Lew Hoad-A discussion on his career

B

BTURNER

Legend
pc1 said:
The part I have in bold is what separates the all time greats. There are some players that never ever seen to lose to people they should beat. They are players like Connors, Federer, Lendl, Tilden, Chris Evert and during his peak period Djokovic. Yes there will be the occasional upset but they are few and far between. I believe Gonzalez and Rosewall were that also but since they played in a closed Pro Tour it's a little harder to evaluate. I know Gonzalez was an amazing 34-0 against Cooper and Anderson (sounds like an accounting firm) during their tour. Hoad lost a number of matches to that pair and so Gonzalez emerged with the best won-lost record on the tour despite losing 15-13 to Hoad in their individual matches.

I think Vines during his best years rarely was upset in tournaments although of course he lost on his Pro Tours at times.

Chris Evert to me is perhaps the ultimate in consistency in majors for the Open Era. I believe she was in 34 consecutive majors in which she NEVER failed to reach at least the semifinals.
Click to expand...
I personally credit that attribute for winning her three of her five grass court singles majors. If you show up in all but one of your penultimate rounds on your weaker major surface 26 out of 27 attempts, and if you win your semi more than half the time (15 finals on grass) sooner or later the best grass-courters of the day will not make it to meet you. In her day that meant King, Navratilova and Goolagong ( the stopgap between the two for a few years) . She beat Morozova 74, Goolagong 76, Mandlikova 81 and Sukova 84, and Navratilova 82 to win hers.

She deserves full credit for every one of them, because showing up to fight the good fight, matters a lot, if you want to win when circumstances are not going to be ideal for you. This is what 'making your luck' is all about
 
Last edited:
D

Dan Lobb

G.O.A.T.
krosero said:
1959 forest hills final

Here's Allison Danzig's report in the NY Times.

With an opening assault of electrifying violence, the blond 24-year-old Australian swept through the last three games of the first set at love and went on to defeat Gonzales in the final of the Tournament of Champions, 6-1, 5-7, 6-2, 6-1.

A gathering of 5,000 looked on spellbound at the ferocity of the attack that overwhelmed Gonzales in the sixteen-minute opening set. Returning service with blazing winners, and ripping into the ball with his scorching volley behind his high-powered service, Hoad had the champion at his mercy.

The Australian never played quite as well thereafter and yielded the second set as Gonzales improved vastly in his serving and return of service. But Hoad’s superiority was re-established beyond question in the last two sets against his tiring 31-year-old opponent.

The ability of the powerful youth from Down Under to deal drastically with the rangy Californian’s service, the chief instrument of Gonzales’ supremacy for the past five years, left the champion with a sense of futility of his fight. His ground strokes weakened and he could neither return service nor repulse Hoad on his attempted passing shots.

The outcome was seen to be inevitable as Gonzales lost the first foru games of the third set, in which the players donned spiked. In the final set he won the opening game and then yielded the next six, double-faulting three successive times after leading 40-love in the last game.

Victor over Gonzales in fifteen of their twenty-eight matches on tour, Hoad ended the champion’s supremacy at Forest Hills, where the Californian had won the tournaments of 1957 and 1958, both round-robin affairs.

No title was at stake in the Tournament of Champions, and, since Gonzales had won the tournaments at Los Angeles and Toronto this month, neither he nor Hoad now has any clear-cut claim to pre-eminence.

Promoter Jack Kramer said yesterday that he planned in 1960 to arrange with the Professional Lawn Tennis Association to conduct the tournament at Forest Hills as an officially recognized national championship.
Hoad received $3,000 in prize money with his victory yesterday and Gonzales $2,000 as runner-up.​
What stands out for me is that Hoad never again reached the level of play that he attained in the first set. At some point Hoad had to come down to earth, and that's perfectly normal.

Danzig writes that Gonzalez improved after the first set. I think he might have been able to take advantage of a normal downturn in Hoad's play, if he had been in physical condition to do so. But even if he'd been in perfect condition it would not necessarily have made a difference in the result, obviously, since this was one of Hoad's best days.
Click to expand...
This report in the N.Y. Times indicates that Kramer had a smooth working relationship with the USPLTA, so perhaps it was possible for Kramer to arrange some understanding for the subsequent 1963 FH U.S. Pro and Longwood U.S. Pro events.
 
abmk

abmk

Bionic Poster
@NoMercy :


----------------------

(the h2h stats from TennisBase)

in the amateurs, from 51 to 56 : Hoad lead Rosewall 13-7
in the pros :
57 - Rosewall lead Hoad 16-15
58 - Rosewall lead Hoad 10-2 (major part of this was due to Hoad's injury problems)
59 - Tied 8 all in h2h
60 - Tied 4 all in the h2h

So in the pros , from 57-60, Rosewall lead 38-29. Basically neck to neck in every year apart from 58 (which was really due to injuries)

So by the end of 1960, the h2h was 45-42 in favour of Rosewall.


After that, Hoad was affected by injuries and declined considerably. From then on, it was 33-3 in favour of Rosewall to make it 78-45 finally.

----------------------

I know Hoad declined from 61 onwards (in major part due to injury), though he did have some pretty good performances.

He was near even in h2h vs Rosewall before 1961.

