Head to Heads - Hoad/Laver, Newcombe/Laver, Newcombe/Emerson

[timnz]

Hello,

I am trying to find these head to head statistics. I know that Laver lost his first 8 matches against Hoad (only 1 set actually), but would like to know the total head to head match scores.

Similarly Newcombe vs Emerson - I have heard that Newcombe didn't beat Emerson until Emerson was 33 years old. Haven't had verification of that though.

Laver vs Newcombe would be interesting too.

 

[urban]

I have for Laver-Newcombe something like 14-3 after 1968-1974. I read, that Newcombe beat Laver once in a minor tournament in Australia at the end of 1962. Maybe there were more amateur matches in Australia, before Laver turned pro. Laver's head to head with his idol Hoad changed after the first tour series in Australia and NZ in January 1963, when Hoad beat the new pro in connection with Rosewall. Hoad won all 8 January encounters, but Laver got a few sets more than one. He beat Hoad for the first time at LA in spring i think, and in 1963, the head to head ended like 12-5 or 6 in favor of Hoad.I must check McCauley for the precise results, but i assume, that 1963-1966 Laver had overall a slight edge, because after 1963 Laver won the majority of their matches. I found in McCauleys book, if i count it right a 7-1 and 6-1 lead for Laver for 1964 and 1965, and 8-3 for 1966 (this includes round robins and third plac playoffs). Andrew Tas added to McCauleys findings some results of a Queensland pro tour in 1964, where Laver also won the majority of their matches. I wouldn't read too much into this head-to head, because in their first encounters, Laver was a novice on the pro series format (Hoad himself was 2-14 in his first pro series in 1957), and later on, Hoad with his ailing back, wasn't that big of a factor on the pro tour anymore. In 1964 he ended at the 6th place among the pros.
Andrew Tas has in general the best results, one can anywhere find, of the Australian matches. So he will know more about the Emmo-Newk confrontations.

 

[jeffreyneave]

head to head

Laver v newcombe is about 16-5 for laver, which i think includes a couple of matches in the amateur period and their last match in detriot 1976 november which laver won in a 4 man event

Laver vs hoad (probably in complete because macauley often does not list all the matches in an event and sometimes has only has the result of the final )

1963 12-6 hoad
1964 18-2 laver (incudes 7-1 queensland tour for laver and one match in new
zealand besides macauley results)
1965 5-1 laver
1966 8-3 laver

this makes so far a score of 37-12 for laver


ask andrew tas for newcombe/emerson because he has pre 1967 results


jeffrey

 

[urban]

Thanks Jeffrey, that Laver-Newombe match at Detroit in 1976 is new to me.

 

[timnz]

Thanks!

THanks for the input

 

[urban]

Jeffrey, the ATP side had/has a result of a match Laver-Newcombe 6-1,6-0 from March 1971 at Wembley, second round. I have some doubts about this match, and i recall, that i read somewhere, that it was Hewitt, who lost to Laver. Maybe You know more about it. Is it a false information by the ATP?

 

[d-quik]

as soon as i become commisioner of the atp, we're going back to wood right away. first thing, no joke. just wait.

 

[jeffreyneave]

albert hall 1971

This atp information is false

Newcombe lost to pilic in the qf. Laver and newcombe were the top seeds and would not meet in a qf.


jeffrey

 

[timnz]

Newcombe/Emerson head to head?

Anyone got figures for a true head to head total of Newcombe vs Emerson? I have heard that Emerson dominates that total (including Amateur, Pro and Open years).

 

[AndrewTas]

Emerson vs. Newcombe

Unfortunately I dont have all the match-ups between Newc and Emmo. I believe that their head-to-head was 17-6 with Emmo leading. I did read from the 1967 review in World Tennis that Emerson defeated Newcombe in their first 13 matches and then Newc defeated Emmo in the semis of the 1966 South Australian. At the moment I am missing 4 matches between 1961 and 1966, all in Europe or America. After the 1966 South Australian they met 10 times and they split their matches.

As for Hoad vs. Laver and Newcombe/ Laver I have Laver leading Hoad 38-15 and Laver leading Newcombe 16-6. I have no evidence of the 1976 match between the two.

 

[timnz]

Emerson vs Newcombe 17-6 in Emerson's favour!

Thanks very much Andrew. Wow match up to Newcombe 17-6 in Emersons favour! (understood that you don't have all the results yet). Generally you hear people rating Newcombe higher than him because Newcombe won Majors in the Open era and Emerson didn't. However, the main reason is that Emerson was 31 or 32 at the beginning of the Open era.

If people say that Emerson won more against Newcombe because they first played when Newcombe was a teenager (Emerson is 7 1/2 years older), that can be balanced by the fact that Newcombe played Emerson at his peak 20's age range when Emerson was in his Mid-30's at the end of the rivalry. One balances off the other.

So my main point is that Emerson is largely underrated by the simplistic statement 'oh he won all his majors during the amateur era'. But we just don't know how a peak Emerson would have performed if he had been a professional or if the Open era had started say at the beginning of the 60's (which was considered, but that is another story). His record against Newcombe suggests he would have done at least as well as Newcombe if not better.

 

[jeffreyneave]

laver hoad

hello andrew ,
thanks for your newcombe emerson results which i do not have.


your research on laver hoad is better than mine. you have 38 wins for laver to my 37. could you please list all of laver's wins so i could spot the difference


jeffrey

 

[hoodjem]

When did Hoad retire?

