Hoad, the greatest PLAYER ever.
Lew Hoad-A discussion on his career
- Thread starter pc1
- Start date
Hoad, the greatest PLAYER ever.
NatF
Bionic Poster
Greatest of the pre open era in terms of playing level only. No way to know about the open era.
Yes, open era players such as Rosewall, Laver, Gonzales, Gimeno, Buchholz played against and saw Hoad in his prime.
The real dividing line was the new equipment in the 1990's.
Here is footage from the 1956 Wimbledon final, when Wimbledon really WAS Wimbledon.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SofEN8nHfHk
Last edited:
Playing level is the normal criterion.
pc1
G.O.A.T.
I agree. Achievements are supposedly the way to measure but the problem is that often some don't understand what is a great achievement in some eras and therefore overrate some and underrate others.
Phoenix1983
G.O.A.T.
pc1
G.O.A.T.
Phoenix as you know I like Sampras. I don't necessarily agree with Dan fully but my point is that aren't we looking for level of play and how to measure it? Dan thinks it's Hoad by his measurements. I disagree but I respect that he has a right to say it.
NatF, Even I agree that Federer and Nadal (if we consider also his future) are greater than Hoad.
Give Fed and Nadal wood racquets, and Hoad wins, no contest.
pc1, I'm astonished. Usually the experts rank according to achievements. Even though it's sometimes difficult to measure the importance of a given achievement in the context of an era and in comparison to another era, you have the same problem at peak level or even greater problems. As I asked Dan: What does peak level mean? The best in one single match or the best in one single tournament or in a pro tour or in one single year or in a five years streak or in a whole career? Dan never gave me an answer.....
Furthermore: Peak level is more subjective to be measured than achievements, results and records! I think you know it.
Was Hoad stronger than Gonzalez or Laver? Was Sampras stronger than Federer on grass? Was Dibbs stronger than Solomon? Was Tilden stronger than Cochet? Much stuff for discussions with unclear conclusions and much contradiction from one expert to another.
I know you rate Hoad's peak level very high (just as I and many others do). But do you believe that he is the GOAT? That way you would agree with biased Dan who ignores many facts to "prove" that Lew is GOAT.
No, the experts rank according to player greatness, not records.
Records are extremely subjective in importance.
Only amateurs rank according to records.
Experts know from actual play, comparing the greats on the other side of the net.
That is the ONLY way to know.
Gonzales experienced Kramer, Sedgman, Trabert, Segura, Rosewall, Laver on the other side of the net at their peaks, and chose Hoad at the top.
Last edited:
pc1, I'm glad you disagree with Dan and his main claim.
Dan would have the right to claim what he wants if he would not claim some wrong data and would not make wrong and absurd conclusions from the information he has got.
F.i. Dan once claimed that his ten ex-players judged the GOAT candidates regarding general (also including achievements) criteria. If I remember well his No.8 (forgot who it was, maybe "great" Bedard), said that Hoad was the greatest "when on" thus meaning that he referred only to peak level and that Hoad was the strongest only from time to time. Dan of course ignored my serious objection and went on to claim that "the great opponents of Lew" all referred to Hoad as the generally considered GOAT. He never bothered to quote other players who have come maybe to other conclusions!
I will not answer to Dan for a certain time because he is too stubborn, similary to TMF. I only can hope that he is ready to learn...
Bobby, again, you do NOT disagree with ME, but with the opinions of the truly great authorities, the giants of tennis themselves.
No, I quoted Bedard as stating, simply, "Hoad was the greatest player."
He did not specify "when on", but I presume he was referring to level of play.
Bedard would know, having played in several major tournaments against Hoad.
But if you want the opinion of a great tennis author and observer, Max Robertson agreed with Rosewall on the top three,
1) Hoad
2) Gonzales
3) Laver
This clip shows how Rosewall became an expert on Hoad's game.
PC1 is a brilliant and knowledgeable analyst.
I am pleased to see that he agrees with me that level of play is a more rational approach to determining greatness than mere career stats.
This is the standard which most intelligent analysts adopt.
Following today's loss at Wimbledon by Nadal, I don't think that he could be
considered one of the top ten players of all time, given his rather
disappointing record at Wimbledon.
