Lew Hoad-A discussion on his career

D

Dan Lobb

G.O.A.T.
krosero said:
It's a good question. Gonzalez was considered to have won the tour in '59, so he, not Hoad, was invited to defend the World Professional title in 1960.

The last match of the tour was in La Jolla on May 31. The AP reported:

Pancho Gonzales whipped his arch-rival, Lew Hoad, today in the final match of their 1959 professional tennis tour. Score, 6-3, 15-13.

Gonzales had clinched his fifth straight world professional title yesterday.

Gonzales collected a total of $29,150 for his year's efforts. Hoad earned $28,250. The championship is based on money won.

In matches, however, Hoad came out on top in his duel with Gonzales, 15-13.

In the preliminary Ashley Cooper turned back Mal Anderson, 3-6, 6-3, 7-5.​
I know the question was for Dan, but he answered instead about Hoad not having to defend his Ampol victory.
Click to expand...

No, the answer was that Kramer attempted to sign Hoad for the 1960 four-man tour, as reported in the New York Times and London Times, but that Hoad replied that he had made over $250,000 in winnings since turning pro, and much more in endorsements and other deals (worth about twenty times that in today's dollars), and he wanted to spend time with his wife and kids.
Kramer appealed to Hoad that 1960 would be his last chance to play against Gonzales, who had indicated he would retire soon.
Hoad TURNED KRAMER DOWN, and Kramer had to take Rosewall on the 1960 tour to replace Hoad. The result was that the 1960 tour was a financial failure, and the Ampol series was also terminated as Ampol severed its partnership with the Kramer tour due to Hoad's semi-retirement.
The 1959 four-man, according to Hodgson, did not have a declared winner, because Hoad defeated all three of his opponents.
 
Last edited:
K

krosero

Legend
Dan Lobb said:
No, it cannot be assumed. But apparently Budge didn't want to take a chance that he might lose.
Click to expand...
Vines needed 73 games to defeat Perry, winning 20-18 in the fourth. And Budge in '39 was a greater player than Perry.

Vines could have beaten Budge there -- he was capable of it -- but in a direct meeting Budge would have been the favorite. In tour matches he had beaten Vines 37-22. He had also beaten Vines at Wembley, 6-4, 6-3 (despite the fact that Vines "showed wonderful serves" per the press), and at Roland Garros in three straight.
 
D

Dan Lobb

G.O.A.T.
krosero said:
Does not explain Djokovic's position.

Do you have the text written by Laver?

It is so frustrating, because I have provided the numbers on this repeatedly, and you still are throwing out incorrect numbers. Vines was serving well right up through the 10th match, when Budge led 6-4. Budge then pulled ahead to 10-4, before Vines started winning again. That should be more than plain: Vines lost, at most, 4 matches to his injury. Not six.

Budge's margin of victory at the end was 5.
Click to expand...

You are assuming that Vines was perfectly healed after four losses.
 
Mustard

Mustard

Bionic Poster
Dan Lobb said:
In 1936, Tilden was 44 years old. This is not even close to Budge and Riggs playing in the 1959 Tuscaloosa pro championship, and losing to Giammalva.
They were 43 and 41 years old, respectively.
Wow!
Click to expand...

Tilden was 43 in 1936, and he has a longevity that is unparalleled in the history of tennis. Tilden reached his last pro major final in 1938, at the age of 45. The period of time from Tilden's first match as an amateur up to his last match as a professional, was 40 years (1912-1952). And if I'm not mistaken, I believe Tilden was about to leave his house to go to Cleveland in order to play in the 1953 US Pro tournament, when he died of a massive stroke.
 
Virginia

Virginia

Hall of Fame
Did anyone here actually see Hoad play in person?

I did, for several years at Wimbledon. He and Rosewall were my idols at the time and I had photos of them on my bedroom wall.

They were both unbelievable. Hoad's strokes were so powerful and he could do anything, but at times he would just "go away" for no reason. We used to call him "lethargic Lew". In his autobiography, he said himself that he couldn't account for his strange tennis moods.
 
