Lew Hoad-A discussion on his career

[BobbyOne]

Originally Posted by krosero

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, as so often you can argue better than many others including myself.

Thanks for your clear argumentation without any insulting words which I sometimes used towards Dan because I can't stand his style of argumentation.

[krosero]

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.

He can post, his ban was very brief. I also hope he'll post -- if that's what he wants.

Re: your last post: thank you, and yes, I know what you mean about patience running thin ...

[BobbyOne]

Originally Posted by krosero

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

Lew's coach, a certain Dan Lobb, argued after the match that the light was too bright in the hall and the ventilators caused a wind that blew only in Ken's favour...

[krosero]

Originally Posted by BobbyOne

Lew's coach, a certain Dan Lobb, argued after the match that the light was too bright in the hall and the ventilators caused a wind that blew only in Ken's favour...

Ah, the two oldest excuses in the game.

"I lost it in the lights."
"The wind took it!"

[BobbyOne]

Originally Posted by krosero

He can post, his ban was very brief. I also hope he'll post -- if that's what he wants.

Re: your last post: thank you, and yes, I know what you mean about patience running thin ...

krosero, I find it a great pity that a man of the calibre of Dan Lobb who knows so much about tennis history, damages his own status with sometimes "strange" arguments.

Last example for this: Dan writes that Hoad as a pro rookie won after one month. Against whom? Against Jacques Iemetti 6-2,6-8,6-4. After that he lost to Kramer in straight sets. To the same he lost at Wembley...

But Dan is right that Hoad had several fine wins against Rosewall, Segura and Kramer in the European tour which he won together with Rosewall. That was a good preparation for the tour against Gonzalez.

[hoodjem]

Originally Posted by BobbyOne

It was played on November 25, 2012 in an imagination of Bobby's...

I thought so.

I don't think Hoad and Muscles played tie-breaks.

[Dan Lobb]

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!

The score you imagine here is suspiciously similar to many of Hoad's victories on clay against Rosewall.
I guess those results really bothered you?

[Dan Lobb]

Originally Posted by BobbyOne

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

Laver did not restrict the ratings he made to peak play. If Laver had wanted to restrict his ratings to peak play, he would have said so.

[Dan Lobb]

Originally Posted by krosero

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).

No. I did not specify a DECLINE for Rosewall until 1964. What I stated was he reached his peak level in 1958-60, because THE LEVEL OF COMPETITION was the highest then.
Yes, Gonzales raised his game during the two years he played Hoad, as Vines and others pointed out.
This is not MY reasoning, but the reasoning used by Gonzales, Vines and others, which I agree with.
Yes, 1958-9 looks like the summit of tennis.

[Dan Lobb]

Originally Posted by krosero

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

I think that if one player is limping around with a pulled hamstring, that diminishes the quality of the play.
Actually, Gonzales himself singled out the Kooyong match as the best ever between these two players.
As these two guys are probably one and two all-time, you would have to say this was the greatest match ever.
Should we start a thread on that?

[Dan Lobb]

Originally Posted by BobbyOne

krosero, I find it a great pity that a man of the calibre of Dan Lobb who knows so much about tennis history, damages his own status with sometimes "strange" arguments.

Last example for this: Dan writes that Hoad as a pro rookie won after one month. Against whom? Against Jacques Iemetti 6-2,6-8,6-4. After that he lost to Kramer in straight sets. To the same he lost at Wembley...

But Dan is right that Hoad had several fine wins against Rosewall, Segura and Kramer in the European tour which he won together with Rosewall. That was a good preparation for the tour against Gonzalez.

On Aug 21, Hoad defeated Kramer, the following day he beat Segura.
He had started pro play July 14. Didn't take long.

[loci]

Many of his contemporaries regarded him as the most talented player who could have achieved more. Hoad had a reputation as a tough bloke that valued the women and party lifestyle more than his career. Sounds like my type of guy!

[pc1]

Originally Posted by Dan Lobb

On Aug 21, Hoad defeated Kramer, the following day he beat Segura.
He had started pro play July 14. Didn't take long.