Fed and Nadal greater than Hoad?
I think that Nadal would be downgraded after this year's Wimbledon, and Fed
played great, but no title.
I think that Fed's backhand and volleys let him down in the final.
Hoad had the best volleys and overhead, no problem at Wimbledon.
I see Hoad winning Wimbledon in 1956, 1957, 1958, and 1959 given open
tennis, and a good shot at 1960 and 1961.
Possibly six or more at Wimbledon, and perhaps four at Forest Hills.
Two at RG, five or six at Kooyong....let's see, that makes it about 17 or 18 majors, assuming open tennis.
Not bad.
Last edited:
pc1
G.O.A.T.
Dan,
Thanks. Yes I do agree with you there.
Aren't we trying to determine who is the greatest player ever? So in determining that we had to figure out the highest average level of play whether it be for peak level or career level. So how do we do that? We look at the career stats and peak stats as a barometer but we also have to analyze the reason why a player may accumulate certain stats and why another did not. We have to look at the level of competition also. It has to be an accurate analysis of the statistics.
I do feel that often some people just look at some stats superficially without looking more in depth and yet they make a definitive statement. Case in point is Pancho Gonzalez versus Roy Emerson. Looking superficially at the stats we see Emerson with many seemingly dominant years in which he was number one. Emerson had unbelievable winning percentages and won 12 majors as opposed to Gonzalez with only 2 majors won. So the superficial observer will immediately conclude that it's no contest and that Emerson is the FAR BETTER player over career and peak over Gonzalez. Yet the truth is that it's the other way around.
The casual fan may not know Gonzalez won as many as 15 Pro Majors. They don't know Gonzalez won 7 World Pro Tours which were of the utmost importance for the World Title. They don't know Gonzalez played FAR greater competition.
I do look at statistics but I understand that the goal of looking of these statistics is to understand the level of greatness (level of play) of the player. In looking at Gonzalez's stats and analyzing it I cannot help but conclude he is one of the top GOAT candidates and very very arguably the GOAT. His average level of play was incredibly high for peak level and for career level. Even in his early thirties Gonzalez was the number one player in the world.
Dan, you say Hoad is the GOAT in your opinion and I respect that you use the level of play concept to determine the GOAT. That's the bottom line in looking and analyzing the stats, ie finding the player with the greatest level of play. So many forget that and just make an assumption based on one or two stats without looking deeper.
Being a GOAT is not simply accumulating stats although it may be a factor. What is better, a player who is very good for 20 years and accumulates greater career stats than a player who was the best for 10 years and totally dominant? The latter is probably better. In baseball the perfect example is Sandy Koufax and Don Sutton. Sutton was never really close to peak level of the great Koufax but he played far longer and accumulated far greater career stats than Koufax. But no one who saw them both would consider Sutton to be the better pitcher or the pitcher you want starting in a big game.
Here's a question I ask myself in looking at all the player's stats, if you had one player at his peak level player 100 matches with another player at his peak level and they play 25 matches on red clay, fast hard court, slower hard court and grass, which player at peak level would win the majority of those 100 matches?
What players would be chosen? Tell you this, I wouldn't pick the accumulator of stats.
I would ask the same question for average level of play for a career. I'm not sure if the peak level is really what people talk about when we ask who the greatest of all time is. That may be (maybe not also) the most important.
Some players like Tilden and others fit the bill for peak level and career level. I understand that some people think Tilden played in a lesser era but he was great in other eras only. The guy was virtually unbeatable at his peak. How much better can a player do than Tilden in the 1920's? Tilden even beat Ted Schoeder! He beat Budge, Vines, Perry, Cochet, Lacoste, everyone!
Last edited:
pc1, Sigh, sigh, sigh! As you know I respect you as one of the best posters here and as maybe the best analyst of the players' games.
But now you disappoint me (and maybe others) by your strange agreement with Hoad Troll Dan, whose thesis of peak play as the main or even only measure for ranking the greatest players is simply wrong. Frankly, I'm going to lose some respect for your expertise.