3-33 after from 61 onwards is very extreme.
Any comments on this ?
Any ideas on what caused the margin to be this extreme ?

He was getting quite a few more wins vs other players (including Laver, Gonzales) from 61 onwards.
 
D

Dan Lobb

G.O.A.T.
Dan Lobb said:
Hoad won three pro majors, according to Kramer's reckoning.
The Wembley does not qualify as a major in my book.
Click to expand...
Hoad's major wins as a pro were all through Rosewall, but Hoad's record against Rosewall is better if you break down the stats into surfaces and especially in tournaments on grass and clay where Hoad held a substantial edge over Rosewall through 1960.
Indoors, Rosewall held the edge over Hoad both in amateur and pro ranks. Hoad had a relatively poor record in indoor tournaments.
 
T

thrust

Legend
abmk said:
@NoMercy :


----------------------

(the h2h stats from TennisBase)

in the amateurs, from 51 to 56 : Hoad lead Rosewall 13-7
in the pros :
57 - Rosewall lead Hoad 16-15
58 - Rosewall lead Hoad 10-2 (major part of this was due to Hoad's injury problems)
59 - Tied 8 all in h2h
60 - Tied 4 all in the h2h

So in the pros , from 57-60, Rosewall lead 38-29. Basically neck to neck in every year apart from 58 (which was really due to injuries)

So by the end of 1960, the h2h was 45-42 in favour of Rosewall.


After that, Hoad was affected by injuries and declined considerably. From then on, it was 33-3 in favour of Rosewall to make it 78-45 finally.

----------------------

I know Hoad declined from 61 onwards (in major part due to injury), though he did have some pretty good performances.

He was near even in h2h vs Rosewall before 1961.

3-33 after from 61 onwards is very extreme.
Any comments on this ?
Any ideas on what caused the margin to be this extreme ?

He was getting quite a few more wins vs other players (including Laver, Gonzales) from 61 onwards.
Click to expand...
It seems to me that the reason some tennis players become more injured than others is due either: basically weak bodies, game style, technique, or playing above their natural physical strength. From what I have read, Hoad was naturally bigger and stronger than Rosewall, but thought he needed to get stronger so may have hurt is body by too much weight training. Getting that extra strength may have helped him against Gonzalez but no much so against Rosewall. Whatever, the fact IS that Lew was capable to reach 3 pro slam finals 60-63 but lost all of them to Ken. Lew also lost the 68 French pro final to Ken. Rosewall, like Federer, did so well for so long because they played within their natural physical limits.
 
T

thrust

Legend
abmk said:
@NoMercy :


----------------------

(the h2h stats from TennisBase)

in the amateurs, from 51 to 56 : Hoad lead Rosewall 13-7
in the pros :
57 - Rosewall lead Hoad 16-15
58 - Rosewall lead Hoad 10-2 (major part of this was due to Hoad's injury problems)
59 - Tied 8 all in h2h
60 - Tied 4 all in the h2h

So in the pros , from 57-60, Rosewall lead 38-29. Basically neck to neck in every year apart from 58 (which was really due to injuries)

So by the end of 1960, the h2h was 45-42 in favour of Rosewall.


After that, Hoad was affected by injuries and declined considerably. From then on, it was 33-3 in favour of Rosewall to make it 78-45 finally.

----------------------

I know Hoad declined from 61 onwards (in major part due to injury), though he did have some pretty good performances.

He was near even in h2h vs Rosewall before 1961.

3-33 after from 61 onwards is very extreme.
Any comments on this ?
Any ideas on what caused the margin to be this extreme ?

He was getting quite a few more wins vs other players (including Laver, Gonzales) from 61 onwards.
Click to expand...
It seems to me that the reason some tennis players become more injured than others is due either: basically weak bodies, game style, technique, or playing above their natural physical strength. From what I have read, Hoad was naturally bigger and stronger than Rosewall, but thought he needed to get stronger so may have hurt is body by too much weight training. Getting that extra strength may have helped him against Gonzalez but no much so against Rosewall. Whatever, the fact IS that Lew was capable to reach 3 pro slam finals 60-63 but lost all of them to Ken. Lew also lost the 68 French pro final to Ken. Rosewall, like Federer, did so well for so long because they played within their natural physical limits.
Dan Lobb said:
Hoad's major wins as a pro were all through Rosewall, but Hoad's record against Rosewall is better if you break down the stats into surfaces and especially in tournaments on grass and clay where Hoad held a substantial edge over Rosewall through 1960.
Indoors, Rosewall held the edge over Hoad both in amateur and pro ranks. Hoad had a relatively poor record in indoor tournaments.
Click to expand...
 
T

thrust

Legend
Dan Lobb said:
Hoad's major wins as a pro were all through Rosewall, but Hoad's record against Rosewall is better if you break down the stats into surfaces and especially in tournaments on grass and clay where Hoad held a substantial edge over Rosewall through 1960.
Indoors, Rosewall held the edge over Hoad both in amateur and pro ranks. Hoad had a relatively poor record in indoor tournaments.
Click to expand...
The pro majors were: Wembley, French Pro, and US Pro, not matter what is in your book-head. I don't know what Kramer's or your designated pro majors were that Lew won, but they were probably one or two year events. As I stated above Ken and Lew player in 4 major pro finals, with Ken winning ALL of them.
 
