Ellsworth Vines vs Lew Hoad

[Vensai]

Both of these players had a reputation as being unbeatable when on, though inconsistently so. Kramer had the opinion that: "Both were very strong guys. Both succeeded at a very young age.... Also, both were very lazy guys. Vines lost interest in tennis (for golf) before he was thirty, and Hoad never appeared to be very interested. Despite their great natural ability, neither put up the outstanding records that they were capable of. Unfortunately, the latter was largely true because both had physical problems."

Who do you believe ranks higher overall?

 

[NatF]

Vines had the better career by some distance IMO.

 

[Vensai]

Vines had the better career by some distance IMO.

So you'd rank him higher than Hoad on a hypothetical GOAT list?

 

[NatF]

So you'd rank him higher than Hoad on a hypothetical GOAT list?

I would personally, both had much hyped levels of play when they were on. But Vines won more and Hoad was unfortunate with injuries. The competition at the top of the pro game in the late 50's/early 60's was abit higher though with Gonzales and Rosewall. But I'd still put Vines above Hoad.

 

[kiki]

Vines had the better career by some distance IMO.

Put a Marketing Agent in your life and your life will look as brilliant as Elsworth´s.

Hoad had a much tougher field to deal with.But Vines did very well against the likes of Perry and Budge.

Anyhow, Hoad spent many of his best years injuried.

 

[Vensai]

It sounds like between these inconsistent players, Vines was more consistent. But considering that Pancho Gonzales himself considered an on Hoad as unbeatable, I suspect Hoad's peak > Vines' peak. Unless someone has any clarifying counter evidence?

 

[NatF]

Put a Marketing Agent in your life and your life will look as brilliant as Elsworth´s.

Hoad had a much tougher field to deal with.But Vines did very well against the likes of Perry and Budge.

Anyhow, Hoad spent many of his best years injuried.

We don't know how Hoad would have done against better competition though. I prefer to go by achievements.

Hoad was definately unfortunate with injuries.

Funnily enough I've recently entered a career in marketing

 

[kiki]

We don't know how Hoad would have done against better competition though. I prefer to go by achievements.

Hoad was definately unfortunate with injuries.

Funnily enough I've recently entered a career in marketing

I wish you to find a new Vines for your career¡¡

 

[Vensai]

Lew Hoad Article

Here's an article on Lew Hoad: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/people/obituary-lew-hoad-1411724.html

He gets some significant praise for his peak play, notably from his rival and friend Pancho Gonzales.

 

[urban]

Both are tough to rank. Vines' Wim win over Bunny Austin in 1932, and Hoad's annihilation of Ashley Cooper in 1957 were seen as peak performances in Wim finals for a long time. Both had a meteoric rise in one year (1932, 1956), but fell apart the next year. Hoad was more compact built, but was prone to injuries, like other muscular players as Cash, Flipper or Becker. Vines resembled a bit on Sampras, with a comparable swift serve and a swinging big forehand. In some big five set matches he showed stamina problems, like Sampras later. Vines was longer pro nr. 1, especially against an aging Perry, was wasn't imo the factor as he pro he had been as an amateur. Hoad never really could dethrone Gonzalez, and in the early 60s, he was surpassed by Rosewall. So for the record maybe Vines, for allround, allcourt ability, especially regarding clay, Hoad.

 

[BobbyOne]

Both are tough to rank. Vines' Wim win over Bunny Austin in 1932, and Hoad's annihilation of Ashley Cooper in 1957 were seen as peak performances in Wim finals for a long time. Both had a meteoric rise in one year (1932, 1956), but fell apart the next year. Hoad was more compact built, but was prone to injuries, like other muscular players as Cash, Flipper or Becker. Vines resembled a bit on Sampras, with a comparable swift serve and a swinging big forehand. In some big five set matches he showed stamina problems, like Sampras later. Vines was longer pro nr. 1, especially against an aging Perry, was wasn't imo the factor as he pro he had been as an amateur. Hoad never really could dethrone Gonzalez, and in the early 60s, he was surpassed by Rosewall. So for the record maybe Vines, for allround, allcourt ability, especially regarding clay, Hoad.

urban, excellent analysis (as always, I would like to add).