I contradict totally that measuring peak level is a more rational approach than measuring achievements. Peak level is a very SUBJECTIVE criterion as I wrote in an earlier post. Who had a higher peak level: Rosewall when demolishing Laver at the 1963 US Pro? Or Laver when demolishing Rosewall twice in 1968? Or Borg when he demolished Connors at Wimbledon in 1978? And so on, and so on.
There also is a difference between peak level in one match/one tournament (Hoad is the best example for that) or peak level for a longer or long period (Gonzalez, Rosewall Laver, Borg, Federer might be good examples). Dan is so illusional that he claims Hoad as the strongest player for years which gives Lew the GOAT title...He now writes that Lew was even the No.1 player in 1960 and 1961!!!
I strongly guess you are now the only poster who supports Dan instead of showing him (as I and some others have done) that he is wrong with his claim.
As far as I know all (or almost all) experts are ranking according to achievements when determing the GOAT or GOATs. This is not a contradiction to the fact that some ex-players like Laver and Rosewall also ranked the best players according to peak play where they often mention Hoad as the best.
Best example is Bud Collins: while he rates Tilden, Gonzalez, Rosewall and Laver as the GOAT candidates he sometimes claimed that Hoad at his best was unplayable. Both versions are right.
Your Emerson/Gonzalez is a bad example because a true expert is aware that Gonzalez was the better player and achieved much more than Emerson did. It's not "peak level" vs. "achievements". It's "distorted achievements" vs. "correct achievements". Only idiots like Tennis Channel "experts" (bar Bud) are ranking Emerson higher than Gonzalez.
And of course consistency and longevity are main criteria when achievements and greatness are examined. Those are one of the reasons why I rank Rosewall as high as Laver. Both of them have assets in their careers and also have not so great points. By the way, I fear you under-rate Rosewall a bit because he did not have 5 dominant years in a row like Laver or Gonzalez.
Also by the way, if a player has won 25 majors, his peak level cannot be less than very high...
kiki
Banned
Maybe your best ever post
Certainly,the best in weeks
pc1
G.O.A.T.
BobbyOne,
You don't understand what I'm writing. I wrote the point of the analysis of stats in understanding who is the greatest of all time in tennis is to determine level of play. Level of play is how we determine the greatest players and that is determined by proper interpretation of statistics.
So how is Gonzalez and Emerson a bad example? Isn't that the perfect example of improper and superficial analysis of statistics? That was my point you know. Of course a knowledgeable person should know, so what? The point is that so many incorrect misinterpret the history and the statistical information surrounding Gonzalez and Emerson and therefore many rank Emerson over Gonzalez.
Actually I don't underrate Rosewall at all. I know his stats and I have observed him numerous times in person and on television. I know his game and style very well.
Really Rosewall should not enter into this conversation since I was discussing the systematic analysis of level of play via statistical analysis. I simply used Tilden, Emerson and Gonzalez as examples.
Please don't call Dan a troll. Is a troll anyone who doesn't agree with you? I don't necessarily agree with Dan but I respect his right to say it and I do agree that in order to determine the GOAT the bottom line is looking at level of play.
Frankly you disappoint me in your unwillingness often to be flexible in your viewpoints despite clear information to the contrary. I can mention numerous examples but I'd prefer not to. Do you want me to give examples??
I often change my viewpoints due to new information. My viewpoints are not set in stone. Some of the comments you're made about my opinions aren't valid anymore.
Incidentally Bud, as you well know thinks Rodney George Laver is the GOAT and he also calls Borg a GOAT candidate. The player Bud would pick for one match is Pancho Gonzalez.
Kiki,
You know I love your posts but it can't be Bobby's best post since he didn't understand what I was writing about. I was writing about how to interpret tennis statistics correctly. I agreed with Dan that in order to determine the greatest we have to look at level of play. The only way we can determine level of play over a period of years is statistics and the correct interpretation of them. Things like peak level over the course of years (which Bobby said can't be defined) can easily be defined by looking at the best statistical consecutive years of the player. It is not a subjective criterion but something that can easily be done objectively. I never wrote about subjective opinions about greatest for one match although I have my opinions there also. Observation helps for peak level but that can be very subjective and should best be limited.
