All Rosewall, All the Time

[hoodjem]

Here we go. An excellent idea.

Everything you wanted to know about Muscles.

Herr Uber Professor Bobby can hold forth to his heart's content, and be not maligned because this is the proper place to publicize the records, endeavors, accomplishments, and greatness of Sir Kenneth.

Here's a soapbox for all Muscles fans. Gratis.

 

[NatF]

Indeed. Let us bask in the glory of the Little Master.

 

[Dan Lobb]

Go Muscles!

 

[NatF]

*Confession*

I plan on being totally illogical and unreasonable and trying to belittle every great record of Rosewall's.

 

[BobbyOne]

Here we go. An excellent idea.

Everything you wanted to know about Muscles.

Herr Uber Professor Bobby can hold forth to his heart's content, and be not maligned because this is the proper place to publicize the records, endeavors, accomplishments, and greatness of Sir Kenneth.

hoodjem, NatF, pc1 and Dan, If you would realize how childish and unfair you are, you would crack into thousands of pieces from shame.

At my come-back I was friendly to everyone and hold my friendly hand to everybody and refused to insult anyone. But you answer only with contempt and primitive hate. What was my crime? I showed how great Ken Rosewall is and that there was not any player in history and presence with a greater record. I have proved that claim with dozens or more facts, but alas, in vain...

In an email to krosero I told him that I speculate to quit my posting on Talk Tennis because it seems now that I don't have any supporters anymore.

Please note: As a visionary (copyright Bud Collins) I possess at least a bit of pride. I'm not forced to swallow permanent ridiculing from you for nothing!!! Oh, I forgot, I'm obsessed by an under-rated tennis player! Welcome to the club, Dan, by the way...

 

[BobbyOne]

*Confession*

I plan on being totally illogical and unreasonable and trying to belittle every great record of Rosewall's.

NatF, You don't need to plan this because you already have realized all that in many of your posts since a long time. Congratulations!

 

[Dan Lobb]

hoodjem, NatF, pc1 and Dan, If you would realize how childish and unfair you are, you would crack into thousands of pieces from shame.

At my come-back I was friendly to everyone and hold my friendly hand to everybody and refused to insult anyone. But you answer only with contempt and primitive hate. What was my crime? I showed how great Ken Rosewall is and that there was not any player in history and presence with a greater record. I have proved that claim with dozens or more facts, but alas, in vain...

In an email to krosero I told him that I speculate to quit my posting on Talk Tennis because it seems now that I don't have any supporters anymore.

Please note: As a visionary (copyright Bud Collins) I possess at least a bit of pride. I'm not forced to swallow permanent ridiculing from you for nothing!!! Oh, I forgot, I'm obsessed by an under-rated tennis player! Welcome to the club, Dan, by the way...

Yes, I agree that Hoad's record is underrated, but I also agree that Rosewall and Gonzales and Laver are underrated for the same reasons.

I rate Rosewall about number 5 or 6 all-time, so do not attempt to label me as a Rosewall-hater...that would be absurd.

 

[dgold44]

Rosewall had to be in the top 7 of all time !!!

Guys ahead of him from my opinion only: Pancho, Fed, Nadal, Djoker, Samp, LAVER

So yes he is number 7 but I am not expert, of course.

 

[KG1965]

Rosewall was a great : he won three tournaments LEVEL 1 ( 3 slam Open ) ... French 68, US 70 & Aus 71.
One less than Jim Courier .

Then he won many other titles . Point.

 

[BobbyOne]

Yes, I agree that Hoad's record is underrated, but I also agree that Rosewall and Gonzales and Laver are underrated for the same reasons.

I rate Rosewall about number 5 or 6 all-time, so do not attempt to label me as a Rosewall-hater...that would be absurd.

Dan, I never said or insinuated that you are a Rosewall hater. But you join your famous colleagues in mocking me for providing results and facts.

 

[BobbyOne]

Rosewall had to be in the top 7 of all time !!!

Guys ahead of him from my opinion only: Pancho, Fed, Nadal, Djoker, Samp, LAVER

So yes he is number 7 but I am not expert, of course.

dgold44, At least you seem to be more serious than some other posters.

 

[KG1965]

Rosewall was a great : he won three tournaments LEVEL 1 ( 3 slam Open ) ... French 68, US 70 & Aus 71.
One less than Jim Courier .

Then he won many other titles . Point.

In this thread focused on Muscles I'd like to summarize with thirty post large numbers of Courier !

