Lew Hoad-A discussion on his career

[Dan Lobb]

Originally Posted by 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!

Not quite.
I pointed out the level of competition he faced in the late fifties, PLUS the fact that he was biologically peaking AS WELL AS facing his toughest competition ever.
There was a combination of factors.

[Dan Lobb]

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.

Yes, I think that Rosewall peaked in the late fifties, due to BOTH biological and competitive reasons. He was pushed by the competition, PLUS he was biologically peaking in the late fifties. Not just Hoad, but Gonzales, Sedgman, Trabert, Segura, etc. A deep field.
I think that Rosewall may have declined in the early sixties due to less play, which was true for everyone, and age, although Hoad and Gonzales declined much more.
Gonzales and Rosewall and Laver all played fantastic tennis into their late twenties, pushed by great competition. Serious physical decline usually starts in the early thirties, 31 or 32, but some, like Hoad, decline earlier due to injury and lack of training.

[BobbyOne]

Originally Posted by Dan Lobb

Not quite.
I pointed out the level of competition he faced in the late fifties, PLUS the fact that he was biologically peaking AS WELL AS facing his toughest competition ever.
There was a combination of factors.

That's wrong. You did write about peak years at 21 to 25. In a later post you changed to "Maturity" at that age...

[Dan Lobb]

Originally Posted by BobbyOne

That's wrong. You did write about peak years at 21 to 25. In a later post you changed to "Maturity" at that age...

It was a combination of both.

[BobbyOne]

Originally Posted by krosero

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.

krosero, Yes, your kind of arguing (and maybe mine too) is not always welcome. Some people don't like an arguing with strong logic and consequence. Between consequence and inconsequence I prefer to be consequent in my arguing. As one can see also in this forum, I sometimes have some difficulties with a few posters (for the moment just with one poster...).

Yes, many great players don't have kept records of their career and don't have researched their results as meticulously as historians use to do.

Yes, some people misunderstand the remarks of all-time greats, f.i. Laver's and Rosewall's rankings which obviously refer to peak level but not to achievements.

[BobbyOne]

Originally Posted by Dan Lobb

It was a combination of both.

Your next rabbit...

[Dan Lobb]

Originally Posted by BobbyOne

krosero, Yes, your kind of arguing (and maybe mine too) is not always welcome. Some people don't like an arguing with strong logic and consequence. Between consequence and inconsequence I prefer to be consequent in my arguing. As one can see also in this forum, I sometimes have some difficulties with a few posters (for the moment just with one poster...).

Yes, many great players don't have kept records of their career and don't have researched their results as meticulously as historians use to do.

Yes, some people misunderstand the remarks of all-time greats, f.i. Laver's and Rosewall's rankings which obviously refer to peak level but not to achievements.

Laver, in the Sydney Herald in Jan. 2012, gives a detailed analysis of all the greats, and makes no mention of "peak" levels.

[BobbyOne]

Originally Posted by Dan Lobb

Laver, in the Sydney Herald in Jan. 2012, gives a detailed analysis of all the greats, and makes no mention of "peak" levels.

Dan, I again must break my pause in the discussion with yourself.

I just called Bud Collins, and Bud assured me that Laver was NOT injured in the 1972 WCT final.

Sometimes it even happened that Rosewall won matches even though his opponent was not injured or ill...

[Dan Lobb]

Originally Posted by BobbyOne

Dan, I again must break my pause in the discussion with yourself.

I just called Bud Collins, and Bud assured me that Laver was NOT injured in the 1972 WCT final.

Sometimes it even happened that Rosewall won matches even though his opponent was not injured or ill...

I think that I read somewhere that Laver had chronic arthritis pain in his back in the early seventies, but I guess you do not think that this constitutes an injury in the technical sense.
Perhaps we should transfer this issue to the Laver blog.
Laver always maintained that the best match he ever played was the 1963 French indoor final on wood against Rosewall.

[BobbyOne]

Originally Posted by Dan Lobb

I think that I read somewhere that Laver had chronic arthritis pain in his back in the early seventies, but I guess you do not think that this constitutes an injury in the technical sense.
Perhaps we should transfer this issue to the Laver blog.
Laver always maintained that the best match he ever played was the 1963 French indoor final on wood against Rosewall.

Dan, I believe that Laver meant he played his best match at Paris in 1963 TILL THAT TIME. Otherwise it would mean that his best was weaker than Rosewall's best. This neither you not I would think...

[Dan Lobb]

Originally Posted by BobbyOne

Dan, I believe that Laver meant he played his best match at Paris in 1963 TILL THAT TIME. Otherwise it would mean that his best was weaker than Rosewall's best. This neither you not I would think...

In the book ghosted by Bud Collins, Laver states.."I still think that I played the best tennis of my life in the Stade Coubertin final in 1963.." in the context of praising Rosewall's game.

[BobbyOne]

Originally Posted by Dan Lobb

In the book ghosted by Bud Collins, Laver states.."I still think that I played the best tennis of my life in the Stade Coubertin final in 1963.." in the context of praising Rosewall's game.