I didn't write I necessarily agreed with Dan about Hoad being the greatest. I frankly don't know how Bobby got Rosewall into the conversation when Rosewall had nothing to do with it.
Last edited:
Hoad won the pro tournament series in both 1958 and 1959, and the bonus money pools for those years.
Tilden beat these young guys, but not most of the time and not AT THEIR BEST.
Tilden had serious trouble with Lacoste and Cochet in the mid to late 1920's.
I agree with the Koufax/Sutton comparison, right on.
As I stated before, to get the best assessment of peak play, you have to listen to the guys who actually played against the greatest, and this is where Hoad ranks highest.
Bobby, PC1 has thoughtfully concluded that peak play is the right standard of assessment, and I respect his intelligent conclusion.
So should you.
Career stats are VERY subjective, and do not consider the level of play or competition.
Bobby, I appeal to you, listen to the REAL experts.
That is for me the biggest question on Hoad's career resume. If Hoad's level of play was so high, why did he lose all those pro finals at US pro to Gonzalez, at RG to Rosewall, and especially all those Wembley finals to Rosewall. On the fast court at Wembley he should have won at least a single one. And nobody can tell me, that he didn't try or that he couldn't play there. He once won a set 6-0 against Gonzelez there (not in the London pro of course).. He himself wrote that Wembley was the foremost pro Championships.
pc1
G.O.A.T.
Dan,
Just to be clear I wrote it may be more important but I look at career also.
However here's an interesting question that summarizes this. The question is who's the better baseball pitcher Sandy Koufax or Don Sutton? Almost everyone would pick Koufax. Who won the most games? Sutton by a mile. Who would you pick at their peaks to pitch the seventh game of the World Series? You would be insane not to pick Koufax. Koufax's level of pitching at his peak can be argued to be the highest ever. Sutton was simply a steady consistent player who was very good to excellent over decades. That's fine also but no one calls him the greatest ever but many call Koufax the greatest. Maybe Lefty Grove is the best answer.
Last edited:
Simple answer.
The "US Pro" was not an official title, and was EXCLUDED from the championship series of tournaments.
Hoad played great at RG in 1958, but wrenched his back while reaching for a ball against Rosewall, while leading.
Hoad beat Rosewall in the biggest clay final of 1957 at The Hague, and at RG in 1959.
Wembley, like the US Pro, was excluded from the 1958 and 1959 championship series, although it was a major in 1960, 1961, and 1962-3.
The London Times reporter stated that Hoad appeared to have the edge in play in the 1962 final, but tired at the end.
kiki, Thanks. I'm glad you seem to agree with my statements.
urban, One reason for Hoad's failure at Wembley might be the smoky air at Wembley, as our Hoad expert once wrote: Hoad was handicapped by the smoke while Rosewall "enjoyed" it...
pc1, I'm sorry but my respect for your seriousness becomes even more little after this your post.
I think I understand your words rather well. I just contradict some of them. But maybe I never understood you correctly, even your 150-200 e-mails. Is it my English?????
I can agree with some parts of this post a bit more than your recent one because you now seem to agree that achievements are an important measure. But it's still unclear for me if you agree with Dan that peak level is the only (or almost only) measure for ranking the great players or not. If you don't concure with that Hoad worshipper, why do you praise his wrong claim? Why do you wonder why I call him a troll? Have you never read his strange, wrong and stupid "reasoning" like smoke "killed" Hoad against Rosewall?
Have you "forgotten" that curious Dan always ranks exactly those events as the important ones where Hoad has won and belittles those events where he failed (f.i. Wembley)? Have you "forgotten" that Dan uses to mention that Mulloy omitted Rosewall for his 1961 "rankings" as a prove that Muscles was not among the top two even though I have explained troll Dan several times that Rosewall entered the tour only AFTER Mulloy had made his statement???
Once more: Judging peak level is more subjective than (intelligently) examining the actual achievements, results and records.
Once more: Experts usually determine according to achievements, not according to peak play (even though the latter might flow in a bit as also the "genius" assets of a player).
Edit: Look at Laver's and Rosewall's rankings where Hoad is first. I'm quite sure they did not mean he is the GOAT! They just praise his peak level when he was "on".