K

krosero

Legend
Dan Lobb said:
No, the answer was that Kramer attempted to sign Hoad for the 1960 four-man tour, as reported in the New York Times and London Times, but that Hoad replied that he had made over $250,000 in winnings since turning pro, and much more in endorsements and other deals (worth about twenty times that in today's dollars), and he wanted to spend time with his wife and kids.
Kramer appealed to Had that 1960 would be his last chance to play against Gonzales, who had indicated he would retire soon.
Hoad TURNED KRAMER DOWN, and Kramer had to take Rosewall on the 1960 tour to replace Hoad. The result was that the 1960 tour was a financial failure, and the Ampol series was also terminated as Ampol severed its partnership with the Kramer tour due to Hoad's semi-retirement.
The 1959 four-man, according to Hodgson, did not have a declared winner, because Hoad defeated all three of his opponents.
Click to expand...
Kramer attempted to sign Hoad for 1960, of course. That does not mean that Hoad had the World Professional title of '59. Gonzalez had that. Hoad, you say, was tops for 1959 because of his Ampol winnings, but that's something else entirely from the 4-man tour that gave the World Professional title, which Gonzalez defended in 1960.

You have been claiming that the real winner of the 4-man tour should be regarded as Hoad, since he edge Pancho in direct meetings. You emphasized that the tour really was a two-man H2H since, according to you, Gonzalez regarded that tour as nothing more than a head-to-head between him and Hoad. PC1 asked, if Hoad really was considered the winner of that tour, then why wasn't he invited to defend his World Professional title in 1960.

The answer is that Gonzalez was regarded as the winner of that tour, and he was given the World Professional title.

If Hodgson said explicitly that the 4-man tour had no declared winner, that's wrong, as you can see from the AP article in the LA Times that I quoted.
 
K

krosero

Legend
Dan Lobb said:
You are assuming that Vines was perfectly healed after four losses.
Click to expand...
No, I've never made that assumption. I was responding to your contention that Vines had an edge when he was healthy. You seem to think he never recovered full health in that tour, so according to that argument, only the time before the muscle pull can be regarded as a healthy Vines. And that Vines was already down 6-4.

As for how well he did recover, I don't assume that he recovered perfectly, but I do know that he went on to have tremendous serving performances in several matches, including one in which he served 30 aces in 14 service games.

Now I don't know, that seems recovered enough to me.

Dan, are you Aussie? You focus so much on injuries, and yet it's my understanding that the old Aussie tradition -- from which Hoad comes -- is that if you're injured, you don't play, and if you play, then you're fit.
 
B

BobbyOne

G.O.A.T.
Dan Lobb said:
In 1936, Tilden was 44 years old. This is not even close to Budge and Riggs playing in the 1959 Tuscaloosa pro championship, and losing to Giammalva.
They were 43 and 41 years old, respectively.
Wow!
Click to expand...

Tilden at 34 was much better than Budge and Riggs in the same age.
 
B

BobbyOne

G.O.A.T.
Dan Lobb said:
No, the answer was that Kramer attempted to sign Hoad for the 1960 four-man tour, as reported in the New York Times and London Times, but that Hoad replied that he had made over $250,000 in winnings since turning pro, and much more in endorsements and other deals (worth about twenty times that in today's dollars), and he wanted to spend time with his wife and kids.
Kramer appealed to Had that 1960 would be his last chance to play against Gonzales, who had indicated he would retire soon.
Hoad TURNED KRAMER DOWN, and Kramer had to take Rosewall on the 1960 tour to replace Hoad. The result was that the 1960 tour was a financial failure, and the Ampol series was also terminated as Ampol severed its partnership with the Kramer tour due to Hoad's semi-retirement.
The 1959 four-man, according to Hodgson, did not have a declared winner, because Hoad defeated all three of his opponents.
Click to expand...

The 1959 European Grand Prix was won by Sedgman who had the most wins. That's clear even though Rosewall was the only player who had a positive balance against the three others. The same with Gonzalez winner of the 1959 world series even though Hoad beat all three. You and I have to accept this...
 
Last edited:
kiki

kiki

Banned
Mustard said:
Tilden was 43 in 1936, and he has a longevity that is unparalleled in the history of tennis. Tilden reached his last pro major final in 1938, at the age of 45. The period of time from Tilden's first match as an amateur up to his last match as a professional, was 40 years (1912-1952). And if I'm not mistaken, I believe Tilden was about to leave his house to go to Cleveland in order to play in the 1953 US Pro tournament, when he died of a massive stroke.
Click to expand...