Dan,

Fledgling pros in those days of course are going to have some wins. Hoad MAY adapt well but he also lost a lot in the beginning before being taken aside so players like Kramer and Segura could train him for the pro tour. Hoad had a lot of help others did not in adapting. Did Segura defeat Hoad on August 21, 1956 6-1 6-3 according to McCauley?

Kramer for example defeated Hoad at Wembley in September and according to Kramer beat Hoad in a series of matches around 13 to 12. There is no way Kramer, who was older and hurting should have been able to handle a young Lew Hoad but he did.

Some players never totally adapted.

[Dan Lobb]

Originally Posted by pc1

Dan,

Fledgling pros in those days of course are going to have some wins. Hoad MAY adapt well but he also lost a lot in the beginning before being taken aside so players like Kramer and Segura could train him for the pro tour. Hoad had a lot of help others did not in adapting. Did Segura defeat Hoad on August 21, 1956 6-1 6-3 according to McCauley?

Kramer for example defeated Hoad at Wembley in September and according to Kramer beat Hoad in a series of matches around 13 to 12. There is no way Kramer, who was older and hurting should have been able to handle a young Lew Hoad but he did.

Some players never totally adapted.

Actually, the plan was to capitalize on Hoad's Wimbledon victory and tour with Gonzales in the fall of 1957.
However, Hoad started a losing streak and a crisis of confidence in July and August which required postponement of the tour until January, while Kramer coached Hoad into a better game.
However, Hoad was soon beating Rosewall regularly on the European tour, and Kramer was angry that Hoad apparently made little effort to beat him or Segura. Hoad explained that he and Rosewall had a long history, and this gave him the motivation to play harder in their matches.
Laver played practice matches against Hoad and Rosewall before the 1963 tour began, and he beat Rosewall at Kooyong early in the series in the most important match.

[Virginia]

Originally Posted by BobbyOne

Virginia, My copy has also the 1976 copyright. And it's on page 86, line twelve. I doubt that there was more than one publication. Please have another look.

That's very strange - my copy has the following (including line 12):

Rosewall was fantastic in his length, the steady fast speed he gave to the ball, the furious pattern of his little legs, ankles and shoes, as he dashed like a marionette around the court.

[BobbyOne]

Originally Posted by Virginia

That's very strange - my copy has the following (including line 12):

Hello Virginia, Yes, this is very strange. I have found the sentence, which you have given, in my copy on page 72. Obviously there were yet two issues of the book.

Maybe you will find Rosewall's quote about 14 pages after your page 86.

[BobbyOne]

Dan Lobb,

A little exception from my pause in the discussions with yourself: Please read post 538! There you yet wrote about peak years 21-25, not about maturity ,as you later wrote.

The peak years of most greats prior to Connors and Borg were 25 or 26 to 29 or 30.

Please be serious!

[krosero]

Originally Posted by Dan Lobb

No. I did not specify a DECLINE for Rosewall until 1964. What I stated was he reached his peak level in 1958-60, because THE LEVEL OF COMPETITION was the highest then.
Yes, Gonzales raised his game during the two years he played Hoad, as Vines and others pointed out.
This is not MY reasoning, but the reasoning used by Gonzales, Vines and others, which I agree with.
Yes, 1958-9 looks like the summit of tennis.

You did not specify a decline for Rosewall until 1964, that's fine. If there was no decline, then he was at his peak until 1964, and that is approximately where most people, I think, tend to place Rosewall's peak.

I think the point of contention is your argument -- if I have it right -- that Rosewall maintained his peak level from as early as 1958 through 1964: meaning that he did not improve in the early 60s. And I think that's really a difficult argument to make: particularly because you identify biological peak years as 21-25. Rosewall turned 25 in late 1959. According to you he should have started declining then, and would not any longer be playing his peak tennis in '63, for example.

That's actually what I thought you were arguing before: that Rosewall was at his best in the late 50s, and not in the early 60s.