Sorry but I find your words sometimes sophisticated and unclear. You sometimes seems to me a Sphinx...but I concede that at least your recent post (not this) was rather outspoken, but mostly wrong in my opinion.
I also have written that Emerson/Gonzalez is a case of distorted achievements vs. correct achievements. What's the problem?
You should "generously" allow me to mention the name Rosewall when I find it the proper time and place to do it. Rosewall has YET to do with our discussion: I had mentioned consistency and longevity as important criteria for measure great players! Rosewall is a perfext example for these assets (equal if it's pleasant for you or not...). You mentioned Koufax vs. another sportsman (forgot his name) as an example that peak play tops achievements and longevity. I dare to contradict.
Where did you mention Tilden?
I call Dan a troll NOT because he does not agree with me!!! In that case I would be forced to call many posters a troll... Dan Lobb, SoBad and Phoenix are the key trolls in my opinion.
Please tell me (and us) where I was not flexible! Can't remember for the moment. But yes, I'm proud that I'm not as flexible as you sometimes are...
I did not say that peak level cannot be defined. I said that it's more subjective than examining achievements.
When I talked to Bud a year ago he did not mention Borg as GOAT candidate. When I said that I guess his GOAT candidates are Tilden, Gonzalez and Laver, he just added: "And Kenny".
Last edited:
pc1
G.O.A.T.
BobbyOne,
I just want to make clear that we do actually agree that stats can indicate level of play but we have some disagreements on how to interpret it. You're entitled to your opinion and I disagree. Generally I do agree with you. It's really not a big deal. Like I said discovering the level of play indicates the greatness of the player and we do it by examining the record and stats. I think you would have to agree with that.
I know Bud has indicated Borg is a GOAT candidate and he has if memory serves wrote it on the internet. But that's no big deal. It's just a minor point that I wanted to mention to you. Nothing to get upset about.
http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/archive/index.php/t-132584.html
I just want to make clear that we do actually agree that stats can indicate level of play but we have some disagreements on how to interpret it. You're entitled to your opinion and I disagree. Generally I do agree with you. It's really not a big deal. Like I said discovering the level of play indicates the greatness of the player and we do it by examining the record and stats. I think you would have to agree with that.
I know Bud has indicated Borg is a GOAT candidate and he has if memory serves wrote it on the internet. But that's no big deal. It's just a minor point that I wanted to mention to you. Nothing to get upset about.
http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/archive/index.php/t-132584.html
Last edited:
pc1
G.O.A.T.
Bobby,
Almost all my posts are serious. Just because I disagree with you doesn't make me an enemy. I never was your enemy I would like to make that clear.
You know that neither one of us are always correct in our assessments of tennis history and you also know that we've both profited from our mutual discussion and I may add disagreements also. I have noticed recently you have a tendency to assume I'm disagreeing with you on some things because you've been upset. Dan L's opinion that level of play determines greatness is not wrong. If level of play doesn't determine greatness then we must be in some bizarre world. Dan is correct there. I don't see how anyone can disagree with that. Can you disagree with that?
The problem with you and Dan is that you disagree with the conclusions. I am defending Dan on how he derives the conclusion of how one player is the greatest. You examine level of play through the stats as does Dan. You are both alike in that way. You both just disagree on which of the Magic Twins are the GOAT.
Last edited:
Bobby, if you tried to get your facts straight, perhaps we would agree on something.
Rosewall DID NOT PLAY in the 1961 championship tour. That is why Mulloy rated Hoad number one without discussing Rosewall.
You cannot win if you do not play.
Laver and Rosewall did NOT restrict their choice of Hoad at number 1 to a few peak performances, which would have been ridiculous.
That is merely YOUR desire which you have attempted to superimpose on Laver and Rosewall.
Let the gentlemen speak for themselves. Their comments are clear, and do not need YOUR qualifications.
Here's another one to consider.
Lacoste won Wimbledon in 1928, beating Tilden and Cochet, numero uno without doubt.
Lacoste won the 1929 Roland Garros title, and immediately retired due to asthma, meaning that he was the reigning Wimbledon AND French champion when he retired.
He was on top and undefeated when he retired.