D

Dan Lobb

G.O.A.T.
thrust said:
It seems to me that the reason some tennis players become more injured than others is due either: basically weak bodies, game style, technique, or playing above their natural physical strength. From what I have read, Hoad was naturally bigger and stronger than Rosewall, but thought he needed to get stronger so may have hurt is body by too much weight training. Getting that extra strength may have helped him against Gonzalez but no much so against Rosewall. Whatever, the fact IS that Lew was capable to reach 3 pro slam finals 60-63 but lost all of them to Ken. Lew also lost the 68 French pro final to Ken. Rosewall, like Federer, did so well for so long because they played within their natural physical limits.
Click to expand...
Hoad's losses you refer to were INDOOR...in Hoad's three major pro wins, all were outdoor, and won through Rosewall.
You have to look at the venue, Hoad was an outdoor player.
Hoad did not lose the 1968 French final to anyone.
 
D

Dan Lobb

G.O.A.T.
thrust said:
The pro majors were: Wembley, French Pro, and US Pro, not matter what is in your book-head. I don't know what Kramer's or your designated pro majors were that Lew won, but they were probably one or two year events. As I stated above Ken and Lew player in 4 major pro finals, with Ken winning ALL of them.
Click to expand...
There were no official pro majors.
The top pro tournaments changed from year to year.
 
abmk

abmk

Bionic Poster
thrust said:
It seems to me that the reason some tennis players become more injured than others is due either: basically weak bodies, game style, technique, or playing above their natural physical strength. From what I have read, Hoad was naturally bigger and stronger than Rosewall, but thought he needed to get stronger so may have hurt is body by too much weight training. Getting that extra strength may have helped him against Gonzalez but no much so against Rosewall. Whatever, the fact IS that Lew was capable to reach 3 pro slam finals 60-63 but lost all of them to Ken. Lew also lost the 68 French pro final to Ken. Rosewall, like Federer, did so well for so long because they played within their natural physical limits.
Click to expand...

again, many statements, but nothing relevant to the actual question asked.
You wouldn't have the answer. Please don't bother.
 
Fiero425

Fiero425

Legend
Dan Lobb said:
There were no official pro majors.
The top pro tournaments changed from year to year.
Click to expand...

I only started hearing about these PRO events after I stopped playing well over 10 years ago! Back in the 70's, 80, & 90's, I watched all televised matches and listened to all the banter from Vic Braeden, Bud Collins, and Cliff Drysdale! None of them ever mentioned Pro Slams until the last decade or so! Why? Anyone? All of a sudden past greats were being elevated in the major count by adding pre-Open era wins along with later events taken in these little known Pro events they entered to surpass more recent star players! It just made no sense to me! Going back in the record of my blog, I'll try to find data since I can't remember the thread, but will find a couple posted below: :rolleyes: :p ;)

- - https://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/index.php?threads/the-structure-of-the-old-pro-tour.601013/ - -

- - https://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/ind...as-a-immature-stage-of-tennis-history.445343/ - -

- - https://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/ind...-etc-in-hypothetical-open-environment.595606/ - -

Assuming that it was always an open era/environment from the 50s, this is a projection of the majors won by these guys from '51 to '72.

This is a mix of what actually happened in the pro majors, amateur majors, strength of the players in general, circumstances. You'll see what I mean once you read it. This is by no means anywhere near perfect, just a decent effort. There may be some inconsistencies. Comments/corrections are welcome.

In some places, I have written AO, FO, USO for the championships (amateur events in those years). Please bear with me for that.

I have , going by my projections below :

Gonzales : 5 AOs, 1 FO, 5 Wimbledons, 6 USOs ...total = 17
Rosewall : 5 AOs, 6 FOs , 1 Wimbledon, 3 USOs ...total = 15
Laver : 4 AOs, 3 FOs, 5 Wimbledons, 3 USOs ....total - 15
Hoad : 1 AO, 1 FO, 3 Wimbledons ....total = 5

Bonus :

Sedgman : 1 AO, 2 Wimbledons, 1 USO ...total = 4
Segura : 1 AO, 2 USO ...total = 3

** one slot is still open for RG 70.
 
Last edited:
T

thrust

Legend
Dan Lobb said:
Hoad's losses you refer to were INDOOR...in Hoad's three major pro wins, all were outdoor, and won through Rosewall.
You have to look at the venue, Hoad was an outdoor player.
Hoad did not lose the 1968 French final to anyone.
Click to expand...
Correct, I meant 58 French Pro which was played at RG, I assume outdoors. What were Hoad's outdoor, so called major, wins? Wembley, French Pro, and US Pro were, and are still considered the Pro Majors, despite what you think or want to believe.
 
T

thrust

Legend
Fiero425 said:
I only started hearing about these PRO events after I stopped playing well over 10 years ago! Back in the 70's, 80, & 90's, I watched all televised matches and listened to all the banter from Vic Braeden, Bud Collins, and Cliff Drysdale! None of them ever mentioned Pro Slams until the last decade or so! Why? Anyone? All of a sudden past greats were being elevated in the major count by adding pre-Open era wins along with later events taken in these little known Pro events they entered to surpass more recent star players! It just made no sense to me! Going back in the record of my blog, I'll try to find data since I can't remember the thread, but it's on here somewhere! BRB! :rolleyes: :p ;)

- - https://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/index.php?threads/the-structure-of-the-old-pro-tour.601013/ - -
Click to expand...
Experts finally realized and admitted that players like: Gonzalez, Rosewall and Laver were the top players of the 50's and 60's who were barred from the regular slams, so could not possibly win them while on the pro tour. This was proven when at 29-31 and 33-37, Laver and Rosewall were winning slams in the open era. Gonzalez was 40, so really too old to win a slam.
 
abmk

abmk

Bionic Poster
thrust said:
What was the question?
Click to expand...

