kiki
Banned
Now, setting our domestic quarrel aside, the other group till the merger in 1970 was the NTL led by Mc Call.Did they organize a kind of season ending tournament in the open era or similar?
Lew Hoad-A discussion on his career
- Thread starter pc1
- Start date
Now, setting our domestic quarrel aside, the other group till the merger in 1970 was the NTL led by Mc Call.Did they organize a kind of season ending tournament in the open era or similar?
kiki
Banned
Now, Bobby and Dan
what is your opinion on Lamar Hunt? how do you regard him in historical terms as far as tennis development worldwide is concerned?
I always suspected that while he had the experience, the money and the enterpreneurial vision, he relyied a lot in two great executives, Dave Dixon first and Owen Williams later on.
what is your opinion on Lamar Hunt? how do you regard him in historical terms as far as tennis development worldwide is concerned?
I always suspected that while he had the experience, the money and the enterpreneurial vision, he relyied a lot in two great executives, Dave Dixon first and Owen Williams later on.
Dan, You are as almost always wrong again: Joe McCauley (I had the honour to work with him for that book) has given only ONE (1) ranking list: that regarding percentages. He also mentioned prize money and tournament ones but NOT as ranking lists which means IN NO ORDER!! I'm sure Joe took the official WCT ranking list.
All readers of the book can see that you are wrong.
Dan, It's better for me to avoid all what is "obvious" for you. Too often I have seen that your "obvious" things are not obvious at all. I'm still waiting for a time where you use to read and consider things meticulously instead of superficially and even wrongly.
The "Ralston" list cannot be the least significant as it is the firstly written one, or to be exact, the ONLY (the ONLY!!!) given ranking list at all! But you are free of course to make your two beloved additional lists for you and your readers. That way you can inform us about Newcombe No1 and Roche No1 respectively...
Dan, were not the 1959 and 1960 World Tours decided by percentages (wins, losses)???
Dan, I'm a tennis expert since at least 44 years but I never cared much about prize money and its lists. They were mentioned only as additional information.
Wins and losses, titles and finals were the key issues.
Dan, we don't have "Bundesblätter" and I don't read the government-near newspaper ("Wiener Zeitung", the oldest newspaper of the world, by the way) because its writing is TOO near to our government' policy...
kiki, They did not. But we can rate the 1968 autumn Wembley tournament ("Jack Kramer's Tournament of Champions") as the 1968 climax for both NTL and WCT players as all leading players participated in that 16 man event held at the prestigious Wembley venue.
Similary the 1969 Wembley tournament (only Rosewall missing) even though it was an open event.
kiki, Even though Muscles won the first two issues of the regular WCT circuit, I find it a pity that the tennis scene was divided then into two parts, the pros and the amateurs. Having only open events (as today) would have been more satisfying in my opinion.
And most important: All pros would have been able to participate in such biggies as AO 1970, French Open 1970, French Open 1972 and Wimbledon 1972. By the way, good theoretical chances for Laver and Rosewall to add big titles to their resume...
That's why I'm not so happy with Hunt's activities.
McCauley made no specific statement that percentage wins determined a WCT champion, or that Ralston was WCT champion for 1968.
And certainly, there was no official WCT champion or CHAMPION AWARD or TROPHY given for that year.
Obviously, most players would prefer to be number one in money won.
Last edited:
No, there were two world tours for 1959, the 4-man U.S. tour, not a true round-robin, which was decided by overall (not percentage) wins and losses, which translated into money won, (Gonzales won 47 to 15, Hoad at 42 to 20).
The other, the tournament championship, was a points system where tournament finishes were awarded points in a 14-designated-tournament series, and a bonus money pool divided according to total points.
In 1960, I think that it was overall (not percentage) wins and losses in a four-man round-robin on three continents, Gonzales finishing first with 49 and 8. Again, this translated into money won.
There was no tournament championship for 1960.
There is a difference between wins and losses, and PERCENTAGE wins/losses.
Compare the 1968 lists, and Ralston finished first at .686 in percentage, but only fourth in money won.
Perhaps Ralston played fewer events than Newcombe, Roche or Drysdale, who won more money than Ralston.
Percentages can be deceptive. You have to look at the overall picture, and no tennis award is given for percentage won/lost.
Last edited:
Dan, Just read and think!!!
Dan, I still think that not the difference between wins and losses but the % was considered.
Do you think that Roche was awarded for his money first place???
kiki
Banned
Yes but blame the ITF for that
Funny Dan, You are writing things which never were on the agenda or discussed.
I never said that Joe made any specific statement about percentage wins. He just did not make ANY statement at all! He just presented the official WCT list which shows that Ralston was the best of the year. He did not give a money or tournament ranking list. Learn to read!
kiki, I blame both ITF and Hunt.
