Best player men singles 58 and 59.

Q&M son

Professional
#1
I will start this with an old urban post, as it follows:

"On Segdman and Hoad in 1958 and 1959, there are some valid comments and rankings (not by me), which argue in favor of both. If you put 4 major pro events in 1958 with all top players competing: Sedman won Wembley and the Austalian pro, Gonzales the Forest Hills pro round robin, and Rosewall the French pro. (The US pro hadn't a very good field). Sedgman had also a 4-2 head to head in important events over Gonzales. In 1959, there were several lists and experts, who put Hoad on top. Hoad was the 'race-leader' in a 14 pro tournament series over the whole world, and he had beaten Gonzales in the important Forest Hills final. In the eyes of most pros, Gonzales however remained Nr.1, for his head-to-head series over Hoad in 1958. In the mentality of pros then, it was like the old boxing system, when a champion had to be dethroned in a title match.
It shows the need to study all these years carefully,to come to differenciate results and to contextualize these results."

Can someone give me and us more information and thoughts about it?
Thanks in advance.

Lucio.
 
#2
Hoad 1959

I'd give the nod to Hoad being the best player of 1959. He very comprehensively beat Gonzales at the most important tournament of the year - Tournament of Champions Forest Hills 6-1, 5-7, 6-2, 6-1 (except for the second set Hoad dominated).

Have a read of:

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,825754,00.html

Also in the American Round Robin. Hoad def. Gonzales 15 matches to 13.

So in both the head to head stakes and also in the big tournament stakes - Hoad was superior. (Yes Gonzales beat Hoad at the US Pro - but was it as big as Forest Hills that year - I don't think so).
 
Last edited:
#3
I have . . .

1957—Gonzales/Rosewall
1958—Gonzales/Sedgman
1959—Gonzales/Hoad
1960—Gonzales/Rosewall
 
Last edited:

Q&M son

Professional
#5
I'd give the nod to Hoad being the best player of 1959. He very comprehensively beat Gonzales at the most important tournament of the year - Tournament of Champions Forest Hills 6-1, 5-7, 6-2, 6-1 (except for the second set Hoad dominated).

Have a read of:

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,825754,00.html

Also in the American Round Robin. Hoad def. Gonzales 15 matches to 13.

So in both the head to head stakes and also in the big tournament stakes - Hoad was superior. (Yes Gonzales beat Hoad at the US Pro - but was it as big as Forest Hills that year - I don't think so).
Thank you, I just read McCauley too but there's no much to add here
 

Q&M son

Professional
#6
Another question: no tennis in november and december those two years? I found nothing on McCauley appendix of results...
 
Last edited:

Q&M son

Professional
#10
I found some Australian tour matches in Google News search, between Olmedo Hoad and Gonzalez, ando some tournaments too (Sidney and Brisbane)
 
Last edited:
#11
For Australian tours, McCauley is not always complete. Andrew Tas and Jeffrey Neave have provided some more results of those tours in different threads.
 
#14
Thats phantastic statistical material by Andrew Tas. I think, almost all mens tournaments, which were ever played in Australia. By far more detailled and complete than any other list, such as the list given by Michel Sutter.
 

Q&M son

Professional
#15
Thats phantastic statistical material by Andrew Tas. I think, almost all mens tournaments, which were ever played in Australia. By far more detailled and complete than any other list, such as the list given by Michel Sutter.
Great work from Andrew.
 

Q&M son

Professional
#16
Sh*t, I should READ before ASK... page 98 of McCauley, there is what I'm was looking from 59: three events, two won by Hoad (RR)and one by Rosewall on December that year.
 
#17
Thats phantastic statistical material by Andrew Tas. I think, almost all mens tournaments, which were ever played in Australia. By far more detailled and complete than any other list, such as the list given by Michel Sutter.
Tas apparently used a wrong source for the Melbourne RR Pro in January, 1960, it should be January 2, not January 7.
 
