Discussion in 'Former Pro Player Talk' started by timnz, May 18, 2009.
I'm just speechless really lol.
Yes, there is nothing to answer.
I think Dan Lobb and BobbyOne are having a competition as to who can post the most absurd and insulting things about current players.
I am starting to think that the Hoad mystique is a very curious phenomenon, almost entirely based on hearsay. From what I’ve seen, there are some comments made by Gonzalez and Laver where they praise Hoad many many years after the facts. These comments are repeated in every single description of Hoad, just like certain prayers are repeated in every religious ceremony. The fact that they were made at a time when Gonzalez and Laver’s excellent record against Hoad was a well known thing of the distant past may suggest that these comments are not entirely devoid of the con. Yeah, he was the best of the best, and we beat him repeatedly and with gusto. Think about that.
Hoad’s glory in his best couple of years is sung by the strange method of ignoring the abundant and not so glorious losses in that very same period. As far as I know, no other player enjoys such wonderful breaks. It’s as if the record, in the case of Hoad, were completely irrelevant. Visual evidence is also irrelevant because largely unavailable. All that remains is the hearsay. His comparison with other players, for example Federer, is made by selecting instances of Hoad’s supposedly god-like level (as described by hearsay) and comparing them NOT with instances of Federer's similar level, which are widely available for viewing, but with his average level where defects may be spotted.
There is something evangelical about the Lobb mission. His faith is unwavering. He wants to spread the Word on Hoad. But at least the Christian apostles had had direct contact with the Master, they saw Him in His daily activities and miracles, and wrote detailed reports of them in the Gospels. Lobb’s gospel is some interviews where Gonzalez and Laver were being gracious and perhaps a bit self-serving. It’s as if a Christian gospel had developed from some interview with Mathew and Mark, where they would say things like, Oh, yeah, Christ could on occasion perform the most spectacular miracles (but you know we beat him regularly in most miracle competitions throughout Galilee).
That doesn’t sound to me like a very good gospel.
^ Excellent post in general (and funny), but this point in particular resonates:
Very good post. But I must warn you: the consequences of such a post are inevitable: you are now officially a mindless Fedfan.
More seriously, I don't have enough knowledge on Hoad, but given the data available on him, it is very possible that he was mightily hyped for the reasons you mentioned. I believe it was more or less the same with Budge and Kramer. It might become the same with Safin in 50 years.
Players testimony are interesting, but there is really to many unknown variable to control why they say what they say. And we know in this forum that knowing each other bias is vital to understand each other advice. Laver, Gonzales or Kramer weren't free of bias.
Is it not okay to criticize Hoad?
(I've always thought it was okay to point out the flaws of any player. No one is perfect. Right?)
Forza, It's not disrespectful claiming that the old greats were not weaker than the current stars!
Benhur, I agree regarding Dan, but I must disagree regarding Hoad praising by Gonzalez and Laver: Also Rosewall ranks him first (peak playing level). Muscles played Hoad about 116 times. There still are many people alive who have seen Hoad playing live, among them Bud Collins who praised Hoad very much. Hoad defeated Rosewall by 8-1 (pro set) in the 1964 Wembley event (Golden racket) when Rosewall was in his peak...
Flash, And if you doubt some Federer assets you are a mindless Rosewall fanatic...
Mentioning Safin with Budge and Kramer speak for itself...
If I said that your Rosewall was French and put in Max Decugis era making him elligible to participate and would manage to sneak in 1 FO or 2 if he is LUCKY would you take that opinion seriously?
I don't understand.
He is saying that you would be offended if someone suggested that Max Decugis and other players of his era would regularly beat Rosewall on clay, and that Rosewall would be lucky to win 1 French title in the Decugis era.
Phoenix, Yes I would be offended because it would be wrong. But it's not wrong to claim that Laver and Rosewall would have good chances on clay against Nadal (at least with wood. Wood does not allow that extreme topspin).