See the post again. I posted something similar there.

I know Hoad declined from 61 onwards (in major part due to injury), though he did have some pretty good performances. He was near even in h2h vs Rosewall before 1961. 3-33 after from 61 onwards is very extreme.

He was getting quite a few more wins vs other players (including Laver, Gonzales) from 61 onwards.
Any comments on this ?
Any ideas on what caused the margin vs Rosewall to be this extreme ?
 
T

thrust

Legend
abmk said:
See the post again. I posted something similar there.

I know Hoad declined from 61 onwards (in major part due to injury), though he did have some pretty good performances. He was near even in h2h vs Rosewall before 1961. 3-33 after from 61 onwards is very extreme.

He was getting quite a few more wins vs other players (including Laver, Gonzales) from 61 onwards.
Any comments on this ?
Any ideas on what caused the margin vs Rosewall to be this extreme ?
Click to expand...
Ken and Lew were the same age, I think 6 years younger than Gonzalez which might explain why Lew may have done better against Pancho than he did against Ken. Also, Ken kept in better shape than Lew and had fewer injuries. Ken, being a more steady player than Lew, could win by making Lew run out of gas. If Lew had a better record against Laver than he did against Ken, that is surprising, as Laver was the younger man at his peak.
 
D

Dan Lobb

G.O.A.T.
thrust said:
Correct, I meant 58 French Pro which was played at RG, I assume outdoors. What were Hoad's outdoor, so called major, wins? Wembley, French Pro, and US Pro were, and are still considered the Pro Majors, despite what you think or want to believe.
Click to expand...
I think that Newcombe lost the 68 French final to Laver. Hoad not there.

No, the designated pro majors from the late fifties were Forest Hills, Kooyong, White City, and L.A. Masters.
Also, Kramer designated two tournaments per year in 1957, 1958, 1959 as Tournament of Champions, and these six events should be regarded as super-majors.
 
N

NoMercy

Hall of Fame
abmk said:
@NoMercy :


----------------------

(the h2h stats from TennisBase)

in the amateurs, from 51 to 56 : Hoad lead Rosewall 13-7
in the pros :
57 - Rosewall lead Hoad 16-15
58 - Rosewall lead Hoad 10-2 (major part of this was due to Hoad's injury problems)
59 - Tied 8 all in h2h
60 - Tied 4 all in the h2h

So in the pros , from 57-60, Rosewall lead 38-29. Basically neck to neck in every year apart from 58 (which was really due to injuries)

So by the end of 1960, the h2h was 45-42 in favour of Rosewall.


After that, Hoad was affected by injuries and declined considerably. From then on, it was 33-3 in favour of Rosewall to make it 78-45 finally.

----------------------

I know Hoad declined from 61 onwards (in major part due to injury), though he did have some pretty good performances.

He was near even in h2h vs Rosewall before 1961.

3-33 after from 61 onwards is very extreme.
Any comments on this ?
Any ideas on what caused the margin to be this extreme ?

He was getting quite a few more wins vs other players (including Laver, Gonzales) from 61 onwards.
Click to expand...
Hoad suffered a big lack of motivation after the end of 1959. Also, he had various physical problems and his game started to decline.
A rookie Gimeno beat Hoad in their first match in 1960. From 1960 he started losing matches he wouldn’t have lost before, with everybody. He still had decent years, but far from 58-59 level.

Rosewall was getting better and better and in 1962-63 was almost unplayable for everybody.
Anyway in 1961-62 they faced few times.
From 1964 Hoad started to lose badly and very often to Laver too.

I guess it was just Rosewall raising his level a lot and Hoad gradually losing his.
Also, Rosewall knew him like his pockets (not sure if in English this statement makes sense :D ) , so he was the best to work on his weaknesses.
 
D

Dan Lobb

G.O.A.T.
NoMercy said:
Hoad suffered a big lack of motivation after the end of 1959. Also, he had various physical problems and his game started to decline.
A rookie Gimeno beat Hoad in their first match in 1960. From 1960 he started losing matches he wouldn’t have lost before, with everybody. He still had decent years, but far from 58-59 level.

Rosewall was getting better and better and in 1962-63 was almost unplayable for everybody.
Anyway in 1961-62 they faced few times.
From 1964 Hoad started to lose badly and very often to Laver too.

I guess it was just Rosewall raising his level a lot and Hoad gradually losing his.
Also, Rosewall knew him like his pockets (not sure if in English this statement makes sense :D ) , so he was the best to work on his weaknesses.
Click to expand...
Hoad injured his back in early 1954 while in military service. He devised a show-off manoeuvre, doing pushups with round 50 lb. weights on his back...this gave him two ruptured and infected discs, which would sometimes flare up during his tennis tours.
Hoad dropped out three times during the 1958 season with back trouble, and managed to play around his back trouble in 1959 with about 160 or more matches.
After that 1959 tour, Gonzales claimed that Hoad's back bothered him enough to stop him from practising and keeping in shape.