 

[muddlehead]

Reading Rosewall's 1975 biography now. He says he can throw a ball farther with his left hand than his right.

 

[Dan Lobb]

Dan, I never said or insinuated that you are a Rosewall hater. But you join your famous colleagues in mocking me for providing results and facts.

I respect your results and facts, but sometimes I question the excuses for Rosewall's losses...like he could not adjust to differing circumstances, I have trouble accepting that explanation.

 

[BobbyOne]

Reading Rosewall's 1975 biography now. He says he can throw a ball farther with his left hand than his right.

muddlehead, I once read that Rosewall could throw a ball even double as far with his left hand, if I remember well. We will never know how good Ken might have been as a left-hander.

 

[BobbyOne]

I respect your results and facts, but sometimes I question the excuses for Rosewall's losses...like he could not adjust to differing circumstances, I have trouble accepting that explanation.

Dan, Thanks that you respect my results and facts. Maybe you can convince expert NatF that they are not "rubbish" as he yesterday wrote...

It's your problem and not mine if you have trouble accepting my explanations. These are usually reasonable. Please note: there are two kinds of "excuses": justified ones and unjustified ones. Adapting from a strange and odd rule to the normal rule would be a problem for any player, not only for Rosewall, Segura and Olmedo. Even NatF believes that the adaptation in that messy 1960 tour might have lasted a whole set. Here you could learn from NatF. But if you don't believe even him, perhaps you can believe serious poster krosero (who is acknowledged here very much because he is not a primitive Rosewall fanboy like me) who wrote in his 1960 WS thread that adapting from the 3-bounce rule to the normal rule within a day might have meant a problem for Pancho's opponents because on one day a player did not face a serve-and-volley player but on the next day he did face him (the best of the world to boot). The fact that Gonzalez was privileged to virtually not playing under the new rule and that way could get into a groove, is NOT an unjustified excuse for Rosewall, Segura and Olmedo.

Also my hint to Rosewall's disadvantage in the 1970 Wimbledon final was not an unjustified excuse. I just repeated what Jack Kramer and/or Bud Collins said during the final. It's very funny that you and pc1, NatF and a few others use to blame me for this or that but you don't blame acknowledged experts when they are saying the same (or almost the same in some cases) as I say. Really funny!

 

[Dan Lobb]

I think that it is better to focus on Rosewall's accomplishments, which were magnificent and require no excuses.

 

[treblings]

muddlehead, I once read that Rosewall could throw a ball even double as far with his left hand, if I remember well. We will never know how good Ken might have been as a left-hander.

was he actually a left-hander?

 

[Navdeep Srivastava]

I was seeing the old matches courtesy Krosero, and Rosewall backhand is easily one of the best single Hand backhand, so consistent and accurate, his backhand return also was beautiful.

 

[BobbyOne]

I think that it is better to focus on Rosewall's accomplishments, which were magnificent and require no excuses.

Dan, I have been trying this since July 2012, but, alas, it did not really work. I was not able to convince some posters (even true experts among them) that Rosewall's achievements are magnificent and make him a true GOAT candidate.

You are right that Muscles does not need any excuses but it's always justified and reasonable and even important to examine the facts and results, especially those that are conspicuous like the "strange" balances of the 1960 WS. A true tennis expert uses to not only look at the numbers themselves but also to examine the circumstances behind. Let me give you a striking example: We read that Olmedo destroyed Gonzalez at the 1963 US Pro 10-8, 2-6, 6-0, 6-1. If we only consider the numbers we could think that Alex was a much better player than Pancho. The opposite is right! If we examine the background of that match we see that Gonzalez had not played a single tennis match since 20 (!) months before his encounter with Olmedo. So we know he just was out of shape totally.

Please note: I have brought this "excuse" not in favour of Rosewall but in favour of Gonzalez...

 

[BobbyOne]

was he actually a left-hander?

treblings, Yes, Rosewall was a natural left-hander. His father Robert who was Ken's only tennis teacher in Ken's childhood, once said that his son threw balls with the left hand but picked it up with his right. However Mr. Rosewall adviced his son to play right-handed. As we know, in those times parents used to educate in a rather authoritarian way (I'm old enough to know what I write here very well...) and so little Ken had to follow that advice. By the way, it might be of interest that 3 to 5 years old Kenny played both forehand and backhand double-handed until his father decided his son should play single-handed.

Being a genuine left-hander might be the main reason why Rosewall's stronger side was the backhand. Some people said that Rosewall would have had a better service if staying left-handed.