Like Apostle Tomas said " excuse for not believing without. seeing" amen
As Percy would say it
" and it makes me wonder"
Now Laver may finally breath:
Fedfans have found a new target in Lewis Hoad
I send my blessings to lovely Jenny and family
that's also in Stairway...love that part
well...my ultimate target is William Renshaw, but he has no fans on this forum, otherwise I'd jump after him in a heart beat :wink:
A personnal question to federites:
Does it give an unknown sexual pleasure to be a fedfan?
Or is it just emotional?
If so, am I still in time to become a member of the NationalFedererist Party?
Can I vote for it outside Switzerland?
I always had a crush on helpless Ernie Renshaw
Do you know his brother let him win a Wimbledon?
What a rotten family
Oh it's just a spring clean for the May queen so don' t be alarmed
I'll say this....eating Lindts tastes better as a Rogi fan...we'll just leave it at that.
Yes Lindt sure tastes better than Vavrinecs
Stoichkov went to Barcelona not Milano
unfortunately true...he did play for CSKA Sofia though, my fave Bulgarian team
Yes, Hoad skeptics are doubting Thomases.
But after Thomas saw, he did believe.
But the Master commented: “Blessed are those who have not seen, yet have believed”, and Thomas understood that his doubts had been unsightly.
But Kramer did see, and yet did not believe. This brought much sorrow and lamentation among the disciples, for it is said: No arrogance is haughtier than denying what you see.
Is he looking at a Bosch?
What movie is this?
Nadal is strong, but does his strength compare to Hoad, probably the greatest "strongman" ever in the game?
There was the famous incident in a South African bar in 1957, where Hoad grabbed the front legs of a chair seating an obnoxious heckler and lifted the chair up to eye level, advising the man to be quiet, then dropping the chair.
Could any player today attempt such a feat?
We are not talking about normal level of strength here.
I want proof, actual proof of this guy's athleticism. Either a source (with a link) or something, gimme something. The more you go on about this guy, the more outlandish and cartoonish he becomes. Portraying a realistic depiction of him would better the case for him as a well regarded player, but because you over legendarize him in such a hyperbolic way we react this way.
Austrian expert, how convenient of you to take poly out of the equation. But you are right, laver and Rosewall would undoubtedly have better chances against Nadal without modern equipment, so would Federer and many others for that matter. So i don`t see your point. If Laver and Rosewall are indeed the unstoppable forces that we, young illiterates, are taught they are, they should cope with Nadal`s spin under present conditions without much effort. Don`t you think so??
This is not hyperbole, my friend, but a well-documented incident, witnessed by Segura, Rosewall, and Kramer. If you want a reference, it is in "Golden Boy" by Hodgson and Jones, who also quote Gonzales,
"...he was such a strong son-of-a-*****..he had such strong wrists that he could hold the racquet high up the handle..he'd chop off the end so he could wield it like a ping-pong bat....when he tried, you just couldn't beat him. He hit the ball harder than anyone I ever played".
and Gonzales played them all.
Hoad used the same grip for all shots, and could adjust quickly.
Is "legendarize" a word?
In Bruges....amazing movie, hilarious, dark, poignant..very profane, but incredible script.
I just legendarized the word legendarize
Isn' t peers opinions and that era journalists enough proof?
Lobb overhypes the guy, right, but he is basically correct
I am not that much biassed on him and believe me, Hoad had extremely mighty arms and hips ( we are talking about a tennis player not a bulgarian weightlifter!!')
To which one should answer: " let the children come by me, since theirs is the Heaven' s Kingdom" adding later " I truly tell you all that the poor and weak will be the first placed in the Kingdom of God"
Which makes me wonder if the Lord did care a lot about newtards and journeymen and wanted to punish GOAT candidates
Which leads to this torturing conclysion;
" Shall we rather choose the Highway to Hell over the Stairway to Heaven" in case we want to watch the Tilden vs Gonzales vs Laver vs Federer match series to dilucidate who o those sinners is GOAT?