That is the reason Vines pro wins is so overrated.except Perry and before Budge and Riggs joined.....old fart Tilden and upper class journeymen like Plaa,Stoeffen,Nusslein completely slamless...a real cake
 
kiki

kiki

Banned
Virginia said:
Did anyone here actually see Hoad play in person?

I did, for several years at Wimbledon. He and Rosewall were my idols at the time and I had photos of them on my bedroom wall.

They were both unbelievable. Hoad's strokes were so powerful and he could do anything, but at times he would just "go away" for no reason. We used to call him "lethargic Lew". In his autobiography, he said himself that he couldn't account for his strange tennis moods.
Click to expand...

Hoad was either a genious or a lunatic..or maybe a genious with some touches of lunacy
Tennis Beethoven
 
B

BobbyOne

G.O.A.T.
kiki said:
That is the reason Vines pro wins is so overrated.except Perry and before Budge and Riggs joined.....old fart Tilden and upper class journeymen like Plaa,Stoeffen,Nusslein completely slamless...a real cake
Click to expand...

Nüsslein was not a journeyman. He did have 11 pro majors!
 
kiki

kiki

Banned
Maybe the best and more talented ever but Nusslein,Kovacs,Segura and Okker were upper class journeymen not all timers
It happens that the best the champions level is, the best upper class journeymen are and the level of play of the champs they had to play in the pros made them fantastic players
Just like life itself with no phantasy but true day to day reality
 
pc1

pc1

G.O.A.T.
Limpinhitter said:
As did Pancho Gonzales.
Click to expand...

There is no doubt players like Laver, Rosewall and Gonzalez had the head to head advantage over Hoad. However one key is whether they could have had a head to head advantage over a motivated and fully healthy Hoad at his best. All three of them seem to indicate that Hoad may have bested them if Hoad was at his best at they were on their best.

Another key thing to think of is how good was Hoad overall in his best years? Was his best years superior to many others? Considering that his best was thought to be higher than anyone else could he have won a head to head tour against anyone that ever lived?

There are so many people including former greats of the game that are in awe of Hoad. It is something that we have to take into account. Do we have to believe it? I see no reason not to in most cases unlike opinions on other things in tennis where players have to be politically correct.

If you read or see most greats, you can tell many of them seem to have some flaws in their game. Some may not be the fastest like John Newcombe. Some may have a minor forehand problem like Edberg. Some may have a weaker backhand like Sampras and Federer. With Hoad it seems that he could attack off anything. The weakness that people indicate that he had was in his mind or later back injuries.
 
D

Dan Lobb

G.O.A.T.
krosero said:
Vines needed 73 games to defeat Perry, winning 20-18 in the fourth. And Budge in '39 was a greater player than Perry.

Vines could have beaten Budge there -- he was capable of it -- but in a direct meeting Budge would have been the favorite. In tour matches he had beaten Vines 37-22. He had also beaten Vines at Wembley, 6-4, 6-3 (despite the fact that Vines "showed wonderful serves" per the press), and at Roland Garros in three straight.
Click to expand...

Perhaps Budge did feel a little overtennised, as he claimed, and felt he needed to be fully up to beat Vines. He did not want to lose to Vines, and then have Vines suddenly retire, This would have hurt Budge's marketability.
 
D

Dan Lobb

G.O.A.T.
krosero said:
Kramer attempted to sign Hoad for 1960, of course. That does not mean that Hoad had the World Professional title of '59. Gonzalez had that. Hoad, you say, was tops for 1959 because of his Ampol winnings, but that's something else entirely from the 4-man tour that gave the World Professional title, which Gonzalez defended in 1960.

You have been claiming that the real winner of the 4-man tour should be regarded as Hoad, since he edge Pancho in direct meetings. You emphasized that the tour really was a two-man H2H since, according to you, Gonzalez regarded that tour as nothing more than a head-to-head between him and Hoad. PC1 asked, if Hoad really was considered the winner of that tour, then why wasn't he invited to defend his World Professional title in 1960.

The answer is that Gonzalez was regarded as the winner of that tour, and he was given the World Professional title.

If Hodgson said explicitly that the 4-man tour had no declared winner, that's wrong, as you can see from the AP article in the LA Times that I quoted.
Click to expand...

