Lew Hoad-A discussion on his career

[Dan Lobb]

An iconic image from the next week after meeting the Queen above, Hoad at Forest Hills Tournament of Champions, a venue he would lose to Gonzales at in 1957, but win over Gonzales in 1958 and 1959.

http://media.gettyimages.com/photos...lew-hoad-in-action-vs-usa-picture-id186890247

In this photo from 1957, Hoad does not look like the overweight under-tennised part-timer of later years.

 

[Limpinhitter]

In this photo from 1957, Hoad does not look like the overweight under-tennised part-timer of later years.

Gotta love the true Continental grip on Hoad's forehand.

 

[Dan Lobb]

Gotta love the true Continental grip on Hoad's forehand.

Hoad used the same grip for every shot, including overhead and volleys. This saved time during quick rallies.

 

[Dan Lobb]

There is no doubt players like Laver, Rosewall and Gonzalez had the head to head advantage over Hoad. However one key is whether they could have had a head to head advantage over a motivated and fully healthy Hoad at his best. All three of them seem to indicate that Hoad may have bested them if Hoad was at his best at they were on their best.

Another key thing to think of is how good was Hoad overall in his best years? Was his best years superior to many others? Considering that his best was thought to be higher than anyone else could he have won a head to head tour against anyone that ever lived?

There are so many people including former greats of the game that are in awe of Hoad. It is something that we have to take into account. Do we have to believe it? I see no reason not to in most cases unlike opinions on other things in tennis where players have to be politically correct.

If you read or see most greats, you can tell many of them seem to have some flaws in their game. Some may not be the fastest like John Newcombe. Some may have a minor forehand problem like Edberg. Some may have a weaker backhand like Sampras and Federer. With Hoad it seems that he could attack off anything. The weakness that people indicate that he had was in his mind or later back injuries.

Perfectly stated, PC1. In the two world championship tours in 1959/60, Hoad's record was 76 to 33, a 70% win rate, comparable to the stats achieved by Kramer or Gonzales on their world championship tours.

 

[Dan Lobb]

Perfectly stated, PC1. In the two world championship tours in 1959/60, Hoad's record was 76 to 33, a 70% win rate, comparable to the stats achieved by Kramer or Gonzales on their world championship tours.

Just to fill out those numbers, that represents a total of 109 matches on the two world championship tours of that season, and Hoad played many other matches of lesser significance that year, well over 150 matches for 1959. That is a huge number, more than today's players would ever dream of.
Hoad's percentage win rate on the larger world tournament series in 1959/60 was 72%, the highest on that tour, although Gonzales was at 71%, playing fewer matches.

 

[Dan Lobb]

Just to fill out those numbers, that represents a total of 109 matches on the two world championship tours of that season, and Hoad played many other matches of lesser significance that year, well over 150 matches for 1959. That is a huge number, more than today's players would ever dream of.
Hoad's percentage win rate on the larger world tournament series in 1959/60 was 72%, the highest on that tour, although Gonzales was at 71%, playing fewer matches.

These numbers alone are sufficient to refute the common myth that Hoad was an inconsistent player...when you play that many matches with high percentage wins, that is a very definition of consistent play.

 

[old man stringer]

who is this kodes, sounds like a floor cleaning solution like a new mr clean--hoad was wonderful especially after he learned to saw one inch off the end of his maxplys nobody eve could peg a volley earlier, crisper and harder than hoad. vines hit the ball harder than anyone in his time but he hit it at the top of the bounce later on players began taking the ball on the rise my favorite player used a 19.5 oz racket before blister causing
grips came along rember using a coat on your gut is a little like wearing a raincoat in the shower

 

[old man stringer]

one of the greatest comments Lew ever made when he was asked how he would do against the current shining star, Borg, at Wimbledon. Lew said it would be no problem, he would just come in and volley all of Borg's shots. In retrospect I have called Borg's matches and I fully appreciate his talent and unequalled speed on the court. I would have to think Hoadie for one match just could pull it off. Borg and Hoad had one amazing thing in common. They both had the greatest implacable attitude that simply did not allow them to be rattled in any way. Tennis lucky to have had such great models.