However, I still rate Hoad number one through 1961, based on his peak play in those years.
 
B

BobbyOne

G.O.A.T.
abmk said:
See the post again. I posted something similar there.

I know Hoad declined from 61 onwards (in major part due to injury), though he did have some pretty good performances. He was near even in h2h vs Rosewall before 1961. 3-33 after from 61 onwards is very extreme.

He was getting quite a few more wins vs other players (including Laver, Gonzales) from 61 onwards.
Any comments on this ?
Any ideas on what caused the margin vs Rosewall to be this extreme ?
Click to expand...

Hoad declined and Rosewall improved and reached his peak form.
 
D

Dan Lobb

G.O.A.T.
NoMercy said:
Hoad suffered a big lack of motivation after the end of 1959. Also, he had various physical problems and his game started to decline.
A rookie Gimeno beat Hoad in their first match in 1960. From 1960 he started losing matches he wouldn’t have lost before, with everybody. He still had decent years, but far from 58-59 level.

Rosewall was getting better and better and in 1962-63 was almost unplayable for everybody.
Anyway in 1961-62 they faced few times.
From 1964 Hoad started to lose badly and very often to Laver too.

I guess it was just Rosewall raising his level a lot and Hoad gradually losing his.
Also, Rosewall knew him like his pockets (not sure if in English this statement makes sense :D ) , so he was the best to work on his weaknesses.
Click to expand...
I think that Hoad and Gonzales both declined after 1961, which explains Rosewall's rise to prominence.
Rosewall probably reached full maturity about 1957, when he won at Wembley.
 
N

NoMercy

Hall of Fame
Dan Lobb said:
Hoad injured his back in early 1954 while in military service. He devised a show-off manoeuvre, doing pushups with round 50 lb. weights on his back...this gave him two ruptured and infected discs, which would sometimes flare up during his tennis tours.
Hoad dropped out three times during the 1958 season with back trouble, and managed to play around his back trouble in 1959 with about 160 or more matches.
After that 1959 tour, Gonzales claimed that Hoad's back bothered him enough to stop him from practising and keeping in shape.

However, I still rate Hoad number one through 1961, based on his peak play in those years.
Click to expand...
In 1960 Hoad lost all three big finals he played vs Rosewall (Melbourne, Los Angeles, Paris and Wembley were the top4 events of the year).
At Wembley lost very early vs Segura.
Not sure how you can rate him as number one, Rosewall's level in 1960 was higher, no doubt about that. Anyway his level was still very good.
Best win was in the Japan pro tournament, indoor....

In 1961 he suffered an injury during the WS in Paris, but he was not having any remarkable results.
At the end of the year he lost to Ken in Wembley final.
In 1961 not so much of peak for Hoad
 
Last edited:
T

thrust

Legend
NoMercy said:
In 1960 Hoad lost all three big finals he played vs Rosewall (Melbourne, Los Angeles, Paris and Wembley were the top4 events of the year).
At Wembley lost very early vs Segura.
Not sure how you can rate him as number one, Rosewall's level in 1960 was higher, no doubt about that. Anyway his level was still very good.
Best win was in the Japan pro tournament, indoor....

In 1961 he suffered an injury during the WS in Paris, but he was not having any remarkable results.
At the end of the year he lost to Ken in Wembley final.
In 1961 not so much of peak for Hoad
Click to expand...
The fact that Hoad reached all those finals shows that he was still playing very well. His main reason for not winning those tournaments was Ken, who in 1960 entered into his peak years.
 
D

Dan Lobb

G.O.A.T.
NoMercy said:
In 1960 Hoad lost all three big finals he played vs Rosewall (Melbourne, Los Angeles, Paris and Wembley were the top4 events of the year).
At Wembley lost very early vs Segura.
Not sure how you can rate him as number one, Rosewall's level in 1960 was higher, no doubt about that. Anyway his level was still very good.
Best win was in the Japan pro tournament, indoor....

In 1961 he suffered an injury during the WS in Paris, but he was not having any remarkable results.
At the end of the year he lost to Ken in Wembley final.
In 1961 not so much of peak for Hoad
Click to expand...
My criteria for choosing the top dog is somewhat different from yours, I look only at peak achievement, whoever plays the best tennis of the year, not who wins the most events.
I do not see Ken having any claim to number one spot for either 1960 or 1961.
Gonzales could lay some claim to number one.

For 1960, Hoad and Rosewall split evenly on 8 tournament finals, Hoad winning the most important at Kooyong.
Hoad and Gonzales did not play each other in 1960.

In 1961, Hoad withdrew from the WS with foot trouble but won the hth series against Gonzales in Britain, and won their meeting at Wembley, and won the decider in the Kramer Cup (Rosewall stumbled against Trabert).

These are no brainers.
 
N

NoMercy

Hall of Fame
Dan Lobb said:
My criteria for choosing the top dog is somewhat different from yours, I look only at peak achievement, whoever plays the best tennis of the year, not who wins the most events.
I do not see Ken having any claim to number one spot for either 1960 or 1961.
Gonzales could lay some claim to number one.

