WORLD NO. 1 (by year)

[BobbyOne]

Originally Posted by Dan Lobb

Just to repeat for 1953 Amateur Rankings:
1) Hoad 2) Trabert 3) Rosewall 4) Seixas
Hoad held a 2 to 0 edge against Trabert and a 5 to 0 edge against Rosewall, won five important tournaments, won two Davis Cup final matches (the most important tennis event of the year), and was the only amateur offered a pro contract by Kramer for the 1954 pro tour.
That looks like number one for the year.

1954 Amateur Rankings:
1) Drobny 2) Seixas 3) Trabert 4) Hoad 5) Rosewall

1955 Amateur Rankings:
1) Trabert 2) Hoad 3) Rosewall
This ranking reflects the classic Davis Cup final match between Hoad and Trabert which drew over 10 million viewers and was NBC's first ever color broadcast

1956 Amateur Rankings:
1) Hoad 2) Rosewall 3) Davidson 4) Anderson 5) Cooper

1957 Pro Rankings:
1) Gonzales 2) Rosewall 3) Sedgman 4) Trabert

1958 Pro Rankings:
1) Hoad 2) Gonzales 3) Rosewall 4) Sedgman 5) Trabert 6) Segura
This reflects Hoad's ranking as the number one money-winner, Ampol world championship, winner of the greatest match ever at Kooyong, and apparent edge against Gonzales when healthy.

1959 Pro Rankings:
1) Hoad 2) Gonzales 3) Rosewall 4) Sedgman 5) Trabert

1960 Pro Rankings:
1) Gonzales 2) Rosewall 3) Hoad 4) Olmedo

1961 Pro Rankings:
1) Rosewall 2) Gonzales 3) Hoad 4) Gimeno

1962 Pro Rankings:
1) Rosewall 2) Hoad 3) Gimeno

1963 Pro Rankings:
1) Rosewall 2) Hoad 3) Laver 4) Gimeno
This ranking reflects Hoad's head-to-head edge against Laver.

1964 Pro Rankings:
1) Laver 2) Rosewall 3) Hoad 4) Gimeno
This ranking reflects Hoad's win of the New Zealand Tour in February against Laver, Rosewall, and Anderson.

Funny Dan, your rankings become strange more and more. You have a selected view on the players' records: You only consider those Hoad results that are positive for your God, pardon GOAT. You neglect totally other players' achievements, especially Rosewall's.

You rank Hoad ahead of Rosewall for all years from 1953 to 1956 even though the facts and experts contradict totally with the exception of 1956!

In 1953 Rosewall won two majors, reached SFs at FH, reached QFs of Wimbledon, won the PSW tournament ("the fifth major") and won the deciding Davis Cup match. No way of ranking him behind Hoad.

In 1954 Rosewall reached the final of Wimbledon (great match against Drobny), reached SFs at the Australian Champs., lost in five and reached SFs of US Champ.s. By the way, Tingay ranked Hoad only seventh...

For 1960 you rank Olmedo fourth!?!? Maybe because he lost 0-6,0-6,3-6 to Rosewall at Wembley? I rank him eighth.

Hoad in 1964 third? It's your masterpiece, of course! Your explanation is very revealing: Because Hoad won a small 4 man tour. Gonzalez and Gimeno were much stronger than Lew that year. Hoad finished sixth in the world tour...

You rank Hoad first or second for most years from 1953 to 1963. It's really funny. Thanks a lot!

Facit: Dan Lobb at his best...

P.S.: Joe McCauley was busy to give a reasonable picture of the pro scene, but you distort his records as you also distort the amateur records, just to push your darling. You and TMF could be a genial double of misinterpreting tennis history!

[BobbyOne]

Originally Posted by Dan Lobb

Just to repeat for 1953 Amateur Rankings:
1) Hoad 2) Trabert 3) Rosewall 4) Seixas
Hoad held a 2 to 0 edge against Trabert and a 5 to 0 edge against Rosewall, won five important tournaments, won two Davis Cup final matches (the most important tennis event of the year), and was the only amateur offered a pro contract by Kramer for the 1954 pro tour.
That looks like number one for the year.