 

[Dan Lobb]

who is this kodes, sounds like a floor cleaning solution like a new mr clean--hoad was wonderful especially after he learned to saw one inch off the end of his maxplys nobody eve could peg a volley earlier, crisper and harder than hoad. vines hit the ball harder than anyone in his time but he hit it at the top of the bounce later on players began taking the ball on the rise my favorite player used a 19.5 oz racket before blister causing
grips came along rember using a coat on your gut is a little like wearing a raincoat in the shower

Laver regarded Hoad's volleys as the greatest ever, and tried to follow this model.

 

[thrust]

That's always been the question with Lew Hoad. For one match he very well close have been the GOAT but it is debatable. Yet at the same time there has been an argument that if there was a tournament in which the losers would have to jump off a bridge, then perhaps the winner would be Pancho Gonzalez because in do or die match Gonzalez may reach the highest level.

So what do we look at for GOAT? Hoad obviously has wonderful credentials as a great player and the opinions of players who have played or people who have seen him viewed him with awe but there are also experts like Jack Kramer who felt Hoad was overrated because of his inconsistency in playing level.

Objectively the total career accomplishments of some like Laver and Rosewall surpass Hoad easily. I don't think Hoad can stand up to some in career accomplishment. So we have to look at peak level of play and look at Hoad's best years.

Consistency is important in evaluating greatness but you also have to look at peak level. That's always the problem with evaluating Lew Hoad.

Excellent and accurate post! At his very best it seems as though he could beat anyone, unfortunately he was not very consistent. He never won a pro slam, losing 4 or 5 finals to Rosewall who probably took his game more seriously.

 

[Dan Lobb]

Excellent and accurate post! At his very best it seems as though he could beat anyone, unfortunately he was not very consistent. He never won a pro slam, losing 4 or 5 finals to Rosewall who probably took his game more seriously.

Hoad was consistent between 1956 and 1960, winning a pro tour against all the top pros in 1959/60. His percentage of matches won on that tour was 72%, as against the second place Gonzales percentage of 71%.
I think that that should put to rest the old canard about Hoad's inconsistency.

 

[thrust]

Gonzales called the tour a "head to head" tour, by which he meant that the feature match at each stop was a Gonzales-Hoad match.
This was not a true round-robin tour, as Hoad and Gonzales played each other 28 times, while playing only 34 matches against the two rookies combined.
When a player dominates a match, he appears to be brilliant. When Rosewall controlled his matches in the early sixties, he APPEARED to be more brilliant than before, BUT he was getting more OPPORTUNITIES to look briliiant against Hoad and Gonzales after they passed their prime. They were no longer able to control their matches against Rosewall, as their abilities had declined. Simple.
Objectively, Rosewall playeed awseome tennis in 1958 and 1959, especially at Forest Hills, where he looked like winning both tournaments, the biggest of the year. Gonzales and Hoad had to get up off the canvas to pull out their wins against him.
And the Kooyong 1960 final between Hoad and Rosewall, the season finale, was described in the New York Times as the greatest match ever played at Kooyong stadium. It doesn't get any better than the best!

 

[thrust]

You write "simple". It's just too simple for me. You now belittle even the best experts who witnessed both the 1958/1959 Rosewall and the 1960 plus Rosewall. Why don't you trust them when they say that the latter Rosewall was more brillant? A top expert is able to judge if Rosewall is brillant regardless if he wins much or little when "appearing" brillant. Most experts are not stupid!

I doubt if that Kooyong final was the best ever match of Rosewall. I would have thought that his best ever match was an encounter WON by Rosewall, f.i. his 1963 win against Laver in the US Pro final. After the match Bobby Riggs said that Rosewall in that form would have beaten any great of the past.

Rosewall's best years were, and probably was #1, from mid 60-to mid 64. Ken seemed to be at his best in the pro slams or majors, winning 15 in 11 years which was a great accomplishment as there were only 3 pro majors. He was 6-4 vs Laver in pro slam finals, 5-0 vs Hoad. He was 1-0 vs Gonzalez in the French finals and also beat him in another French semi. He was 2-0 vs Segura in major finals and 1-0 vs Gimeno at the French. Ken's greatest year was 63, age 29. Ken did not compete at the US pro 58-62 because he chose that time of the year to visit his family in Australia.