Bobby, think what the stats represent.
Stay with the stats as they are, don't put your own views onto them.
I have a degree in economics, and I had to look behind the stats into their meaning.
Last edited:
Roche got money for match wins in tournaments, but if Roche played MORE tournaments than Ralston he would get more money.
If Ralston played only one tournament, and won it, his percentage of matches won would be 1.00, perfect.
But would that make him overall champion?
kiki
Banned
That is a magnificient field at Wembley
The most important venue for pros in general terms
Now WCT ran a WHOLE TOUR of tough 16 men draws,like the 77
kiki
Banned
Why Hunt? Not his fault
They should have designed a system for 1968 which produced an acclaimed champion for the group.
Dan, I went to school and that's enough for me to be able to read a ranking list and other words. Go back to school, my friend!
hoodjem
G.O.A.T.
Gee, I guess Dan went to school, too.
Maybe he can read and understand--two things at once. Wow!
Dan, I wonder that you have got any degree at all. I dislike your strange kind of thinking and reading.
Ralston played a lot in 1968, not just one match. He won 48 matches and FIVE TOURNAMENTS, more than Roche!
kiki, Hunt caused the absence of his players from important tournaments. As a true capitalist, he focused just on money. Maybe he knew Dan Lobb...
hoodjem, read Dan's posts and you will know all about his mental qualities...
kiki
Banned
Hunt just wanted to protect his recently born baby, not to interfere with traditional majors
In 71, first year of WCT,many ITF ran Gran Prix events counted for WCT points like AO,Rome, Barcelona but none of WCT events counted for Gp points
He was left with no other option than total separation by the always jealous,stupid and narrow minded ITF
It is curious,once open era started...things went backwards again,what ITF did to Hunt was the very same he had done to Kramer in 50's and Mc Call in 60's
In 71, first year of WCT,many ITF ran Gran Prix events counted for WCT points like AO,Rome, Barcelona but none of WCT events counted for Gp points
He was left with no other option than total separation by the always jealous,stupid and narrow minded ITF
It is curious,once open era started...things went backwards again,what ITF did to Hunt was the very same he had done to Kramer in 50's and Mc Call in 60's
hoodjem
G.O.A.T.
Oh, I have read them (and yours, as well).
While I may disagree with some of his statements, I would never leap to the conclusion that he should go back to school or that he lacks powers of reasoning--only that he has a different interpretation (perhaps based on some unstated premises).
One can disagree with another without calling that person ignorant, unschooled, illogical, or possessing poor mental qualities.
To do so would be to display a lack of courtesy, human decency, respect, and polite manners. To do so would be to show one's own ignorance, rudeness, and uncivilized behaviour.
Last edited:
How many tournaments did Ralston play in?
The more you play, the less easy to maintain a high percentage wins.
Hey, NO ONE looks at percentage wins.
Why did Ralston only finish in fourth place for money won?
Ralston played a total of 70 matches, Newcombe played 114 matches, Roche played 87 matches, Drysdale played 94 matches.
It is unlikely that Ralston made many early exits in tournaments, which would have hurt his percentage wins. More likely, he didn't play as many tournaments as the others.
The more you play, the more money you make, and the more difficult to keep percentage wins high.
Key point, Ralston was not acclaimed as WCT champion that year.
No one was, there was no champion.
Major screw-up by WCT management.
Last edited:
.....................
Last edited:
Hey, Bobby, I guess no one cares about the money list today in pro tennis.
Obviously, you can see that from this link
http://legacy.tennis.com/rankings/money_men.aspx
I guess it is inappropriate to talk about money, right?
Bobby, should we trade CV's, or just agree to disagree?
Last edited:
Well spoken, and I should pay attention to it, as well as others.
Gentleman hoodjem, Why should not I call Dan Lobb illogical or similary if he is it and when he posts totally absurd things???. Have you ever read and considered truly most of his illogical and WRONG claims and arguments?.
I have been blamed to be "stupid old man", an "idiot", a "fraud" and so one but you never supported me! Why supporting a man whose arguments are extremely strange to say the least?
And I think it's better to contradict Dan with "sharp" words than to use nasty insinuations and ambiguous hints as you use to post against me!!!!! You never respected me. You often tried to make a fool of me!!!
It's Dan who uses to ignore other posters' serious arguments (not only MY arguments)!!!
It was Dan himself who showed off with his degree in economies, therefore my school argument.
Dan, No comment. I don't want to be blamed by GENTLEMAN hoodjem...
Dan, No comment. I don't want to be blamed by GENTLEMAN hoodjem.