 

[jeffreyneave]

hoad retirement

hoad stopped playing full-time tennis at the end of 1966; he started to run a tennis ranch in spain. he still entred tournaments after that; in '69 he played the full dewar cup circuit in britain;he was most active in 1970 playing the french, wimbledon and italian tournaments; he always entred any international class event in spain. his last important match was the doubles final in rome 1972 with mcmillan where hoad walked off the court in 5th set in protest at the gamesmanship of tiriac and nastase

jeffrey

 

[Dan Lobb]

I have for Laver-Newcombe something like 14-3 after 1968-1974. I read, that Newcombe beat Laver once in a minor tournament in Australia at the end of 1962. Maybe there were more amateur matches in Australia, before Laver turned pro. Laver's head to head with his idol Hoad changed after the first tour series in Australia and NZ in January 1963, when Hoad beat the new pro in connection with Rosewall. Hoad won all 8 January encounters, but Laver got a few sets more than one. He beat Hoad for the first time at LA in spring i think, and in 1963, the head to head ended like 12-5 or 6 in favor of Hoad.I must check McCauley for the precise results, but i assume, that 1963-1966 Laver had overall a slight edge, because after 1963 Laver won the majority of their matches. I found in McCauleys book, if i count it right a 7-1 and 6-1 lead for Laver for 1964 and 1965, and 8-3 for 1966 (this includes round robins and third plac playoffs). Andrew Tas added to McCauleys findings some results of a Queensland pro tour in 1964, where Laver also won the majority of their matches. I wouldn't read too much into this head-to head, because in their first encounters, Laver was a novice on the pro series format (Hoad himself was 2-14 in his first pro series in 1957), and later on, Hoad with his ailing back, wasn't that big of a factor on the pro tour anymore. In 1964 he ended at the 6th place among the pros.
Andrew Tas has in general the best results, one can anywhere find, of the Australian matches. So he will know more about the Emmo-Newk confrontations.

According to Laver himself and Butch Bucholz, who were both present, the 1963 tour was 13 to 0 for Hoad. (I have the references, if anyone has doubts.)
In early 1964, Hoad and Laver did a hth of Laver's home state, which ended in a final score of 8 to 0 for Laver,
However, the following month, Hoad beat Laver 3 to 1 as part of a four-man tour of New Zealand.
Hoad and Laver tied for first place at 7 to 5, with Rosewall third place, Anderson fourth.
Hoad's edge over Laver gave him first place overall (according to Andrew Tas).

 

[pc1]

According to Laver himself and Butch Bucholz, who were both present, the 1963 tour was 13 to 0 for Hoad. (I have the references, if anyone has doubts.)
In early 1964, Hoad and Laver did a hth of Laver's home state, which ended in a final score of 8 to 0 for Laver,
However, the following month, Hoad beat Laver 3 to 1 as part of a four-man tour of New Zealand.
Hoad and Laver tied for first place at 7 to 5, with Rosewall third place, Anderson fourth.
Hoad's edge over Laver gave him first place overall (according to Andrew Tas).

Please give the references of the 13 to 0 in favor of Hoad and the scores please.

 

[Dan Lobb]

Please give the references of the 13 to 0 in favor of Hoad and the scores please.

The Bucholz interview was in 04/04/2007 in Bodo's Tennis World, where Bucholz describes his witnessing Hoad drink all night before his matches with Laver, and then win the matches, all 13 of them.
Bucholz rates Hoad #1 of all time, as does Laver himself, who claims he lost the first 14 of his matches against Hoad (in the DVD of the top ten all-time narrated by John Forsythe, 1997).
The Laver interview and the DVD is now available for general order.
The only scores I have seen were reported in the London Times and New York Times, and also the McCauley book, who wrongly claims that the final Hoad-Laver score was 8 to 0. This score also appears in Collins book on Laver, published 1971, perhaps the source for McCauley. Actually, 8 to 0 was the score of the Laver-Hoad tour of 1964 in Laver's home state, which was followed by a 3 to 1 edge for Hoad in the four-man tour of New Zealand. Perhaps Laver provided the faulty source of the 8 to 0 from his memory of the 1964 tour.

 

[urban]

The score of 8-0 for Hoad in January 1963 also appears in the 1964 Laver book Tennis- The winning way, by Jack Pollard. As Pollard was also the shadowwriter of Hoad, i assume, that this early reference is right. McCauley has the score of 7 matches in Australia/ NZ, maybe one more win for Hoad was played in the US later. If we are talking about the Australia-NZ series with the doubleheader Laver-Hoad, and Laver- Rosewall, Laver had to deal with both of them each meeting within two days, what he himself calls putting his head into a cement mixer. The score of the first Laver-Rosewall series in Australia and NZ was 2-11, 2-3 in Australia, 0-8 in NZ. Maybe that explains the false 13 matches score.

 

[hoodjem]

Speaking of Hoad and certain H2Hs, Hoad defeated Muscles in the finals at the Australian championship and Wimbledon in 1956, and Rosewall beat Hoad at the US championship that same year.

Why was Rosewall absent from the French championship in 1956?

 

[urban]

Wanted to win Wimbledon. Even on the amateur tour, the Double RG-Wim wasn't easy. Later in 1965 and 1966, Santana also skipped RG for Wimbledon.