1954 Amateur Rankings:
1) Drobny 2) Seixas 3) Trabert 4) Hoad 5) Rosewall

1955 Amateur Rankings:
1) Trabert 2) Hoad 3) Rosewall
This ranking reflects the classic Davis Cup final match between Hoad and Trabert which drew over 10 million viewers and was NBC's first ever color broadcast

1956 Amateur Rankings:
1) Hoad 2) Rosewall 3) Davidson 4) Anderson 5) Cooper

1957 Pro Rankings:
1) Gonzales 2) Rosewall 3) Sedgman 4) Trabert

1958 Pro Rankings:
1) Hoad 2) Gonzales 3) Rosewall 4) Sedgman 5) Trabert 6) Segura
This reflects Hoad's ranking as the number one money-winner, Ampol world championship, winner of the greatest match ever at Kooyong, and apparent edge against Gonzales when healthy.

1959 Pro Rankings:
1) Hoad 2) Gonzales 3) Rosewall 4) Sedgman 5) Trabert

1960 Pro Rankings:
1) Gonzales 2) Rosewall 3) Hoad 4) Olmedo

1961 Pro Rankings:
1) Rosewall 2) Gonzales 3) Hoad 4) Gimeno

1962 Pro Rankings:
1) Rosewall 2) Hoad 3) Gimeno

1963 Pro Rankings:
1) Rosewall 2) Hoad 3) Laver 4) Gimeno
This ranking reflects Hoad's head-to-head edge against Laver.

1964 Pro Rankings:
1) Laver 2) Rosewall 3) Hoad 4) Gimeno
This ranking reflects Hoad's win of the New Zealand Tour in February against Laver, Rosewall, and Anderson.

Dan, I forgot to contradict your 1955 ranking.

Hoad reached final of Australian Champ.s, Rosewall won it with great wins against Trabert and Hoad.

Hoad reached QFs at Wimbledon, Rosewall reached SFs.

Hoad did it to the Sfs of US Champ.s, Rosewall reached final and lost only to Trabert who had his best year.

Hoad was 6:1 in Davis Cup, Rosewall was 11:0.

Your conclusion: Hoad was better than Rosewall....

[timnz]

I know that Crawford was only one set away from completing the calendar Grand Slam, however, was he really better that Hans Nüsslein would won the World Pro Championship that year? Not saying you are wrong.....but were the amateurs really better than the Pro's at that point?

[BobbyOne]

Originally Posted by timnz

I know that Crawford was only one set away from completing the calendar Grand Slam, however, was he really better that Hans Nüsslein would won the World Pro Championship that year? Not saying you are wrong.....but were the amateurs really better than the Pro's at that point?

timnz, even as a Nüsslein admirer I would say that Crawford and Perry were stronger than Nüsslein and Tilden that year. But it's hard to decide.

Tilden beat strong von Cramm clearly on clay in 1934. Von Cramm beat Nüsslein the same year in four sets (but Nüsslein was ill by a cold).

I would say that on clay Nüsslein was the strongest in 1933, Crawford on fast surfaces.

[timnz]

Originally Posted by BobbyOne

timnz, even as a Nüsslein admirer I would say that Crawford and Perry were stronger than Nüsslein and Tilden that year. But it's hard to decide.

Tilden beat strong von Cramm clearly on clay in 1934. Von Cramm beat Nüsslein the same year in four sets (but Nüsslein was ill by a cold).

I would say that on clay Nüsslein was the strongest in 1933, Crawford on fast surfaces.

Good reflections Bobby.

[Dan Lobb]

Originally Posted by BobbyOne

Funny Dan, your rankings become strange more and more. You have a selected view on the players' records: You only consider those Hoad results that are positive for your God, pardon GOAT. You neglect totally other players' achievements, especially Rosewall's.

