Whats your top 10 of all time right now?

[krosero]

Originally Posted by Dan Lobb

Laver's quote of 8 losses appears to be a RESPONSE TO THE INTERVIEWER, who probably received the information from Trabert's office of the Professional Tennis Players Association.
But we have Laver's direct statement that it was 14 STRAIGHT MATCHES that he lost (I notice that you do not challenge this.)
The Bodo article states 13 STRAIGHT MATCHES, and Peter Bodo is a reputable reporter. Where would he get this number? It is not on the internet, not in 2007! He was interviewing Buchholz, an eyewitness, who would have some memory.
Are you assuming that Bodo ignored Buchholz and made up a false number?
This is too ridiculous to accept.
I am accepting BOTH of Laver's statements. We know that Laver and Hoad played a private tour in 1964 outside the Association. Could they have added a six-match private tour to the 1963 hth, and not shared the profits with others?
Yes, that is a strong possibility. Is that good enough?

Excuse me, why would I challenge that Laver gave the number 14? You seem to have quoted him precisely, so I am treating it as a fact that Laver gave the number 14. I have been telling you for months why that number should not be preferred to the number that Laver in '63, and all other historical sources, have given. This is so basic, I hate to go through it, but I do not want you to come away with the impression that I now find the number 14 more plausible than I did before. The topic at hand is the difference between an argument and a fact. It's a fact that Laver gave the number 14. That does not make the number correct.

And you have to get this clear: I have never stated one way or another whether Buchholz gave the number to Bodo. It's possible he did, and it's possible he didn't. What I object to is your stating as a fact, that Buchholz reported that number to Bodo.

I also see you state, with an exclamation mark no less, that the number was not on the internet in 2007. How could you possibly know that? Laver had given his number 10 years earlier, on a DVD with presumably a wide circulation. Yet you categorically state that the number 13 could not have made its way onto the internet even 10 years later. Got it.

What's more, you're probably wrong on this. David Hernandez's essay gave the number 13, and his essay seems to have appeared online sometime after the 2002 USO (he mentions Pete's victory as if it had just happened). It is still online today. Yet you think it was not online in 2007? Got it.

I hate also to have to get into this, but I need to clear this up, at least to you (to most people here it is already clear): I have NOT stated either that Bodo "ignored" the man he was interviewing, or that he "made up a false number." It could well be that he simply got the number from Buchholz; or it could be that Buchholz did not remember exactly how long Hoad's winning streak over Laver lasted (ie, did not have exact recall of how many matches Laver and Hoad played in the first half of '63, before Laver ended the streak). In such a case Bodo may have gotten the number elsewhere (Laver himself, or someone connected to him, would be a possible source). None of this involves what you accuse me of saying.

I hope you're getting this clear: stop putting words in my mouth.

As for the '64 tour, I will only repeat what I said before: there are reports of the '64 tour. No reports have been found for these matches that you claim occurred in '63.

Your whole idea that Hoad and Laver did in '63 what they did in '64 falls apart on that very basic difference. It's as basic as you can get: we have documentation for one tour; nothing of the kind for the other. All we have is a number, given decades later, and given as vaguely as any number can be -- which is why I called it a "mere number." Neither Laver nor Bodo nor Buchholz give any details about their numbers. They do not specify that the streak took place in the tour Down Under, or in '63 generally. Those numbers really are just numbers -- out of which you've built a story that you cannot admit is merely a guess and is nowhere near being a fact.

[Dan Lobb]

Originally Posted by krosero

Excuse me, why would I challenge that Laver gave the number 14? You seem to have quoted him precisely, so I am treating it as a fact that Laver gave the number 14. I have been telling you for months why that number should not be preferred to the number that Laver in '63, and all other historical sources, have given. This is so basic, I hate to go through it, but I do not want you to come away with the impression that I now find the number 14 more plausible than I did before. The topic at hand is the difference between an argument and a fact. It's a fact that Laver gave the number 14. That does not make the number correct.