 

[pc1]

The Bucholz interview was in 04/04/2007 in Bodo's Tennis World, where Bucholz describes his witnessing Hoad drink all night before his matches with Laver, and then win the matches, all 13 of them.
Bucholz rates Hoad #1 of all time, as does Laver himself, who claims he lost the first 14 of his matches against Hoad (in the DVD of the top ten all-time narrated by John Forsythe, 1997).
The Laver interview and the DVD is now available for general order.
The only scores I have seen were reported in the London Times and New York Times, and also the McCauley book, who wrongly claims that the final Hoad-Laver score was 8 to 0. This score also appears in Collins book on Laver, published 1971, perhaps the source for McCauley. Actually, 8 to 0 was the score of the Laver-Hoad tour of 1964 in Laver's home state, which was followed by a 3 to 1 edge for Hoad in the four-man tour of New Zealand. Perhaps Laver provided the faulty source of the 8 to 0 from his memory of the 1964 tour.

That's an interview and can be wrong. I don't see documented facts here. I've also seen interviews in which they mention that Laver didn't win any sets off of Hoad which is incorrect.

To state the obvious you're very partial to Hoad. I think Hoad was fantastic and I don't think he needs excuses to prove he was a superb player.

 

[Dan Lobb]

That's an interview and can be wrong. I don't see documented facts here. I've also seen interviews in which they mention that Laver didn't win any sets off of Hoad which is incorrect.

To state the obvious you're very partial to Hoad. I think Hoad was fantastic and I don't think he needs excuses to prove he was a superb player.

There were also press reports, still available, that both Hoad and Rosewall signed contracts to play a 13 match series against Laver in January, 1963.
Combined with the recollections of Bucholz and Laver, who were both present throughout the series, this constitutes pretty strong documentation.
"Documentation" does not refer simply to press reports, but can include recollections.

 

[pc1]

There were also press reports, still available, that both Hoad and Rosewall signed contracts to play a 13 match series against Laver in January, 1963.
Combined with the recollections of Bucholz and Laver, who were both present throughout the series, this constitutes pretty strong documentation.
"Documentation" does not reer simply to press reports, but can include player interviews.

A 13 match series could be the total of both Rosewall and Laver. Without scores there is no documentation. I have scores of only six wins in that series myself by Hoad over Laver. Many sources also have Hoad defeating Laver 8-0 on that tour.

I've seen recollections by players that are so far off that it's quite amusing. The years may fog the memories of the players.

 

[Dan Lobb]

A 13 match series could be the total of both Rosewall and Laver. Without scores there is no documentation. I have scores of only six wins in that series myself by Hoad over Laver. Many sources also have Hoad defeating Laver 8-0 on that tour.

I've seen recollections by players that are so far off that it's quite amusing. The years may fog the memories of the players.

Cas Fish in Tennis Today recounts the series between Hoad and Laver, stating that they were contracted to play a 13 match series (and we know from other sources that Rosewall and Laver also played a 13 match series).
Fish also states that Hoad won 39 straight sets sometime during the run.
These facts are consistent with the recollections of Laver himself (and players do not usually forget getting skunked in a series 13 to 0, you are grasping at straws here).
Bucholz was also playing the same tour, and was an interested observer, hardly likely to forget such an unusual outcome as 13 to 0 (his own recollection, probably backed by written data), which caused Bucholz himself to rate Hoad as number one all-time.

 

[Dan Lobb]

That's an interview and can be wrong. I don't see documented facts here. I've also seen interviews in which they mention that Laver didn't win any sets off of Hoad which is incorrect.

To state the obvious you're very partial to Hoad. I think Hoad was fantastic and I don't think he needs excuses to prove he was a superb player.

The quote of winning no sets is an incorrect quote from Cas Fish, who stated that Hoad won a stretch of 39 straight sets during the 13 to 0 skunking of Laver by Hoad.

 

[Dan Lobb]

Speaking of Hoad and certain H2Hs, Hoad defeated Muscles in the finals at the Australian championship and Wimbledon in 1956, and Rosewall beat Hoad at the US championship that same year.

Why was Rosewall absent from the French championship in 1956?

Rosewall had trouble at Wimbledon in 1953 when he was number one seeded (upset by an average player, Nielsen) and again in 1955 (upset by Nielsen again).
He wanted to work on his grass game, which he did in Australia during the 1956 clay season.

 

[Dan Lobb]

The score of 8-0 for Hoad in January 1963 also appears in the 1964 Laver book Tennis- The winning way, by Jack Pollard. As Pollard was also the shadowwriter of Hoad, i assume, that this early reference is right. McCauley has the score of 7 matches in Australia/ NZ, maybe one more win for Hoad was played in the US later. If we are talking about the Australia-NZ series with the doubleheader Laver-Hoad, and Laver- Rosewall, Laver had to deal with both of them each meeting within two days, what he himself calls putting his head into a cement mixer. The score of the first Laver-Rosewall series in Australia and NZ was 11-13, 2-3 in Australia, 0-8 in NZ. Maybe that explains the false 13 matches score.

I believe that the 8 to 0 score refers to the Laver-Hoad tour of Laver's home state in early 1964, in which Laver defeated Hoad 8 to 0.
The following month, Hoad defeated Laver 3 to 1 in the four-man New Zealand tour, with Rosewall in third place (Hoad and Laver both finished at 7 and 5, but Hoad claimed first place on the 3 to 1 hth with Laver).
The 1964 book may have been confused.