Dan, My English is not that good: What does CV mean? You never agreed with anyone to disagree. You always push your darling, often without solid arguments.
Hope hoodjem will not kill me for this...
Dan, If you stop posting extremely strange statements, I will gladly stop critisizing you. Sorry for my too sharp words anyway.
But you should consider that I react sharply to your arguments quite openly whereas other posters might also wondering about your extremely strange arguments but staying silent. I guess they just ignore you, as I also should do, at least to avoid getting punishment by GENTLEMAN hoodjem...
Is ignoring you better than "fighting" with you openly??
Last edited:
hoodjem
G.O.A.T.
As meine Mutter taught me: if you cannot say anything nice, it is better not to say anything at all.
Last edited:
hoodjem, Sounds good but we cannot stay always nice and friendly. Even peaceful Jesus (for me just a good and wise man) spoke sometimes sharply and unfriendly towards ignorants and bad people.
What shall I do with the "drunken" poster (Dan)? Shall I ignore him as probably many posters do? Shall I explain Dan that players are not valued only by their peak play or by their income...for the 328th time in a friendly way? Shall I even say: Dan, you are right in all your posts?
Dan Lobb is a friendly and patient man (I appreciate that) but he is sometimes rather immature like a precocious child who is knowing much (about tennis in Dan's case) but is not (or only little) able to value and consider things (tennis results, claims from ex-players and so on) correctly.
I feel offended not only by getting nasty words like "idiot" (from Phoenix f.i.) but also by reading wrong claims and nonsense logic.
I admit that I have put Dan Lobb on my ignore list recently but answered him nevertheless rather often since. Maybe a bad mistake. I wished other posters could contradict him strictly to take away some burden from me. It's pretty tiring for me to contradict Dan at one issue dozens times when he, f.i., claims that many ex-players have valued Hoad as the GOAT generally (not only regarding his superb peak level). I had been hoping that my (and other posters') arguments will convince him a bit, but....
Last edited:
Scott_tennis
Rookie
As best I can tell, Ralston won WCT events in Shreveport, Orlando, Minneapolis, Baltimore and Bastaad in 1968. I think that he played in 17 WCT events along with 4 opens (Wimbledon, Gstaad, US Open and PSW) and four pro events not limited to WCT players (US Pro, Wembley and Madison Square Garden).
I think his number of matches played was lower than some other WCT players because Ralston did not participate in the South African tour due to injury.
Roche's prize money was largely derived from the special TV event in Sydney at the beginning of 1968.
Scott tennis, Thanks for explaining this. Did not know about Shreveport and Orlando.
I believe for prize money also the doubles achievements were counted.
treblings
Hall of Fame
Bobby,
there comes a time when it´s necessary to change tactics, once you realize your original plan doesn´t work
your argument with Dan has become so antagonistic, that i think the chances of you convincing him are about nil
both Dan and you are members of a minority, as you care deeply about the history of tennis
wouldn´t it be wonderful, if more tennis players would become aware of the greats of the past in our sport
i admire both Hoad and Rosewall. there sportsmanship and way to handle themselves has impressed me as a youngster and continues up to this day
kiki, The Swedish Bastaad. In 1968 there also were Maribor (Yugoslavia)(Pilic won) and Cannes (Newcombe won).
In 1969 probably no European WCT tournament.
In 1970 the same probably.
Bobby,
there comes a time when it´s necessary to change tactics, once you realize your original plan doesn´t work
your argument with Dan has become so antagonistic, that i think the chances of you convincing him are about nil
both Dan and you are members of a minority, as you care deeply about the history of tennis
wouldn´t it be wonderful, if more tennis players would become aware of the greats of the past in our sport
i admire both Hoad and Rosewall. there sportsmanship and way to handle themselves has impressed me as a youngster and continues up to this day
treblings, Thanks for your nice words for Dan and me.
Yes, it's a shame that many current players have little knowledge of and interest for the greats of older times. Even Federer once said, if I remember well, that he did not play against Rod Laver (meaning he does not know who of the two is greater), forgetting that there were a few other old players of Laver's (and Roger's) calibre, i.e. Tilden, Gonzalez and Rosewall (and maybe Budge, Kramer, Vines and Hoad).
Laver is often taken as an alibi for modern players (and also for some posters here) to not only consider greats of recent and current times. There "must" be ONE dino or alien involved in the GOAT discussion in order to be "serious". As some other posters have stated, Gonzalez and Rosewall also deserve to be considered as GOAT candidates and maybe some others, like Borg or Sampras, not.
It's great you admire both Hoad and Rosewall (as I too am doing), especially for their sportsmanship. In comparison to them (and Laver, Emerson, Newcombe, Roche and so on) some other greats are not a model in that area, players like Pancho Gonzalez (who used to intimidate his opponents, even Laver and Rosewall), Nastase and McEnroe...