And you have to get this clear: I have never stated one way or another whether Buchholz gave the number to Bodo. It's possible he did, and it's possible he didn't. What I object to is your stating as a fact, that Buchholz reported that number to Bodo.

I also see you state, with an exclamation mark no less, that the number was not on the internet in 2007. How could you possibly know that? Laver had given his number 10 years earlier, on a DVD with presumably a wide circulation. Yet you categorically state that the number 13 could not have made its way onto the internet even 10 years later. Got it.

What's more, you're probably wrong on this. David Hernandez's essay gave the number 13, and his essay seems to have appeared online sometime after the 2002 USO (he mentions Pete's victory as if it had just happened). It is still online today. Yet you think it was not online in 2007? Got it.

I hate also to have to get into this, but I need to clear this up, at least to you (to most people here it is already clear): I have NOT stated either that Bodo "ignored" the man he was interviewing, or that he "made up a false number." It could well be that he simply got the number from Buchholz; or it could be that Buchholz did not remember exactly how long Hoad's winning streak over Laver lasted (ie, did not have exact recall of how many matches Laver and Hoad played in the first half of '63, before Laver ended the streak). In such a case Bodo may have gotten the number elsewhere (Laver himself, or someone connected to him, would be a possible source). None of this involves what you accuse me of saying.

I hope you're getting this clear: stop putting words in my mouth.

As for the '64 tour, I will only repeat what I said before: there are reports of the '64 tour. No reports have been found for these matches that you claim occurred in '63.

Your whole idea that Hoad and Laver did in '63 what they did in '64 falls apart on that very basic difference. It's as basic as you can get: we have documentation for one tour; nothing of the kind for the other. All we have is a number, given decades later, and given as vaguely as any number can be -- which is why I called it a "mere number." Neither Laver nor Bodo nor Buchholz give any details about their numbers. They do not specify that the streak took place in the tour Down Under, or in '63 generally. Those numbers really are just numbers -- out of which you've built a story that you cannot admit is merely a guess and is nowhere near being a fact.

I have made an internet search for the 1963 tour results, and there are innumerable citations of the official 8 to 0 number, but nothing except Cas Fish quoted by someone else on 13 to 0, in an unreliable account.
So, where did Peter Bodo get his 13 to 0 number? Why would he challenge the official count?
If he got the number from Buchholz, that would explain it.
Both Laver and Buchholz (assuming that it is Buchholz) emphasize that it was a STRAIGHT streak.
Given the relationship between Hoad and Laver, and their own private tour in Feb. 1964, it is a small jump to another private tour of sic matches in 1963, roughly concurrent with the 8 to 0 tour for the PTPA and Trabert.

[Dan Lobb]

Originally Posted by Dan Lobb

Here are the results.

The 1958 Ampol World Championship.
Hoad won on points. Of the five tournaments, each top pro won once.
Hoad posted 13 wins and 10 losses.
Against Gonzales 3 wins 1 defeat
Against Rosewall 1 win 3 defeats
Against Sedgman 2 wins 1 defeat
Against Trabert 2 wins 3 defeats

On the 1959 American championship tour, Hoad defeated all three opponents.
Against Gonzales 15 wins 13 defeats
Against Anderson 9 wins 5 defeats
Against Cooper 18 wins 2 defeats
This was not a true round-robin, as Hoad and Gonzales played 28 times against each other and 34 times against the two rookies combined. The idea was to provide each tour stop with a Hoad/Gonzales match, and both Gonzales and Hoad regarded the tour as a head to head series.

The 1959 Ampol World Championship results:
Hoad won the tour with 6 tournament victories (including Forest Hills Tournament of Champions and Kooyong 1960), Gonzales with 4 (Sydney twice, L.A. Masters, Toronto. Gonzales skipped Roland Garros and Kooyong 1960), Rosewall with 2 (Brisbane twice), Sedgman with 1 (Kooyong 1959), and Trabert with 1 (Roland Garros).
Hoad's overall won/loss was 34 wins and 13 losses.
Against Gonzales 3 wins 5 defeats
Against Rosewall 6 wins 2 defeats
Against Sedgman 5 wins 2 defeats
Against Trabert 3 wins 1 defeat

A total of 34 wins and 13 losses in this company is exceptional.
Thank you for encouraging me to undertake this stimulating exercise.