Are you still with me?
The guys who won at Wimbledon in 1929 and 1930 were ALSO-RANS to Lacoste.
That is how I look at 1960 for the pro championship.
Hoad declined to play on the 4-man tour, and the tournament series was cancelled late because Gonzales decided to pull out.
Indeterminate.
Last edited:
Well stated, PC1.
Bobby, I rate Rosewall at number five based on level of play, in particular these three major finals.
1) 1962 Kooyong, df. Hoad
2) 1963 Forest Hills, df. Laver
3) 1965 Longwood, df. Laver
These were Rosewall's greatest performances, and show a great level of play.
Here is the top list, NOT MY LIST, but the list determined by two great experts, Max Robertson and Ken Rosewall,
1) Hoad
2) Gonzales
3) Laver
I would add
4) Federer
5) Rosewall
This is a sane and balanced judgment.
Last edited:
Oh pc1, After a serious post one hour later again a strange, sometimes insinuating and even spiteful post with some wrong points!
Of course we are enemies now privately (I don't mention the reasons in order to not be deleted or banned again!!!!!).
Nevertheless I tried recently to be very friendly towards you as I praised your expertise and analyses. I also wrote "Welcome back, pc1" after your (shocked?) being silent for some time.
But you cannot avoid to write unfair things about me, such as I call Dan a troll and think you are my enemy JUST BECAUSE HE AND YOU DISAGREE WITH ME!!! Thats pure nonsense. I must take many contradictions every day in both forums and I seldom call anyone a troll or enemy.
Believe me: Dan (although a friendly guy) is really a troll as I explained two posts ago: He has a totally bizarre worshipping of Hoad whom he blows up until having disfigured him to the point of being unrecognizable, i.e. to the GOAT (similary to the movie "Blow Up"). To give his wrong thesis a "serious" background Dan sets up just another wrong thesis: Peak play is the measure for greatness; achievements are secondary! And now you follow at least his second thesis. I don't want to accept it that a true expert (and you are one!) seems to follow Dan's claims that were disproved by other posters including myself already several times...
And yes, I see your spiteful insinuations and wrong statements towards me:Why I have mentioned Rosewall in my long post etc.
My view of the peak level vs. achievements case is: You and Dan seem to postulate the peak level and greatness of a given player (Hoad, Laver f.i.) and THEN have a look how their achievements can back your thesis. Dan for weeks even went so far to claim that Lew has also the greatest achievements! Recently he weakend that claim at least partly (because he got aware that it is nonsense).
My approach is: I examine (since 44 years, by the way) the records and results, the achievements of a given player and only THEN I sometimes realize that this or that player must have had a very high playing and peak level because he has achieved so much: Tilden, Gonzalez, Rosewall, Laver, Borg (even though he did not achieve as much because of his short career), Sampras and Federer (even though I still believe that his peak era was not as strong as other eras).
I'm sorry but I almost can't remember disagreements between us till almost the end of our friendship.
Please note: I don't have any "tendency". But I see (in reading some strange words of yourself in recent posts) that you write some unfriendly things without any reason! I had thought we can find a mature way to communicate on TT even though we dislike each other privately...
My tennis world is not bizarre at all. If you really agree with a super troll, be happy with that and with him. Maybe you find or found already a wonderful friendship.
I will not continue to discuss Dan's theses and your support for them! It's too nerve-consuming...;-)
Your last sentence is very wrong: I don't disagree with Dan if Hoad or Rosewall is the GOAT. I just "fight" against troll arguments and against your (both) thesis that peak level beats achievements and facts. All his witnesses (ex-players including some lesser lights) referred to peak play but they did NOT claim that Hoad is the GOAT. As a firm fundamentalist, Dan Lobb will never understand and concede this.
That troll even never makes it clear if he means peak level in one match or in one tournament or in one season or in the whole career!
Hope we can discuss about more fruitful theses in the future!
Last edited:
Bobby why always or so often these harsh words like enemies or troll or so, it makes the discussion unfriendly and difficult, to put it mild. There are simply disagreements about matters that lay in the long gone past. Indeed many of the Aussies rever Hoad. In his new book, Laver singles out Hoad as the greatest of the older players, he was his idol, he likes him. He also singles out Rosewall as his greatest rival, and somewhat surprisingly Kramer.