 

[Dan Lobb]

Rosewall's best years were, and probably was #1, from mid 60-to mid 64. Ken seemed to be at his best in the pro slams or majors, winning 15 in 11 years which was a great accomplishment as there were only 3 pro majors. He was 6-4 vs Laver in pro slam finals, 5-0 vs Hoad. He was 1-0 vs Gonzalez in the French finals and also beat him in another French semi. He was 2-0 vs Segura in major finals and 1-0 vs Gimeno at the French. Ken's greatest year was 63, age 29. Ken did not compete at the US pro 58-62 because he chose that time of the year to visit his family in Australia.

Greatest in terms of results, or greatest in terms of the quality of tennis he produced? I care only about the latter.

 

[thrust]

Greatest in terms of results, or greatest in terms of the quality of tennis he produced? I care only about the latter.

I
I saw Rosewall live several times at Forest Hills, and I can tell you he had a great all court game. His WCT finals win over Laver in 72 was one of the greatest matches of all time. He also beat Laver in the 71 WCT final. He was 36 and 37 when he won those 3 of 5 set matches. According to Arthur Ashe, Ken was the greatest volleyer and had the best backhand of any player he ever competed against. His movement was similar to Federer: great anticipation, speed and balance. He did not over power his shots, but as Tom Okker once said, his shots were just deep and far away from you so that you could reach the ball but Ken was at the net to easily put your returns away. IMO, Results are what most counts. What good is it to have a stylish all court game if you don't win very often. Tommy Haas is a perfect example of that. Rosewall, Laver Gonzles and Federer were great players who played the game of tennis the way it is supposed to be played, which is why they played at such a high level into their mid thirties. Ken is the only player who has won 4 slams and reached 4 other finals, between the ages of 33-39, since 1960. He won the FO at 33, USO at 35, AO at 36 and 37. The AO in 71 was highly competitive with all the best grass court players competing including Laver, Newcombe, Ashe, Okker and Emerson.

 

[pc1]

I
I saw Rosewall live several times at Forest Hills, and I can tell you he had a great all court game. His WCT finals win over Laver in 72 was one of the greatest matches of all time. He also beat Laver in the 71 WCT final. He was 36 and 37 when he won those 3 of 5 set matches. According to Arthur Ashe, Ken was the greatest volleyer and had the best backhand of any player he ever competed against. His movement was similar to Federer: great anticipation, speed and balance. He did not over power his shots, but as Tom Okker once said, his shots were just deep and far away from you so that you could reach the ball but Ken was at the net to easily put your returns away. IMO, Results are what most counts. What good is it to have a stylish all court game if you don't win very often. Tommy Haas is a perfect example of that. Rosewall, Laver Gonzles and Federer were great players who played the game of tennis the way it is supposed to be played, which is why they played at such a high level into their mid thirties. Ken is the only player who has won 4 slams and reached 4 other finals, between the ages of 33-39, since 1960. He won the FO at 33, USO at 35, AO at 36 and 37. The AO in 71 was highly competitive with all the best grass court players competing including Laver, Newcombe, Ashe, Okker and Emerson.

I don't recall Ashe saying Rosewall was the best volleyer but he did write that Rosewall and Laver had the best backhands he had ever faced.

Great description of Rosewall's game.

 

[pc1]

Greatest in terms of results, or greatest in terms of the quality of tennis he produced? I care only about the latter.

The latter is more important because it shows up in results. You just have to analyze the results differently depending on the era of the player.

Sometimes results may look good but upon further analysis it may not be. For example a person may win a tournament with a 100% result but then we see that it's against mere 5.0 players and he struggled in every match to win so it's not that good.