I am not claiming that Hoad won the tour, but that there was no determinate winner, given that Hoad beat all three of his opponents.
Gonzales' statements should be given some credit, and he gave the tour to Hoad (New York Times, 1969, Dave Anderson interview).
 
Last edited:
D

Dan Lobb

G.O.A.T.
krosero said:
Kramer attempted to sign Hoad for 1960, of course. That does not mean that Hoad had the World Professional title of '59. Gonzalez had that. Hoad, you say, was tops for 1959 because of his Ampol winnings, but that's something else entirely from the 4-man tour that gave the World Professional title, which Gonzalez defended in 1960.

You have been claiming that the real winner of the 4-man tour should be regarded as Hoad, since he edge Pancho in direct meetings. You emphasized that the tour really was a two-man H2H since, according to you, Gonzalez regarded that tour as nothing more than a head-to-head between him and Hoad. PC1 asked, if Hoad really was considered the winner of that tour, then why wasn't he invited to defend his World Professional title in 1960.

The answer is that Gonzalez was regarded as the winner of that tour, and he was given the World Professional title.

If Hodgson said explicitly that the 4-man tour had no declared winner, that's wrong, as you can see from the AP article in the LA Times that I quoted.
Click to expand...

Here is another suggestion for what might have happened.
Following the conclusion of the Ampol season on Jan. 7, 1960, Kramer gets Anderson to write an article in World Tennis magazine, the official mouthpiece of World Tennis Inc., the Kramer organization, that in fact Hoad is the world number one, because of his winning the Ampol series.
This claim does not explicitly appear in the New York Times coverage of the Ampol bonus money pool division , which appeared right after Jan. 7.
The purpose of the World Tennis article is to declare, in essence, a split world championship, with both Gonzales and Hoad winning a world championship.
This sets up expectations for a third championship tour headlined by Gonzales/Hoad in 1960.
Why do three in a row?
Because, the Hoad/Gonzales show drew the crowds and sold tickets.
Hoad had made himself rich in 2 1/2 years on the tour, and the media was entranced by this combination.
Instead, Kramer had to settle for Gonzales/Rosewall, a box-office bomb in 1957 and in 1960.
 
D

Dan Lobb

G.O.A.T.
kiki said:
That is the reason Vines pro wins is so overrated.except Perry and before Budge and Riggs joined.....old fart Tilden and upper class journeymen like Plaa,Stoeffen,Nusslein completely slamless...a real cake
Click to expand...

Yes, Vines opposition in the mid-thirties is not top-drawer.
 
Last edited:
D

Dan Lobb

G.O.A.T.
Limpinhitter said:
As did Pancho Gonzales.
Click to expand...

Not large before 1964.
Hoad's record:
Against Gonzales in 1958-59: 62 wins 74 losses, despite two long losing streaks during injury
including: Ampol tours 1958 and 1959: 6 wins 6 losses, however this includes two wins over Gonzales at Forest Hills Tournament of Champions, the most important event

Against Rosewall: won 1957 European clay tour
including: Ampol tours 1958 and 1959: 7 wins 5 losses

Against Laver: 1963 tour: 8 or 14 wins 0 losses
1964 New Zealand tour: 3 wins 1 loss

The statistics you are quoting are ridiculously incomplete.
 
Last edited:
D

Dan Lobb

G.O.A.T.
krosero said:
Does not explain Djokovic's position.

Do you have the text written by Laver?

It is so frustrating, because I have provided the numbers on this repeatedly, and you still are throwing out incorrect numbers. Vines was serving well right up through the 10th match, when Budge led 6-4. Budge then pulled ahead to 10-4, before Vines started winning again. That should be more than plain: Vines lost, at most, 4 matches to his injury. Not six.

Budge's margin of victory at the end was 5.
Click to expand...

For Laver's comments, type "Laver Herald Sun 2012 greatest players" into your browser, and you should call up the various reports from this year.
Laver concentrates on what he calls "dominance" in his list, and puts Hoad and Federer at the top. Kramer and Gonzales also score well on the criterion of "dominance".
Clearly, "dominance" refers to actual performance, not mere potential, but realization of potential. For Hoad, this means not just the Davis Cup, but success in major events.
I think that Laver himself felt "dominated" by Hoad on the 1963 and 1964 tours he lost to him.
 