You rank Hoad ahead of Rosewall for all years from 1953 to 1956 even though the facts and experts contradict totally with the exception of 1956!

In 1953 Rosewall won two majors, reached SFs at FH, reached QFs of Wimbledon, won the PSW tournament ("the fifth major") and won the deciding Davis Cup match. No way of ranking him behind Hoad.

In 1954 Rosewall reached the final of Wimbledon (great match against Drobny), reached SFs at the Australian Champs., lost in five and reached SFs of US Champ.s. By the way, Tingay ranked Hoad only seventh...

For 1960 you rank Olmedo fourth!?!? Maybe because he lost 0-6,0-6,3-6 to Rosewall at Wembley? I rank him eighth.

Hoad in 1964 third? It's your masterpiece, of course! Your explanation is very revealing: Because Hoad won a small 4 man tour. Gonzalez and Gimeno were much stronger than Lew that year. Hoad finished sixth in the world tour...

You rank Hoad first or second for most years from 1953 to 1963. It's really funny. Thanks a lot!

Facit: Dan Lobb at his best...

P.S.: Joe McCauley was busy to give a reasonable picture of the pro scene, but you distort his records as you also distort the amateur records, just to push your darling. You and TMF could be a genial double of misinterpreting tennis history!

Bobby, let's not get carried away again.
Look at hth between Hoad and Rosewall. FIVE TO NOTHING for Hoad in 1953, and Hoad was THE KINGPIN of the Davis Cup final, where Rosewall was clobbered by Trabert (or did you overlook that match?).
TWO TO NOTHING against Trabert in 1953, including the key Davis Cup match, and, as you know, Davis Cup was the NUMBER ONE event in the tennis world.
In 1954, Hoad and Rosewall played a best-of-five sets Eastern Grasscourts final, a straight sets win for Hoad. Look at the results.
It's great that Rosewall reached some final in 1954, but which majors did he win? I do not recall any that year, and HE LOST AT ROLAND GARROS TO DAVIDSON, a player Hoad owned on clay.
Joe McCauley somehow excluded the New Zealand four-man in 1964, the only tour featuring the three great Aussies together, and even an over-the-hill Hoad had too much for the others.

[Dan Lobb]

Originally Posted by BobbyOne

Dan, I forgot to contradict your 1955 ranking.

Hoad reached final of Australian Champ.s, Rosewall won it with great wins against Trabert and Hoad.

Hoad reached QFs at Wimbledon, Rosewall reached SFs.

Hoad did it to the Sfs of US Champ.s, Rosewall reached final and lost only to Trabert who had his best year.

Hoad was 6:1 in Davis Cup, Rosewall was 11:0.

Your conclusion: Hoad was better than Rosewall....

Bobby, I am surprised that you forgot to contradict me again.
I hope that you will not be offended if I contradict you, either.
The 1955 Australian was played immediately after the 1954 Davis Cup final, which explains why Trabert was entered in the tournament in the first place. It was a severe anti-climax to the Cup final, and Trabert's only slam loss of the year. Hoad was still slumping.
The big match of the year was the 1955 Davis Cup match between Hoad and Trabert, which drew over 10 million TV viewers, and the Vice-President of the U.S.A., Richard M. Nixon, to present the Cup. The very first color broadcast by NBC.
Hoad defeated Rosewall ON CLAY that year.

[Mustard]

Originally Posted by timnz

I know that Crawford was only one set away from completing the calendar Grand Slam, however, was he really better that Hans Nüsslein would won the World Pro Championship that year? Not saying you are wrong.....but were the amateurs really better than the Pro's at that point?

It was very close at that time. Bill Tilden and Hans Nusslein were the first professional players to be neck and neck with the top amateur players. If forced to make a choice for the best male player of 1933, I pick Jack Crawford. He was really unfortunate to lose that final and a big place in tennis history.

