Hoad vs Rosewall

Status
Not open for further replies.

Dan Lobb

G.O.A.T.
Wikipedia has now been corrected, Hoad's consistency numbers now look good.
I have made many additions to the Wiki bio's for Hoad, Gonzales, Rosewall, Sedgman, Segura....they are now much more substantial and annotated, and many personal opinions which should not have been there have been removed.
 

Dan Lobb

G.O.A.T.
Actually I am only 31+ ,so can't say much but from the sources I read ,I always thought Rosewall was ahead of Hoad.
Talk tennis is the place where I hear that Hoad is better than Rosewall
Rosewall is ahead of Hoad in terms of career tournaments won, majors won.

Hoad leads Rosewall in consistency on world championship tours, level of play.
 

thrust

Hall of Fame
The Wiki bio of Hoad has now been updated and upgraded substantially, I was happy to contribute the new research to that site.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lew_Hoad

The Wiki material on Hoad's professional years was hugely upgraded by yours truly, and the major achievements, some of which were completely unknown by the so-called tennis historians, have been revealed by some major research breakthroughs I made on those 1958/59 years.

Why was there so much ignorance? There was a breakdown and absence of press releases by the pro tour itself regarding Hoad's major wins.

Strange beyond belief.
Because, perhaps, people are more interested in tournaments and Majors won than one nightstand tour matches?
 

Dan Lobb

G.O.A.T.
Rosewall is ahead of Hoad in terms of career tournaments won, majors won.

Hoad leads Rosewall in consistency on world championship tours, level of play.
And percentage wins on world championship tours.....Hoad one win in three attempts (33%), Rosewall four wins in sixteen attempts (25%).
 

Dan Lobb

G.O.A.T.
And percentage wins on world championship tours.....Hoad one win in three attempts (33%), Rosewall four wins in sixteen attempts (25%).
Hoad's world championship win was in 1959, one win in three full attempts, Rosewall's world title tour wins were in 1963, 1964, 1971, 1972, in a total effort of sixteen full attempts (I have not counted Rosewall's incomplete world tours).
 
And percentage wins on world championship tours.....Hoad one win in three attempts (33%), Rosewall four wins in sixteen attempts (25%).
These figures according to the system devised by Dan Lobb are presented by Dan Lobb in a woefully biased way. Yet more Hoad propaganda. The fact Rosewall had much greater longevity than Hoad is not a weakness, it is a strength. Let us use Lobb's Law on some other tennis stats shall we? Federer has played 77 Grand Slam singles events to date, winning 20 of them. Sampras won 14 slams out of 52 played. Sampras' winning percentage was 26.9%. Federer's winning percentage to date is 25.9%. Sampras had a higher win percentage than Federer. Does that mean Sampras was a better player in slams than Federer?
 

Dan Lobb

G.O.A.T.
These figures according to the system devised by Dan Lobb are presented by Dan Lobb in a woefully biased way. Yet more Hoad propaganda. The fact Rosewall had much greater longevity than Hoad is not a weakness, it is a strength. Let us use Lobb's Law on some other tennis stats shall we? Federer has played 77 Grand Slam singles events to date, winning 20 of them. Sampras won 14 slams out of 52 played. Sampras' winning percentage was 26.9%. Federer's winning percentage to date is 25.9%. Sampras had a higher win percentage than Federer. Does that mean Sampras was a better player in slams than Federer?
Hey, the history is there, I did not set up the tours, the tours were set up by Kramer, Trabert, Hoad, Rosewall, and the WCT people.

The data is there whether we like it or not.

The stat I was looking at was percentage wins on world tours....nothing wrong with that metric.

There was only one winner on each world tour.

There is nothing wrong with your Slam data, either.
 
Hey, the history is there, I did not set up the tours, the tours were set up by Kramer, Trabert, Hoad, Rosewall, and the WCT people.

The data is there whether we like it or not.

The stat I was looking at was percentage wins on world tours....nothing wrong with that metric.