I only disagree that Vines dominated an aging Perry. Perry then was only 28 and 29, in that era arguably the best time for a player.

 

[urban]

Domination is imo the wrong word for the pro encounters between Vines and Perry. Ray Bowers, who studied those years closely, often ranks them both Nr. 1, if i remember it right. The hth tours were always very close, with Vines overall having a slight edge. I know, that Kramer stated, that Vines carried Perry, to make more public and money, but this is speculation. I nevertheless think, that Perry had lost a bit of his sting, turning pro in 1937. While Vines and Budge had probably better stroke production, Perry's geatest asset was his supreme fitness, which he aquired by training with Arsenal. Perry was at his best in tough, intense five setters on grass. Like Emerson and Borg later, he relied on physical fitness and stamina. Budge described that quite convincingly in his account of the 1936 Forest Hills final. I would have liked to have seen Perry in best of five Wimbledon and Forest Hills finals vs. Vines in the years 1934-1936. Sadly the pro-am split prevented this. What would have this a great year in 1937 with Perry, Vines, Budge, von Cramm and Nüßlein all in the field, and all near their prime.

 

[Rosewall]

I read the Wiki on Ellsworth Vines. How does Bud Collins know Vines had a curious 360 degree windmill forehand starting with the racquet held high like he was going to serve? Bud was in diapers when Vines was winning championships. Is there another source for that comment? I understand it was common in that era to exaggerate getting the racquet head up high like a batter in baseball before swinging. If he had it held so high it looked like he was going to serve, that is some serious momentum with those heavy racquets. No wonder his flat forehand was feared.

 

[urban]

I think, Bud Collins studied video material, and some of the older players bios in his hsitory books came from Allison Danzig, the great sports writer of the 30s. to 60s. There was a video out in the US "The Greatest Tennis Players" with Glenn Miller music, where detailled films of Vines and Budge, Tilden and Kramer were shown. Some posters like Joe Sch know, what i am talking about. It was only for US systems, so i never could see it on my recorder. I have also a video by Fred Perry "Golden Moments of Tennis", where he talks about the alltime greats, including video material of Vines.

 

[BobbyOne]

Domination is imo the wrong word for the pro encounters between Vines and Perry. Ray Bowers, who studied those years closely, often ranks them both Nr. 1, if i remember it right. The hth tours were always very close, with Vines overall having a slight edge. I know, that Kramer stated, that Vines carried Perry, to make more public and money, but this is speculation. I nevertheless think, that Perry had lost a bit of his sting, turning pro in 1937. While Vines and Budge had probably better stroke production, Perry's geatest asset was his supreme fitness, which he aquired by training with Arsenal. Perry was at his best in tough, intense five setters on grass. Like Emerson and Borg later, he relied on physical fitness and stamina. Budge described that quite convincingly in his account of the 1936 Forest Hills final. I would have liked to have seen Perry in best of five Wimbledon and Forest Hills finals vs. Vines in the years 1934-1936. Sadly the pro-am split prevented this. What would have this a great year in 1937 with Perry, Vines, Budge, von Cramm and Nüßlein all in the field, and all near their prime.

urban, the 1938 tour was not close.

 

[BobbyOne]

I read the Wiki on Ellsworth Vines. How does Bud Collins know Vines had a curious 360 degree windmill forehand starting with the racquet held high like he was going to serve? Bud was in diapers when Vines was winning championships. Is there another source for that comment? I understand it was common in that era to exaggerate getting the racquet head up high like a batter in baseball before swinging. If he had it held so high it looked like he was going to serve, that is some serious momentum with those heavy racquets. No wonder his flat forehand was feared.

Rosewall, Bud Collins was 10 years old when Vines won his last championship...

 

[CaptainCool309]

I read the Wiki on Ellsworth Vines. How does Bud Collins know Vines had a curious 360 degree windmill forehand starting with the racquet held high like he was going to serve? Bud was in diapers when Vines was winning championships. Is there another source for that comment? I understand it was common in that era to exaggerate getting the racquet head up high like a batter in baseball before swinging. If he had it held so high it looked like he was going to serve, that is some serious momentum with those heavy racquets. No wonder his flat forehand was feared.