Many years ago I read in Encyclopaedia Britannica that Rosewall, if being left-handed, would probably have become the greatest of all time. But as you know IMO he has actually become the GOAT (together with Laver) even being right-handed...

 

[treblings]

treblings, Yes, Rosewall was a natural left-hander. His father Robert who was Ken's only tennis teacher in Ken's childhood, once said that his son threw balls with the left hand but picked it up with his right. However Mr. Rosewall adviced his son to play right-handed. As we know, in those times parents used to educate in a rather authoritarian way (I'm old enough to know what I write here very well...) and so little Ken had to follow that advice. By the way, it might be of interest that 3 to 5 years old Kenny played both forehand and backhand double-handed until his father decided his son should play single-handed.

Being a genuine left-hander might be the main reason why Rosewall's stronger side was the backhand. Some people said that Rosewall would have had a better service if staying left-handed.

Many years ago I read in Encyclopaedia Britannica that Rosewall, if being left-handed, would probably have become the greatest of all time. But as you know IMO he has actually become the GOAT (together with Laver) even being right-handed...

Bobby, yes, i think it was quite common to try and change lefties to righties in those times.
it makes perfect sense to me that Ken played doublehanded from 3 to 5 yrs. he probably wouldn´t have been able
to play single-handed at that age. very likely he played with a shortened adult wood racquet.

what i find surprising is that he started at such a young age. was his father very ambitious for his son?

 

[BobbyOne]

I was seeing the old matches courtesy Krosero, and Rosewall backhand is easily one of the best single Hand backhand, so consistent and accurate, his backhand return also was beautiful.

Navdeep, Yes, many experts ranked Budge's and Rosewall's backhands as the best one-handed ones.

John Barrett, a well-known former British player and a true LAYER friend and admirer (but also friend of Rosewall) once (in 1975, "Grand Prix Tennis") wrote that Rosewall's "success stemmed from his uncanny ability to return consistently even the fiercest serves. The pressure built up in an opponent's mind until he did not know where or even how to serve. Frustration led to overpressing and double faults until the whole game collapsed". Maybe I can add that Ken's great return might be a main reason why he did very well against big servers like Kramer, Gonzalez (in best-of-five matches), Hoad, Sedgman, Newcombe, Ashe and Smith.

 

[Navdeep Srivastava]

Navdeep, Yes, many experts ranked Budge's and Rosewall's backhands as the best one-handed ones.

John Barrett, a well-known former British player and a true LAYER friend and admirer (but also friend of Rosewall) once (in 1975, "Grand Prix Tennis") wrote that Rosewall's "success stemmed from his uncanny ability to return consistently even the fiercest serves. The pressure built up in an opponent's mind until he did not know where or even how to serve. Frustration led to overpressing and double faults until the whole game collapsed". Maybe I can add that Ken's great return might be a main reason why he did very well against big servers like Kramer, Gonzalez (in best-of-five matches), Hoad, Sedgman, Newcombe, Ashe and Smith.

Another thing that I noticed in Rosewall vs Roache match that Rosewall was quite cool and calm, he was trying to read the game even he was 35+ but he was playing using different tactics.

 

[BobbyOne]

Bobby, yes, i think it was quite common to try and change lefties to righties in those times.
it makes perfect sense to me that Ken played doublehanded from 3 to 5 yrs. he probably wouldn´t have been able
to play single-handed at that age. very likely he played with a shortened adult wood racquet.

what i find surprising is that he started at such a young age. was his father very ambitious for his son?

treblings, Yes, It was a common but stupid custom to change lefties to right-handers. Terrible education habits then...

You are right regarding double-handed playing in such an early age. Yes, Ken's father sawed off the racquet handle a few inches and little Kenny used such a racquet from age three to, I guess, age ten. I read all that in Rowley's 1975 Rosewall biography. Interesting book, by the way.

Robert Rosewall was very ambitious for his son as often "tennis parents" are (or "ice-skater parents") till in our days, alas.

Starting as such an early age and the fact that Ken used to stroke the ball maybe Millions of times against a wall might be the reason for Rosewall's consistency and perfect technique in adult years.

 

[BobbyOne]

Another thing that I noticed in Rosewall vs Roache match that Rosewall was quite cool and calm, he was trying to read the game even he was 35+ but he was playing using different tactics.

Navdeep, Please write "Roche". (Youtube sometimes spells his name wrongly). Yes, Rosewall was a shrewd tactician. For example he liked it to catch his opponent on the wrong foot.

 

[treblings]

treblings, Yes, It was a common but stupid custom to change lefties to right-handers. Terrible education habits then...

