Lew Hoad-A discussion on his career

[Dan Lobb]

Originally Posted by BobbyOne

Hello operator!

I think that Limpinhitter should again be allowed to post. I'm sure he would not insult me or others anymore.

Bobby, let's see if we can set a good example for him.

[Dan Lobb]

Originally Posted by timnz

Laver in 1967 was his absolute peak - he was 28/29 that year. 1962/1963 was Rosewalls peak he was 27-28. Newcombes peak could be argued as being late 1973 early 1974 - he was 29 (he won the Us open, was one game away from making the masters final when injury felled him, won wct finals) Seems a lot of these guys hit their peak in their very late 20s.

Again, there is a difference between PEAK and MATURITY.
All these guys were mature players in their early twenties, and won majors then.

[BobbyOne]

Originally Posted by Dan Lobb

Do I prefer Laver's intelligence to Riggs? Yes. Laver gives a much more comprehensive overview, more detailed.
Rosewall reached his prime in 1957-59, when he faced his toughest competition by far.
It seems you have a very subjective evaluation of what constitutes a "major".
I am more interested in hth results in peak years for both players, which favours Hoad.

Dan, ranking the players along their intelligence is very subjective and Lobb-like.

The valuation of (pro) majors is pretty clear for the majority of tennis exeperts. The only doubtful events are Forest Hills and Wimbledon 1967.

Rod Laver writes that Rosewall is the most underrated player in history. He wrote this even though he did not know you and your constant attitude of belittleing Rosewall.

I have realized that you never admit that I or other posters have disproved you. I never read a "Sorry"...

[BobbyOne]

Originally Posted by Dan Lobb

No, I think Hoad leads on both clay and grass through 1960.
I think that every list is provisional, but I doubt that anything substantive of important has been omitted, perhaps only some unrecorded exhibition matches.

Dan, I hate your attitude to call all pro matches "exhibitions" where your darling lost!

25 pro matches of Rosewall and Hoad not substantive? It's your secret...

[BobbyOne]

Originally Posted by Dan Lobb

Bobby, let's see if we can set a good example for him.

Dan, I enjoy these your words but I must confess that I rather would like to discuss with a "new" Limpinhitter than with you because you are so stubborn and have sometimes casual "arguments".

[BobbyOne]

Originally Posted by Dan Lobb

Again, there is a difference between PEAK and MATURITY.
All these guys were mature players in their early twenties, and won majors then.

Wrong. Most players did not win majors in their early twenties or only amateur ones.

But I appreciate your new opinion that the peak of most players (from Tilden to Newcombe) came later.

[Dan Lobb]

Originally Posted by BobbyOne

Dan, ranking the players along their intelligence is very subjective and Lobb-like.

The valuation of (pro) majors is pretty clear for the majority of tennis exeperts. The only doubtful events are Forest Hills and Wimbledon 1967.

Rod Laver writes that Rosewall is the most underrated player in history. He wrote this even he did not know you and your constant attitude of belittleing Rosewall.

I have realized that you never admit that I or other posters have disproved you. I never read a "Sorry"...

Sorry, Bobby, but I must disagree again.
Laver rates Hoad ahead of Rosewall (did you notice this?).
The valuation of pro majors leaves much to be desired.

[Dan Lobb]

Originally Posted by BobbyOne

Dan, I hate your attitude to call all pro matches "exhibitions" where your darling lost!

25 pro matches of Rosewall and Hoad not substantive? It's your secret...

Have no idea what you mean here.
If no one bothered to record the match, or its results, I doubt that it was a major event. Is that better?

[Dan Lobb]

Originally Posted by BobbyOne

Dan, I enjoy these your words but I must confess that I rather would like to discuss with a "new" Limpinhitter than with you because you are so stubborn and have sometimes casual "arguments".

"Casual" or "causal"?

[BobbyOne]

Originally Posted by Dan Lobb

Sorry, Bobby, but I must disagree again.
Laver rates Hoad ahead of Rosewall (did you notice this?).
The valuation of pro majors leaves much to be desired.

Dan, I never doubted that Laver ranked Hoad ahead of Rosewall (regarding peak play).

[BobbyOne]

Originally Posted by Dan Lobb

Have no idea what you mean here.
If no one bothered to record the match, or its results, I doubt that it was a major event. Is that better?

It's not my fault when you don't have an idea what I meant with my clear words.

Those about 25 pro matches of R&H were most probably tour matches as they were played often in the old pro scene. Maybe there even were a few small tournaments included. I never wrote that they were majors.

I forgot to mention in an older post that Hoad needed half a year to adapt his game to the pro standard. As you know Kramer pampered Lew by giving him the opportunity to play in ther four man tour in order to strengthen him for the 1958 world tour. Gonzalez got furious because of that...

Rosewall had to learn at the pros to volley more and to shorten his backswing on his forehand.

Thus meaning: all the great amateurs who turned pros needed surely more than "just a few weeks" to be ready for the best pros. Some of them never did it at all (Cooper, Olmedo).

[BobbyOne]

Originally Posted by Dan Lobb

Again, there is a difference between PEAK and MATURITY.
All these guys were mature players in their early twenties, and won majors then.

Ladies and gentlemen: Another trick from Dan Lobb! Firstly, if I remember well, he wrote that the peak of the great players came at 21,22. Now, after some contradiction from krosero, pc1, timnz and myself, he puts the next rabbit out of his hat and writes about maturity vs. peak. I don't remember that the discussion went about maturity. It went about peak or prime years that usually came at 25, 26 and lasted till 29 or 30 as Tilden, Kramer, Gonzalez, Rosewall, Emerson, Sedgman, Trabert, Newcombe, Roche and others have proved.