Last edited:
B

BobbyOne

G.O.A.T.
kiki said:
Beating whom???
Click to expand...

Najuch (world pro champ)
Plaa (word pro champ)
Ramillon (world pro champ)
A. Burke (world pro champ)
Stoefen (first class player)
Cochet (very strong even after WW2)
Kozeluh (world pro champ)
Tilden (very strong even after WW2)
Vines (arguably No. 1 for 7 years)

Nüsslein also beat indirectly Budge at the 1939 Southport tournament (British Pro).
 
B

BobbyOne

G.O.A.T.
kiki said:
Maybe the best and more talented ever but Nusslein,Kovacs,Segura and Okker were upper class journeymen not all timers
It happens that the best the champions level is, the best upper class journeymen are and the level of play of the champs they had to play in the pros made them fantastic players
Just like life itself with no phantasy but true day to day reality
Click to expand...

Segura and Nüsslein were all-time greats. They are inshrined at Hall of Fame. Both were No.2.
 
L

Limpinhitter

G.O.A.T.
Dan Lobb said:
Not large before 1964.
Hoad's record:
Against Gonzales in 1958-59: 62 wins 74 losses, despite two long losing streaks during injury
including: Ampol tours 1958 and 1959: 6 wins 6 losses, however this includes two wins over Gonzales at Forest Hills Tournament of Champions, the most important event

Against Rosewall: won 1957 European clay tour
including: Ampol tours 1958 and 1959: 7 wins 5 losses

Against Laver: 1963 tour: 8 or 14 wins 0 losses
1964 New Zealand tour: 3 wins 1 loss

The statistics you are quoting are ridiculously incomplete.
Click to expand...

The stats I sited are 100% accurate. Laver, Rosewall and Gonzales all had large H2H leads over Hoad, period. Maybe Hoad could have done better if he were healthier. But, that's extremely speculative. Maybe Maybe Don Budge would have been #1 for 15 straight years if he hadn't injured his shoulder in an army accident. Maybe John McEnroe would have won 20 majors if he hadn't abused cocaine. Maybe Andre Agassi would have 20 majors if he had a kinder, gentler, father. Maybe Pete Sampras would have 20 majors if he hadn't inherited anemia (thalassemia minor), maybe Ralph Nadal would have 20 majors by now if he had healthy knees.
 
Last edited:
D

Dan Lobb

G.O.A.T.
BobbyOne said:
Najuch (world pro champ)
Plaa (word pro champ)
Ramillon (world pro champ)
A. Burke (world pro champ)
Stoefen (first class player)
Cochet (very strong even after WW2)
Kozeluh (world pro champ)
Tilden (very strong even after WW2)
Vines (arguably No. 1 for 7 years)

Nüsslein also beat indirectly Budge at the 1939 Southport tournament (British Pro).
Click to expand...

It sounds like "world pro champ" titles are a dime a dozen.
 
B

BobbyOne

G.O.A.T.
timnz said:
Could you please list them. Does that include the world pro champs of 1933 in berlin?
Click to expand...

World Pro 1933 (Berlin)
World Pro 1936 (Paris)
Wembley 1937
Wembley 1938
US PRO 1934
French Pro 1937
French Pro 1938
British Pro 1936 (Southport)
British Pro 1937
British Pro 1938
British Pro 1939
 
L

Limpinhitter

G.O.A.T.
Dan Lobb said:
The stats you cite are incomplete. No doubt.
Click to expand...

The stats I sited are 100% accurate. Laver, Rosewall and Gonzales all had large H2H leads over Hoad, period. Maybe Hoad could have done better if he were healthier. But, that's extremely speculative. Maybe Don Budge would have been #1 for 15 straight years if he hadn't injured his shoulder in an army accident. Maybe John McEnroe would have won 20 majors if he hadn't abused cocaine. Maybe Andre Agassi would have 20 majors if he had a kinder, gentler, father. Maybe Pete Sampras would have 20 majors if he hadn't inherited anemia (thalassemia minor). Maybe Ralph Nadal would have 20 majors by now if he had healthy knees.
 