I see Hoad as a somewhat mythical figure, he had the heroic game, the personality and the looks. I am sceptical about his actual level of play. As i wrote: Hic Rhodus, hic salta!, and if his level in one match was so high, why did he lose all those important pro finals and tournaments between 1957-1964. Why couldn't he rise to the occasion, as he did in big amateur finals. We would have big problems with Federer or Nadal, if they were 0-6 or 1-7in big finals. My theory is, that he lacked stamina and resilience, he often played the match of the tournament in the semis, but couldn't get through in the final. Maybe he had all the shots, but was - like Federer today - a frontrunner, who lacked a plan B, when things got tough.
I see Hoad as a somewhat mythical figure, he had the heroic game, the personality and the looks. I am sceptical about his actual level of play. As i wrote: Hic Rhodus, hic salta!, and if his level in one match was so high, why did he lose all those important pro finals and tournaments between 1957-1964. Why couldn't he rise to the occasion, as he did in big amateur finals. We would have big problems with Federer or Nadal, if they were 0-6 or 1-7in big finals. My theory is, that he lacked stamina and resilience, he often played the match of the tournament in the semis, but couldn't get through in the final. Maybe he had all the shots, but was - like Federer today - a frontrunner, who lacked a plan B, when things got tough.
Last edited:
pc1
G.O.A.T.
It's funny Kiki. There was no meanness intended for Bobby in my last few posts but he read meanness into it. You can't disagree with him without him getting upset. I think Bobby is often right but he is imo often wrong in a number of things and I don't believe he's consistent. This isn't an insult because that's true of all of us at times. For example he wrote if Rosewall was the same age as Laver that Rosewall would be in front in the head to heads. I disagreed on that but he failed to mention why Pancho Gonzalez, six years older than Rosewall is in front in the head to head and even beat Rosewall 15 to 4 in a tour during Rosewall's peak years in 1960. I could name more examples and it would be nice to see Bobby respond. Meaningful dialogue isn't possible without disagreement at times. It would be nice to do this without anger.
Just because I supported Dan doesn't mean I am Bobby's enemy. Dan wrote that level of play is the key in judging greatness and I agreed. I thought to myself that Dan is right on that point. We study the stats to understand the level of greatness of a player. My goodness I was trying to point out later that Bobby and Dan were doing the same thing (trying to be a piecemaker), ie looking at the stats and concluding someone is the GOAT. Dan thinks it's Hoad and Bobby thinks it's Rosewall.
Kiki, it does amuses me how many times you're his enemy and then his great buddy. Actually I was giving him a olive branch by responding but he didn't realize it.
I responded to Bobby against my better judgement. I think it's not worth to respond to him anymore, especially if you disagree with him. Ironically Dan and Bobby are actually similar in the way they have had some conclusions about players. Oh well, I'll try not to respond. It's not worth going to war over a simple disagreement on tennis.
Last edited:
urban, If you would go through my now 7000 posts you would realize that I don't use "always or so often" harsh words.
I did use the word "enemy" maybe two or three times and only where it is justified! Yes, pc1 and me are enemies now. The only difference between us is that pc1 claims he is not my enemy (but read his recent posts with many unfair insinuations) and I say franky Yes, I am his and he is mine.
I usually write aggressive words only as a REACTION to nasty words from others! Dan might be an exception: he is so stubborn and illogical that I can't stand him. "Troll" is a mild word to describe him. If he were not such a friendly and naive man I would use a "stronger" word...
By the way, I never read a critical word from you or kiki or pc1 when I was insulted heavily by posters like Phoenix who called me a fraud or idiot.
But I do remember that you once defended me against a poster ( Phoenix?) who claimed that I have not written books on tennis. Thanks again.
Last edited:
kiki, Calling someone a troll who really is one is brutal language? Writing that I'm pc1's enemy is brutal language?.
I use brutal words so often? Where have you spent the last two years??
I use to call a troll a troll. Truth and honesty are important for me.