Correction. In the 1958 Ampol tour of five tournaments, the winners were Hoad, Sedgman, Segura, Gonzales, and Rosewall. Trabert did not win an Ampol tournament in 1958.

[BobbyOne]

Originally Posted by Dan Lobb

Here are the results.

The 1958 Ampol World Championship.
Hoad won on points. Of the five tournaments, each top pro won once.
Hoad posted 13 wins and 10 losses.
Against Gonzales 3 wins 1 defeat
Against Rosewall 1 win 3 defeats
Against Sedgman 2 wins 1 defeat
Against Trabert 2 wins 3 defeats

On the 1959 American championship tour, Hoad defeated all three opponents.
Against Gonzales 15 wins 13 defeats
Against Anderson 9 wins 5 defeats
Against Cooper 18 wins 2 defeats
This was not a true round-robin, as Hoad and Gonzales played 28 times against each other and 34 times against the two rookies combined. The idea was to provide each tour stop with a Hoad/Gonzales match, and both Gonzales and Hoad regarded the tour as a head to head series.

The 1959 Ampol World Championship results:
Hoad won the tour with 6 tournament victories (including Forest Hills Tournament of Champions and Kooyong 1960), Gonzales with 4 (Sydney twice, L.A. Masters, Toronto. Gonzales skipped Roland Garros and Kooyong 1960), Rosewall with 2 (Brisbane twice), Sedgman with 1 (Kooyong 1959), and Trabert with 1 (Roland Garros).
Hoad's overall won/loss was 34 wins and 13 losses.
Against Gonzales 3 wins 5 defeats
Against Rosewall 6 wins 2 defeats
Against Sedgman 5 wins 2 defeats
Against Trabert 3 wins 1 defeat

A total of 34 wins and 13 losses in this company is exceptional.
Thank you for encouraging me to undertake this stimulating exercise.

What? Rosewall defeated Hoad 3:1 in AMPOL 1958 series? Really? The weak Rosewall beats GOD Hoad? I just cannot believe it.

[Dan Lobb]

Originally Posted by BobbyOne

What? Rosewall defeated Hoad 3:1 in AMPOL 1958 series? Really? The weak Rosewall beats GOD Hoad? I just cannot believe it.

In the 1959 Ampol world championship, Hoad defeated Rosewall, then at his absolute peak, 6 matches to 2.
This makes a real statement.
Hoad played a total of 109 matches in the two 1959 championship series, but he also played many more matches outside these two tours. This compares favourably with Laver's total of 122 matches played in 1969, against a weaker field.
Yes, that's right folks, I am suggesting that Hoad enjoyed a better year in 1959 than Laver in 1969!

[pc1]

http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showthread.php?t=440348

Let's do the discussion at the link above.

[BobbyOne]

Originally Posted by Dan Lobb

In the 1959 Ampol world championship, Hoad defeated Rosewall, then at his absolute peak, 6 matches to 2.
This makes a real statement.
Hoad played a total of 109 matches in the two 1959 championship series, but he also played many more matches outside these two tours. This compares favourably with Laver's total of 122 matches played in 1969, against a weaker field.
Yes, that's right folks, I am suggesting that Hoad enjoyed a better year in 1959 than Laver in 1969!

YOU are at your absolute peak! In your eyes Hoad's balances make only a real statement when he wins but not when he loses. 6:2 for Hoad in 1959 is exactly the same % as 3:1 for Rosewall the previous year.....

Rosewall was even with Hoad if we take the whole year and not only your beloved Ampol "world championship".

And stop writing that Rosewall was at his absolute peak in the late 1950s! You are the first "expert" to say such a nonsense.

Believe me: I have read quite a bit about Rosewall, newspapers, books and here on talk tennis, and all experts and fans agree that Rosewall's peak was about 1960 to 1963 or 1964.