Whatever, I don't want to make too many points about this. I just think you've made incompatible arguments. You think biological decline begins at 25, yet you argue that Gonzalez played his best tennis after five years of biological decline -- just because he was playing Hoad. I have no problem with the idea, as stated by Vines and others, that Pancho lifted his play when he encountered Hoad; but to place his peak years there, five years after you think biological decline begins, is something else altogether. I know when we romanticize sports, we talk about old champions "turning back the clock." But decline cannot be reversed. If you think Pancho really played two seasons of his peak tennis in 1958-59, then really you need to revise your opinion that tennis players reach their peak at 21 and begin declining at 25.

Now somehow I think you're going to respond that you didn't specify a decline at 25. But that's what you're saying, if you specify peak years as being 21-25: that means necessarily that decline begins at 25.

I think if you acknowledged that tennis players can peak at different times, and as late as the age of 30, in cases such as Pancho's, then a lot of these contradictions disappear. Then it becomes perfectly plausible to say that Pancho played the best tennis of his life when he met Hoad (I'm not saying whether that was true or not: I'm just saying it would be plausible).

But if you allow that, then there is no reason not to allow Rosewall to do the same, ie, to play the best tennis of his life at around the age of 30, meaning in 1964. Not in the 1950s. If you think Pancho raised the level of his game from where it had been in previous seasons, then Rosewall could do the same.

I know you think Rosewall had no competition in the early 60s and thus did not improve on his late 50s level. But if tennis players can lift their games to higher levels than ever at the age of 30 (as you think Pancho did), then there's no reason to think that Rosewall did not keep improving right up until a similar age. If tennis players can improve throughout their 20s, then great champions like Rosewall will certainly improve.

The idea that Gonzalez improved throughout his late 20s while Rosewall -- with his unparalleled youthfulness, as a tennis player -- stopped improving after the age of 25, merely because he was no longer facing peak Hoad.... that doesn't wash at all.

There really appears to be no consistent principle in your argument, except that everything revolves around Hoad. Pancho, Ken and Lew, you've got them all peaking in 1958-59, regardless of their birthdays, and whether or not they were 21, 25, or 30. It's just a little constellation with peak Hoad in the center, and everything revolves around it.

[BobbyOne]

Originally Posted by krosero

You did not specify a decline for Rosewall until 1964, that's fine. If there was no decline, then he was at his peak until 1964, and that is approximately where most people, I think, tend to place Rosewall's peak.

I think the point of contention is your argument -- if I have it right -- that Rosewall maintained his peak level from as early as 1958 through 1964: meaning that he did not improve in the early 60s. And I think that's really a difficult argument to make: particularly because you identify biological peak years as 21-25. Rosewall turned 25 in late 1959. According to you he should have started declining then, and would not any longer be playing his peak tennis in '63, for example.

That's actually what I thought you were arguing before: that Rosewall was at his best in the late 50s, and not in the early 60s.

Whatever, I don't want to make too many points about this. I just think you've made incompatible arguments. You think biological decline begins at 25, yet you argue that Gonzalez played his best tennis after five years of biological decline -- just because he was playing Hoad. I have no problem with the idea, as stated by Vines and others, that Pancho lifted his play when he encountered Hoad; but to place his peak years there, five years after you think biological decline begins, is something else altogether. I know when we romanticize sports, we talk about old champions "turning back the clock." But decline cannot be reversed. If you think Pancho really played two seasons of his peak tennis in 1958-59, then really you need to revise your opinion that tennis players reach their peak at 21 and begin declining at 25.

Now somehow I think you're going to respond that you didn't specify a decline at 25. But that's what you're saying, if you specify peak years as being 21-25: that means necessarily that decline begins at 25.

I think if you acknowledged that tennis players can peak at different times, and as late as the age of 30, in cases such as Pancho's, then a lot of these contradictions disappear. Then it becomes perfectly plausible to say that Pancho played the best tennis of his life when he met Hoad (I'm not saying whether that was true or not: I'm just saying it would be plausible).