[timnz]

Originally Posted by Mustard

It was very close at that time. Bill Tilden and Hans Nusslein were the first professional players to be neck and neck with the top amateur players. If forced to make a choice for the best male player of 1933, I pick Jack Crawford. He was really unfortunate to lose that final and a big place in tennis history.

Who would you say would win in a match in 1933 - Tilden vs Crawford on a medium or fast surface or Nusslein vs Crawford on a slow surface?

[BobbyOne]

Originally Posted by Dan Lobb

Bobby, I am surprised that you forgot to contradict me again.
I hope that you will not be offended if I contradict you, either.
The 1955 Australian was played immediately after the 1954 Davis Cup final, which explains why Trabert was entered in the tournament in the first place. It was a severe anti-climax to the Cup final, and Trabert's only slam loss of the year. Hoad was still slumping.
The big match of the year was the 1955 Davis Cup match between Hoad and Trabert, which drew over 10 million TV viewers, and the Vice-President of the U.S.A., Richard M. Nixon, to present the Cup. The very first color broadcast by NBC.
Hoad defeated Rosewall ON CLAY that year.

Dan, Where have I forgotten to contradict you?? I use to contradict you almost every time (maybe too often for some...).

Your rankings are the worst I have ever seen (and I have seen some strange ones like Hopman's who ranked Emerson ahead of Rosewall).

Your new "arguments" are as absurd as all of your's. You don't have any reasonable answers to my arguments and to the facts and to the experts...

Instead of studying the facts you are citing Richard Nixon and such stuff.

Shame on you!

[BobbyOne]

Originally Posted by timnz

Who would you say would win in a match in 1933 - Tilden vs Crawford on a medium or fast surface or Nusslein vs Crawford on a slow surface?

timnz, I believe that Crawford would beat Tilden on fast surface. Nüsslein would beat Crawford on clay.

[Dan Lobb]

Originally Posted by Mustard

It was very close at that time. Bill Tilden and Hans Nusslein were the first professional players to be neck and neck with the top amateur players. If forced to make a choice for the best male player of 1933, I pick Jack Crawford. He was really unfortunate to lose that final and a big place in tennis history.

He lost because his friends mistakenly thought he would benefit from alcoholic beverages (he had minor asthma), and laced his drinks with alcohol. By the end of the third set he was unwittingly drunk and unable to play.
If they had left him alone, he would have won.

[Dan Lobb]

Originally Posted by BobbyOne

Dan, Where have I forgotten to contradict you?? I use to contradict you almost every time (maybe too often for some...).

Your rankings are the worst I have ever seen (and I have seen some strange ones like Hopman's who ranked Emerson ahead of Rosewall).

Your new "arguments" are as absurd as all of your's. You don't have any reasonable answers to my arguments and to the facts and to the experts...

Instead of studying the facts you are citing Richard Nixon and such stuff.

Shame on you!

Citing Richard Nixon's PRESENCE as U.S. Vice-President to show how BIG and IMPORTANT the match was, with OVER !0 MILLION viewers. The biggest match of the year and the decade in terms of audience. This gives it greater weight.

[Dan Lobb]

Originally Posted by Dan Lobb

Citing Richard Nixon's PRESENCE as U.S. Vice-President to show how BIG and IMPORTANT the match was, with OVER !0 MILLION viewers. The biggest match of the year and the decade in terms of audience. This gives it greater weight.

People seem to forget that the Davis Cup DWARFED all other tennis events in the period 1946 to 1967. The players tried to peak for that event, and personal rankings reflected Davis Cup success.

[boredone3456]

Originally Posted by Dan Lobb

Citing Richard Nixon's PRESENCE as U.S. Vice-President to show how BIG and IMPORTANT the match was, with OVER !0 MILLION viewers. The biggest match of the year and the decade in terms of audience. This gives it greater weight.

So I guess the Queens prescence at Wimbledon in 1977 makes Virginia Wade's win there the most important match of 1977 in womens tennis as well then eh?