I would never belittle Lew Hoad (I'm an admirer of him) as you belittle constantly Rosewall (and to a lesser extent) Laver and Tilden.

[Dan Lobb]

Originally Posted by BobbyOne

YOU are at your absolute peak! In your eyes Hoad's balances make only a real statement when he wins but not when he loses. 6:2 is exactly the same % as 3:1 for Rosewall the previous year.....

Rosewall was even with Hoad if we take the whole year and not only your beloved Ampol "world championship".

And stop writing that Rosewall was at his absolute peak in the late 1950s! You are the first "expert" to say such a nonsense.

Believe me: I have read quite a bit about Rosewall, newspapers,books and here on talk tennis, and all experts and fans agree that Rosewall's peak was about 1960 to 1963 or 1964.

I would never belittle Lew Hoad (I'm an admirer of him) as you belittle constantly Rosewall (and to a lesser extent) Laver and Tilden.

Rosewall's RECORD was at its peak in 1961 to 1963, but not the quality of his play.
First, he did not get a chance to play at Forest Hills until 1963, and at Wimbledon until 1967.

[BobbyOne]

Originally Posted by Dan Lobb

Rosewall's RECORD was at its peak in 1961 to 1963, but not the quality of his play.
First, he did not get a chance to play at Forest Hills until 1963, and at Wimbledon until 1967.

...and he crushed Laver 6-4,6-2,6-2 at the 1963 F.H. I doubt that he could have done the same if he were at his 1959 level...

Please do me a favour: Learn history that we can have fruitful discussions in the future.

[Dan Lobb]

Originally Posted by BobbyOne

...and he crashed Laver 6-4,6-2,6-2 at the 1963 F.H. I doubt that he could have done the same if he were at his 1959 level...

Please do me a favour: Learn history that we can have fruitful discussions in the future.

The level of play Rosewall faced in 1961 to 1963 was reduced by the semi-retirement of Gonzales and Hoad, and the rookie blues of Laver.
Rosewall's greatest play was at Brisbane in 1959 and at Roland Garros in 1958, and at Forest Hills in 1958 and 1959. He was up against giants there.

[BobbyOne]

Originally Posted by Dan Lobb

The level of play Rosewall faced in 1961 to 1963 was reduced by the semi-retirement of Gonzales and Hoad, and the rookie blues of Laver.
Rosewall's greatest play was at Brisbane in 1959 and at Roland Garros in 1958, and at Forest Hills in 1958 and 1959. He was up against giants there.

Brisbane? There were many Rosewall achievements superior to Brisbane.

Did you ever hear about Rosewall defeated peak Laver at Paris several times and in the 1965 US Pro?

Did you ever read about the US Open 1970 or the two Dallas finals against extremely strong competition?

You are much too stubborn. That way we can't have fruitful discussions!

[krosero]

Originally Posted by Dan Lobb

I have made an internet search for the 1963 tour results, and there are innumerable citations of the official 8 to 0 number, but nothing except Cas Fish quoted by someone else on 13 to 0, in an unreliable account.
So, where did Peter Bodo get his 13 to 0 number? Why would he challenge the official count?
If he got the number from Buchholz, that would explain it.

As we discussed in some other thread: neither Bodo nor Laver are contradicting the official history of that tour. Neither one of them ever says that the 13 matches (or 14) all occurred on the January tour. They both just say that Hoad took his first 13/14 matches from Laver.

Bodo wrote: "Then he had a practice hit and went out and waxed tour newbie Laver - it was the first of 13 consecutive wins for Hoad over Laver." If he had written, "it was the first of 13 consecutive wins for Hoad over Laver on that tour," then it would contradict the official 8-0 score of that tour.

Of course you can get into what is really meant behind the text. But it's a FACT that the text of Bodo's article, as he's written it, does not contradict the 8-0 score.

All the same is true of Laver's statement in 1997.

Where would Bodo have gotten the number 13? As I said, he could have gotten it from Buchholz; he could have found the number on the internet, possibly in the David Hernandez article that cited Cas Fish as a source; or in The Independent's 1993 interview of Laver; he could have had the number confirmed by Laver, or by someone connected to him. We don't know.