There was only one winner on each world tour.

There is nothing wrong with your Slam data, either.
There is a lot wrong when people devise systems of classification and cherry-pick statistics with the sole purpose of promoting a particular player. Which you do with Hoad all the time.
 

Dan Lobb

G.O.A.T.
There is a lot wrong when people devise systems of classification and cherry-pick statistics with the sole purpose of promoting a particular player. Which you do with Hoad all the time.
I do it for other players as well. If you are doing a study of a particular player, of course you try to find a stat which supports and highlights the strength of that

player.

I do that for Rosewall as well. Also Sedgman, Segura, Gonzales. I added substantial material to the Wiki bios of all of these players.

In Hoad's case there are so many myths which have been invented about him, that it is necessary to explode some of them.
 

Dan Lobb

G.O.A.T.
Who are your #1 For 1950 til 1971?
Good question. Split fields make it difficult.
I rate only on grass, based on peak form, not numbers of titles.
1960 and 1961 have insufficient play to determine a clear number one.

1950 Kramer
1951 Kramer
1952 Gonzales
1953 Sedgman
1954 Gonzales
1955 Gonzales
1956 Gonzales
1957 Gonzales
1958 Hoad
1959 Hoad
1960 Hoad/Gonzales
1961 Hoad/Rosewall
1962 Rosewall
1963 Rosewall
1964 Laver
1965 Rosewall
1966 Laver
1967 Laver
1968 Laver
1969 Laver
1970 Rosewall
1971 Newcombe
 

xFedal

Legend
Good question. Split fields make it difficult.
I rate only on grass, based on peak form, not numbers of titles.
1960 and 1961 have insufficient play to determine a clear number one.

1950 Kramer
1951 Kramer
1952 Gonzales
1953 Sedgman
1954 Gonzales
1955 Gonzales
1956 Gonzales
1957 Gonzales
1958 Hoad
1959 Hoad
1960 Hoad/Gonzales
1961 Hoad/Rosewall
1962 Rosewall
1963 Rosewall
1964 Laver
1965 Rosewall
1966 Laver
1967 Laver
1968 Laver
1969 Laver
1970 Rosewall
1971 Newcombe
Player of 50s HOAD? player of the 60s Laver ?
 

Dan Lobb

G.O.A.T.
Good question. Split fields make it difficult.
I rate only on grass, based on peak form, not numbers of titles.
1960 and 1961 have insufficient play to determine a clear number one.

1950 Kramer
1951 Kramer
1952 Gonzales
1953 Sedgman
1954 Gonzales
1955 Gonzales
1956 Gonzales
1957 Gonzales
1958 Hoad
1959 Hoad
1960 Hoad/Gonzales
1961 Hoad/Rosewall
1962 Rosewall
1963 Rosewall
1964 Laver
1965 Rosewall
1966 Laver
1967 Laver
1968 Laver
1969 Laver
1970 Rosewall
1971 Newcombe
I see that I have given Rosewall five mentions for player of the year on this list, whereas Hoad receives only four mentions.

I am obviously not biased in favour of Hoad against Rosewall.
 
I see that I have given Rosewall five mentions for player of the year on this list, whereas Hoad receives only four mentions.

I am obviously not biased in favour of Hoad against Rosewall.
A leading candidate for the most ridiculous Dan Lobb statement I have ever heard. Rosewall won 8 Grand Slams, 8 French Pro, 5 Wembley Pro and 2 US Pro titles. He also won the World Series in 1963. Ken won his first Grand Slam in 1953 and his last in 1972. Hoad won 4 Grand Slams, 1 US Tournament of Champions and 1 Australian Tournament of Champions plus the 1959 AMPOL tour. Lew won his first Grand Slam in 1956 and his last pro major in 1959. Yet according to Lobb's fantasy year end rankings, Hoad is only just behind Rosewall.
 