For 1960, Hoad and Rosewall split evenly on 8 tournament finals, Hoad winning the most important at Kooyong.
Hoad and Gonzales did not play each other in 1960.

In 1961, Hoad withdrew from the WS with foot trouble but won the hth series against Gonzales in Britain, and won their meeting at Wembley, and won the decider in the Kramer Cup (Rosewall stumbled against Trabert).

These are no brainers.
Click to expand...
Kooyong was last event of 1959.
Last event of 1959 Ampol Tour.
So 1960 season starts after that.

Ken won the biggest three matches (where peak play is required) plus San Francisco.
Hoad won Santa Barbara (small tournament) and Tokyo. Geneva was not a tournament, just a two stands stop in the European Tour.
Ken won 6-1 his Japan series vs Hoad in November 1960.

In 1961 Hoad won the GB series 6-4 but before retiring in the WS was down 2-6 vs Pancho.
He won the SF in Wembley but lost the final to Ken. Peak play is required in final too, not just in the SF.

You are right, Pancho has some rights to number one, Ken too.
Hoad zero.

These are no brainers
 
T

thrust

Legend
Dan Lobb said:
My criteria for choosing the top dog is somewhat different from yours, I look only at peak achievement, whoever plays the best tennis of the year, not who wins the most events.
I do not see Ken having any claim to number one spot for either 1960 or 1961.
Gonzales could lay some claim to number one.

For 1960, Hoad and Rosewall split evenly on 8 tournament finals, Hoad winning the most important at Kooyong.
Hoad and Gonzales did not play each other in 1960.

In 1961, Hoad withdrew from the WS with foot trouble but won the hth series against Gonzales in Britain, and won their meeting at Wembley, and won the decider in the Kramer Cup (Rosewall stumbled against Trabert).

These are no brainers.
Click to expand...
In 1960 Ken won Wembley and defeated Hoad in the French final. Where does anyone see the results of the Kooyong tournament in any tennis records book? Therefore, you saying it was the most important tournament of the year, makes NO sense.
 
D

Dan Lobb

G.O.A.T.
thrust said:
In 1960 Ken won Wembley and defeated Hoad in the French final. Where does anyone see the results of the Kooyong tournament in any tennis records book? Therefore, you saying it was the most important tournament of the year, makes NO sense.
Click to expand...
Kooyong was the most important event of 1960...sorry that you could not find it in your tennis book.
 
D

Dan Lobb

G.O.A.T.
NoMercy said:
Kooyong was last event of 1959.
Last event of 1959 Ampol Tour.
So 1960 season starts after that.

Ken won the biggest three matches (where peak play is required) plus San Francisco.
Hoad won Santa Barbara (small tournament) and Tokyo. Geneva was not a tournament, just a two stands stop in the European Tour.
Ken won 6-1 his Japan series vs Hoad in November 1960.

In 1961 Hoad won the GB series 6-4 but before retiring in the WS was down 2-6 vs Pancho.
He won the SF in Wembley but lost the final to Ken. Peak play is required in final too, not just in the SF.

You are right, Pancho has some rights to number one, Ken too.
Hoad zero.

These are no brainers
Click to expand...
No, Kooyong was the last event of the 1959/60 Ampol tour.

We were discussing 1960, right?
The Kooyong final in January was the peak play event of the calendar year.

Yes, Hoad was injured in the 1961 WS...I think that I said that...Hoad did not compete in the complete WS, so the results were incomplete.
Probably explains why there was a hth between Hoad and Gonzales in Britain that year, a postponement of the expected WS final series.

Ken has no claim to number one, did not play the WS in 1961, bombed in the 1960 WS...again, a no brainer.

Ken stumbled in the Kramer Cup final against Trabert.
 
Last edited:
T

thrust

Legend
NoMercy said:
Kooyong was last event of 1959.
Last event of 1959 Ampol Tour.
So 1960 season starts after that.

Ken won the biggest three matches (where peak play is required) plus San Francisco.
Hoad won Santa Barbara (small tournament) and Tokyo. Geneva was not a tournament, just a two stands stop in the European Tour.
Ken won 6-1 his Japan series vs Hoad in November 1960.

In 1961 Hoad won the GB series 6-4 but before retiring in the WS was down 2-6 vs Pancho.
He won the SF in Wembley but lost the final to Ken. Peak play is required in final too, not just in the SF.

You are right, Pancho has some rights to number one, Ken too.
Hoad zero.

These are no brainers
Click to expand...
Great Post!
 
D

Dan Lobb

G.O.A.T.
Dan Lobb said:
No, Kooyong was the last event of the 1959/60 Ampol tour.

We were discussing 1960, right?
The Kooyong final in January was the peak play event of the calendar year.

Yes, Hoad was injured in the 1961 WS...I think that I said that...Hoad did not compete in the complete WS, so the results were incomplete.
Probably explains why there was a hth between Hoad and Gonzales in Britain that year, a postponement of the expected WS final series.

Ken has no claim to number one, was not invited into the WS in 1961, bombed in the 1960 WS...again, a no brainer.

Ken stumbled in the Kramer Cup final against Trabert.
Click to expand...
It pains me to point out a shortcoming for Ken in these two years, I am a huge fan of the Little Cornishman.
 