Originally Posted by Dan Lobb

Both Laver and Buchholz (assuming that it is Buchholz) emphasize that it was a STRAIGHT streak.

I do not know why you emphasize that we're talking about consecutive matches. Of course Laver and Bodo are talking about a streak -- which by definition is uninterrupted by any losses. Why do you even think this is an issue?

I'm glad you write, "assuming it was Buchholz." That's all I'm looking for.

Originally Posted by Dan Lobb

Given the relationship between Hoad and Laver, and their own private tour in Feb. 1964, it is a small jump to another private tour of sic matches in 1963, roughly concurrent with the 8 to 0 tour for the PTPA and Trabert.

I think we need to stop using the term "private tour." I know what you meant by it -- that two players decided by themselves to conduct a tour featuring only themselves. But if Hoad and Laver decided to add some dates to the tour to make extra money, they would surely have found plenty of people willing to buy tickets. Rosewall reported large crowds coming to see the tour in all the cities: a total of 50,000 showing up for 8 matches alone.

So if Laver and Hoad really did play 6 extra matches on this tour, we're talking at least about hundreds of people, probably thousands, who witnessed these matches. That would include journalists. After all, you're basing all of this on what happened in '64, right? And those matches between Lew and Rod were reported in the press.

There's the nub of the whole problem. Where are the reports of these extra matches that you're proposing for the '63 tour?

I read somewhere recently that tennis, at that time, was one of the biggest sports in Australia; that the Davis Cup Challenge Round was a huge event among Aussie sports fans. Laver, Hoad and Rosewall were genuine idols, and huge draws, in that country. So here they were, in '63, getting together, with the whole tennis world anxious to find out how the best amateur would stack up against the pros.

This tour was a huge event, in other words. It was not some obscure secondary card that has dropped off the pages of history. It was followed closely by a tennis-crazy nation and reported worldwide.

In that context I don't think it's plausible that Hoad and Laver played 6 matches, on their own tour, and that no record of them exists today.

And if what you have in mind is that Laver and Hoad played these matches in front of small crowds consisting of a few wealthy customers -- I think you said something like that once -- then I will say again: you can't regard such matches as seriously as the official matches.

Think of Laver's position: he has precious little rest, because he's got to play both Ken and Lew. For some reason (you say it was the money), he agrees nevertheless to spend his few days off competing with Lew in 6 extra matches. He also knows that these are just private matches in front of a few individuals, with probably no reporters present; he knows that only the "public" matches will be reported to the press. How seriously do you think he's going to play, then, in the "private" matches?

I mean let's be real: he knows his reputation will be staked on the "public" matches. He knows the private matches can only drain him; if he's doing them for extra cash, all he has to do is show up and put up a decent show. No way is he going to expend himself in them the way he will in the "public" matches.

And that voids the results right there. If those matches really were small affairs that escaped the attention of the press, then they really were "just exos", in the common understanding of that term. Matches set up for money and for fun. Nothing else.

So which would you like to propose? Some meaningless matches played in front of a few rich patrons? Or matches that were played in front of thousands -- including journalists, who always go where thousands of people attend a popular sporting event -- but that somehow left no trace when we look for reports of them. No accounts, no scores, no locations, no final tally. Nothing.

[Dan Lobb]

Originally Posted by BobbyOne

Brisbane? There were many Rosewall achievements superior to Brisbane.

Did you ever hear about Rosewall defeated peak Laver at Paris several times and in the 1965 US Pro?

Did you ever read about the US Open 1970 or the two Dallas finals against extremely strong competition?

You are much too stubborn. That way he can't have fruitful discussions!

Whoa! Let's not get carried away!
Are you seriously suggesting that the field in the WCT finals in '71 and '72 was superior to the field in 1959?
That a 37 year- old Rosewall possessed the same quickness and stamina as a 24 year-old Rosewall?
What course of biology did you study?
The "Paris" events Rosewall won in the mid-'60's do not compare to the 1958 Roland Garros.
Let's get real.