 

[Limpinhitter]

. . . . To state the obvious you're very partial to Hoad. I think Hoad was fantastic and I don't think he needs excuses to prove he was a superb player.

"Welcome back my friend,
To the show that never ends,
We're so glad you could attend,
Come inside, come inside."

****s are equally obnoxious no matter who they're ****ing for.

 

[urban]

The book by Laver/ Pollard was written even before 1964, it ends with references to the Rosewall-Laver series in the USA in spring 1963. I would better say, that later recollections confused such things.

 

[pc1]

Cas Fish in Tennis Today recounts the series between Hoad and Laver, stating that they were contracted to play a 13 match series (and we know from other sources that Rosewall and Laver also played a 13 match series).
Fish also states that Hoad won 39 straight sets sometime during the run.
These facts are consistent with the recollections of Laver himself (and players do not usually forget getting skunked in a series 13 to 0, you are grasping at straws here).
Bucholz was also playing the same tour, and was an interested observer, hardly likely to forget such an unusual outcome as 13 to 0 (his own recollection, probably backed by written data), which caused Bucholz himself to rate Hoad as number one all-time.

I never wrote that the 39 straight sets are correct but I pointed it out as simply an example of how memory can distort the facts over a period of years.

There is no grasping for straws. I find it ironic that you write that when you grasp for straws whenever Lew Hoad loses. Did Hoad ever lose when he was in good shape in your mind?

Again I will point out that I believe Hoad very well could be the best ever when "on" his game. He had every shot in the book plus shots that weren't in the book. He had immense talent but he did play a very high risk game which can backfire on him. Do I believe Hoad was the most consistent player of all time in terms of playing level? No I do not think so but I also believe that Hoad was a far superior player in the pros than he was as an amateur.

I don't need interviews. I need newspaper or magazine articles to discuss the wins. I would prefer the scores of the matches. Recollections of players partial or impartial are not facts but recollections. It may point toward some possible results but it is far from definitive proof. I don't see your proof.

 

[krosero]

In Google News there is a very early report from February 8, 1963, stating that Laver had lost 19 of 21 matches against Rosewall and Hoad. Since Laver played Rosewall 13 times, the remaining 8 can be inferred to be Hoad/Laver matches: http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=IzsaAAAAIBAJ&sjid=7CYEAAAAIBAJ&dq=laver hoad&pg=1534,3579706

On May 16 the New York Times reported that Hoad beat Laver 8-0:

The left-hander had made his pro debut Down Under. Lew Hoad knocked him off eight straight. Rosewall won 11 of 13. But during the months in between, the education of Rod Laver has made considerable progress. In the preliminary round-robin among the full pro troupe Rosewall compiled a 31-10 won-lost record while Laver, winning nine of his last 11 matches, finished with 25-16. They will meet at the Garden tonight in another match of their 21-match playoff series for the $35,000 top prize.​

And then again on September 14, the Times:

The palace revolution in pro tennis will enter a decisive phase tomorrow in the final round of the $10,000 French international championships. Who is the second-best tennis player in the world? Is it Rod Laver, the 26-year-old pro rookie? Or is it Ken Rosewall, 29, the reigning king of the game?

Today, Laver – leaping, smashing, always on the move – cut down Frank Sedgman, 6-4, 6-3, 6-2. Rosewall, as brisk and economic as always, demolished Lew Hoad, 10-8, 6-2, 6-3.

Tomorrow, Laver and Rosewall will meet in the final. There is no question about Laver’s progress since he turned pro at the start of the year. He is at least the second-best player. Is he perhaps first best?

In January, Laver toured Australia and New Zealand with Rosewall and Hoad. He played one or the other nearly every night. Hoad beat him eight straight times. Rosewall beat him 13 of 15 matches.

Laver had turned pro for a guaranteed $110,000 over a three-year period. The January tour was designed to show fans Down Under in the most graphic way possible the difference between amateur and pro tennis.

Through the Tennis Mill

Also it was meant to put Laver through the mill, to make him into a top pro quickly, or break him. “We believe that all that hard traveling brings out character in a man,” said Tony Trabert, the director of the pro tennis tour.

“A top player must learn to play on grass one night, boards the next. He must learn to play when stiff from traveling all day, when he isn’t eating properly, when he hasn’t slept well.”

The January tour drew an average of 9,000 fans a match. It also made Laver into a pro overnight.

By the end of the spring, Laver was able to beat Hoad most times. In tournaments this summer, he managed to beat Rosewall, too. He won three tournaments – in Cannes, France; Kitzbuhel, Austria and Noordwijk, Holland. Andres Gimeno of Spain won the fourth tournament in Portschach, Austria.​

 

[pc1]

In Google News there is a very early report from February 8, 1963, stating that Laver had lost 19 of 21 matches against Rosewall and Hoad. Since Laver played Rosewall 13 times, the remaining 8 can be inferred to be Hoad/Laver matches: http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=IzsaAAAAIBAJ&sjid=7CYEAAAAIBAJ&dq=laver hoad&pg=1534,3579706

On May 16 the New York Times reported that Hoad beat Laver 8-0:

The left-hander had made his pro debut Down Under. Lew Hoad knocked him off eight straight. Rosewall won 11 of 13. But during the months in between, the education of Rod Laver has made considerable progress. In the preliminary round-robin among the full pro troupe Rosewall compiled a 31-10 won-lost record while Laver, winning nine of his last 11 matches, finished with 25-16. They will meet at the Garden tonight in another match of their 21-match playoff series for the $35,000 top prize.​

And then again on September 14, the Times:

The palace revolution in pro tennis will enter a decisive phase tomorrow in the final round of the $10,000 French international championships. Who is the second-best tennis player in the world? Is it Rod Laver, the 26-year-old pro rookie? Or is it Ken Rosewall, 29, the reigning king of the game?