N

NoMercy

Hall of Fame
Dan Lobb said:
No, Kooyong was the last event of the 1959/60 Ampol tour.

We were discussing 1960, right?
The Kooyong final in January was the peak play event of the calendar year.

Yes, Hoad was injured in the 1961 WS...I think that I said that...Hoad did not compete in the complete WS, so the results were incomplete.
Probably explains why there was a hth between Hoad and Gonzales in Britain that year, a postponement of the expected WS final series.

Ken has no claim to number one, did not play the WS in 1961, bombed in the 1960 WS...again, a no brainer.

Ken stumbled in the Kramer Cup final against Trabert.
Click to expand...
Kooyong was part of 1959.
Played 26 Dec 1959 - 2 Jan 1960.

But I’m generous.
So from 3 Jan 1960, Hoad has no claim against Rosewall in 1960, being down at least (maybe more) 3-10 vs Ken in H2H.
0-3 in big matches (two of them played outdoor, Hoad is an outdoor player, as per Dan Lobb).

In 1961 Hoad is down vs Gonzales and vs Rosewall. Lost big final in Wembley.

But no worries.
My daughter believes in Santa, so you can believe what you prefer ;)
 
B

BobbyOne

G.O.A.T.
Dan Lobb said:
No, Kooyong was the last event of the 1959/60 Ampol tour.

We were discussing 1960, right?
The Kooyong final in January was the peak play event of the calendar year.

Yes, Hoad was injured in the 1961 WS...I think that I said that...Hoad did not compete in the complete WS, so the results were incomplete.
Probably explains why there was a hth between Hoad and Gonzales in Britain that year, a postponement of the expected WS final series.

Ken has no claim to number one, did not play the WS in 1961, bombed in the 1960 WS...again, a no brainer.

Ken stumbled in the Kramer Cup final against Trabert.
Click to expand...

Lobb, Something new???
 
D

Dan Lobb

G.O.A.T.
NoMercy said:
Kooyong was part of 1959.
Played 26 Dec 1959 - 2 Jan 1960.

But I’m generous.
So from 3 Jan 1960, Hoad has no claim against Rosewall in 1960, being down at least (maybe more) 3-10 vs Ken in H2H.
0-3 in big matches (two of them played outdoor, Hoad is an outdoor player, as per Dan Lobb).

In 1961 Hoad is down vs Gonzales and vs Rosewall. Lost big final in Wembley.

But no worries.
My daughter believes in Santa, so you can believe what you prefer ;)
Click to expand...
Kooyong was part of 1959, but also part of 1960.
Kooyong was the most important event of 1960, and the best match on grass ever between Hoad and Rosewall.
Hoad and Rosewall were 4 and 4 in tournament finals that year.

I believe that Tokyo was on clay, right?

In 1961 Hoad won his hth tour against Gonzales, plus that great match at Wembley.
The Kramer Cup was a major that year, Hoad won the deciding match against Trabert, (Rosewall stumbled against Trabert).

You know what they say...when the money is down, the top guys show up...
That means events like Kooyong 1960, Kramer Cup.

But I am merciful, NoMercy.
If you want to root for the Little Cornishman, my Cornish blood is happy.
 
abmk

abmk

Bionic Poster
NoMercy said:
Hoad suffered a big lack of motivation after the end of 1959. Also, he had various physical problems and his game started to decline.
A rookie Gimeno beat Hoad in their first match in 1960. From 1960 he started losing matches he wouldn’t have lost before, with everybody. He still had decent years, but far from 58-59 level.

Rosewall was getting better and better and in 1962-63 was almost unplayable for everybody.
Anyway in 1961-62 they faced few times.
From 1964 Hoad started to lose badly and very often to Laver too.

I guess it was just Rosewall raising his level a lot and Hoad gradually losing his.
Also, Rosewall knew him like his pockets (not sure if in English this statement makes sense :D ) , so he was the best to work on his weaknesses.
Click to expand...

Interesting.
I hadn't noticed that Hoad-Rosewall only met once in 61 with Rosewall winning in 4 sets at Wembley.
Still 61-63, Rosewall-Hoad was 10-2 in favour of Rosewall, with Rosewall winning their important encounters (actually was winning all the important ones from 60 onwards). You'd think Hoad would get atleast one W over Rosewall in an important match in that time frame.
He did beat Gonzales at Wembley Pro in 61.
 
N

NoMercy

Hall of Fame
Dan Lobb said:
Kooyong was part of 1959, but also part of 1960.
Kooyong was the most important event of 1960, and the best match on grass ever between Hoad and Rosewall.
Hoad and Rosewall were 4 and 4 in tournament finals that year.

I believe that Tokyo was on clay, right?

In 1961 Hoad won his hth tour against Gonzales, plus that great match at Wembley.
The Kramer Cup was a major that year, Hoad won the deciding match against Trabert, (Rosewall stumbled against Trabert).

You know what they say...when the money is down, the top guys show up...
That means events like Kooyong 1960, Kramer Cup.