[Dan Lobb]

Originally Posted by krosero

As we discussed in some other thread: neither Bodo nor Laver are contradicting the official history of that tour. Neither one of them ever says that the 13 matches (or 14) all occurred on the January tour. They both just say that Hoad took his first 13/14 matches from Laver.

Bodo wrote: "Then he had a practice hit and went out and waxed tour newbie Laver - it was the first of 13 consecutive wins for Hoad over Laver." If he had written, "it was the first of 13 consecutive wins for Hoad over Laver on that tour," then it would contradict the official 8-0 score of that tour.

Of course you can get into what is really meant behind the text. But it's a FACT that the text of Bodo's article, as he's written it, does not contradict the 8-0 score.

All the same is true of Laver's statement in 1997.

Where would Bodo have gotten the number 13? As I said, he could have gotten it from Buchholz; he could have found the number on the internet, possibly in the David Hernandez article that cited Cas Fish as a source; or in The Independent's 1993 interview of Laver; he could have had the number confirmed by Laver, or by someone connected to him. We don't know.

I do not know why you emphasize that we're talking about consecutive matches. Of course Laver and Bodo are talking about a streak -- which by definition is uninterrupted by any losses. Why do you even think this is an issue?

I'm glad you write, "assuming it was Buchholz." That's all I'm looking for.

I think we need to stop using the term "private tour." I know what you meant by it -- that two players decided by themselves to conduct a tour featuring only themselves. But if Hoad and Laver decided to add some dates to the tour to make extra money, they would surely have found plenty of people willing to buy tickets. Rosewall reported large crowds coming to see the tour in all the cities: a total of 50,000 showing up for 8 matches alone.

So if Laver and Hoad really did play 6 extra matches on this tour, we're talking at least about hundreds of people, probably thousands, who witnessed these matches. That would include journalists. After all, you're basing all of this on what happened in '64, right? And those matches between Lew and Rod were reported in the press.

There's the nub of the whole problem. Where are the reports of these extra matches that you're proposing for the '63 tour?

I read somewhere recently that tennis, at that time, was one of the biggest sports in Australia; that the Davis Cup Challenge Round was a huge event among Aussie sports fans. Laver, Hoad and Rosewall were genuine idols, and huge draws, in that country. So here they were, in '63, getting together, with the whole tennis world anxious to find out how the best amateur would stack up against the pros.

This tour was a huge event, in other words. It was not some obscure secondary card that has dropped off the pages of history. It was followed closely by a tennis-crazy nation and reported worldwide.

In that context I don't think it's plausible that Hoad and Laver played 6 matches, on their own tour, and that no record of them exists today.

And if what you have in mind is that Laver and Hoad played these matches in front of small crowds consisting of a few wealthy customers -- I think you said something like that once -- then I will say again: you can't regard such matches as seriously as the official matches.

Think of Laver's position: he has precious little rest, because he's got to play both Ken and Lew. For some reason (you say it was the money), he agrees nevertheless to spend his few days off competing with Lew in 6 extra matches. He also knows that these are just private matches in front of a few individuals, with probably no reporters present; he knows that only the "public" matches will be reported to the press. How seriously do you think he's going to play, then, in the "private" matches?

I mean let's be real: he knows his reputation will be staked on the "public" matches. He knows the private matches can only drain him; if he's doing them for extra cash, all he has to do is show up and put up a decent show. No way is he going to expend himself in them the way he will in the "public" matches.

And that voids the results right there. If those matches really were small affairs that escaped the attention of the press, then they really were "just exos", in the common understanding of that term. Matches set up for money and for fun. Nothing else.

So which would you like to propose? Some meaningless matches played in front of a few rich patrons? Or matches that were played in front of thousands -- including journalists, who always go where thousands of people attend a popular sporting event -- but that somehow left no trace when we look for reports of them. No accounts, no scores, no locations, no final tally. Nothing.