Today, Laver – leaping, smashing, always on the move – cut down Frank Sedgman, 6-4, 6-3, 6-2. Rosewall, as brisk and economic as always, demolished Lew Hoad, 10-8, 6-2, 6-3.

Tomorrow, Laver and Rosewall will meet in the final. There is no question about Laver’s progress since he turned pro at the start of the year. He is at least the second-best player. Is he perhaps first best?

In January, Laver toured Australia and New Zealand with Rosewall and Hoad. He played one or the other nearly every night. Hoad beat him eight straight times. Rosewall beat him 13 of 15 matches.

Laver had turned pro for a guaranteed $110,000 over a three-year period. The January tour was designed to show fans Down Under in the most graphic way possible the difference between amateur and pro tennis.

Through the Tennis Mill

Also it was meant to put Laver through the mill, to make him into a top pro quickly, or break him. “We believe that all that hard traveling brings out character in a man,” said Tony Trabert, the director of the pro tennis tour.

“A top player must learn to play on grass one night, boards the next. He must learn to play when stiff from traveling all day, when he isn’t eating properly, when he hasn’t slept well.”

The January tour drew an average of 9,000 fans a match. It also made Laver into a pro overnight.

By the end of the spring, Laver was able to beat Hoad most times. In tournaments this summer, he managed to beat Rosewall, too. He won three tournaments – in Cannes, France; Kitzbuhel, Austria and Noordwijk, Holland. Andres Gimeno of Spain won the fourth tournament in Portschach, Austria.​

I've read that also and frankly I would tend to believe that over the 13-0 record.

Incidentally a young pro who is just introduced to the Pro Tour in those days often had a big losing streak. I believe Hoad was losing quite often in the beginning to top pros like Segura.

 

[Dan Lobb]

I've read that also and frankly I would tend to believe that over the 13-0 record.

Incidentally a young pro who is just introduced to the Pro Tour in those days often had a big losing streak. I believe Hoad was losing quite often in the beginning to top pros like Segura.

Segura was no longer at the top when he played Hoad in 1957, and Kramer believed that Hoad tanked against him and Segura because of this.
Laver had an introductory series of practice matches against Hoad and Rosewall before the public matches began, and Laver won the most important match of the series against Rosewall at Kooyong (a televised match) in a four-set slugfest, after losing the previous evening a close five-setter against Hoad on the same court (also televised). Doesn't look like he had the rookie nerves.
Again, this 8 to 0 report conflicts with the press reports of a contract for 13 matches against Hoad, and the clear recollections of the participants of the series.
Someone like Laver doesn't say in public that he lost his first 14 matches to someone without being well aware of it. This is not something you would forget. Yeah, I still say it looks like grasping at straws.

 

[Dan Lobb]

"Welcome back my friend,
To the show that never ends,
We're so glad you could attend,
Come inside, come inside."

****s are equally obnoxious no matter who they're ****ing for.

I guess you must have a low opinion of Rosewall, Laver, and Gonzales, all of whom put Hoad at the top of their all-time list.
I will join my own opinion to theirs, rather than yours.
I hope that you are not offended by that.

 

[Dan Lobb]

I never wrote that the 39 straight sets are correct but I pointed it out as simply an example of how memory can distort the facts over a period of years.

There is no grasping for straws. I find it ironic that you write that when you grasp for straws whenever Lew Hoad loses. Did Hoad ever lose when he was in good shape in your mind?

Again I will point out that I believe Hoad very well could be the best ever when "on" his game. He had every shot in the book plus shots that weren't in the book. He had immense talent but he did play a very high risk game which can backfire on him. Do I believe Hoad was the most consistent player of all time in terms of playing level? No I do not think so but I also believe that Hoad was a far superior player in the pros than he was as an amateur.

I don't need interviews. I need newspaper or magazine articles to discuss the wins. I would prefer the scores of the matches. Recollections of players partial or impartial are not facts but recollections. It may point toward some possible results but it is far from definitive proof. I don't see your proof.

You make a good point.
I don't think that Hoad could lose a series when in good shape, and I think that the facts support that.
However, there is no doubt that after 1960, he was rarely in good shape, only in early 1963 when he spent a few weeks working out hard to prepare for Laver.
I am certainly partial to Hoad's playing abilities, which I agree with Rosewall, Laver, and Gonzales were the greatest ever.
Personally, I have little in common with Hoad, except for a stable marriage.

 

[Limpinhitter]

I guess you must have a low opinion of Rosewall, Laver, and Gonzales, all of whom put Hoad at the top of their all-time list.
I will join my own opinion to theirs, rather than yours.
I hope that you are not offended by that.

"Come inside, the show's about to start.
Guaranteed to blow your head apart."

Laver and Rosewall do, indeed, put Hoad at the top of their pre open era lists. But, they politely don't rank themselves. So, you have to wonder what they really think about that. I personally put Laver above Hoad on any all time list, before and/or after open tennis. But, that's just my opinion. However, I'm pretty confident that Gonzales put himself at the top of his list, and I couldn't disagree with him.