Here's some very good old footage of Ellsworth Vines facing off against Fred Perry in 1931. http://www.britishpathe.com/video/wonderful-tennis-1/query/ellsworth+vines
His forehand is fearsome! He hits it very hard and very flat, just so that it barely clears the net. I can see how on a good day that stroke could be absolutely devastating. He does have a good loop to it, unlike Perry who just takes the racquet straight back.

 

[Mustard]

urban, the 1938 tour was not close.

In 1937, Vines beat Perry on the big tour by 32-29. Perry beat Vines by 6-3 on a short British tour.

In 1938, Vines beat Perry on the big tour by 49-35. The short British tour was tied at 4-4.

In the 1930s, I consider the top professionals and top amateurs to be very neck and neck in terms of quality. There wasn't much difference between them. It's not until Kramer became the dominant professional player in the late 1940s that a big gap started to open up.

 

[BobbyOne]

In 1937, Vines beat Perry on the big tour by 32-29. Perry beat Vines by 6-3 on a short British tour.

In 1938, Vines beat Perry on the big tour by 49-35. The short British tour was tied at 4-4.

In the 1930s, I consider the top professionals and top amateurs to be very neck and neck in terms of quality. There wasn't much difference between them. It's not until Kramer became the dominant professional player in the late 1940s that a big gap started to open up.

Mustard, urban wrote about the main tour, not about any small tours.

 

[kiki]

Maybe, and it is a big maybe, the difference betwen both is that Vines had two of the mightiest ever shots (Serve and FH) while Hoad didn´t have a real dominant stroke.He was good at every shot.

 

[Phoenix1983]

I would rank Vines higher.

Hoad is a bit overrated I think. Sort of like a 1950s version of Safin.

 

[hoodjem]

I am starting to believe that this would be a stupendous match.

One for the ages!

 

[kiki]

Hoad like Safin?
You made a big backwards step here
But you were heading the right way in your last posts
You may reach our Golden Era shore through trial and error;-)

 

[Phoenix1983]

Hoad like Safin?
You made a big backwards step here
But you were heading the right way in your last posts
You may reach our Golden Era shore through trial and error;-)

They are very similar in that they're both considered to be "unbeatable at their best", but their achievements pale in comparison to their contemporaries.

Also they were both renowned as ladies' men.

 

[pc1]

I am starting to believe that this would be a stupendous match.

One for the ages!

The thing about this match is that historically these two seem to get the most votes for who is the greatest ever for one match.

Vines probably had the bigger serve and bigger forehand.

Hoad probably had the bigger backhand but Vines' backhand was awesome also.

Both has excellent volleys and overheads. Both were great athletes. Vines was a top college basketball player, a baseball player and later became one of the best golfers in the world.

Kramer to used said that if Vines was on you were lucky to get your racquet on the ball.

It's tough. I used to favor Vines and then I favored Hoad. Now I'm back on Vines' side again. Some who favor Vines at his best are Lott, Kramer, Bob Falkenburg, Danzig, Julius Heldman and many others.

People who favor Hoad are Ted Schoeder (who also thought Kovacs was better than Vines) and a number of others I can't remember. I know Vines himself (probably not including Vines) wrote that Hoad was invincible when "on" his game.

 

[Mustard]

Vines was certainly more dominant. He was the best in the world for years. Towards the end of his tennis career, soon after Budge deposed him, it sounds like Vines had lost all interest in tennis and decided to play golf instead.

It suggests that Vines played his best tennis more often than Hoad did.

 

[pc1]

Vines was certainly more dominant. He was the best in the world for years. Towards the end of his tennis career, soon after Budge deposed him, it sounds like Vines had lost all interest in tennis and decided to play golf instead.

It suggests that Vines played his best tennis more often than Hoad did.

Vines had a lot of injuries around his shoulder area when he was playing Budge. It was not indicative of his true strength. I have some information that makes that very clear. He could barely lift his right arm at times. Vines knew at the time that unless he healed miraculously he wouldn't stand a chance against Budge. At time the first tour was close at 22 to 17 or 21 to 18.