Some good points.
I accept the 8 to 0 score, but would suggest that this was the PTPA tour organized by Trabert. There could be an additional six-match series organized by Hoad and Laver themselves, where they would not have to split the profits with the association. These matches could have been at private tennis clubs, where a large group of members and their friends could pay for admittance. This would not necessarily be covered by the press, who would concentrate on publicly advertised events.
There may indeed have been SOME press mention of extra matches, but living in North America, I do not have access to them.
Andrew Tas discovered the Feb. 1964 tour through digging in local newspapers, and also the March 1964 New Zealand tour. But he lives on the spot in Australia.
Perhaps some helpful soul in Australia can look into this, or even talk to Laver for us.

[BobbyOne]

Originally Posted by Dan Lobb

Whoa! Let's not get carried away!
Are you seriously suggesting that the field in the WCT finals in '71 and '72 was superior to the field in 1959?
That a 37 year- old Rosewall possessed the same quickness and stamina as a 24 year-old Rosewall?
What course of biology did you study?
The "Paris" events Rosewall won in the mid-'60's do not compare to the 1958 Roland Garros.
Let's get real.

Hello fruitless Dan,

I never claimed that a 37 years old Rosewall possessed the same quickness and stamina as a 24 year-old. Thus the more astonishing that he beat Laver, Newcombe and the others.

Okay, WCT did not have a superior field but still an excellent. You may not forget that the Dallas finals were the play-off of the best eight players after a long series of tournaments with excellent competition of 32 players.

Roland Garros 1968? Had Laver, Gonzalez, Gimeno, Emerson.

In the 1970 US Open Rosewall won against a field of prime Laver, prime Newcombe, prime Roche, prime Ashe...

I'm convinced that a Rosewall of his peak years 1961 to 1963 would have won more often in the late 1950s as he really did.

You should know that most players of that time peaked only when being 26 to 29, not only Rosewall.

That's my conclusion after having studied ,no, not biology but tennis history for 40 years...

[krosero]

Originally Posted by Dan Lobb

Some good points.
I accept the 8 to 0 score, but would suggest that this was the PTPA tour organized by Trabert. There could be an additional six-match series organized by Hoad and Laver themselves, where they would not have to split the profits with the association. These matches could have been at private tennis clubs, where a large group of members and their friends could pay for admittance. This would not necessarily be covered by the press, who would concentrate on publicly advertised events.
There may indeed have been SOME press mention of extra matches, but living in North America, I do not have access to them.
Andrew Tas discovered the Feb. 1964 tour through digging in local newspapers, and also the March 1964 New Zealand tour. But he lives on the spot in Australia.
Perhaps some helpful soul in Australia can look into this, or even talk to Laver for us.

If that's the kind of matches that you're proposing, then we have every good reason not to take the results as seriously as we do with the known matches. There would be far less at stake in the private ones you're proposing: far fewer witnesses, little if any press. Even the money would be already guaranteed.

Presuming these meetings even took place, there is no way Laver would expend himself in such matches to the degree he would in the known ones.

[Dan Lobb]

Originally Posted by krosero

If that's the kind of matches that you're proposing, then we have every good reason not to take the results as seriously as we do with the known matches. There would be far less at stake in the private ones you're proposing: far fewer witnesses, little if any press. Even the money would be already guaranteed.

Presuming these meetings even took place, there is no way Laver would expend himself in such matches to the degree he would in the known ones.

Neither would Hoad be as interested in expending himself.

[krosero]

Originally Posted by Dan Lobb

Neither would Hoad be as interested in expending himself.

A true exo, then, in every way.

[Dan Lobb]

Originally Posted by krosero

A true exo, then, in every way.

Although, I once read the report of a woman who attended the "Laver/Emerson Summer Tennis Camp", in the late 1970's.
One day, when the two pros were present, the two men put on an exhibition match for the campers.
According to the woman, it was jaw-dropping shot-making the likes of which she had never seen.
Sometimes, exhibitions can get serious.

[Phoenix1983]

My list:

1. Federer
2. Laver
3. Sampras
4. Borg
5. Nadal
6. Rosewall
7. Gonzales
8. Budge
9. Tilden
10. Lendl