Okay, Dan, but if Laver actually played his best tennis and still lost to Rosewall, why do you rank Laver ahead of Rosewall?

And why does Rod rank Muscles only at sixth place in his pre-open era list?

By the way, Bud Collins rates their 1966 US Pro final (when Laver beat Rosewall in five sets) as the best of their famous encounters. But I concede that Bud maybe has not watched the 1963 French Pro final (and some of the Wembley finals).

[kiki]

A new angle to look at;
The 2 wonderkids are one of the top 10 ever doubles
The other 9 are IMO
Sedgman and Mc Gregor
Newk and Rochey
Bromwich and Quist
The Woodies
5 of top 10 aussies, the kings of doubles
The other 5 are
Hewitt and Mc Millan
Fleming and Mc Enroe
Borotra and Lacoste
Brugnon and Cochet
Jarryd and Edberg (peak play since Anders had a longer career with Fitzie)

[Dan Lobb]

Originally Posted by BobbyOne

Okay, Dan, but if Laver actually played his best tennis and still lost to Rosewall, why do you rank Laver ahead of Rosewall?

And why does Rod rank Muscles only at sixth place in his pre-open era list?

By the way, Bud Collins rates their 1966 US Pro final (when Laver beat Rosewall in five sets) as the best of their famous encounters. But I concede that Bud maybe has not watched the 1963 French Pro final (and some of the Wembley finals).

I think that Laver's greatest play against Rosewall was in the 1964 Wembley final, where he paced himself better than 1963, and Rosewall tired at the end.
I would rate Rosewall at #5, still great ranking.

[urban]

In an interview with the Spanish newspaper Marca, Laver said in July 2012, that he played his best tennis at LA 1968 in the final of the important Pacific South West event, beating Rosewall 4-6,6-0,6-0. I gave the link in another thread.

[BobbyOne]

Originally Posted by urban

In an interview with the Spanish newspaper Marca, Laver said in July 2012, that he played his best tennis at LA 1968 in the final of the important Pacific South West event, beating Rosewall 4-6,6-0,6-0. I gave the link in another thread.

urban, I agree with Rod here. Another great match of Laver was the 1968 Wembley final when Rosewall won only one game in three sets (Rosewall's worst loss). But both matches happened when Rosewall was past his prime.

I could agree with Dan that Wembley 1964 was the best match of L&R.

[BobbyOne]

Originally Posted by kiki

A new angle to look at;
The 2 wonderkids are one of the top 10 ever doubles
The other 9 are IMO
Sedgman and Mc Gregor
Newk and Rochey
Bromwich and Quist
The Woodies
5 of top 10 aussies, the kings of doubles
The other 5 are
Hewitt and Mc Millan
Fleming and Mc Enroe
Borotra and Lacoste
Brugnon and Cochet
Jarryd and Edberg (peak play since Anders had a longer career with Fitzie)

kiki, Hoad/Rosewall keep still the record of most major titles won (15).

I don't rank the Woodies very high because they had rather weak competition. In older times all top players played doubles too, but not in the times of Woodbridge/Woodforde or nowadays.

[Dan Lobb]

Originally Posted by BobbyOne

Dan, It's more than speculation. I cannot prove that there were some clay matches and you cannot disprove it. Both ways are possible.

We do know that H&R played about 25 matches in those years but we need the specification.

You only can claim a balance is a "lifetime balance" if you have the exact numbers. For instance Laver vs Rosewall: we don't have a sure lifetime balance yet. We have counted 75:62 or so matches. But it's possible that Old Man is right with his 99:83 balance. Maybe Old Man can say more about it. The 75:62 balance we should value as a provisional balance, not the sure lifetime balance.

You can't ignore that Rosewall gave that about 20:5 balance for 1961 to early 1963. It's worth to be detected...

Regarding the old pro scene we seldom have the exact hth balance of two players. See Nüsslein: we only know that he was 10:0 against Cochet but we only can estimate his balance against Tilden (possibly about 200:180) or against Vines (possibly about 25:45).

A serious writer would always add: "It's an approximate number, a rough hth".

We cannot accept ANY match as part of a lifetime head-to-head on a particular surface unless we know where and when it was played, and at least a hint of the surface. Anything less is too vague.
I was willing to allow POSSIBLE surfaces into my lists as "ASTERISKS" only, as part of a supplemental list. But even there, for example the 1963 and 1964 Cannes Indoor, do not appear to be clay events, as the building was a multi-purpose stadium, unlikely to house a clay court (which, as far as I know, are NOT portable surfaces).

[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

Krosero, did you actually believe that Bobby was referring to a real match?

[Dan Lobb]

Originally Posted by BobbyOne

But not when we know about many other matches which have been played even though we still need their exact results!

Again, we need at least the location, date, and score (if possible. Knowing the score helps to solidify the result). We can GUESS at the surface, but not always. For example, the pro tournaments at Melbourne in 1964 and 1967 were NOT held at Kooyong, probably indoor at the Olympic pool on cheap carpet. The Australian Tennis Federation had banned the pros from the major outdoor grasscourts.