 

[pc1]

Vines was certainly more dominant. He was the best in the world for years. Towards the end of his tennis career, soon after Budge deposed him, it sounds like Vines had lost all interest in tennis and decided to play golf instead.

It suggests that Vines played his best tennis more often than Hoad did.

I don't know if it was the golf but it is clear that he didn't want to play tennis much anymore at that time and wanted to go home to his family.

I think athletics came easily for him and he needed new interests and challenges.

 

[BobbyOne]

Vines was certainly more dominant. He was the best in the world for years. Towards the end of his tennis career, soon after Budge deposed him, it sounds like Vines had lost all interest in tennis and decided to play golf instead.

It suggests that Vines played his best tennis more often than Hoad did.

Mustard, That's absolutely true. A different question is who was stronger in their best match?

 

[joe sch]

I think, Bud Collins studied video material, and some of the older players bios in his hsitory books came from Allison Danzig, the great sports writer of the 30s. to 60s. There was a video out in the US "The Greatest Tennis Players" with Glenn Miller music, where detailled films of Vines and Budge, Tilden and Kramer were shown. Some posters like Joe Sch know, what i am talking about. It was only for US systems, so i never could see it on my recorder. I have also a video by Fred Perry "Golden Moments of Tennis", where he talks about the alltime greats, including video material of Vines.

Urban, If you still have not viewed the "Kings of the Court tennis video" I can send you a DVD copy that is region free. I know you would enjoy the narrative and video clips.

Joe

 

[Dan L]

Here's an article on Lew Hoad: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/people/obituary-lew-hoad-1411724.html

He gets some significant praise for his peak play, notably from his rival and friend Pancho Gonzales.

This article repeats the usual mistake of excluding Hoad's most significant pro achievements, the two tournament championships.

His consistency was reflected in his money earnings in 1958 and 1959, which were the top for the pros.

 

[Dan L]

Both are tough to rank. Vines' Wim win over Bunny Austin in 1932, and Hoad's annihilation of Ashley Cooper in 1957 were seen as peak performances in Wim finals for a long time. Both had a meteoric rise in one year (1932, 1956), but fell apart the next year. Hoad was more compact built, but was prone to injuries, like other muscular players as Cash, Flipper or Becker. Vines resembled a bit on Sampras, with a comparable swift serve and a swinging big forehand. In some big five set matches he showed stamina problems, like Sampras later. Vines was longer pro nr. 1, especially against an aging Perry, was wasn't imo the factor as he pro he had been as an amateur. Hoad never really could dethrone Gonzalez, and in the early 60s, he was surpassed by Rosewall. So for the record maybe Vines, for allround, allcourt ability, especially regarding clay, Hoad.

I would rate Hoad number one pro for 1958 and 1959, if you include the pro season as a whole.

 

[Dan L]

Here's some very good old footage of Ellsworth Vines facing off against Fred Perry in 1931. http://www.britishpathe.com/video/wonderful-tennis-1/query/ellsworth+vines
His forehand is fearsome! He hits it very hard and very flat, just so that it barely clears the net. I can see how on a good day that stroke could be absolutely devastating. He does have a good loop to it, unlike Perry who just takes the racquet straight back.

Hoad had a much greater variety of strokes than Vines, using a sawed-off racquet handle and a SINGLE grip for all shots.

Completely different styles.

 

[Dan L]

I would rank Vines higher.

Hoad is a bit overrated I think. Sort of like a 1950s version of Safin.

Safin could only win majors on rubber, not grass or clay.

Hoad was devastating on all surfaces, and had a greater variety of weapons.

Hoad was probably much stronger physically than Vines, especially over five sets.

 

[hoodjem]

It's tough. I used to favor Vines and then I favored Hoad. Now I'm back on Vines' side again. Some who favor Vines at his best are Lott, Kramer, Bob Falkenburg, Danzig, Julius Heldman and many others.

People who favor Hoad are Ted Schoeder (who also thought Kovacs was better than Vines) and a number of others I can't remember. I know Vines himself (probably not including Vines) wrote that Hoad was invincible when "on" his game.

That's okay. "The more you learn, the more you know. The more you know, the more you realise you really know nothing."

Changing one's mind is not necessarily an indication of failure, inconsistency, or contradiction.