You are probably right that it's time for me to change my tactics towards Dan Lobb. But at the moment I just have not found an alternative, as told in my answer to hoodjem. I just cannot believe that a man with a degree in economics and with a huge knowledge about tennis history, can often argue only in an extremely "strange" way (to avoid using any insult here). Dan's stubborness and Hoad bias is so intensive that I'm a bit sad. Rather sad and disappointed than offended or angry. Me and other posters (alas, not all who could do it!) have explained a few matters to Dan (Hoad as "GOAT"; peak play vs. achievements; prize money vs. other criteria; Rosewall's deserved No.1 place for 1961, 1962 and 1963; Hoad's "13" wins against Laver in early 1963; the 1968 WCT rankings) that I just cannot imagine an intelligent person who ignores all the facts, records, results and arguments and proofs and refutations....
I often thought to myself: My new argument will convince Dan; this time my "intelligent" reasoning will lead to Dan's inspiration, at least in this or that tiny point. But I got disappointed time after time. I even felt it was a blame for me to not being able to convince that funny guy from Canada... Was it my non-perfect kind of argumentation or was it yet Dan's stubborness, I asked myself sometimes.
Regarding Dan, I can use an Austrian (only Austrian?) term: I'm at the end of my Latin...
Perhaps it's the best for Dan and me (plus hoodjem) to give Dan and me a break...
Last edited:
treblings
Hall of Fame
i agree about Laver. it reminds me of the time when Sampras was trying and succeeding to break Emersons record of majors. Emmo was too much presented as one of the goats by the media because of that.
i particularly admire you for bringing Hanne Nüsslein back from obscurity.
and for representing Rosewall´s case of course
but i also like that Dan is so enthusiastic about Hoad.
regardless whether he is always rational, fans seldom are
or that kiki reminds us of many half-forgotten players of the 70´s
i particularly admire you for bringing Hanne Nüsslein back from obscurity.
and for representing Rosewall´s case of course
but i also like that Dan is so enthusiastic about Hoad.
regardless whether he is always rational, fans seldom are
or that kiki reminds us of many half-forgotten players of the 70´s
i agree about Laver. it reminds me of the time when Sampras was trying and succeeding to break Emersons record of majors. Emmo was too much presented as one of the goats by the media because of that.
i particularly admire you for bringing Hanne Nüsslein back from obscurity.
and for representing Rosewall´s case of course
but i also like that Dan is so enthusiastic about Hoad.
regardless whether he is always rational, fans seldom are
or that kiki reminds us of many half-forgotten players of the 70´s
treblings, Thanks for your admiration regarding my Nüsslein and Rosewall efforts. I still believe that both of these two great players are under-rated even by good experts: Nüsslein arguably the best claycourter of the 1930s and always among the Top Four generally from 1933 to 1939; that damned war afterwards; Rosewall one of only four or five true GOAT candidates with an awesome record and very high playing level on all surfaces.
Years ago, when Sampras reached the 14 mark in majors, a so-called tennis expert claimed: Sampras is now the GOAT. I answered him: Yes, if you rank Emerson all-time second...
I cannot say that I like that Dan is so enthusiastic about Hoad. Yes, it's fine that he admires Lew as every tennis fan of old tennis should do. And it's good that Dan presented us Hoad's many great achievements (albeit these don't make Hoad a true GOAT candidate) but he uses to make a big mistake: he is a bit TOO enthusiastic about his darling and this misleads him to become irrational. I can accept such a behaviour at a "normal" tennis fan but not at a true tennis experts that Dan is without a doubt.
I was blamed many times in the two forums of TT for my Rosewall admiration (I'm convinced: unjustified); but if I would have exaggerated Rosewall's records and greatness as Dan is doing so often regarding Hoad, some posters would have "killed" me or, less dramatically, would have sworn at me day after day...
So, please note this "little" difference between two fellow posters.
I also had and have some quarrels with kiki, but him I can accept easier because kiki often is ready to learn from others and generous enough to let him get disproved (alas, not regarding Fraser and Roche...).
kiki
Banned
Danke bobby
kiki
Banned
Thanks you for your former nice wordsBobby,
there comes a time when it´s necessary to change tactics, once you realize your original plan doesn´t work
your argument with Dan has become so antagonistic, that i think the chances of you convincing him are about nil
both Dan and you are members of a minority, as you care deeply about the history of tennis
wouldn´t it be wonderful, if more tennis players would become aware of the greats of the past in our sport
i admire both Hoad and Rosewall. there sportsmanship and way to handle themselves has impressed me as a youngster and continues up to this day
Similar threads