 

[krosero]

There were also press reports, still available, that both Hoad and Rosewall signed contracts to play a 13 match series against Laver in January, 1963.

Please produce those reports. Please quote from them.

In the meantime there is this press report from the last day of 1962, indicating that Laver was contracted to play only 22 matches, not the 26 you have claimed: http://news.google.com/newspapers?i...AAIBAJ&dq=laver rosewall hoad&pg=3578,4105455

Combined with the recollections of Bucholz and Laver, who were both present throughout the series, this constitutes pretty strong documentation.

You haven't given us the press reports; the only evidence you've documented so far are the quotes from Laver and Bucholz. Both of those recollections took place decades after the events in question. That's really weak evidence.

Meanwhile we have documented press reports stating flat out that Hoad's final margin over Laver in that tour was 8-0.

Moreover, in August 1968 Sports Illustrated had this: "Laver lost all eight of his matches to Hoad and lost 11 of 13 to Rosewall."

McCauley reported those same numbers, and actually produced scores from 6 of Hoad's wins. No one as yet has produced more than 8, still less 13.

 

[krosero]

These facts are consistent with the recollections of Laver himself (and players do not usually forget getting skunked in a series 13 to 0, you are grasping at straws here).
Bucholz was also playing the same tour, and was an interested observer, hardly likely to forget such an unusual outcome as 13 to 0 (his own recollection, probably backed by written data), which caused Bucholz himself to rate Hoad as number one all-time.

Someone like Laver doesn't say in public that he lost his first 14 matches to someone without being well aware of it. This is not something you would forget.

To the parts I've bolded: I have to say something about this because I see posters doing it ALL the time. Assuming the very thing they're trying to prove.

Your argument that Laver would never forget being skunked 13 to 0 is not evidence -- and it's not even relevant.

If I said to you, "IMO Laver would forget being skunked 13 to 0. IMO he would forget it. I think he's forgotten that this happened to him," then it would be relevant for you to counter with this: "No, you don't forget something like that happening to you."

Otherwise it's irrelevant, because nobody here is claiming that Laver has forgotten getting skunked 13 to 0. IF you get skunked 13 matches to zero, you probably won't forget it. That is not the question. The question is, did it happen?

I'll make it as absurd as possible.

"I think New York was nuked in 1945."

"Why do you say that? Where's the evidence?"

"A survivor recalled it in 1971. His interview is online. His recollections were clear, and he was adamant about it. I don't think you would forget something like that happening to you. Impossible to forget."

"Well, uh, yeah ... IF such a thing happened, a survivor would probably never forget it. But that's not the question. The question is, did this thing happen?"​

This is such a common line of argument: exclaiming that some event -- the very thing you're trying to prove -- would never be forgotten. You assume your own conclusion, say something about it ("no one could forget that"), and, voila .... it must have happened.

 

[urban]

Those press reports, Krosero found, correspond with my assesment of the 1963 pro season. After a rough baptism in January and at the beginnig of the US pro tour (with uncommon indoor courts), Laver slowly came alive as pro, and in the second part of the season in Europe, he came quite close in challenging Rosewall as pro Nr. 1. That early January tour in Australia/NZ was actually closer than the overall score would tell. In the big venues of Australia, Laver was only 2-3 against the pro king Rosewall, then broke down in NZ. Maybe the pro format of one match ervery night got to him, maybe the psychological burden of the young pro, which every new pro encountered, was too much. On the US spring tour, he did sometimes well against Rosewall, once beating him love and 3 at Madison Square Garden, when Allison Danzig, as refered by Jack Pollard, called his progress as pro astonishing. Overall Rosewall was clearly the Nr. 1 player in 1963, he won Paris in a very close affair over Laver, and later Wembley over Hoad. But Laver had a pretty good roockie season, although 1963 was numerically by far his worst season in all the 60s.

 

[hoodjem]

Segura was no longer at the top when he played Hoad in 1957, and Kramer believed that Hoad tanked against him and Segura because of this.
Laver had an introductory series of practice matches against Hoad and Rosewall before the public matches began, and Laver won the most important match of the series against Rosewall at Kooyong (a televised match) in a four-set slugfest, after losing the previous evening a close five-setter against Hoad on the same court (also televised). Doesn't look like he had the rookie nerves.
Again, this 8 to 0 report conflicts with the press reports of a contract for 13 matches against Hoad, and the clear recollections of the participants of the series.
Someone like Laver doesn't say in public that he lost his first 14 matches to someone without being well aware of it. This is not something you would forget. Yeah, I still say it looks like grasping at straws.

Laver may be very humble, but he is also very honest and truthful. I believe him.

 

[pc1]

Segura was no longer at the top when he played Hoad in 1957, and Kramer believed that Hoad tanked against him and Segura because of this.
Laver had an introductory series of practice matches against Hoad and Rosewall before the public matches began, and Laver won the most important match of the series against Rosewall at Kooyong (a televised match) in a four-set slugfest, after losing the previous evening a close five-setter against Hoad on the same court (also televised). Doesn't look like he had the rookie nerves.
Again, this 8 to 0 report conflicts with the press reports of a contract for 13 matches against Hoad, and the clear recollections of the participants of the series.
Someone like Laver doesn't say in public that he lost his first 14 matches to someone without being well aware of it. This is not something you would forget. Yeah, I still say it looks like grasping at straws.