Dan, I'm really tired to answer you so often and to contradict your sometimes strange statements. Maybe it's better for me to make a pause in our discussion.

Bobby

[Dan Lobb]

Originally Posted by BobbyOne

It's not my fault when you don't have an idea what I meant with my clear words.

Those about 25 pro matches of R&H were most probably tour matches as they were played often in the old pro scene. Maybe there even were a few small tournaments included. I never wrote that they were majors.

I forgot to mention in an older post that Hoad needed half a year to adapt his game to the pro standard. As you know Kramer pampered Lew by giving him the opportunity to play in ther four man tour in order to strengthen him for the 1958 world tour. Gonzalez got furious because of that...

Rosewall had to learn at the pros to volley more and to shorten his backswing on his forehand.

Thus meaning: all the great amateurs who turned pros needed surely more than "just a few weeks" to be ready for the best pros. Some of them never did it at all (Cooper, Olmedo).

Hoad was winning within one month.

[Dan Lobb]

Originally Posted by BobbyOne

Ladies and gentlemen: Another trick from Dan Lobb! Firstly, if I remember well, he wrote that the peak of the great players came at 21,22. Now, after some contradiction from krosero, pc1, timnz and myself, he puts the next rabbit out of his hat and writes about maturity vs. peak. I don't remember that the discussion went about maturity. It went about peak or prime years that usually came at 25, 26 and lasted till 29 or 30 as Tilden, Kramer, Gonzalez, Rosewall, Emerson, Sedgman, Trabert, Newcombe, Roche and others have proved.

Dan, I'm really tired to answer you so often and to contradict your sometimes strange statements. Maybe it's better for me to make a pause in our discussion.

Bobby

I have just checked what I wrote. Originally, I wrote that MATURITY came in the early twenties for most players. Then, that Rosewall PEAKED in 1958-60.
No contradiction there. Some others misunderstood and substituted "peak" for "maturity".

[Dan Lobb]

Originally Posted by BobbyOne

Dan, Rosewall did not beat Nastase in the Tokyo final in 1975.

Please refuse to bring that smoke argument!

I stand corrected.
Rosewall won in Tokyo against Newcombe in 1975, and against Nastase in 1977, both on carpet.
He beat Nastase at Hong Kong in 1976 on "hardcourt".

[BobbyOne]

kiki,

I can give you now the final result of the Rosewall vs. Hoad (Bobby vs Dan) encounter.

Rosewall won 6-3, 4-6, 6-2, 0-6, 7-6 (13-11) in a match played in a hall without any smoke or other adversities...

Hope that Dan will survive this shock result!

[krosero]

Originally Posted by Dan Lobb

Biologically, peak years are about 21 to 25, so I think Rosewall peaked 1957 to 1960.

Originally Posted by krosero

If you accept Hoad's claim that Pancho played his best at the age of 30 and 31, then why would you restrict Rosewall's best tennis to a biological peak of 21-25 years of age?

Originally Posted by Dan Lobb

Because Rosewall, like Gonzales and Hoad in those same years, faced the toughest pro competition ever assembled. The early sixties saw much less pro tennis played, and a lesser level of play. Rosewall maintained his level of play past 1960 until about 1964, but the competition was weaker.

A whole set of contradictions here. At first you used biological age to define Rosewall's peak, and you set it at 21-25. Presumably you see some decline beginning at 25, or else you would have specified a higher age.

But then you contradicted this definition by claiming that Pancho Gonzalez played his best at the age of 30-31, in 1958-59, when he faced Hoad. That's not a small contradiction. Pancho should have had 5 years of biological decline already, according to you. But somehow he reverses the biological process and plays, over the course of two seasons, the best tennis he's ever played? Just because he faced Hoad then?

And now in your last post you've stopped talking about how Rosewall played his best due to biological reasons. You could have kept to that reasoning, and simply made an exception for Gonzalez (as unconvincing as that exception is). But instead you drop the biological angle and return to the competition angle: Rosewall, according to you, played his best at the age of 25 (the 1959 season), not for biological reasons, but because he was facing the toughest competition of his career.

So really the only consistent guiding principle here is that a player, according to you, reaches his peak when he faces the toughest competition of his career. And specifically, Pancho and Kenny were at their peak levels when they faced Lew. THAT is the only consistent thread in your reasoning -- if you can call it reasoning at all. It really is more like hero worship: all players, and their careers, revolve around Lew Hoad's peak.

And there's also a little bit of mythologizing about the past in general, because what you're claiming is that 3 of the greatest champions we've ever had simultaneously reached their peaks in two glorious seasons (1958-59).

[krosero]

Originally Posted by BobbyOne

kiki,

I can give you now the final result of the Rosewall vs. Hoad (Bobby vs Dan) encounter.

Rosewall won 6-3, 4-6, 6-2, 0-6, 7-6 (13-11) in a match played in a hall without any smoke or other adversities...

Hope that Dan will survive this shock result!

No smoke? Ouch! Such a creative excuse given for a champion's losses, and it goes right out the window!

But there are many more.

Maybe Lew had a bad back.

Maybe the encounter was not sponsored by Ampol, so Lew just couldn't get motivated for it....

Maybe Kenny was best man at Hoad's wedding, and Lew wanted to go easy on him....

Etcetera etcetera

[hoodjem]

Originally Posted by BobbyOne

kiki,

I can give you now the final result of the Rosewall vs. Hoad (Bobby vs Dan) encounter.

Rosewall won 6-3, 4-6, 6-2, 0-6, 7-6 (13-11) in a match played in a hall without any smoke or other adversities...

Hope that Dan will survive this shock result!

When was this match?

[BobbyOne]

Originally Posted by hoodjem

When was this match?

It was played on November 25, 2o12 in an imagination of Bobby's...