We do not know how strong Kramer was in 1957, every player worked for him, and he handles the money...I would not beat him badly under those circumstances.
Dan, Rosewall did...
We do not know how strong Kramer was in 1957, every player worked for him, and he handles the money...I would not beat him badly under those circumstances.
Sorry.hoodjem, If you mean Rosewall, he played against Kramer often in 1957, once in 1958 and not at all in 1959, as far as I know. Kramer was very strong in 1957 against Segura and Hoad, beating even Gonzalez at Wembley.
Sorry.
According to https://thetennisbase.com/?enlace=playern&player_input_enc=KRAMER,+JACK&player_input=&sub=6&apartado=6&subH2H=1&player2_head=ROSEWALL, KEN#aSubmenu
Kramer and Muscles played once in 1959 at the Wembly Pro Challenge in the round of 16.
Rosewall won 8-6, 6-4.
It appears that they played 20 times in 1957, two times in 1958, and once in 1959.
According to this source, Rosewall leads the H2H: 21-2.
PC1 will have to answer that. (I am not that well-informed of the medical details of Kramer's biography.)At what point was Kramer suffering from arthritis?
Sorry.
According to https://thetennisbase.com/?enlace=playern&player_input_enc=KRAMER,+JACK&player_input=&sub=6&apartado=6&subH2H=1&player2_head=ROSEWALL, KEN#aSubmenu
Kramer and Muscles played once in 1959 at the Wembly Pro Challenge in the round of 16.
Rosewall won 8-6, 6-4.
It appears that they played 20 times in 1957, two times in 1958, and once in 1959.
According to this source, Rosewall leads the H2H: 21-2. (Your 22-2 number suggests that you know of at least one other match.)
Thanks for the Wimbledon 1967 footage. It was indeed a World Championship match and tourney for the pros, in all aspects: It had the best venue (Centre Court), the by far best attendance (15ooo people) for the whole pro period, the best media coverage (first colour tv transmission by the BBC) and the best prize money for the winner. I don't know exactly the pound and dollar reference status in 1967, but 3000 pounds is way more than the 3000 $, which got the US pro winner (and the US pro indoor winner). I think the Wembley winner got 1000 pounds. Imo, it was the most prominent of all pro tournaments ever, together with the 1948 US pro, and the 1957 version of the Forest Hills round robin.
At what point was Kramer suffering from arthritis?
PC1 will have to answer that. (I am not that well-informed of the medical details of Kramer's biography.)
At what point was Kramer suffering from arthritis?
Good info. Thank you! It would seem to contradict another opinion of this event.
And look what happened to Rosewall..locked out of the 1959 4-man tour, not invited to 1960 (received offer after Hoad declined), not invited to the 1961 championship tour.....get the point? Now, I know that this was partly due to Hoad's better showings against Gonzales, but still...Dan, Rosewall did...
To be honest I don't think Kramer thought he was as big a gate attraction as Hoad and I don't think he thought he had as much of a chance against Gonzalez. It's clear from Kramer's book he did not think Rosewall was on the same level as Gonzalez.And look what happened to Rosewall..locked out of the 1959 4-man tour, not invited to 1960 (received offer after Hoad declined), not invited to the 1961 championship tour.....get the point? Now, I know that this was partly due to Hoad's better showings against Gonzales, but still...
True, but still it was bad business for Rosewall to run up the score against his boss.To be honest I don't think Kramer thought he was as big a gate attraction as Hoad and I don't think he thought he had as much of a chance against Gonzalez. It's clear from Kramer's book he did not think Rosewall was on the same level as Gonzalez.
I think it was fine to do his best. Kramer used to crush Riggs and Gonzalez without regard to the gate being hurt by the one sided scores.True, but still it was bad business for Rosewall to run up the score against his boss.
Yah, but Kramer was a fierce competitor, did not like to lose.I think it was fine to do his best. Kramer used to crush Riggs and Gonzalez without regard to the gate being hurt by the one sided scores.
And look what happened to Rosewall..locked out of the 1959 4-man tour, not invited to 1960 (received offer after Hoad declined), not invited to the 1961 championship tour.....get the point? Now, I know that this was partly due to Hoad's better showings against Gonzales, but still...
I find it convincing that this is the implicit point (in terms of crowd-attraction or ability).To be honest I don't think Kramer thought he was as big a gate attraction as Hoad and I don't think he thought he had as much of a chance against Gonzalez.
It's clear from Kramer's book he did not think Rosewall was on the same level as Gonzalez.
Where do you see that Rosewall was invited to the 1961 tour?Dan, Don't tell us wrong things. Rosewall was invited to the 1961 tour but refused due to family matters.
Segura did try in the 1957 European/African/Asian tour and yet was out-edged by Kramer. Segura was invited to the 1960 tour (and played it).