 

[Dan Lobb]

I
I saw Rosewall live several times at Forest Hills, and I can tell you he had a great all court game. His WCT finals win over Laver in 72 was one of the greatest matches of all time. He also beat Laver in the 71 WCT final. He was 36 and 37 when he won those 3 of 5 set matches. According to Arthur Ashe, Ken was the greatest volleyer and had the best backhand of any player he ever competed against. His movement was similar to Federer: great anticipation, speed and balance. He did not over power his shots, but as Tom Okker once said, his shots were just deep and far away from you so that you could reach the ball but Ken was at the net to easily put your returns away. IMO, Results are what most counts. What good is it to have a stylish all court game if you don't win very often. Tommy Haas is a perfect example of that. Rosewall, Laver Gonzles and Federer were great players who played the game of tennis the way it is supposed to be played, which is why they played at such a high level into their mid thirties. Ken is the only player who has won 4 slams and reached 4 other finals, between the ages of 33-39, since 1960. He won the FO at 33, USO at 35, AO at 36 and 37. The AO in 71 was highly competitive with all the best grass court players competing including Laver, Newcombe, Ashe, Okker and Emerson.

I think that Rosewall's greatest wins were not against the very best opposition.
What makes Hoad's year in 1959 so impressive was that the opposition that year was the strongest ever.

 

[thrust]

I think that Rosewall's greatest wins were not against the very best opposition.
What makes Hoad's year in 1959 so impressive was that the opposition that year was the strongest ever.

Hoad had one or two great years on the pro tour 58-59. He and Rosewall were the same age, yet Rosewall beat Lew in 5 pro slam finals. Ken H-H against Laver, after turning 30, is 6-4 in pro slam finals and 2-0 in WCT finals at 36-37. Laver was 4 years younger than Rosewall. I have read that Ken's H-H vs Hoad was 45-25 in favor of Ken. Perhaps at his very best, Lew was better than Ken, but Ken played at a very high level much longer than Lew did and most other top players since 1960

 

[Dan Lobb]

Hoad had one or two great years on the pro tour 58-59. He and Rosewall were the same age, yet Rosewall beat Lew in 5 pro slam finals. Ken H-H against Laver, after turning 30, is 6-4 in pro slam finals and 2-0 in WCT finals at 36-37. Laver was 4 years younger than Rosewall. I have read that Ken's H-H vs Hoad was 45-25 in favor of Ken. Perhaps at his very best, Lew was better than Ken, but Ken played at a very high level much longer than Lew did and most other top players since 1960

Ken won when Hoad and Gonzales were past prime....that says it all.

 

[Dan Lobb]

Hoad had one or two great years on the pro tour 58-59. He and Rosewall were the same age, yet Rosewall beat Lew in 5 pro slam finals. Ken H-H against Laver, after turning 30, is 6-4 in pro slam finals and 2-0 in WCT finals at 36-37. Laver was 4 years younger than Rosewall. I have read that Ken's H-H vs Hoad was 45-25 in favor of Ken. Perhaps at his very best, Lew was better than Ken, but Ken played at a very high level much longer than Lew did and most other top players since 1960

I think that if you look at all slam matches between Hoad and Rosewall, the picture is more balanced. Remember Hoad defeated Rosewall in the 1956 Australian final, Rosewall skipped the 1956 Roland Garros event, Hoad defeated Rosewall in the Wimbledon final in 1956, in the foremost clay event of 1957 at The Hague, at Kooyong in 1958, in the Australian Pro final in 1959, at the L.A. Masters in 1959, at Forest Hills in 1959, at Roland Garros in 1959, at Kooyong in 1960. I regard the latter group as pro majors for those years.

 

[thrust]

I think that if you look at all slam matches between Hoad and Rosewall, the picture is more balanced. Remember Hoad defeated Rosewall in the 1956 Australian final, Rosewall skipped the 1956 Roland Garros event, Hoad defeated Rosewall in the Wimbledon final in 1956, in the foremost clay event of 1957 at The Hague, at Kooyong in 1958, in the Australian Pro final in 1959, at the L.A. Masters in 1959, at Forest Hills in 1959, at Roland Garros in 1959, at Kooyong in 1960. I regard the latter group as pro majors for those years.