You are right regarding double-handed playing in such an early age. Yes, Ken's father sawed off the racquet handle a few inches and little Kenny used such a racquet from age three to, I guess, age ten. I read all that in Rowley's 1975 Rosewall biography. Interesting book, by the way.

Robert Rosewall was very ambitious for his son as often "tennis parents" are (or "ice-skater parents") till in our days, alas.

Starting as such an early age and the fact that Ken used to stroke the ball maybe Millions of times against a wall might be the reason for Rosewall's consistency and perfect technique in adult years.

Bobby, was it common for players of that era to start playing so early in life?
i found(and ordered) Rowley´s book on amazon a few minutes ago.

 

[NatF]

Bobby, was it common for players of that era to start playing so early in life?
i found(and ordered) Rowley´s book on amazon a few minutes ago.

That book is a love letter to Rosewall. It's not balanced.

The author clearly believes Rosewall to be the GOAT and spends much of the book trying to convince you (the reader) of it.

 

[treblings]

That book is a love letter to Rosewall. It's not balanced.

The author clearly believes Rosewall to be the GOAT and spends much of the book trying to convince you (the reader) of it.

thanks, i guess that happens with biographies. although it shouldn´t happen
is it otherwise well written at least?

 

[NatF]

thanks, i guess that happens with biographies. although it shouldn´t happen
is it otherwise well written at least?

Just take it with a pinch of salt is all.
Yes I found it well written, it was a while ago that I read it though.

 

[BobbyOne]

Bobby, was it common for players of that era to start playing so early in life?
i found(and ordered) Rowley´s book on amazon a few minutes ago.

Bobby, was it common for players of that era to start playing so early in life?
i found(and ordered) Rowley´s book on amazon a few minutes ago.

treblings, I believe Rosewall's early start of playing tennis is an exception even though some other players might have started at five to seven or so.

Pancho Gonzalez seems to having started pretty late (seems to be the other extreme).

Very good idea to buy the Rowley book. The greatest asset of the book is probably the fact that Rowley was able to talk to Muscles very often during a few weeks. Ken revealed good background information and told interesting information about his greatest rivals.

The book is well written. Rowley was an author of plays. He died a few years ago.

"Twenty Years at the Top" tends to over-rate Rosewall at some points. Having read the book you will realize that my own description of Rosewall's status in tennis history, of his feats and achievements was and is pretty reasonable, probably more than Rowley's...

But I stress I like his Rosewall biography. When reading it the first time, I f.i. learnt that Rosewall won the 1965 French Pro thus meaning he won it seven times in a row and eight times altogether (I had already known about the other years).

Have a good reading!

 

[BobbyOne]

That book is a love letter to Rosewall. It's not balanced.

The author clearly believes Rosewall to be the GOAT and spends much of the book trying to convince you (the reader) of it.

NatF, Even though I agree that believing Rosewall to be the GOAT is an obnoxious crime, we at least cannot blame Mr. Rowley for having written abstruse and insulting posts in a tennis forum (as far as I know of course).

I'm not surprised that an author who has a certain conviction tries to tell that conviction to his readers.

Rowley has backed up his claims by providing some serious information. Hope you forgive him all his bad crimes...

 

[BobbyOne]

thanks, i guess that happens with biographies. although it shouldn´t happen
is it otherwise well written at least?

treblings, As our Rosewall expert NatF wrote that the book is not balanced I would say that Rowley did not write a tennis history with the claim to paint an objective picture of history and all greats. His goal seemed to be writing finally the first book about a player who arguable is the greatest of all time in order to contradict all those many book and articles written before Rowley where the Little Master used to be ignored or significantly under-estimated. In that sense it was a serious counterweight IMO.

 

[NatF]

NatF, Even though I agree that believing Rosewall to be the GOAT is an obnoxious crime, we at least cannot blame Mr. Rowley for having written abstruse and insulting posts in a tennis forum (as far as I know of course).

I'm not surprised that an author who has a certain conviction tries to tell that conviction to his readers.

Rowley has backed up his claims by providing some serious information. Hope you forgive him all his bad crimes...

I thought you were thinking about leaving the forum? Please don't let me keep you.

On the hand if you wish to stay I'm quite interesting in reading more farcical claims such as 52 big SF's or whatever the number was, where one only needed to win a couple of matches max to reach the SF's...Or channel slams at events that weren't slams.

BTW Rosewall is not arguably the greatest of all time. He's clearly below Pancho and Rod at least.