I never read critical words from you towards those who insulted me: Limpinhitter, ARFED (he apologized though), NatF (I found my peace with him now), Phoenix who called me a fraud and so on and others ("stupid old man").
Yes, I attack you sometimes but only when you are not serious and write trolling words about "Butcholz" and so on.
Yesterday your nice and surprising praise for my post to pc1 (even though the latter claims that I'm totally wrong with my analyse of his recent posts) and today an idiotic and very insulting insinuation???? Are there two kikis?Do you even know what happened in the 1930s? Do you curious person realize that it's a huge difference if a poster writes that he is another poster's enemy and vice versa or if a demagogic regime uses words that contempt humanity and mankind and killes MIllions of innocent people???
Listen: My father was imprisoned by GESTAPO for 15 months and almost was hanged! (In that case you and others were not forced to read my bad posts...). And I try my whole life to "fight" (peacefully!!!) against inhumanity and every dictatory regime and religion (Islam now).
And you fool insinuate I would do horrible things if it were the 1930s....
This insult is more obnoxious than that made by Limpinhitter who was banned because he called me a second Günter Parche (the man who stabbed Seles).
Take back this mean insinuation, kiki.
I don't want to discuss that. I rather would discuss about Roche vs. Fraser...
kiki
Banned
That is why Muscles was so short
He started smoking very young and continued through his pro life
kiki
Banned
Didn't know about your dad,sorry for using a wrong expression,not proper and polítically uncorrect
But you use the word Enemy in such a way that it is as unproportioned as my comment,which was made with the mere purpose to make you realize how dogmatic and sectarist you sound so often
That said, I like your passion and love for controversy,which I feel very confortable with,except when you pretend that you are the Bible of tennis.
Look,I have supported you many times against clueless younger but I have followed the game for more than 40 yrs and,while my opinions or judgement can be right or wrong,I don't need any schooling from any poster, absolutely none,in this forum
Now if you want to discuss Fraser or Roche,I am open to...but in a serious way,which does not exclude the use of inteligente humour when required
Last edited:
I will not continue to discuss Dan's theses and your support for them! It's too nerve-consuming...;-)
Your last sentence is very wrong: I don't disagree with Dan if Hoad or Rosewall is the GOAT. I just "fight" against troll arguments and against your (both) thesis that peak level beats achievements and facts. All his witnesses (ex-players including some lesser lights) referred to peak play but they did NOT claim that Hoad is the GOAT. As a firm fundamentalist, Dan Lobb will never understand and concede this.
That troll even never makes it clear if he means peak level in one match or in one tournament or in one season or in the whole career!
Hope we can discuss about more fruitful theses in the future![/QUOTE]
Bobby, again you avoid the issue, that great experts like Robertson and Rosewall rate Hoad number one, NOT on peak play, but on LEVEL of play.
You persist in looking at "achievements", which for you means career stats, even looking at minor events and pretending that they are major events.
Really, your methodology is very weak.
Your last sentence is very wrong: I don't disagree with Dan if Hoad or Rosewall is the GOAT. I just "fight" against troll arguments and against your (both) thesis that peak level beats achievements and facts. All his witnesses (ex-players including some lesser lights) referred to peak play but they did NOT claim that Hoad is the GOAT. As a firm fundamentalist, Dan Lobb will never understand and concede this.
That troll even never makes it clear if he means peak level in one match or in one tournament or in one season or in the whole career!
Hope we can discuss about more fruitful theses in the future![/QUOTE]
Bobby, again you avoid the issue, that great experts like Robertson and Rosewall rate Hoad number one, NOT on peak play, but on LEVEL of play.
You persist in looking at "achievements", which for you means career stats, even looking at minor events and pretending that they are major events.
Really, your methodology is very weak.
Urban, your analysis is plain wrong.
You misidentify the "majors", some of which were really minors.
Hoad did not lack stamina, until about 1962, where he clearly tired in the Wembley final.
His greatest match against Gonzales in 1958 went 80 games, which he won.
His greatest matches against Rosewall went 65 and 63 games, which he won.
He had the greatest range of shots of any player since Tilden, according to Brookes.
Federer and Nadal lack range of shots, as seen recently at Wimbledon.
Similar threads