B

BobbyOne

G.O.A.T.
Dan Lobb said:
Not large before 1964.
Hoad's record:
Against Gonzales in 1958-59: 62 wins 74 losses, despite two long losing streaks during injury
including: Ampol tours 1958 and 1959: 6 wins 6 losses, however this includes two wins over Gonzales at Forest Hills Tournament of Champions, the most important event

Against Rosewall: won 1957 European clay tour
including: Ampol tours 1958 and 1959: 7 wins 5 losses

Against Laver: 1963 tour: 8 or 14 wins 0 losses
1964 New Zealand tour: 3 wins 1 loss

The statistics you are quoting are ridiculously incomplete.
Click to expand...

Hoad did not beat Rosewall in the 1957 European claycourt tour. They were 14:14 in ALL pro matches on December 3rd.
 
B

BobbyOne

G.O.A.T.
Dan Lobb said:
For Laver's comments, type "Laver Herald Sun 2012 greatest players" into your browser, and you should call up the various reports from this year.
Laver concentrates on what he calls "dominance" in his list, and puts Hoad and Federer at the top. Kramer and Gonzales also score well on the criterion of "dominance".
Clearly, "dominance" refers to actual performance, not mere potential, but realization of potential. For Hoad, this means not just the Davis Cup, but success in major events.
I think that Laver himself felt "dominated" by Hoad on the 1963 and 1964 tours he lost to him.
Click to expand...

Even "dominance" does not exactly mean career achievements. Rather opposite: the dominance at his PEAK!
 
B

BobbyOne

G.O.A.T.
kiki said:
That is the reason Vines pro wins is so overrated.except Perry and before Budge and Riggs joined.....old fart Tilden and upper class journeymen like Plaa,Stoeffen,Nusslein completely slamless...a real cake
Click to expand...

kiki, I had thought you have already learnt history. Tilden was then not an old fart but a first class player. For instance he beat Don Budge at least three times in 1939, once of them at the British Pro at Southport...
 
K

krosero

Legend
BobbyOne said:
Even "dominance" does not exactly mean career achievements. Rather opposite: the dominance at his PEAK!
Click to expand...
Exactly. You will only be dominant in your best years. Looking at a player's entire career you're looking at more than dominance.

Dan Lobb said:
For Laver's comments, type "Laver Herald Sun 2012 greatest players" into your browser, and you should call up the various reports from this year.
Laver concentrates on what he calls "dominance" in his list, and puts Hoad and Federer at the top. Kramer and Gonzales also score well on the criterion of "dominance".
Clearly, "dominance" refers to actual performance, not mere potential, but realization of potential. For Hoad, this means not just the Davis Cup, but success in major events.
I think that Laver himself felt "dominated" by Hoad on the 1963 and 1964 tours he lost to him.
Click to expand...
You may have hit something in your last point. Laver undoubtedly felt dominated by Hoad early on, because he was. Perhaps Hoad left a strong impression on Laver that never really left him.

Dominance is about more than one match, but it can occur within a relatively short amount of time. Djokovic had one of the most dominant runs of the Open Era in the first half of 2011, and if Laver was emphasizing dominance then that would largely explain Djokovic's high spot on his list.

Dan Lobb said:
I am not claiming that Hoad won the tour, but that there was no determinate winner, given that Hoad beat all three of his opponents.
Gonzales' statements should be given some credit, and he gave the tour to Hoad (New York Times, 1969, Dave Anderson interview).
Click to expand...
He said that Hoad beat him in a head to head tour, but he does not state that the 4-man tour was only a head to head between him and Hoad.

I just see him talking about all the H2H tours he's engaged in. He says he won all but one. Those he won would include a H2H over Anderson, and another over Cooper, in '59, and one vs. Hoad, that he lost.

If what you're looking for is a statement to the effect that the 4-man tour was really decided by the direct H2H between Hoad and Pancho, that is not there. You have to read that into the statement.

And even if you did read that into the statement, it's incorrect. The tour was decided, as the AP reported, by prize money; and Gonzalez was declared the champion, despite losing his direct H2H with Hoad.
 
K

krosero

Legend
Gonzalez interviews in 1969-70

This is the interview with the NY Times in which Pancho refers to losing only one H2H tour, to Hoad.