But I am merciful, NoMercy.
If you want to root for the Little Cornishman, my Cornish blood is happy.
Click to expand...
Just some corrections on your many mistakes.
1) Tokyo was played indoors.
2) Wembley has a bigger prize money than Kooyong, Hoad lost.
3) Los Angeles, Paris and Melbourne indoor had te same prize money as Kooyong. Hoad lost.
4) WS had a lot more money than GB tour.
Before injury Hoad was 2-6 vs Pancho and they were paid night by night, like in GB.
 
abmk

abmk

Bionic Poster
Dan Lobb said:
In 1961 Hoad won his hth tour against Gonzales, plus that great match at Wembley.
The Kramer Cup was a major that year, Hoad won the deciding match against Trabert, (Rosewall stumbled against Trabert).

You know what they say...when the money is down, the top guys show up...
That means events like Kooyong 1960, Kramer Cup.
Click to expand...

lol the delusionals of the Lobb continue.

Rosewall beat that same Hoad in 4 sets at Wembley final.

For 61, Wembley Pro, French Pro and World Series >>> that Kramer Cup. Deal with it.


oh and also, as per TB, Hoad-Gonzales h2h is at 9-11 for 1961.
 
N

NoMercy

Hall of Fame
abmk said:
Interesting.
I hadn't noticed that Hoad-Rosewall only met once in 61 with Rosewall winning in 4 sets at Wembley.
Still 61-63, Rosewall-Hoad was 10-2 in favour of Rosewall, with Rosewall winning their important encounters (actually was winning all the important ones from 60 onwards). You'd think Hoad would get atleast one W over Rosewall in an important match in that time frame.
He did beat Gonzales at Wembley Pro in 61.
Click to expand...
I guess he could have won some, if the had played more matches in 61-62.
But Rosewall took over.
It’s like when Novak started to tear Nadal apart. How many wins in a row? 8/9?
 
D

Dan Lobb

G.O.A.T.
NoMercy said:
Just some corrections on your many mistakes.
1) Tokyo was played indoors.
2) Wembley has a bigger prize money than Kooyong, Hoad lost.
3) Los Angeles, Paris and Melbourne indoor had te same prize money as Kooyong. Hoad lost.
4) WS had a lot more money than GB tour.
Before injury Hoad was 2-6 vs Pancho and they were paid night by night, like in GB.
Click to expand...
1) Are you sure that Tokyo was not on clay? Previously we heard that it was indoor on clay.
2) Kooyong decided the world champion for 1959/60, plus a huge bonus prize.
Hoad won a giant payday on that January 3 payday, perhaps the biggest amount ever.
3) Tokyo was a five set final and a big one...but anything that determines a world championship is special big.
4) The British tour boasted a Hoad/Gonzales hth tour, which was the expected final series in the WS, postponed to Britain, plus that great Wembley match.
That 2-6 score was not the WS final series, just the preliminary.

As I stated above, I am interested in the level of play, not numbers of events.
 
abmk

abmk

Bionic Poster
NoMercy said:
I guess he could have won some, if the had played more matches in 61-62.
But Rosewall took over.
It’s like when Novak started to tear Nadal apart. How many wins in a row? 8/9?
Click to expand...

7 in a row from IW 2011 to AO 12

Or are you about 15 onwards? 7-0 again (no set lost) - 2015 Monte Carlo to 2016 Rome. Nadal broke the streak last year at Madrid.

interesting analogy.
 
N

NoMercy

Hall of Fame
Dan Lobb said:
1) Are you sure that Tokyo was not on clay? Previously we heard that it was indoor on clay.
2) Kooyong decided the world champion for 1959/60, plus a huge bonus prize.
Hoad won a giant payday on that January 3 payday, perhaps the biggest amount ever.
3) Tokyo was a five set final and a big one...but anything that determines a world championship is special big.
4) The British tour boasted a Hoad/Gonzales hth tour, which was the expected final series in the WS, postponed to Britain, plus that great Wembley match.
That 2-6 score was not the WS final series, just the preliminary.

As I stated above, I am interested in the level of play, not numbers of events.
Click to expand...
1) 100% indoor on boards, played in 3 different cities. Manila was indoor on clay.
2) The bonus money was already won by Hoad, because Pancho was not playing in Kooyong. So the day of the final they were playing just for the first prize.
3) Tokyo was the fifth event of the year, $10,000. Ken won top4 events.
4) This is your assumption. I never found anything saying Hoad-Gonzales series in GB was run because of Lew’s Retirement in WS
 
N

NoMercy

Hall of Fame
abmk said:
7 in a row from IW 2011 to AO 12

Or are you about 15 onwards? 7-0 again (no set lost) - 2015 Monte Carlo to 2016 Rome. Nadal broke the streak last year at Madrid.

interesting analogy.
Click to expand...
Every match up has its own history.
Rosewall going up and Hoad going down, plus they knew each other like husband and wife...
And Ken took the edge
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

TnsGuru
Lew Hoad Serve
Replies
21
Views
2K
Dan Lobb
D
Vensai
Ellsworth Vines vs Lew Hoad
Replies
39
Views
4K
urban
U
U
Lew Hoad-greatest imperfect player ever
2 3
Replies
107
Views
26K
Dan Lobb
D
kiki
fatasy doubles final match: Edberg and Jarryd vs Hoad and Rosewall
Replies
30
Views
2K
hoodjem
hoodjem
pc1
Rankings of Greats by tennis experts
14 15 16
Replies
791
Views
75K
Dan Lobb
D
Top