It's a sign of intellectual growth.

 

[pc1]

That's okay. "The more you learn, the more you know."

Changing one's mind is not necessarily an indication of failure, inconsistency, or contradiction.

It's a sign of intellectual growth.

Of course. I have changed my mind on numerous things on tennis. I used to think Jack Kramer was overrated a few years ago and had told a few people of my opinion of him. However in receiving more information about him from experts and people very close to him I revised my opinion. I also realized my parameters for rating greats like Kramer are off and had to be revised. My system of ranking players is often changing due to some improvements and more data. Vines has moved up because I found more information (letters) supporting his greatness. Some others have moved down.

In many ways I like disagreements as long as it's civil. I can always learn more. I never want to be locked into one answer and not be willing to change.

 

[pc1]

By the way with me the more I learn the more I realize how little I know.

 

[hoodjem]

By the way with me the more I learn the more I realize how little I know.

Moi aussi.

(I tell my students that all the time.)

 

[kiki]

That's okay. "The more you learn, the more you know."

Changing one's mind is not necessarily an indication of failure, inconsistency, or contradiction.

It's a sign of intellectual growth.

"The more you know, the more you realise you really know nothing"

 

[urban]

Joe Sch, many thanks for the offer. I understand that i could contact You on Your fine webside woodtennis.

 

[Dan Lobb]

Vines was certainly more dominant. He was the best in the world for years. Towards the end of his tennis career, soon after Budge deposed him, it sounds like Vines had lost all interest in tennis and decided to play golf instead.

It suggests that Vines played his best tennis more often than Hoad did.

Hoad and Vines were both consistent players who had several outstanding years. Neither player deserved the reputation of being inconsistent or of lacking desire.

Hoad played against a much deeper professional field than Vines did, Vines played most of his pro matches against an old Tilden, Stoefen, Perry (whose backhand let him down in a long series), Nusslein, and Budge (Vines hampered by pulled muscles for the five matches he lost in a row, which determined the outcome).

Vines had the world No. 1 ranking in some ranking lists for about six years. 1932, 1934, 1935, 1936, 1937, 1938.
Hoad played against stronger fields in both the amateur and professional circuits. He was No. 1 for 1953 (Chatrier), 1956 (Chatrier, Tingay, Potter), 1958 (on the money list), 1959 (on the points system and money list), 1961 (Mulloy), and 1962 (UPI poll). Also six years.

World number 1 ranked male tennis players - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[thrust]

Hoad and Vines were both consistent players who had several outstanding years. Neither player deserved the reputation of being inconsistent or of lacking desire.

Hoad played against a much deeper professional field than Vines did, Vines played most of his pro matches against an old Tilden, Stoefen, Perry (whose backhand let him down in a long series), Nusslein, and Budge (Vines hampered by pulled muscles for the five matches he lost in a row, which determined the outcome).

Vines had the world No. 1 ranking in some ranking lists for about six years. 1932, 1934, 1935, 1936, 1937, 1938.
Hoad played against stronger fields in both the amateur and professional circuits. He was No. 1 for 1953 (Chatrier), 1956 (Chatrier, Tingay, Potter), 1958 (on the money list), 1959 (on the points system and money list), 1961 (Mulloy), and 1962 (UPI poll). Also six years.

World number 1 ranked male tennis players - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

IMHO, Hoad was #1 in 56, 58, and 59. No way was he #1 in 61,62 or IMO-53 when he won 0 slams while Rosewall won 2 slams in 53

 

[Dan Lobb]

IMHO, Hoad was #1 in 56, 58, and 59. No way was he #1 in 61,62 or IMO-53 when he won 0 slams while Rosewall won 2 slams in 53

Well, in fact, Hoad was indeed ranked No. 1 for 1953, 1961 and 1962 in contemporary rankings. Rosewall became official No. 1 in 1963 and 1964.

No one ranked Rosewall No. 1 for 1953, except for certain Rosewall fans writing many decades later.

 

[thrust]

Well, in fact, Hoad was indeed ranked No. 1 for 1953, 1961 and 1962 in contemporary rankings. Rosewall became official No. 1 in 1963 and 1964.