Dan Lobb

G.O.A.T.
A leading candidate for the most ridiculous Dan Lobb statement I have ever heard. Rosewall won 8 Grand Slams, 8 French Pro, 5 Wembley Pro and 2 US Pro titles. He also won the World Series in 1963. Ken won his first Grand Slam in 1953 and his last in 1972. Hoad won 4 Grand Slams, 1 US Tournament of Champions and 1 Australian Tournament of Champions plus the 1959 AMPOL tour. Lew won his first Grand Slam in 1956 and his last pro major in 1959. Yet according to Lobb's fantasy year end rankings, Hoad is only just behind Rosewall.
I stated that my rankings were not based on numbers of titles, but level of play, year by year. So numbers of majors are not considered.

Kramer regarded the 1959/60 Kooyong as a pro major.

My rating is based entirely on grass, nothing else.
 
Last edited:

Dan Lobb

G.O.A.T.
A leading candidate for the most ridiculous Dan Lobb statement I have ever heard. Rosewall won 8 Grand Slams, 8 French Pro, 5 Wembley Pro and 2 US Pro titles. He also won the World Series in 1963. Ken won his first Grand Slam in 1953 and his last in 1972. Hoad won 4 Grand Slams, 1 US Tournament of Champions and 1 Australian Tournament of Champions plus the 1959 AMPOL tour. Lew won his first Grand Slam in 1956 and his last pro major in 1959. Yet according to Lobb's fantasy year end rankings, Hoad is only just behind Rosewall.
That 1959/60 Ampol Tour was the only major tour in which both Hoad and Rosewall played....Hoad emerged with a 6 to 2 edge over Rosewall.
 

Dan Lobb

G.O.A.T.
Well, it looks like Rosewall has company in those inter-generational U.S. Open finals.

Compare,


And, today, history repeating itself.

 

hoodjem

G.O.A.T.
These figures according to the system devised by Dan Lobb are presented by Dan Lobb in a woefully biased way. Yet more Hoad propaganda. The fact Rosewall had much greater longevity than Hoad is not a weakness, it is a strength. Let us use Lobb's Law on some other tennis stats shall we? Federer has played 77 Grand Slam singles events to date, winning 20 of them. Sampras won 14 slams out of 52 played. Sampras' winning percentage was 26.9%. Federer's winning percentage to date is 25.9%. Sampras had a higher win percentage than Federer. Does that mean Sampras was a better player in slams than Federer?
Yes. It also appears that Sampras won 14 of 18 slam finals he was in. This is a 77% success rate.

Much better than Federer, who has won 20 of 31 finals, or 64%
Or Nadal, who has won 18 of 26 finals, or 69%.

Obviously, Sampras--with the higher success rate--is the greater player.
:rolleyes: (n)



(Someone said something like "statistics are so wonderful--with them you can prove almost anything.")
 
Yes. It also appears that Sampras won 14 of 18 slam finals he was in. This is a 77% success rate.

Much better than Federer, who has won 20 of 31 finals, or 64%
Or Nadal, who has won 18 of 26 finals, or 69%.

Obviously, Sampras--with the higher success rate--is the greater player.
:rolleyes: (n)



(Someone said something like "statistics are so wonderful--with them you can prove almost anything.")
Statistics are good when correctly used. The problem with statistics is, too often a not very relevant stat is used to further a poor and/or biased argument. Is Ivo Karlovic a greater player than Roger Federer because Karlovic has served most career aces? I think not.
 

Dan Lobb

G.O.A.T.
Statistics are good when correctly used. The problem with statistics is, too often a not very relevant stat is used to further a poor and/or biased argument. Is Ivo Karlovic a greater player than Roger Federer because Karlovic has served most career aces? I think not.
Statistics are only part of the story, you need the context.

Comparing stats in contemporary tours is more relevant than comparing stats on tours decades apart.

For the 1957-61 era, we have a large number of tours, but the 15-tournament Ampol series in 1959/60 provides a comparable set of stats for that tour for all of the top pros, so of course you could compare them.
 
