Best player men singles 58 and 59.

Q&M son

Q&M son

Professional
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.
 
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:
I have . . .

1957—Gonzales/Rosewall
1958—Gonzales/Sedgman
1959—Gonzales/Hoad
1960—Gonzales/Rosewall
 
Last edited:
timnz said:
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).
Click to expand...

Thank you, I just read McCauley too but there's no much to add here
 
Another question: no tennis in november and december those two years? I found nothing on McCauley appendix of results...
 
Last edited:
I found some Australian tour matches in Google News search, between Olmedo Hoad and Gonzalez, ando some tournaments too (Sidney and Brisbane)
 
Last edited:
For Australian tours, McCauley is not always complete. Andrew Tas and Jeffrey Neave have provided some more results of those tours in different threads.
 
urban said:
For Australian tours, McCauley is not always complete. Andrew Tas and Jeffrey Neave have provided some more results of those tours in different threads.
Click to expand...

Yes, I will look forward but I thin there's not much about the years I mentioned.
 
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.
 
urban said:
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.
Click to expand...

Great work from Andrew.
 
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.
 
urban said:
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.
Click to expand...
Tas apparently used a wrong source for the Melbourne RR Pro in January, 1960, it should be January 2, not January 7.
 
Dan Lobb said:
So you have no suggestion for an "objective" criterion....I thought as much.

Therefore, your question has no meaning....no surprise.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Phoenix1983 said:
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.
Click to expand...
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:
Dan Lobb said:
First, I want to hear a definition of "GOAT".

Without parameters there is no discussion.
Click to expand...
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.
 
thrust said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
thrust said:
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.
Click to expand...
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:
NatF said:
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.
Click to expand...
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
 
thrust said:
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
Click to expand...
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.
 
Phoenix1983 said:
No objective criteria can have Hoad as GOAT.
Click to expand...
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
 
tom williams said:
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
Click to expand...
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.
 
thrust said:
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.
Click to expand...
Playing the greatest tennis ever produced is, by itself, an accomplishment which only one player can achieve.
 
thrust said:
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.
Click to expand...
Here are the results of an AI research on the issue,

"In professional tennis, the leading money winner for both 1958 and 1959 was Lew Hoad.
During this era, prize money was primarily earned through professional tours and a circuit of professional major tournaments (distinct from the amateur Grand Slams). The "money title" was considered the ultimate measure of success for a professional player.
  • In 1958, Hoad was the leading money winner, reportedly earning nearly $200,000, which was significantly more than his main rival, Pancho Gonzales, who earned about $91,000. Hoad's earnings were high because, as the newly turned professional challenging the established champion Gonzales, he received a larger share of the gate receipts as part of his contract.
  • In 1959, Hoad again finished as the top money winner, securing the overall bonus money in the Ampol Open Trophy world series of tournaments. He was widely referred to in press reports as the "world champion" for that year. "
 
Dan Lobb said:
Here are the results of an AI research on the issue,

"In professional tennis, the leading money winner for both 1958 and 1959 was Lew Hoad.
During this era, prize money was primarily earned through professional tours and a circuit of professional major tournaments (distinct from the amateur Grand Slams). The "money title" was considered the ultimate measure of success for a professional player.
  • In 1958, Hoad was the leading money winner, reportedly earning nearly $200,000, which was significantly more than his main rival, Pancho Gonzales, who earned about $91,000. Hoad's earnings were high because, as the newly turned professional challenging the established champion Gonzales, he received a larger share of the gate receipts as part of his contract.
  • In 1959, Hoad again finished as the top money winner, securing the overall bonus money in the Ampol Open Trophy world series of tournaments. He was widely referred to in press reports as the "world champion" for that year. "I
Click to expand...
I agree that Hoad was probably the best player in 58 and 59, but after those years he no longer was as good as Pancho or Ken.
 
thrust said:
I agree that Hoad was probably the best player in 58 and 59, but after those years he no longer was as good as Pancho or Ken.
Click to expand...
Hoad also won another hth tour over Gonzales in 1961, a feat never achieved by Ken, a year in which Hoad was rated No 1 by Gardnar Mulloy.
Hoad was ranked No. 1 for 1962 by a poll of UPI sports editors.
 
Dan Lobb said:
Hoad also won another hth tour over Gonzales in 1961, a feat never achieved by Ken, a year in which Hoad was rated No 1 by Gardnar Mulloy.
Hoad was ranked No. 1 for 1962 by a poll of UPI sports editors.
Click to expand...
I typed "what was Lew Hoad ranked in 1961?" into an AI research. These are the research results:

"The lack of a consistent professional tour and limited head-to-head matches between the top players meant there was no clear way to definitively rank one player above the others for the entire year."
 
Holmes said:
I typed "what was Lew Hoad ranked in 1961?" into an AI research. These are the research results:

"The lack of a consistent professional tour and limited head-to-head matches between the top players meant there was no clear way to definitively rank one player above the others for the entire year."
Click to expand...
I would largely agree with that assessment.
However, that did not prevent Gardnar Mulloy from selecting Hoad as the No. 1 professional for that time, and further that Hoad would be his choice to win a projected Open Wimbledon that year.

There was a world tour in 1961 designed to produce a No. 1 professional player from a more open format than usual, however both Hoad and Rosewall did not play, Hoad due to a broken foot.
Hoad and Gonzales in the late summer played a ten match hth series with Hoad winning 6 to 4, although this was not designated as a world tour.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

T
The Fourth Pro Grand Slam Tournament
Replies
1
Views
1K
urban
U
U
Sedgman - underrated giant of the fifties
2 3
Replies
121
Views
21K
Dan Lobb
D
T
  • Poll Poll
What are / were the Majors for Men?
Replies
8
Views
1K
Dan Lobb
D
T
A re- defining of what constitutes being a pro-slam event
Replies
33
Views
5K
Dan Lobb
D
D
Greatest Canadian player ever
12 13 14
Replies
693
Views
74K
Dan Lobb
D
Back
Top