#32
So you have no suggestion for an "objective" criterion....I thought as much.

Therefore, your question has no meaning....no surprise.
I asked you to provide objective criteria for Hoad as GOAT. You are evidently unable to do so, hence your repeating of my statements.

Face facts, Lew's nowhere near the top of the pantheon in our sport.
 
#33
I asked you to provide objective criteria for Hoad as GOAT. You are evidently unable to do so, hence your repeating of my statements.

Face facts, Lew's nowhere near the top of the pantheon in our sport.
No, I asked you what you meant by "greatest" and you had no answer...your question was without meaning.

First. what do you mean by GOAT?

If you cannot answer that preliminary definition, your question is undefined.
 
Last edited:

thrust

Hall of Fame
#36
First, I want to hear a definition of "GOAT".

Without parameters there is no discussion.
Those who accomplished the most, including slam/major and overall tournament wins. Pro tours are basically useless as few consider important tournaments. Pro majors, and other important pro Tournaments should count.
 

NatF

Bionic Poster
#37
Those who accomplished the most, including slam/major and overall tournament wins. Pro tours are basically useless as few consider important tournaments. Pro majors, and other important pro Tournaments should count.
Your contributions are basically useless :D Few truly consider pro tournaments, that's not an argument against those that understand the tour structure in those years.
 
#38
Those who accomplished the most, including slam/major and overall tournament wins. Pro tours are basically useless as few consider important tournaments. Pro majors, and other important pro Tournaments should count.
The top pros often gave their best efforts to the championship tours...I am not sure what you mean here.

In 1959 there was a tour which consisted of tournaments.
 
Last edited:

thrust

Hall of Fame
#39
Your contributions are basically useless :D Few truly consider pro tournaments, that's not an argument against those that understand the tour structure in those years.
I meant to say that few consider the pro H-H tours important tournaments. Wembley, French Pro and US Pro, Tournament of Champions and a few others are cited as important pro tournaments. H-H tours were important to players but not enough to be mentioned in most tennis record books or rankings. Some discount the Pro Tour entirely, which is why Gonzalez and Rosewall rank lower than they should on some all time great lists. As to the One ATG, that should be either: Laver Gonzalez or Federer, at least in the post 1950 era. If on does not consider the pro tour achievements, then Federer is the ONE
 
#40
I meant to say that few consider the pro H-H tours important tournaments. Wembley, French Pro and US Pro, Tournament of Champions and a few others are cited as important pro tournaments. H-H tours were important to players but not enough to be mentioned in most tennis record books or rankings. Some discount the Pro Tour entirely, which is why Gonzalez and Rosewall rank lower than they should on some all time great lists. As to the One ATG, that should be either: Laver Gonzalez or Federer, at least in the post 1950 era. If on does not consider the pro tour achievements, then Federer is the ONE
There is a lot of confusion and misinformation about the old pro days.

Confusion and misinformation does not help make a sound rating or judgment.
 

thrust

Hall of Fame
#42
The GOAT discussions i think we can all argue for ever, when talking of Lew Hoad, Pancho Conzales who has been a strong contender for that position said that [if i were playing my best tennis Lew Hoad was the only player to beat me, surely that must mean something.Cheers TW
On a given day, perhaps. However, on a continual basis and accomplishment wise, Lew cannot be considered a GOAT contender. Gonzalez, Laver, Federer, are the main contenders for GOAT post 1950. Tier 2: Rosewall, Borg, Sampras Nadal and Djokovic.
 
#43
On a given day, perhaps. However, on a continual basis and accomplishment wise, Lew cannot be considered a GOAT contender. Gonzalez, Laver, Federer, are the main contenders for GOAT post 1950. Tier 2: Rosewall, Borg, Sampras Nadal and Djokovic.
Playing the greatest tennis ever produced is, by itself, an accomplishment which only one player can achieve.
 
Top