That conclusion has placed me in a terrible depressive state of mind
Rather than abjure of Led Zeppelin I prefer give up tennis forever since Zepp are the only real GOATSin Human Kingdom
You didn't read with enough attention, or I wasn't able to be clear (which is likely). I did not compare Safin's level with Budge and Kramer. I mentioned the possibility that Safin will remain in the history of the sport, not by true objective greatness, but because he is so highly regarded among his peers, and among the public. He is here in every discussion about peak level of play. I compared it with Budge, who is more known for being lauded by Kramer than for his achievements.
In the case of Hoad and Budge, we have few direct datas to rank them very high in a goat list. We have to rely on peer's evaluation, but we cannot control the reasons behind these evaluation. As Benhur said, it is convenient to a player to hype his rival, because if he dominate him, it makes him even better, and if he is dominated, he has an excellent excuse. Beside, Rosewall and Laver where extremely humble and polite person who certainly preferred congratulate fellows tennis players than criticize them.
It might become the same for Safin (it is just an hypothesis): like Hoad, he is very popular. Like Hoad, he beated the best here and there. Like Hoad, he wasn't dedicated enough.
Mmm you watch mister....weightlifting program in BG is class!
I don't want to comment about players who I haven't seen. However I don't think Bruguera or Courier or Muster is above Federer in clay. None of the other players faced Nadal. Federer has five french finals and if not for losing to Nadal in 2005 SF he could have been in six finals.
Guga has three titles, but he had a lot of off days on clay and he has lost to absolute nobodies on clay.
Roger on the other hand ever since he won a slam in 2003, he has lost at RG only to Guga, Nadal, Djokovic and Soderling. It's pretty impressive.
In the case of Budge, he is one of only two men to have won the Grand Slam. I think that is some data to rank him in the Top 10 of a GOAT list (IMHO).
While I think the comparison between Budge and Hoad is a good one, Safin doesn't belong in the same mix, because he did not have a few great years.
He won the US Open and the Australian, period, plus two Davis Cups.
This doesn't compare with Budge or Hoad, not even close. They both had great years, not just great tournaments.
Hoad played 120+ matches in 1958, and 150+ matches in 1959 with a 70% win ratio on the two championship tours of 1959.
Budge won professional tours head-to-head against Vines, Perry, and Riggs, plus classic Davis Cup matches against von Cramm, Bromwich, and Quist.
We are now entering barroom brawl territory as a means to establish a proper rating for Lew Hoad.
Don't forget Gonzales' quote above, that Hoad was the strongest and hardest-hitting player ever.
Hoad used a sawed-off racquet like a ping-pong bat to control the ball and his wrist action put heavy spin on the ball.
You claimed you don't watch tennis so you have no idea what's going on in the world of tennis. People including myself have watch modern tennis know experts/commentators/ex-players have said tennis continue to raises the bar. The only one who's dreaming is you.
Even if that was true, 10% of the players is quite a lot of players, because the open-era has produces so many players.
This is a great video of Rafa's road to his 7th FO crown last year.
Impressive, but among his titles there, I'd rank it his 6th best performance.
It's unfair to old greats that people today have access to Youtube videos with great quality. It kinda sway people's perpective, giving the idea that today's generation of players are faster and more powerful. Technology does sometimes give a bias narrative.
ARFED, It's not a case of convenient or not. It's just a fact that Laver and Rosewall played mostly with wood racquets. Wood was used much longer than poly as you know. Wood shows who really is a genius. With poly one can easier show fine shots even when not being that skilled...
With wood not only Nadal would lose some of his strength but also GOAT Federer would lose some of his skills. So I think Nadal would again have the edge against Roger.
Bud Collins is often asked if Federer is the GOAT (he ranks him among the top five). He uses to answer: "He can't beat Nadal"...
Separate names with a comma.