Tanking means purposely losing. I don't think Hoad tanked against Segura. I just think he plain lost. Frankly according also to Jack Kramer, Hoad won a few matches at the beginning of his pro career and then went on a long losing streak. Now why would Hoad want to lose to start off his pro career? I don't think so. The thought of that makes absolutely no sense to me. Segura was still a great player in 1957. He won the Australian Pro Champs by defeating Hartwig, Gonzalez and Sedgman. He was in the finals of the US Pro defeating Pails and Rosewall before losing to Gonzalez in the final. He crushed Hoad in a round robin tournament 6-3 6-0 and in Cannes 6-1 6-3. He reached the finals of Wembley losing in five sets to Rosewall after defeating Gonzalez to reach the final. Segura won another Round Robin in Manila by going 3-0 defeating Hoad in three sets. Segura also defeated Rosewall and Kramer in the same tournament.

So Segura was in two finals of the three pro majors and won a number of tournaments. Doesn't sound that bad to me.

This is not grasping at straws by the way. This is grasping for the truth. I love tennis history but I don't like fantasy in tennis history. Never cared for stories that I thought didn't make sense like the invisible serve of Vines against Bunny Austin in the early 1930's. If Laver truly lost 13 I would like documentation not hearsay.

Hoad's accomplishments can stand on their own, including his losses. Every player can make excuses for losses. I find it amusing that it seems you want to explain away every loss of Hoad. Hoad's is a rare talent in tennis. Arguably he is the best when he is on his game. Very few players had the variety of tennis weapons that Hoad had. He could hit offensive shots from anywhere and his strength was legendary. With the tennis racquets today he might not have to hit passing shots, the power of his shots might go through his opponent's racquets.

 

[Limpinhitter]

I think it's great that we have a genuine Hoadtard here on TT. Hoad deserves to have his own devoted ****. The conflated, convoluted, and outright dishonest, arguments I could do without, though.

 

[urban]

Fully agree, pc 1. Those folklore tales of the old pro tour did more damage than good for the tour. Since McCauley's book we have a solid fundament of scores, so that we can divide the truth from the myth. I must say, i immensely dislike this Kramer talk, about tanking this and tanking that. Going by his talking, he, Kramer, carried Gonzalez in their first tour, Gonzalez carried Rosewall, Hoad tanked that and drank this, Riggs was the best player ever, only he, Kramer, was a drawing card and so on. If all this ******** would have been true, what a mess would have been the old pro circus, far worse than the WWF. I must say, i have a different picture of this old tour, with an athletic elite battling it out proudly and fair, under extremely difficult conditions, but performing the most well rounded tennis ever played.

 

[pc1]

I think it's great that we have a genuine Hoadtard here on TT. Hoad deserves to have his own devoted ****. The conflated, convoluted, and outright dishonest, arguments I could do without, though.

I'm a fan of Hoad as I am a fan of most greats. However if someone exaggerates the accomplishments or abilities of any great like for example a Laver I would question them on it.

I have several biographies on Hoad and it would be nice to get more real information on him.

 

[pc1]

Fully agree, pc 1. Those folklore tails of the old pro tour did more damage than good for the tour. Since McCauley's book we have a solid fundament of scores, so that we can divide the truth from the myth. I must say, i immensely dislike this Kramer talk, about tanking this and tanking that. Going by his talking, he, Kramer, carried Gonzalez in their first tour, Gonzalez carried Rosewall, Hoad tanked that and drank this, Riggs was the best player ever, only he, Kramer, was a drawing card and so on. If all this ******** would have been true, what a mess would have been the old pro circus, far worse than the WWF. I must say, i have a different picture of this old tour, with an athletic elite battling it out proudly and fair, under extremely difficult conditions, but performing the most well rounded tennis ever played.

This post stands on its own.

Incidentally on a slightly different note. Many people criticize the Former Players Forum because some may claim the people here only criticize the current players. But as proven in these discussions about Hoad, it's not criticism of current player but just discussions on the facts involving the past or current players. If some feel the information given is wrong, then it should be discussed.

 

[Dan Lobb]

Tanking means purposely losing. I don't think Hoad tanked against Segura. I just think he plain lost. Frankly according also to Jack Kramer, Hoad won a few matches at the beginning of his pro career and then went on a long losing streak. Now why would Hoad want to lose to start off his pro career? I don't think so. The thought of that makes absolutely no sense to me. Segura was still a great player in 1957. He won the Australian Pro Champs by defeating Hartwig, Gonzalez and Sedgman. He was in the finals of the US Pro defeating Pails and Rosewall before losing to Gonzalez in the final. He crushed Hoad in a round robin tournament 6-3 6-0 and in Cannes 6-1 6-3. He reached the finals of Wembley losing in five sets to Rosewall after defeating Gonzalez to reach the final. Segura won another Round Robin in Manila by going 3-0 defeating Hoad in three sets. Segura also defeated Rosewall and Kramer in the same tournament.

So Segura was in two finals of the three pro majors and won a number of tournaments. Doesn't sound that bad to me.

This is not grasping at straws by the way. This is grasping for the truth. I love tennis history but I don't like fantasy in tennis history. Never cared for stories that I thought didn't make sense like the invisible serve of Vines against Bunny Austin in the early 1930's. If Laver truly lost 13 I would like documentation not hearsay.

