GOAT Discussions

[Dan Lobb]

Originally Posted by BobbyOne

Dan, you have 5:2 for Hoad, I have 2:1 for Gonzalez (2:0 at US Pro, 0:1 French Pro)...

The US Open was never held in the Cleveland Arena, that is the point.
It was held at Forest Hills.
And it was played on grass, where Hoad had a 14 to 10 lifetime edge on Gonzales.
The "US Pro"? About as much weight as the "British Pro" or "Australian Pro".
A big title with no substance.

[BobbyOne]

Originally Posted by Dan Lobb

Kooyong is acknowledged as the pre-eminent Australian venue for tennis.
No, the US Pro is not minor because of that. Because it was a minor event, not a major in any way.

Dan, I doubt that you will ever become a serious poster. Firstly you said that Kooyong would be the venue of an open major. Now, after I have disproved you (the venues of A. Champ.s have changed between 4 Aussie cities) you give us a new rabbit off your hat: Kooyong is acknowledged as the pre-eminent Australian venue for tennis. I doubt that this is undisputed. You just could say that NOW Melbourne is the main city of Australian tennis.

You are unique among the tennis experts (and I do say you are an expert) that the US Pro in the 1950s was a minor event...

[BobbyOne]

Originally Posted by Dan Lobb

Not realistic in 1954 or 1955. By that time, Trabert and Rosewall and Hoad were hot on clay, hotter than Gonzales would ever be on clay. Gonzales would have to be ranked about fifth on clay that year.
When you rate someone for a slam, you shouldn't claim that they are favoured when they have only an outside chance to win the RG.

Gonzalez was hotter...

[Dan Lobb]

Originally Posted by BobbyOne

Gonzalez was hotter...

He was not hot on clay. He lost to Segura in the 1952 Cleveland final on clay in five sets, and lost to Trabert in the 1956 RG final, and lost a clay TOUR to Trabert the same year. His hotness didn't give him an RG win against Hoad or Rosewall either, where he lost to both.
That's your idea of hot?

[BobbyOne]

Originally Posted by Dan Lobb

As usual, you have sidestepped the real issue, THE RECORD ON CLAY.
We need some EVIDENCE of a clay surface. As of now, the score is 7 to 2 for Hoad.

As long as we don't have the surface of the many 1960s matches between Hoad and Rosewall you can't claim that Hoad had the edge on clay overall.

I strongly guess that among the 25 matches R and H have played in the early 1960s (Rosewall won about 20 of them) there were also some claycourt matches.

You even omit Rosewall's 1962 Geneve victory!!!

[Dan Lobb]

Originally Posted by BobbyOne

As long as we don't have the surface of the many 1960s matches between Hoad and Rosewall you can't claim that Hoad had the edge on clay overall.

I strongly guess that among the 25 matches R and H have played in the early 1960s (Rosewall won about 20 of them) there were also some claycourt matches.

You even omit Rosewall's 1962 Geneve victory!!!

I strongly guess that most of the European scores were not on clay. We need some real evidence. When I looked at Cannes, it failed the test.

[BobbyOne]

Originally Posted by Dan Lobb

The US Open was never held in the Cleveland Arena, that is the point.
It was held at Forest Hills.
And it was played on grass, where Hoad had a 14 to 10 lifetime edge on Gonzales.
The "US Pro"? About as much weight as the "British Pro" or "Australian Pro".
A big title with no substance.

"The US Open was never held in the Cleveland Arena". What do you want to tell us? The French Open was never played in the Coubertin hall. Was the Coubertin French Pro therefore not a pro major???

[BobbyOne]

Originally Posted by Dan Lobb

He was not hot on clay. He lost to Segura in the 1952 Cleveland final on clay in five sets, and lost to Trabert in the 1956 RG final, and lost a clay TOUR to Trabert the same year. His hotness didn't give him an RG win against Hoad or Rosewall either, where he lost to both.
That's your idea of hot?

I still doubt that the US Pro of 1952 was played on clay.

Gonzalez won an European pro tour on clay against Segura.

[BobbyOne]

Originally Posted by Dan Lobb

I strongly guess that most of the European scores were not on clay. We need some real evidence. When I looked at Cannes, it failed the test.

You seem to ignore that the usual surface in Europe was clay.

I even am not sure if the 1964 Cannes indoor tournament was not on clay.

For instance I do know that Rosewall beat Trabert in the 1959 Vienna INDOOR matches on CLAY.

USA defeated Austria in the 1990 Davis Cup encounter in a soccer stadium on CLAY.

[Mustard]

Segura won his 3 US Pro titles on 3 different surfaces, so the 1952 event certainly wasn't on clay.

[Dan Lobb]

Originally Posted by BobbyOne

"The US Open was never held in the Cleveland Arena". What do you want to tell us? The French Open was never played in the Coubertin hall. Was the Coubertin French Pro therefore not a pro major???

Not in my book.

[Dan Lobb]

Originally Posted by BobbyOne

I still doubt that the US Pro of 1952 was played on clay.

Gonzalez won an European pro tour on clay against Segura.

Lakewood, Cleveland was on clay.
What year was this clay tour against Segura?

[Dan Lobb]

Originally Posted by BobbyOne

You seem to ignore that the usual surface in Europe was clay.

I even am not sure if the 1964 Cannes indoor tournament was not on clay.

For instance I do know that Rosewall beat Trabert in the 1959 Vienna INDOOR matches on CLAY.

USA defeated Austria in the 1990 Davis Cup encounter in a soccer stadium on CLAY.

No, but the pros looked for cheapest locales, that would mean indoor.
The Cannes was indoor.
Look at 1961. Here we have the Scandinavian Pro INDOOR. Is Scandinavia in Europe?
The "Milan Pro", with Gonzales and Cooper in the final. Sounds like indoor.
The Austrian Pro INDOOR, with Gonzales and MacKay in the final, MacKay beating Rosewall in the semifinal. Sounds like not clay.
The Inter-Country Pro Challenge in Turin, with the usual indoor guys coming through. Sounds like indoor.
Etc. etc.
We need some hard evidence to show that a clay venue was rented (these cost more to rent than a cold, claustrophobic gym or arena).
It still looks like 7 to 2 for Hoad over Rosewall on clay, in recognized major tournaments.

[Mustard]

The indoor clay court venue in Cleveland was at the Staking Club. That was the 1950 US Pro event, when Segura beat Kovacs in the final. Segura's 1951 US Pro title was won at Forest Hills on grass, and Segura's 1952 US Pro title was won in Lakewood, Cleveland, on indoor carpet. Segura won 3 US Pro titles on 3 different surfaces, like Segura would coach Connors to at the US Open in the 1970s.

[Dan Lobb]

Originally Posted by Mustard

Segura won his 3 US Pro titles on 3 different surfaces, so the 1952 event certainly wasn't on clay.

The Lakewood courts are described as "professional semi-clay", although when this happened is not clear.

[Mustard]

Semi clay? Was that the Nadal vs. Federer battle of surfaces exhibition match from May 2007?

[Dan Lobb]

Originally Posted by Mustard

Semi clay? Was that the Nadal vs. Federer battle of surfaces exhibition match from May 2007?

Probably some new type of clay.

[BobbyOne]

Originally Posted by Mustard

Segura won his 3 US Pro titles on 3 different surfaces, so the 1952 event certainly wasn't on clay.

Mustard, Thanks for the information.

[BobbyOne]

Originally Posted by Dan Lobb

Not in my book.

Dan, I guess your book has some dirty pages...

[pc1]

Originally Posted by BobbyOne

Mustard, Thanks for the information.

It also shows the greatness of Segura.