No one ranked Rosewall No. 1 for 1953, except for certain Rosewall fans writing many decades later.

Wikipedia has Rosewall and Gonzalez jointly ranked #1 in 60, 61-62. Rosewall was ranked #1 in 63 and 64 according to the pro tour ranking systems. Ken wins 2 majors in 53, Lew does nothing at any of the majors yet, because he is the darling of the writers etc. he gets the #1 ranking for winning a few lesser tournaments in Australia at the end of the year. Rosewall was never the favortite of the sports writers and some others because he was not as flashly as Lew or Pancho. I acknowledge that, overall, Pancho and Laver were superior to Ken but as far as Lew is concerned, as good as he could be on a given day he was inconsistent. As far as his injuries are concerned, perhaps they were caused by his game style and over training, especially with weights.

 

[Dan Lobb]

Wikipedia has Rosewall and Gonzalez jointly ranked #1 in 60, 61-62. Rosewall was ranked #1 in 63 and 64 according to the pro tour ranking systems. Ken wins 2 majors in 53, Lew does nothing at any of the majors yet, because he is the darling of the writers etc. he gets the #1 ranking for winning a few lesser tournaments in Australia at the end of the year. Rosewall was never the favortite of the sports writers and some others because he was not as flashly as Lew or Pancho. I acknowledge that, overall, Pancho and Laver were superior to Ken but as far as Lew is concerned, as good as he could be on a given day he was inconsistent. As far as his injuries are concerned, perhaps they were caused by his game style and over training, especially with weights.

Wikipedia does not make any ranking lists of its own.

For 1960, only Kramer put out a ranking list, with Gonzales #1, Sedgman (who had a poor year) #2, and Rosewall #3. This was not an annual ranking, because Kramer gave out the identical list in 1958, 1959 and 1960 disregarding the actual play on the court.

Kramer created an offical points list for 1959, which he desperately attempted to salvage when it looked like Gonzales was prepared to concede the No. 1 spot to Hoad and skip the final tournament.

In 1961, Gonzales won the official No. 1 on the world tour, Rosewall was No. 1 in the Equipe magazine list, and Tennis de France did not make any pro rankings, although in an editorial Rosewall was mentioned as No. 1. Hoad was ranked No. 1 by Mulloy, who also picked Hoad as the favouite to win a prospective open Wimbledon.

There were no official rankings for 1962, Rosewall picked himself as No. 1 but the UPI poll of sports editors put Hoad at No. 1 and Rosewall at No. 3 behind Laver.

Rosewall won his first offical No. 1 in 1963 on the world tour, and also in 1964 on the tournament points system.

No one picked Rosewall as No. 1 for 1953, presumably because he faded as the year progressed and Trabert did not play the French. Hoad won several tournaments in Australia with the strongest player fields present plus the Davis Cup over Trabert.

Hoad was 6-0 against Rosewall on the year, that was not just some flashy reporting, but reality. Rosewall was too inconsistent to win No. 1. Despite Hoad's injuries, he was a more consistent player than Rosewall on both the amateur circuit and also the world pro tours.

 

[GuyForget]

i read once that for the ace Vines served on the final point of the 1932 W final, Bunny Austin didnt know which side it passed him on. When Becker initially exploded on the scene in 85-86, we has compared a lot to Hoad

 

[Dan Lobb]

i read once that for the ace Vines served on the final point of the 1932 W final, Bunny Austin didnt know which side it passed him on. When Becker initially exploded on the scene in 85-86, we has compared a lot to Hoad

Becker was less consistent than Hoad in annual rankings, and Becker lacked Hoad's lightning foot speed and range of shots. Becker was heavier and less mobile than Hoad.

Hoad used one grip for everything and did not have to change grips for volleying, his finishing shot.