The official Pro Tour Majors were: Wembly, French and US Pro. Rosewall also defeated Hoad in an Australian and US finals. No doubt Lew had two great years on the Pro Tour in 58-59, whereas, Rosewall had at least 5 great years and was ranked 1-3 for most if not all of his 11 years on tour. Even when Laver became #! in mid 64, Ken managed to win 2 of the 3 majors in 65. I do not mean to imply that Rosewall was the greatest of the pros, but that for his size, he got the most out of his game. Ken was 5-7, Laver was 5-9, Hoad was 5-11 and Gonzales was 6-2

 

[pc1]

The official Pro Tour Majors were: Wembly, French and US Pro. Rosewall also defeated Hoad in an Australian and US finals. No doubt Lew had two great years on the Pro Tour in 58-59, whereas, Rosewall had at least 5 great years and was ranked 1-3 for most if not all of his 11 years on tour. Even when Laver became #! in mid 64, Ken managed to win 2 of the 3 majors in 65. I do not mean to imply that Rosewall was the greatest of the pros, but that for his size, he got the most out of his game. Ken was 5-7, Laver was 5-9, Hoad was 5-11 and Gonzales was 6-2

Gonzalez was 6'3 and a half.

 

[thrust]

Ken won when Hoad and Gonzales were past prime....that says it all.

Nonsense! Ken and Lew were born a few weeks apart. Gonzales was 6 years older so had the advantage over Ken when he joined the pro tour, for the first few years. Gonzales was creamed by Kramer on their first pro tour, much worse then when Poncho beat Ken. I have read that off the indoor surface, Ken did much better against Gonzales on grass and clay. Gonzales never won a clay major either as a amateur or pro. Ken won six, four as a pro beating Gonzales in two of the French Pro major. Ken also won 1 as an amateur and another in the open era, at age 33.

 

[thrust]

Gonzalez was 6'3 and a half.

Which gave him an even bigger advantage over Ken.

 

[Limpinhitter]

I
I saw Rosewall live several times at Forest Hills, and I can tell you he had a great all court game. His WCT finals win over Laver in 72 was one of the greatest matches of all time. He also beat Laver in the 71 WCT final. He was 36 and 37 when he won those 3 of 5 set matches. According to Arthur Ashe, Ken was the greatest volleyer and had the best backhand of any player he ever competed against. His movement was similar to Federer: great anticipation, speed and balance. He did not over power his shots, but as Tom Okker once said, his shots were just deep and far away from you so that you could reach the ball but Ken was at the net to easily put your returns away. IMO, Results are what most counts. What good is it to have a stylish all court game if you don't win very often. Tommy Haas is a perfect example of that. Rosewall, Laver Gonzles and Federer were great players who played the game of tennis the way it is supposed to be played, which is why they played at such a high level into their mid thirties. Ken is the only player who has won 4 slams and reached 4 other finals, between the ages of 33-39, since 1960. He won the FO at 33, USO at 35, AO at 36 and 37. The AO in 71 was highly competitive with all the best grass court players competing including Laver, Newcombe, Ashe, Okker and Emerson.

Rosewall's record is, in large part, the result of the fact that he enjoyed an extraordinarily long, injury free, prime from the mid 50's to the mid 70's. Compare Laver's prime which, due to injuries, was probably about 7-8 years. However, in my view, Rosewall's peak level of play was not as great as Gonzalez, Hoad and Laver. I think the same argument can be made regarding Budge, Vines and Tilden.

 

[Limpinhitter]

The official Pro Tour Majors were: Wembly, French and US Pro. Rosewall also defeated Hoad in an Australian and US finals. No doubt Lew had two great years on the Pro Tour in 58-59, whereas, Rosewall had at least 5 great years and was ranked 1-3 for most if not all of his 11 years on tour. Even when Laver became #! in mid 64, Ken managed to win 2 of the 3 majors in 65. I do not mean to imply that Rosewall was the greatest of the pros, but that for his size, he got the most out of his game. Ken was 5-7, Laver was 5-9, Hoad was 5-11 and Gonzales was 6-2

I'm glad that you think Laver became #1 in 1964. I think that is the majority view on TW. However, if you persist in this view, you should expect to be inducted into Bobby's "Enemies List," with all of the rights and privileges appertaining thereto (aka ad hominem personal attacks and verbal abuse), forthcoming.

 

[thrust]

Rosewall's record is, in large part, the result of the fact that he enjoyed an extraordinarily long, injury free, prime from the mid 50's to the mid 70's. Compare Laver's prime which, due to injuries, was probably about 7-8 years. However, in my view, Rosewall's peak level of play was not as great as Gonzalez, Hoad and Laver. I think the same argument can be made regarding Budge, Vines and Tilden.