Hoad's accomplishments can stand on their own, including his losses. Every player can make excuses for losses. I find it amusing that it seems you want to explain away every loss of Hoad. Hoad's is a rare talent in tennis. Arguably he is the best when he is on his game. Very few players had the variety of tennis weapons that Hoad had. He could hit offensive shots from anywhere and his strength was legendary. With the tennis racquets today he might not have to hit passing shots, the power of his shots might go through his opponent's racquets.

Laver and Bucholz recounting their own experiences does not constitute hearsay, but testimony. Obviously, you have not been to court lately.
This is the definition of testimony, quite different from hearsay.
Laver would hardly forget a 13 to 0 skunking, but he did not mention this number until 1997, after the deaths of both Hoad and Gonzales.

 

[pc1]

Laver and Bucholz recounting their own experiences does not constitute hearsay, but testimony. Obviously, you have not been to court lately.
This is the definition of testimony, quite different from hearsay.
Laver would hardly forget a 13 to 0 skunking, but he did not mention this number until 1997, after the deaths of both Hoad and Gonzales.

I haven't been to court recently but witnesses have been known to have different testimonies. You keep repeating the same thing over and over and not giving concrete evidence.

I have also read that Bunny Austin couldn't see the last serve that Vines aced him with at Wimbledon. So Dan, would you believe that serve was hit so fast it wasn't visible to the eye? I personally would think a 300 mile per hour serve would be visible to the naked eye but testimony says that the Vines' serve which I'm sure went at a speed far less than 300 mph was invisible.

Dan, obviously you're not a lawyer. I don't think lawyers would accept witnesses that indicate the reason a player lost is because the arena was smoke filled.

Again it's not worth going on about this subject since you don't have anything more then what you're written. If you do come up with more evidence I would be very happy because there is more information on the great Hoad.

 

[krosero]

Laver would hardly forget a 13 to 0 skunking,

Not evidence, and not relevant.

The score of 8-0 for Hoad in January 1963 also appears in the 1964 Laver book Tennis- The winning way, by Jack Pollard. As Pollard was also the shadowwriter of Hoad, i assume, that this early reference is right. McCauley has the score of 7 matches in Australia/ NZ, maybe one more win for Hoad was played in the US later. If we are talking about the Australia-NZ series with the doubleheader Laver-Hoad, and Laver- Rosewall, Laver had to deal with both of them each meeting within two days, what he himself calls putting his head into a cement mixer. The score of the first Laver-Rosewall series in Australia and NZ was 11-13, 2-3 in Australia, 0-8 in NZ. Maybe that explains the false 13 matches score.

Do you know if Hoad went to New Zealand? For that part of the tour McCauley has only Laver playing Rosewall, and Ayala facing Gimeno, in a series of double-headers in 7 cities.

 

[krosero]

Rosewall was interviewed for the Boston Globe a few days after the end of the tour with Hoad and Laver. The interviewer mentions that Laver lost 8 matches to Hoad in the recent tour.

If Laver actually lost 13 matches to Hoad, Rosewall would have known it, and would likely have corrected the interviewer.

February 6, 1963 (Wednesday)
Boston Globe
Harold Kaese

At first Ken Rosewall wanted to sweep Rod Laver’s pro record under the nearest rug. Then he confessed.

Against Lew Hoad, Laver has won none, lost eight. Against Rosewall, he has won two, lost 11. Grand total: two victories, 19 defeats.

“Worse than the New York Mets, the New York Knicks and the Boston Bruins,” I muttered.

“But good for tennis,” said Rosewall.

“You mean pro tennis, don’t you?”

“For tennis generally. We showed the pros are still the best, and we showed those who said we’d protect Laver that pro tennis is honest. We all want to win. We don’t carry anybody.... I’m playing well. In New Zealand, I got hot and won all seven from Laver, three on grass, four indoors,” he said.

“We drew well—50,000 in eight big-city matches in Australia.”

... He hopes his trip to this country ends as auspiciously as it began, explaining, “I left New Zealand at 8:30 p.m. on Sunday, and arrived in San Francisco at 5 p.m. the same day.”

He gave due credit to the international dateline.​

If Hoad beat Laver 13 times in this tour, a few more questions have to be answered. How is it, for example, that only 8 of the victories were reported to the worldwide press? These matches were public, obviously, and the local press Down Under would surely have the correct tally. So how did the worldwide press end up with a score of 8-0?

And once that happened, why did no one, including Rosewall on this occasion with the Boston Globe, correct the misinformation? Why does the first mention of a 13-0 score, as far as we can tell, not appear until 1997?

To my mind this is not an issue of honesty, because Laver is as honest a champion as the sport has had. I just think it's about memory, and the building of legends. Somehow the 8-0 result grew in the telling to become a 13-0 skunking in which Laver did not even win a set (something we all agree did not happen). Once that legend appeared, those who were there could theoretically have corrected the misinformation -- but after the passage of decades they would not necessarily remember clearly whether it was 8 or 13. For the numbers to be confused would be quite easy, because there were other similar numbers that applied to those tours: for example, as Urban points out, Laver played 13 matches against Rosewall in this tour.

 

[urban]

Interesting, that 4 matches in NZ were played indoors. I thought all those January 1963 matches were played on grass. It is to be said, that the top Aussie amateurs didn't play indoors at all. The only one indoor tournament Laver played in his amateur career was probably the US indoors 1962, when he got extra fee and was flown in.