Last edited:

Ivan69

Hall of Fame
Yes. It also appears that Sampras won 14 of 18 slam finals he was in. This is a 77% success rate.

Much better than Federer, who has won 20 of 31 finals, or 64%
Or Nadal, who has won 18 of 26 finals, or 69%.

Obviously, Sampras--with the higher success rate--is the greater player.
:rolleyes: (n)



(Someone said something like "statistics are so wonderful--with them you can prove almost anything.")
Statistics has its principles, methods and rules. Everybody should apply them when using it. In your case Bill Bowrey "should" be the best player with 100% success rate.:)
 
Statistics are only part of the story, you need the context.

Comparing stats in contemporary tours is more relevant than comparing stats on tours decades apart.

For the 1957-61 era, we have a large number of tours, but the 15-tournament Ampol series in 1959/60 provides a comparable set of stats for that tour for all of the top pros, so of course you could compare them.
Talking of statistics, I am 100% bored with Dan Lobb's endless repetitive Hoad propaganda.
 

Dan Lobb

G.O.A.T.
Talking of statistics, I am 100% bored with Dan Lobb's endless repetitive Hoad propaganda.
I have no personal opinion on Hoad, and if I did it would be worthless. I never traded strokes with Hoad, or even saw him play.

The only opinions that count are the players themselves who actually played against him. Armchair analysts are incapable of judging level of play.
 

Virginia

Hall of Fame
Having seen both of them play at Wimbledon in the 1950s, my opinion (fwiw) is that Rosewall was the more consistent player, but Hoad had all the strokes, the upper body strength and the sheer brilliance of anyone I've ever seen. Many players of that era said that they thought he was the best ever. Such a shame he got injured so young, he was amazing. Rosewall my favorite though.
 
Having seen both of them play at Wimbledon in the 1950s, my opinion (fwiw) is that Rosewall was the more consistent player, but Hoad had all the strokes, the upper body strength and the sheer brilliance of anyone I've ever seen. Many players of that era said that they thought he was the best ever. Such a shame he got injured so young, he was amazing. Rosewall my favorite though.
The late 1950s on the pro tour was probably the greatest era in tennis history. Gonzales, Rosewall, Hoad, Trabert, Sedgman and Segura, plus even Kramer played sometimes. Yes it is a great shame Hoad suffered from injuries. At the end of the day, Rosewall should be considered the better player because he won a lot more and was winning majors for a lot longer than Hoad (Federer would have to still be winning Grand Slams in 2022 to equal Rosewall's Grand Slam winning span of 19 years). You are lucky to have seen both Hoad and Rosewall play in the 50s (I was born in the 1970s, so missed out on that great spectacle). The key to Rosewall's success was that he played at a high level over many years. There is footage online of Rosewall beating Laver in the WCT final. Awesome all court play from both players.
 
There are no experts but the players themselves.
I will take the facts over anyone's opinions. The facts show that Rosewall won many tournaments over many years and many of these titles were at the top events. Whatever propaganda and hot air is created by biased obsessed fans of particular players, the results are there to counter all these tiresome tirades.
 

tonylg

Rookie
They were both great players and incredibly different, back when tennis was not homogenized like it is now.

I can't believe there's almost 100 pages of bickering about who was "better". It's like the kids with their slam race.
 

thrust

Hall of Fame
I stated that my rankings were not based on numbers of titles, but level of play, year by year. So numbers of majors are not considered.

Kramer regarded the 1959/60 Kooyong as a pro major.

My rating is based entirely on grass, nothing else.
Fact IS though grass was not the only surface played on which is, especially then, the worst surface for complete tennis. IMO, the USO rallies this year were much more exciting that the Wimbledon final.
 

Dan Lobb

G.O.A.T.
Fact IS though grass was not the only surface played on which is, especially then, the worst surface for complete tennis. IMO, the USO rallies this year were much more exciting that the Wimbledon final.
Each to his own...I think of grass as the basic surface for tennis.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top