As far as I recall, Laver never had serious injury problems. IMO, many injuries especially today, are due to style of play. Until recently, Federer had few minor injuries, which was primarily due to hid style of play which is similar to Ken, Rod, and Poncho. Hoad had back problems primarily due to excessive weight training which Ken refused to do. Ken was more into running, which enabled him to play at a very high level for so long.

 

[Limpinhitter]

As far as I recall, Laver never had serious injury problems. IMO, many injuries especially today, are due to style of play. Until recently, Federer had few minor injuries, which was primarily due to hid style of play which is similar to Ken, Rod, and Poncho. Hoad had back problems primarily due to excessive weight training which Ken refused to do. Ken was more into running, which enabled him to play at a very high level for so long.

I knew nothing of Laver's injuries at the time. Only in recent years have I read from different sources that he began suffering from injuries as early as 1972 which affected his playing schedule. My understanding is that Hoad also suffered from alcohol abuse secondary to his back injuries.

 

[thrust]

I'm glad that you think Laver became #1 in 1964. I think that is the majority view on TW. However, if you persist in this view, you should expect to be inducted into Bobby's "Enemies List," with all of the rights and privileges appertaining thereto (aka ad hominem personal attacks and verbal abuse), forthcoming.

Like it or not, Rosewall was the official #1 pro tour player in 64, even Laver agreed. There is no doubt Laver took over towards the end of 64. IMO, Ken was the #1 pro from mid 60 to mid-late 64

 

[Limpinhitter]

Like it or not, Rosewall was the official #1 pro tour player in 64, even Laver agreed. There is no doubt Laver took over towards the end of 64. IMO, Ken was the #1 pro from mid 60 to mid-late 64

What do you mean by "official?"

PS: BTW, you should expect to get a lot of push-back regarding 60' and 61".

 

[Dan Lobb]

The official Pro Tour Majors were: Wembly, French and US Pro. Rosewall also defeated Hoad in an Australian and US finals. No doubt Lew had two great years on the Pro Tour in 58-59, whereas, Rosewall had at least 5 great years and was ranked 1-3 for most if not all of his 11 years on tour. Even when Laver became #! in mid 64, Ken managed to win 2 of the 3 majors in 65. I do not mean to imply that Rosewall was the greatest of the pros, but that for his size, he got the most out of his game. Ken was 5-7, Laver was 5-9, Hoad was 5-11 and Gonzales was 6-2

There were no "official" pro majors. Some tournaments were more prestigious than others.
Hoad was 5' 10', weighed variously at 165 lbs. and up. When in shape, the strongest player ever to wield a racquet.
Hoad had two great years on the pro tour, agreed, in '58-'59. But those two years saw the peak of the pro tours, the strongest fields ever.

 

[Limpinhitter]

There were no "official" pro majors. Some tournaments were more prestigious than others.
Hoad was 5' 10', weighed variously at 165 lbs. and up. When in shape, the strongest player ever to wield a racquet.
Hoad had two great years on the pro tour, agreed, in '58-'59. But those two years saw the peak of the pro tours, the strongest fields ever.

My understanding, from what I've read over the decades, is that there were no official rankings prior to 1970. A World Championship event may have served to determine the #1 player at any given time, but, didn't serve as a comprehensive ranking or even year end #1.

Regarding the strongest player, I'd go with Johan Kriek, or maybe Slobodan Zivojiovic.

 

[pc1]

There were no "official" pro majors. Some tournaments were more prestigious than others.
Hoad was 5' 10', weighed variously at 165 lbs. and up. When in shape, the strongest player ever to wield a racquet.
Hoad had two great years on the pro tour, agreed, in '58-'59. But those two years saw the peak of the pro tours, the strongest fields ever.

I understand Hoad was 5'11".

 

[Dan Lobb]

My understanding, from what I've read over the decades, is that there were no official rankings prior to 1970. A World Championship event may have served to determine the #1 player at any given time, but, didn't serve as a comprehensive ranking or even year end #1.