 

[treblings]

treblings, As our Rosewall expert NatF wrote that the book is not balanced I would say that Rowley did not write a tennis history with the claim to paint an objective picture of history and all greats. His goal seemed to be writing finally the first book about a player who arguable is the greatest of all time in order to contradict all those many book and articles written before Rowley where the Little Master used to be ignored or significantly under-estimated. In that sense it was a serious counterweight IMO.

Bobby, i appreciate NatF´s post. amazon has a review of the book(by a reader, not amazon) that says basically the same thing.
thanks for explaining Rowleys motives, i think i can understand them.
i hope the book will be a good read. best case, i might even learn something that i didn´t know before
edit: when reading a biography i don´t necessarily demand objectivity nor do i expect it

 

[NatF]

Bobby, i appreciate NatF´s post. amazon has a review of the book(by a reader, not amazon) that says basically the same thing.
thanks for explaining Rowleys motives, i think i can understand them.
i hope the book will be a good read. best case, i might even learn something that i didn´t know before
edit: when reading a biography i don´t necessarily demand objectivity nor do i expect it

How do you know I didn't write that review?

 

[treblings]

How do you know I didn't write that review?

i wouldn´t be surprised

here´s the review i was talking about:
"I have great admiration for Ken Rosewall and think he belongs in the discussion for Greatest Tennis Player of All Time, but I didn't care for the writing in this book. The author harps incessantly on the lack of respect given Rosewall--OK, good point, give it a rest"

and here´s what the NYTimes had to say:
"..a fascinating and sensitive study...what makes the book different from the 'quickies' that have come out of the publishing mill...is the finely etched character of Rosewall... --The New York Times Book Review"

 

[NatF]

i wouldn´t be surprised

here´s the review i was talking about:
"I have great admiration for Ken Rosewall and think he belongs in the discussion for Greatest Tennis Player of All Time, but I didn't care for the writing in this book. The author harps incessantly on the lack of respect given Rosewall--OK, good point, give it a rest"

and here´s what the NYTimes had to say:
"..a fascinating and sensitive study...what makes the book different from the 'quickies' that have come out of the publishing mill...is the finely etched character of Rosewall... --The New York Times Book Review"

It can't be me then as I clearly have no admiration for Ken Rosewall - I kid here, I do have respect and admiration for Rosewall. He is one of the greats. I simply don't agree with his #1 fan very often...

The background information in that book is the best part of it.

 

[treblings]

It can't be me then as I clearly have no admiration for Ken Rosewall - I kid here, I do have respect and admiration for Rosewall. He is one of the greats. I simply don't agree with his #1 fan very often...

The background information in that book is the best part of it.

i don´t see how anybody can not admire Rosewall

 

[NatF]

i don´t see how anybody can not admire Rosewall

Indeed, a great player AND a great sportsman.

Although I hear was a bit of a thief...

 

[muddlehead]

BobbyOne et al : I read a lot of old tennis books. Just about every one I can find, actually. The Rosewall book reminded me of something I've been meaning to verify for a while. Rosewall grew up middle class in neighborhoods where if a kid wasn't playing tennis on a court, he was hitting a ball against a wall. Are they exaggerating tennis' popularity in Australia back then?

 

[BobbyOne]

I thought you were thinking about leaving the forum? Please don't let me keep you.

On the hand if you wish to stay I'm quite interesting in reading more farcical claims such as 52 big SF's or whatever the number was, where one only needed to win a couple of matches max to reach the SF's...Or channel slams at events that weren't slams.

BTW Rosewall is not arguably the greatest of all time. He's clearly below Pancho and Rod at least.

NatF, I can help you generously with information: Thinking (or considering, as I wrote) about a matter does not mean automatically to having decided already in one or the other direction. Do you understand?

On one hand there are those few posters like you who try to insult and/or mock me rather often (my input would be "rubbish" etc.), on the other hand there are still some posters who are holding my posts in high regard or accepting them at least without any insults (sic!).

Rosewall's 52 big SFs are not a claim. They are not "farcical" at all. You can examine that number yourself if you study Ken's record.

If you cannot follow me regarding Rosewall's three Channel Slams, maybe you could follow a serious poster who agreed with that term. You know whom I mean. But even if you can convince your readers that the pro majors are not comparable to GS tournaments (of course Wembley was more significant than amateur Wimbledon, f.i.), Rosewall's feats 1960 to 1962 (winning Paris and London within ONE WEEK) remains an extraordinary feat (his greatest as I think).