Becker frequently changed grips during play , according to AI,

"Boris Becker did change grips, but his iconic serve grip was a unique "semi-continental" or "Aussie grip" (between Eastern Forehand & Continental), which allowed him to generate massive power and spin, while he used a more traditional, closed grip (closer to Eastern/Semi-Western) for his groundstrokes, especially the forehand, but his single-handed backhand (a major weapon) relied heavily on wrist action with a closed grip, changing from his forehand grip.
Here's a breakdown:

• Serve: He used a unique grip, often described as an Eastern Forehand or a semi-continental, allowing for great wrist snap and pronation for power, unlike the modern full Continental.
• Forehand: He primarily used a strong Eastern or Semi-Western grip for topspin groundstrokes, a significant shift from his serve.
• Backhand (One-Handed): He employed a closed grip, similar to his forehand but adjusted for the backhand, using his wrist to slice and hit topspin, a different feel than his forehand.
• The Change: While many players change from Continental to Eastern/Semi-Western, Becker's unique serve grip meant he made a significant shift to a stronger, more closed grip for his groundstrokes, even if some thought he used the same grip for everything.

In essence, Becker didn't stick to one grip; he adapted unique grips for each shot, especially differentiating his powerful, unique serve from his groundstrokes. "

 

[Dan Lobb]

Here is the AI comparison of the tennis games of Vines and Hoad,

"Ellsworth Vines and Lew Hoad were both considered potentially the greatest players ever at their absolute peak but shared a reputation for inconsistency due to a lack of sustained interest and physical issues. Their playing styles were characterized by immense power, though they employed different tactical approaches.
Ellsworth Vines (1930s)

• Key Weapons: Vines was known for an overwhelmingly powerful, flat serve and a huge, flat forehand that he hit with a unique, nearly 360-degree "windmill" motion. When "on" his game, his opponents were lucky to get their racquet on the ball.
• Style: He was a lanky, all-court player who could hit winners from the baseline but lacked variety in his shots, relying almost exclusively on pure power. Opponents found success by keeping the ball in play with softer shots until he started making errors.
• Weaknesses: He had stamina problems in long, five-set matches and struggled with consistency, sometimes losing interest in major competitions like the Davis Cup or failing to defend titles.
• Legacy: Many experts and contemporaries, including Jack Kramer and Don Budge, rated Vines as the best player at his peak.

Lew Hoad (1950s)

• Key Weapons: Hoad possessed immense physical strength, particularly in his wrist and forearm, which generated a "court bruiser" serve and powerful, early ball drives with topspin. He had a greater variety of shots than Vines, including a strong attacking backhand and exceptional volleys and overheads.
• Style: Hoad was a well-built, aggressive, all-court player who went for winners constantly, disdaining long rallies. His game had more subtlety and tactical variation than Vines', allowing him to perform well on all surfaces, including clay.
• Weaknesses: His career was significantly hampered by persistent, severe back injuries that were later found to be two ruptured discs. Like Vines, he was also known for lapses in concentration and not always working as hard as his talent suggested he could.
• Legacy: Hoad's contemporaries, including Rod Laver and Pancho Gonzales, often cited him as the greatest player in the world when he was at his best.

In essence, Vines was a spectacular, high-risk, high-reward power player with fewer tactical dimensions, while Hoad was a more complete all-court player who combined immense strength with greater stroke variety, although both struggled with consistency and physical issues that prevented them from sustained dominance."

 

[GuyForget]

Max Roberson gave this as his all-time Wimbledon seedings list in his 1987 book (I sense he goes on peak level +raw power over cumulative achievements):

• Boris Becker
• Lew Hoad
• Pancho Gonzales
• Rod Laver
• John McEnroe
• Jack Kramer
• Frank Sedgman
• Bjorn Borg
• Ken Rosewall
• Tony Trabert
• Jimmy Connors
• John Newcombe
• Roy Emerson
• Jaroslav Drobny
• Budge Patty
• Neale Fraser

of Borg, he said: "I firmly believe that if Borg had been playing in the eras of the great serve—volleyers he would never have won five Wimbledons running... Borg was most vulnerable to the big serve and volley, and McEnroe, who always gave him trouble, was in the end ‘too much for him. I even believe in my heart that Trabert, Newcombe and Emerson would have beaten him two times out of three. But undoubtedly Borg was the greatest clay-court player."

 

[Dan Lobb]

Here is a brief footage of Vines playing at the 1933 Wimbledon final against Crawford.

https://www.nfsa.gov.au/collection/curated/asset/98569-jack-crawford-champion