January 23, 1970
Pancho Picks Hoad: http://news.google.com/newspapers?i...q=gonzales hoad dave anderson&pg=7390,2313980

“[Hoad] was the only man to beat me in a head-to-head tour, 15 to 13. I had blisters under my blisters from the punishment. But after that tour, he never had the desire again.”​

In August '69 he had been interviewed by Arthur Daley of the New York Times. Excerpts below.

“Laver is the most disciplined tennis player of all. He just wears you down. Lew Hoad was much the same and just as strong as Laver is. What I admire most in Rod is his determination even into practice, because he chases every ball as if it were matchpoint in a championship. It’s a wonderful habit to get into. Ashe would become better if he were to do the same.

“I played Laver enough to know that he has trouble in reading my serve and that he doesn’t like my lobs and dink shots. He loves to have the other fellow hit hard and can’t react to a soft game the way Ken Rosewall can.

“Frank Sedgman was fast enough to have handled Laver. As a matter of fact, I’m convinced that I could have handled him myself when I was young.

“I never got to see Don Budge until he was over his peak. But there still was enough left to make me appreciate what an exceptional player he must have been in his prime. When it comes to great players, though, I don’t know how anyone could have been better than Jack Kramer.”

…. “Jack set me a great example,” said Pancho. “For one thing he showed me the value of the killer instinct and I learned to develop mine. He drove me to improve my game. Some people think that I turned pro too soon but that’s not my opinion. I made a lot of money every year as a pro.

“I’ve now reached an age when people keep calling me ‘the old war horse,’ but the other players don’t say it. I’m hitting the ball as well now as I ever did. The question is: Can I do it for as long a period? As I get older I need more ideal conditions than I once did. I find my concentration wandering and I find myself becoming distracted by happenings on adjoining courts. In my younger days I was only aware of my opponent. I also find myself pressing more on easy shots. But for the most I have become more relaxed in recent years. If I win, I win. If I lose, I lose.”​
 
D

Dan Lobb

G.O.A.T.
Limpinhitter said:
The stats I sited are 100% accurate. Laver, Rosewall and Gonzales all had large H2H leads over Hoad, period. Maybe Hoad could have done better if he were healthier. But, that's extremely speculative. Maybe Don Budge would have been #1 for 15 straight years if he hadn't injured his shoulder in an army accident. Maybe John McEnroe would have won 20 majors if he hadn't abused cocaine. Maybe Andre Agassi would have 20 majors if he had a kinder, gentler, father. Maybe Pete Sampras would have 20 majors if he hadn't inherited anemia (thalassemia minor). Maybe Ralph Nadal would have 20 majors by now if he had healthy knees.
Click to expand...

Let's see your position. Laver, Rosewall, Gonzales all had big hth leads over Hoad, but for some unfathomable reason all three selected Hoad as number one all-time.
This is supposed to be logical?
 
D

Dan Lobb

G.O.A.T.
BobbyOne said:
Hoad did not beat Rosewall in the 1957 European claycourt tour. They were 14:14 in ALL pro matches on December 3rd.
Click to expand...

Are you supposedly quoting from McCauley?
I do not see any 14:14 numbers for the European tour. In fact, McCauley does not give final numbers for the European tour.
Kramer states that Hoad defeated Rosewall in two-thirds of their matches IN EUROPE, and there is nothing in McCauley to contradict this.
 
Last edited:
D

Dan Lobb

G.O.A.T.
BobbyOne said:
Even "dominance" does not exactly mean career achievements. Rather opposite: the dominance at his PEAK!
Click to expand...

There is no restriction in Laver's remarks to "dominance at peak" for Kramer or Gonzales or Rosewall or Hoad.
Many of the greats turned in dominant performances well AFTER their peaks, such as Hoad in 1963 and 1964 against Laver.
 
D

Dan Lobb

G.O.A.T.
krosero said:
Exactly. You will only be dominant in your best years. Looking at a player's entire career you're looking at more than dominance.

You may have hit something in your last point. Laver undoubtedly felt dominated by Hoad early on, because he was. Perhaps Hoad left a strong impression on Laver that never really left him.

Dominance is about more than one match, but it can occur within a relatively short amount of time. Djokovic had one of the most dominant runs of the Open Era in the first half of 2011, and if Laver was emphasizing dominance then that would largely explain Djokovic's high spot on his list.