Laver clearly above Rosewall is debatable as he has his two (or three: Pro GRAND SLAM 1967) Grand Slams. But what has Gonzalez achieved that puts him CLEARLY ahead of Rosewall?? I would be extremely grateful for any information. That way I can change my rankings and rate Pancho clearly above Muscles. Thanks in advance.

 

[Dan Lobb]

NatF, I can help you generously with information: Thinking (or considering, as I wrote) about a matter does not mean automatically to having decided already in one or the other direction. Do you understand?

On one hand there are those few posters like you who try to insult and/or mock me rather often (my input would be "rubbish" etc.), on the other hand there are still some posters who are holding my posts in high regard or accepting them at least without any insults (sic!).

Rosewall's 52 big SFs are not a claim. They are not "farcical" at all. You can examine that number yourself if you study Ken's record.

If you cannot follow me regarding Rosewall's three Channel Slams, maybe you could follow a serious poster who agreed with that term. You know whom I mean. But even if you can convince your readers that the pro majors are not comparable to GS tournaments (of course Wembley was more significant than amateur Wimbledon, f.i.), Rosewall's feats 1960 to 1962 (winning Paris and London within ONE WEEK) remains an extraordinary feat (his greatest as I think).

Laver clearly above Rosewall is debatable as he has his two (or three: Pro GRAND SLAM 1967) Grand Slams. But what has Gonzalez achieved that puts him CLEARLY ahead of Rosewall?? I would be extremely grateful for any information. That way I can change my rankings and rate Pancho clearly above Muscles. Thanks in advance.

How's this...that Gonzales whupped Ken 50-26 on the 1957 tour, despite playing injured...that is one stupendous achievement.

 

[BobbyOne]

Bobby, i appreciate NatF´s post. amazon has a review of the book(by a reader, not amazon) that says basically the same thing.
thanks for explaining Rowleys motives, i think i can understand them.
i hope the book will be a good read. best case, i might even learn something that i didn´t know before
edit: when reading a biography i don´t necessarily demand objectivity nor do i expect it

treblings, The judgment of one poster and one book reader does not automatically mean that they are right in their judgment. Read the book and make your own conclusions.

Thanks that you can understand Rowley's motivation for publishing the book.

You surely will learn something new.

Thanks for your Edit.

I just wonder why NatF gives you a "like" for your post as he had written before in a totally contrary sense..

 

[BobbyOne]

i wouldn´t be surprised

here´s the review i was talking about:
"I have great admiration for Ken Rosewall and think he belongs in the discussion for Greatest Tennis Player of All Time, but I didn't care for the writing in this book. The author harps incessantly on the lack of respect given Rosewall--OK, good point, give it a rest"

and here´s what the NYTimes had to say:
"..a fascinating and sensitive study...what makes the book different from the 'quickies' that have come out of the publishing mill...is the finely etched character of Rosewall... --The New York Times Book Review"

treblings, NatF cannot have written that review as he does not believe that Rosewall belongs in the GOAT discussion...

 

[BobbyOne]

i don´t see how anybody can not admire Rosewall

treblings, I do know at least one poster who does not admire Muscles. That man knows f.i. that Rosewall "did not have a huge weapon" but "had a weak service" (sic).

 

[BobbyOne]

BobbyOne et al : I read a lot of old tennis books. Just about every one I can find, actually. The Rosewall book reminded me of something I've been meaning to verify for a while. Rosewall grew up middle class in neighborhoods where if a kid wasn't playing tennis on a court, he was hitting a ball against a wall. Are they exaggerating tennis' popularity in Australia back then?

muddlehead, I guess that in the 1930s there was not as much a tennis boom in Australia as after WWII when the Aussies won about everything in amateur tennis (Davis Cup!). By the way, Rosewall's father had a little grocery.

 

[BobbyOne]

How's this...that Gonzales whupped Ken 50-26 on the 1957 tour, despite playing injured...that is one stupendous achievement.

Dan, Gonzalez did not whip Rosewall in that tour, as even Kramer conceded. Please tell me in how many encounters Pancho was injured!

Gonzalez was the pro champion at that time and the king of canvas. Rosewall was a young and unexperienced player who never had played before on that surface. Okay, even if you count that fine win of Pancho as one of his great achievements (I don't), Rosewall has several fine achievements to compete with Gonzalez such as winning many more majors. No clear edge for Pancho at all.

 

[NatF]

Gonzalez was the best player in the world for much longer. He was simply a better player than Rosewall.

 

[Dan Lobb]

Gonzales had several serious injuries that tour...amazing that he could win.