I didn't realize the prescence of a politician somehow made one match trump a years worth of difference otherwise.

[Dan Lobb]

Originally Posted by boredone3456

So I guess the Queens prescence at Wimbledon in 1977 makes Virginia Wade's win there the most important match of 1977 in womens tennis as well then eh?

I didn't realize the prescence of a politician somehow made one match trump a years worth of difference otherwise.

You've got it backwards. If an event is super-important, the Queen or the Vice-President might show up to make it a public event.
The importance of the event makes it worthwhile for the public official to be there.
Also, NBC recognized the importance of the 1955 Davis Cup encounter between Hoad and Trabert by making it their first-ever color broadcast, which attracted over 10 million viewers in the U.S.A., the first ever mass TV audience for tennis. That shows how tennis was on the map.

[Dan Lobb]

Originally Posted by boredone3456

So I guess the Queens prescence at Wimbledon in 1977 makes Virginia Wade's win there the most important match of 1977 in womens tennis as well then eh?

I didn't realize the prescence of a politician somehow made one match trump a years worth of difference otherwise.

The Queen also showed up for the 1957 Wimbledon final where Hoad dominated Cooper, and the 1962 final where Laver dominated Mulligan. Two special players.
In general, the Queen does not attend Wimbledon, unlike other major sporting events. Probably because her own father played men's doubles at Wimbledon in the early 1920's, he asked the other players to show him no special favours, and he was beaten badly as a result. I guess the other players should not have followed his advice.

[boredone3456]

Originally Posted by Dan Lobb

You've got it backwards. If an event is super-important, the Queen or the Vice-President might show up to make it a public event.
The importance of the event makes it worthwhile for the public official to be there.
Also, NBC recognized the importance of the 1955 Davis Cup encounter between Hoad and Trabert by making it their first-ever color broadcast, which attracted over 10 million viewers in the U.S.A., the first ever mass TV audience for tennis. That shows how tennis was on the map.

The first NBC color broadcast ever was "The Colgate Comedy Hour" in 1953, followed by The Tournament of Roses Parade in 1954. Just another thing you are misrepresenting in your quest to make Hoad look better and better in your eyes.

[Dan Lobb]

Originally Posted by boredone3456

The first NBC color broadcast ever was "The Colgate Comedy Hour" in 1953, followed by The Tournament of Roses Parade in 1954. Just another thing you are misrepresenting in your quest to make Hoad look better and better in your eyes.

You have avoided the most salient points.
Actually, the Tournament of Roses was shown on only 21 stations, and was not a "sporting event", but a PARADE.
The first national network broadcast of a sporting event in color was the 1955 Davis Cup match between Hoad and Trabert.
This was a true measure of the progress tennis had made in the national consciousness as a result of the Hoad/Trabert Davis Cup matchups between 1953 and 1955.
Truly historic.

[boredone3456]

Originally Posted by Dan Lobb

You have avoided the most salient points.
Actually, the Tournament of Roses was shown on only 21 stations, and was not a "sporting event", but a PARADE.
The first national network broadcast of a sporting event in color was the 1955 Davis Cup match between Hoad and Trabert.
This was a true measure of the progress tennis had made in the national consciousness as a result of the Hoad/Trabert Davis Cup matchups between 1953 and 1955.
Truly historic.

You did not say first ever broadcast in color of a sporting event, you said "first ever color broadcast by NBC"there is a major difference between those 2 statements which I am sure you well know. You are just trying to save face because yet another one of your ascertains have been contradicted and proven wrong in this thread, whether you want to admit it or not.

Who cares whether the tournament of roses is a Parade or not? It was broadcast in color, which proves your claim wrong.

While it is quite clear you know a lot of the history surrounding the game of tennis you look at it through some of the most rose tinted glasses possible when it comes to your favorite players and the tone in which you address people who dare contradict is getting quite over the top and almost borders on trollish.