But if you allow that, then there is no reason not to allow Rosewall to do the same, ie, to play the best tennis of his life at around the age of 30, meaning in 1964. Not in the 1950s. If you think Pancho raised the level of his game from where it had been in previous seasons, then Rosewall could do the same.

I know you think Rosewall had no competition in the early 60s and thus did not improve on his late 50s level. But if tennis players can lift their games to higher levels than ever at the age of 30 (as you think Pancho did), then there's no reason to think that Rosewall did not keep improving right up until a similar age. If tennis players can improve throughout their 20s, then great champions like Rosewall will certainly improve.

The idea that Gonzalez improved throughout his late 20s while Rosewall -- with his unparalleled youthfulness, as a tennis player -- stopped improving after the age of 25, merely because he was no longer facing peak Hoad.... that doesn't wash at all.

There really appears to be no consistent principle in your argument, except that everything revolves around Hoad. Pancho, Ken and Lew, you've got them all peaking in 1958-59, regardless of their birthdays, and whether or not they were 21, 25, or 30. It's just a little constellation with peak Hoad in the center, and everything revolves around it.

krosero, Again you explained the matter very good. I think you could be an extraordinary lawyer (maybe you are one).

I had to smile a bit when Dan wrote that Rosewall was at his peak in 1958/59 BECAUSE then was the toughest competition. The latter can be true and it's also true that tough competition can help a player to improve but there is not a causality that all players must have their peak when the competition is the strongest. Otherwise Pancho Segura should have had also his prime in 1958/59.

I could ask Ken if he thinks that he had his peak years in the end-1950s but I woun't do so because I fear that Rosewall would believe I'm not serious...

I do know that Muscles once said that he played better tennis in 1970 than in 1956 even though he was well past his prime in 1970.

By the way, I also could ask Ken if he thinks that Hoad was generally the GOAT in his opinion (i.e. even regarding his achievements). But again I hesitate to ask him because I'm sure that he (as also Rod does) does know that the list of achievements of Lew Hoad is significantly smaller than the list of many other players from Tilden to Federer.

I think that "love makes blind". In the case of Dan I believe that his enthusiasm for Lew (although understandably) brings him sometimes to wrong conclusions. I do hope that my enthusiasm for Muscles does not cause an overrating of Rosewall...

[krosero]

Originally Posted by BobbyOne

krosero, Again you explained the matter very good. I think you could be an extraordinary lawyer (maybe you are one).

I had to smile a bit when Dan wrote that Rosewall was at his peak in 1958/59 BECAUSE then was the toughest competition. The latter can be true and it's also true that tough competition can help a player to improve but there is not a causality that all players must have their peak when the competition is the strongest. Otherwise Pancho Segura should have had also his prime in 1958/59.

I could ask Ken if he thinks that he had his peak years in the end-1950s but I woun't do so because I fear that Rosewall would believe I'm not serious...

I do know that Muscles once said that he played better tennis in 1970 than in 1956 even though he was well past his prime in 1970.

By the way, I also could ask Ken if he thinks that Hoad was generally the GOAT in his opinion (i.e. even regarding his achievements). But again I hesitate to ask him because I'm sure that he (as also Rod does) does know that the list of achievements of Lew Hoad is significantly smaller than the list of many other players from Tilden to Federer.

I think that "love makes blind". In the case of Dan I believe that his enthusiasm for Lew (although understandably) brings him sometimes to wrong conclusions. I do hope that my enthusiasm for Muscles does not cause an overrating of Rosewall...

The bold part is perfectly stated, that's exactly how I see it.

Not a lawyer, no. I just like arguing. Which is sometimes good, sometimes, well, shall we say, less useful...

I do remember Rosewall said that in 1970, don't have the exact quote.

The thing about asking Rosewall personally about these things is that, well, there are many things, but one problem is that our exact arguments and their context are not easy to transmit to someone who is not a part of them.

Another thing is that even if an answer is given, some people will misunderstand or misuse the information.

Heck of course I'm not saying whether or not to ask, just that I understand your caution about it. Perfectly sensible.