was part of the Ampol series, not the Grand Prix de Europe.
McCauley appears confused about the Ampol series, and makes no distinction for those events.
I stated that Hoad was 6 to 2 against Rosewall on the Ampol world championship series, as follows;
Won at Perth, Adelaide, Los Angeles, Forest Hills, Roland Garros, Kooyong.
Lost at Sydney, Brisbane.
Unless my math is very crazy, that makes 6 to 2.
1959 is a good year for comparisons because there was an extended world series featuring all 12 of the top pros, all of whom displayed their best tennis, and in no other year was there a similar wealth of matches.
Rosewall against Gonzales on the Ampol circuit;
Rosewall wins in Brisbane (twice), Los Angeles
Gonzales wins at Sydney
Thus, Rosewall had a 3 to 1 edge on the Ampol series.

Dan, Joe McCauley was not confused. He was very conscientious. You rate the events rather subjectively. F.i. you always belittle the Grand Prix in 1959 ( a long series of four top players).

[BobbyOne]

Originally Posted by Dan Lobb

Kramer versus Rosewall? Not serious.
Gonzales? Rosewall had less success than Hoad against prime Gonzales.
Sedgman? In the fifties, neither Hoad nor Rosewall played an extended tour against Sedge. On the 1959 Ampol World Championship, Hoad was 5 wins, 2 defeats against Sedge, Rosewall was 3 wins and 2 defeats against Sedge, and Sedgman won two tours, New Zealand and Europe, in which Rosewall played.
Hoad was 2 wins, 1 defeat against Segura in both the 1958 and 1959 championship tours.
1959 being the most representative year for both, Hoad was 3 wins, 1 defeat against Trabert, 6 wins and 2 defeats against Rosewall, etc.
If you are going to simply list names, we should attach some dates and numbers to them.
Yes, I rate the late fifties as the summit of tennis achievement, with the toughest field, tougher than the sixties or seventies.

Dan, I did not claim that Rosewall fared better against Pancho than Hoad did. I just contradicted you that Rosewall had weak competition.

[Dan Lobb]

Originally Posted by BobbyOne

Dan, Joe McCauley was not confused. He was very conscientious. You rate the events rather subjectively. F.i. you always belittle the Grand Prix in 1959 ( a long series of four top players).

No, this is not subjective. The Ampol series of 14 tournaments was designed to establish a world number one, and points were awarded according to a player's finish in each tournament. The final results were Hoad (6 wins), Gonzales (4 wins), Rosewall (2 wins), Sedgman (1 win), Trabert (1 win).

[BobbyOne]

Originally Posted by Dan Lobb

No, this is not subjective. The Ampol series of 14 tournaments was designed to establish a world number one, and points were awarded according to a player's finish in each tournament. The final results were Hoad (6 wins),

Dan, please wake up! It was you who claimed that Hoad was 6:2 against Rosewall for 1959 which is wrong. You make me tired...

[Dan Lobb]

Originally Posted by BobbyOne

Dan, please wake up! It was you who claimed that Hoad was 6:2 against Rosewall for 1959 which is wrong. You make me tired...

My friend, Hoad was 6:2 against Rosewall ON THE AMPOL WORLD CHAMPIONSHIP TOUR, as indicated above, the results available from McCauley. There were other events in 1959, a New Zealand tour, the Grand Prix de Europe, both won by Sedgman, the South African tour, won by Rosewall, the US pro, Wembley, etc. None of these were part of the Ampol tour.

[BobbyOne]

Originally Posted by Dan Lobb

My friend, Hoad was 6:2 against Rosewall ON THE AMPOL WORLD CHAMPIONSHIP TOUR, as indicated above, the results available from McCauley. There were other events in 1959, a New Zealand tour, the Grand Prix de Europe, both won by Sedgman, the South African tour, won by Rosewall, the US pro, Wembley, etc. None of these was part of the Ampol tour.

Dan, You maybe formulated inclearly in an older post. I see what you mean. I'm only reserved regarding counting the January, 1960 event to 1959.

[Dan Lobb]

Originally Posted by BobbyOne

Dan, You maybe formulated inclearly in an older post. I see what you mean. I'm only reserved regarding counting the January, 1960 event to 1959.

McCauley got the dates wrong for the Kooyong event, which started in the last week of December and the final was played on New Year's Day 1960.
This was the final event of the 1959 season, and the bonus money was paid out after the final. (The New York Times called it the Ampol championship and bonus money pool).

[Dan Lobb]

Originally Posted by BobbyOne

Dan, You maybe formulated inclearly in an older post. I see what you mean. I'm only reserved regarding counting the January, 1960 event to 1959.

Someone who could help us find newspaper reports of the Kooyong event in December 1959, is PC1.
Haven't heard from him lately.