No doubt. In any competition we want to see something competitive instead of a one sided result.I find it convincing that this is the implicit point (in terms of crowd-attraction or ability).
Where do you see that Rosewall was invited to the 1961 tour?
Yes, I see McCauley's reference, but he gives no source for that.Dan, In McCauley, page 108. Olmedo was Ken's substitute. It's funny that you doubt all what I write about Rosewall. Even though I may not be an expert for other players, I yet know a little bit about Muscles...
In early 1961 Ken's second boy, Glenn, was born. Rosewall did not play the first seven months of the year.
Without Rosewall (and with a partly injured Hoad) the world series of 1961 was hardly a true world championship series.
Yes, I see McCauley's reference, but he gives no source for that.
is it then fair to say that you created this thread mainly for the purpose of proving Bobby wrong?
i would say you´re on a mission too
Perhaps it would help you to understand why I created this thread if you read the entire thread before coming to any conclusions. I created this thread to bring some reason, rationality and honesty to the discussion, in the face of a continuous, ongoing, repeated, carpet bombing of this board with outlandish, preposterous and outright false claims about Rosewall and his career.
I did read the entire thread. And with your above post you basically confirm my 'conclusion'
I am sure that McCauley received this information from somewhere, but if it is a good source there is no reason for him not to mention the source.Dan, You have excellent chances to be called "The doubting Thomas".
You often are claiming things without giving sources. It's telling that you doubt even meticulously researching Joe McCauley...
When ever will you accept a statement of mine without doubts and contradictions and counter- "arguments"??
Perhaps it would help you to understand why I created this thread if you read the entire thread before coming to any conclusions. I created this thread to bring some reason, rationality and honesty to the discussion, in the face of a continuous, ongoing, repeated, carpet bombing of this board with outlandish, preposterous and outright false claims about Rosewall and his career.
Then you have mischaracterized and/or misunderstood my purpose. I am not trying to prove anything. I am rebutting what others are trying to prove. We are not status aequalis.
I am sure that McCauley received this information from somewhere, but if it is a good source there is no reason for him not to mention the source.
Where else do we hear of this information?
Normally McCauley provides a source for this type of information...why did he avoid doing so here, for a piece of information which hardly anyone would know?Dan, Joe did not pretend to make a scientific examination of all things in the pro scene. He just wanted to write (the very first!) history of professional tennis. And he succeeded. If he would have wanted to quote all sources that he had, his book would have been much more voluminous and difficult to read.
I don't understand your logic and opinions since four years, Doubting Thomas!
Then you have mischaracterized and/or misunderstood my purpose. I am not trying to prove anything. I am rebutting what others are trying to prove. We are not status aequalis.
Normally McCauley provides a source for this type of information...why did he avoid doing so here, for a piece of information which hardly anyone would know?
Normally McCauley provides a source for this type of information...why did he avoid doing so here, for a piece of information which hardly anyone would know?
Dan,Dan, Joe often did not provide sources for his claims and statements. He was a first-class source himself as he was one of the most meticulous researchers at all.
I'm sure the circumstances of the 1961 world series were known to several experts and the public at that time.
It seems as though you only doubt his information here because you don't want to accept that Rosewall was invited to the 1961 tour.
You cannot be "a source by yourself", that sounds like an invention.Dan, Joe often did not provide sources for his claims and statements. He was a first-class source himself as he was one of the most meticulous researchers at all.
I'm sure the circumstances of the 1961 world series were known to several experts and the public at that time.
It seems as though you only doubt his information here because you don't want to accept that Rosewall was invited to the 1961 tour.
EDIT:
By the way, Rosewall also had been invited to the 1960 tour (and played it) even though he had beaten Kramer so badly in 1957...
You cannot be "a source by yourself", that sounds like an invention.
Rosewall was a substitute in 1960.
Dan,You cannot be "a source by yourself", that sounds like an invention.
Rosewall was a substitute in 1960.
He cannot be a "source" for his own writings, he must have learned this information from someone else.Dan, Joe McCauley is a very serious source for most of us -but not for you...
I would like to see some confirmation of that, because it would be unusual for Kramer to have Gonzales, Hoad, and Rosewall all on the same tour.Dan,
I understand your logic. I actually found a few errors including a huge error in McCauley's book "The History of Professional Tennis." However as far as 1961 is concerned I believe Bobby is correct.
I may have read it somewhere but it may be just that Bobby told me. I'll see if I can find it when I get home.I would like to see some confirmation of that, because it would be unusual for Kramer to have Gonzales, Hoad, and Rosewall all on the same tour.
I would like to see some confirmation of that, because it would be unusual for Kramer to have Gonzales, Hoad, and Rosewall all on the same tour.
I am trying to support Joe's conclusions, but we need facts, not hunches.Dan, I would like to see you at least ONCE not doubting statements that are not comfortable for you.
If you don't trust Joe McCauley, make your own research and publish a book where you can disprove Joe!!