He said that Hoad beat him in a head to head tour, but he does not state that the 4-man tour was only a head to head between him and Hoad.

I just see him talking about all the H2H tours he's engaged in. He says he won all but one. Those he won would include a H2H over Anderson, and another over Cooper, in '59, and one vs. Hoad, that he lost.

If what you're looking for is a statement to the effect that the 4-man tour was really decided by the direct H2H between Hoad and Pancho, that is not there. You have to read that into the statement.

And even if you did read that into the statement, it's incorrect. The tour was decided, as the AP reported, by prize money; and Gonzalez was declared the champion, despite losing his direct H2H with Hoad.
Click to expand...

One measure of greatness is to turn in a dominant performance before and after a player's peak. Hoad did this in 1953 in the Davis Cup at age 19, and again in 1963 and 1964 when well past his prime.
Same thing holds for Kramer, Gonzales, Rosewall, Laver, etc.
 
D

Dan Lobb

G.O.A.T.
krosero said:
Exactly. You will only be dominant in your best years. Looking at a player's entire career you're looking at more than dominance.

You may have hit something in your last point. Laver undoubtedly felt dominated by Hoad early on, because he was. Perhaps Hoad left a strong impression on Laver that never really left him.

Dominance is about more than one match, but it can occur within a relatively short amount of time. Djokovic had one of the most dominant runs of the Open Era in the first half of 2011, and if Laver was emphasizing dominance then that would largely explain Djokovic's high spot on his list.

He said that Hoad beat him in a head to head tour, but he does not state that the 4-man tour was only a head to head between him and Hoad.

I just see him talking about all the H2H tours he's engaged in. He says he won all but one. Those he won would include a H2H over Anderson, and another over Cooper, in '59, and one vs. Hoad, that he lost.

If what you're looking for is a statement to the effect that the 4-man tour was really decided by the direct H2H between Hoad and Pancho, that is not there. You have to read that into the statement.

And even if you did read that into the statement, it's incorrect. The tour was decided, as the AP reported, by prize money; and Gonzalez was declared the champion, despite losing his direct H2H with Hoad.
Click to expand...

You have taken a reasonable position.
But there was a disproportionate number of matches between Hoad and Gonzales, and on the other hand between the two rookies.
There were 28 hth between the rookies as well as Hoad and Gonzales, and a combined 34 against the others.
That is, the tour focused on a Hoad/Ganzales series and a Cooper/Anderson series, almost like two head to head tours.
That is why it gave the impression of a straight hth, and each stop was headlined by a Hoad/Gonzales match.
This was not a straight round-robin, like the Grand Prix de Europe.
 
Last edited:
B

BobbyOne

G.O.A.T.
Dan Lobb said:
Let's see your position. Laver, Rosewall, Gonzales all had big hth leads over Hoad, but for some unfathomable reason all three selected Hoad as number one all-time.
This is supposed to be logical?
Click to expand...

What is illogical about that??

Both is right: Laver, Rosewall and Gonzalez ranked Hoad at first place regarding his absolute peak level AND all had big leads over him.

Where is the problem for you?

You seem to "forget" that Hoad was often below his best...
 
D

Dan Lobb

G.O.A.T.
BobbyOne said:
What is illogical about that??

Both is right: Laver, Rosewall and Gonzalez ranked Hoad at first place regarding his absolute peak level AND all had big leads over him.

Where is the problem for you?

You seem to "forget" that Hoad was often below his best...
Click to expand...

Hoad was often below his best before 1956 and after 1960, true.
But he turned in dominant performances as early as 1953 and as late as 1964.
 
Last edited:
B

BobbyOne

G.O.A.T.
Dan Lobb said:
Are you supposedly quoting from McCauley?
I do not see any 14:14 numbers for the European tour. In fact, McCauley does not give final numbers for the European tour.
Kramer states that Hoad defeated Rosewall in two-thirds of their matches IN EUROPE, and there is nothing in McCauley to contradict this.
Click to expand...

YET, McCauley contradicts because he stated that Hoad and Rosewall were 14:14 for ALL pro matches, not only for the European tour. Your claim that Hoad beat Rosewall 16:7 cannot be right!
 
Last edited:
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
74K
Dan Lobb
D
Top