[tomwill65]

Originally Posted by treblings

of these two matches i would probably choose the one against Gonzales.
another one of those players i would have loved to have seen

I remember this match the local paper use to run overseas news on the front page that match was on it,it read [The blond powerfull Australian polished off the big American in 4 sets] TomWill65

[BobbyOne]

Originally Posted by Dan Lobb

Someone who could help us find newspaper reports of the Kooyong event in December 1959, is PC1.
Haven't heard from him lately.

Dan, I have got a paper from Joe McCauley with the date of January 2nd for the Kooyong 1960 event.

Your style of discussion is terrible. You ignore my results of the 1958 Perrier Cup that are verified results and claim:"I only counted verified results". I find this disgusting. You only rate results as "verified" which are positive for your darling. The Perrier Trophy shows that your God had some poor streaks (3:14!) and was not invincible as you sometimes insinuate...

"Guesses do not count", you write. But it's you who sometimes write about "facts" that are not facts but speculation. YOU wrote that Hoad has the edge against Rosewall on clay even though we still miss many results from the early 1960s when Rosewall dominated.

[Dan Lobb]

Originally Posted by BobbyOne

Dan, I have got a paper from Joe McCauley with the date of January 2nd for the Kooyong 1960 event.

Your style of discussion is terrible. You ignore my results of the 1958 Perrier Cup that are verified results and claim:"I only counted verified results". I find this disgusting. You only rate results as "verified" which are positive for your darling. The Perrier Trophy shows that your God had some poor streaks (3:14!) and was not invincible as you sometimes insinuate...

"Guesses do not count", you write. But it's you who sometimes write about "facts" that are not facts but speculation. YOU wrote that Hoad has the edge against Rosewall on clay even though we still miss many results from the early 1960s when Rosewall dominated.

January 2 for the REPORT or the match?
McCauley stated that it was held Jan 2 to 7, NOT DECEMBER 25 to JANUARY 1, as the New York Times reported.
In other words, McCauley got it wrong and I corrected him.
Thank you for admitting this, FINALLY.

[Dan Lobb]

Originally Posted by BobbyOne

Dan, I have got a paper from Joe McCauley with the date of January 2nd for the Kooyong 1960 event.

Your style of discussion is terrible. You ignore my results of the 1958 Perrier Cup that are verified results and claim:"I only counted verified results". I find this disgusting. You only rate results as "verified" which are positive for your darling. The Perrier Trophy shows that your God had some poor streaks (3:14!) and was not invincible as you sometimes insinuate...

"Guesses do not count", you write. But it's you who sometimes write about "facts" that are not facts but speculation. YOU wrote that Hoad has the edge against Rosewall on clay even though we still miss many results from the early 1960s when Rosewall dominated.

I only count results that are verified to have been played ON CLAY, and I think that you understand that, so I do not understand your complaint.
If you can get some data showing that the 1957 Europe tour was on clay, or the 1958 Perrier was on clay, or the 1963 Cannes, etc. then I will add them.
As of now, the VERIFIED clay events stand at 7 to 2 for Hoad against Rosewall in major clay events.

[BobbyOne]

Originally Posted by Dan Lobb

January 2 for the REPORT or the match?
McCauley stated that it was held Jan 2 to 7, NOT DECEMBER 25 to JANUARY 1, as the New York Times reported.
In other words, McCauley got it wrong and I corrected him.
Thank you for admitting this, FINALLY.

Dan, It's unclear if January 2nd is the date of the final or the report.

[BobbyOne]

Originally Posted by Dan Lobb

I only count results that are verified to have been played ON CLAY, and I think that you understand that, so I do not understand your complaint.
If you can get some data showing that the 1957 Europe tour was on clay, or the 1958 Perrier was on clay, or the 1963 Cannes, etc. then I will add them.
As of now, the VERIFIED clay events stand at 7 to 2 for Hoad against Rosewall in major clay events.

Dan, I told you already that the Perrier Trophy, at least till the numbers I have given you , was played on clay. Please accept this.

By the way, the series lasted from August 2nd to October 25 and was called also Le Tour de France and Tournament of Champions of the World.

[Dan Lobb]

Originally Posted by BobbyOne

Dan, It's unclear if January 2nd is the date of the final or the report.

The New York Times reports the FINAL on January 2, 1960.

[Dan Lobb]

Originally Posted by BobbyOne

Dan, I told you already that the Perrier Trophy, at least till the numbers I have given you , was played on clay. Please accept this.

By the way, the series lasted from August 2nd to October 25 and was called also Le Tour de France and Tournament of Champions of the World.

It had less prestige than the the other two championship tours, and lacked Gonzales and Hoad played only part of it. The Roland Garros event was part of the Ampol series, not the Perrier.

[Dan Lobb]

Originally Posted by BobbyOne

Dan, It's unclear if January 2nd is the date of the final or the report.

I see your point, but McCauley's result should be corrected.