Regarding the strongest player, I'd go with Johan Kriek, or maybe Slobodan Zivojiovic.

You are right, there were no official number one's...the pros and the press would normally refer to the tour winner as the "world champion", but that might not always be the top player for a big match of a given year.

 

[Dan Lobb]

I understand Hoad was 5'11".

You may be right. Various numbers have been given.

 

[thrust]

You are right, there were no official number one's...the pros and the press would normally refer to the tour winner as the "world champion", but that might not always be the top player for a big match of a given year.

As someone pointed out here, in 64 there was a point system for about 19 or 20 tournaments, in which Rosewall acquired the most points. Later that year there were 10 more tournaments in South Africa, that were not part of the point system. It was at the point that Laver started closing in on Ken for the #1 ranking. Most of the experts who decided the rankings had Rosewall either at #1 or co #1 for 64. See Wikopedia to get the accurate stats..

 

[thrust]

There were no "official" pro majors. Some tournaments were more prestigious than others.
Hoad was 5' 10', weighed variously at 165 lbs. and up. When in shape, the strongest player ever to wield a racquet.
Hoad had two great years on the pro tour, agreed, in '58-'59. But those two years saw the peak of the pro tours, the strongest fields ever.

You are Wrong, Wembly, the French and US Pro were the official Majors of the Pro tour. Yes, there were other important tournaments, but they were Not considered Majors. Hoad's best years probably were 58-59, but he still managed to reach several major finals in the sixties, all of which he lost to Rosewall. Facts Are Facts, whether one likes them or not.

 

[Dan Lobb]

You are Wrong, Wembly, the French and US Pro were the official Majors of the Pro tour. Yes, there were other important tournaments, but they were Not considered Majors. Hoad's best years probably were 58-59, but he still managed to reach several major finals in the sixties, all of which he lost to Rosewall. Facts Are Facts, whether one likes them or not.

I hope that you like the facts as I discovered them...there was NO official U.S. Pro between 1952 and 1961, the Cleveland event did not even claim to be the U.S. Pro.....Forest Hills was the supreme pro tournament of the late fifties. Kooyong was the most prestigious Australian pro event. Wembley claimed to be the World Pro Indoor Tennis Championship...that "indoor" qualifier is a big one.
The French Pro lost most of its prestige when the pros relocated from Roland Garros in 1963...I cannot think of a French major without clay.

 

[thrust]

I hope that you like the facts as I discovered them...there was NO official U.S. Pro between 1952 and 1961, the Cleveland event did not even claim to be the U.S. Pro.....Forest Hills was the supreme pro tournament of the late fifties. Kooyong was the most prestigious Australian pro event. Wembley claimed to be the World Pro Indoor Tennis Championship...that "indoor" qualifier is a big one.
The French Pro lost most of its prestige when the pros relocated from Roland Garros in 1963...I cannot think of a French major without clay.

Wrong Again! According to the Bud Collins Records book and Wikipedia the US Pro was played in Cleveland the years you mention, sometimes it was at Forest Hills and some at the Longwood Cricket Club. Rosewall did Not compete at the US Pro 58-62, as he spent that time of year visiting his family in Australia. He beat Laver in the 63 final at Forest Hills and again in 65 at Longwood, both on grass. Ken won 4 French Pro titles on clay, beating bot Hoad and Gonzales in finals. He then beat Laver in 4 consecutive French finals on indoor wood. To say the French lost it's importance after it left RG, is utter nonsense, as is your claim about the US Pro.

 

[Dan Lobb]

Wrong Again! According to the Bud Collins Records book and Wikipedia the US Pro was played in Cleveland the years you mention, sometimes it was at Forest Hills and some at the Longwood Cricket Club. Rosewall did Not compete at the US Pro 58-62, as he spent that time of year visiting his family in Australia. He beat Laver in the 63 final at Forest Hills and again in 65 at Longwood, both on grass. Ken won 4 French Pro titles on clay, beating bot Hoad and Gonzales in finals. He then beat Laver in 4 consecutive French finals on indoor wood. To say the French lost it's importance after it left RG, is utter nonsense, as is your claim about the US Pro.

Where have you been? We discussed this a few hundred times...those books do not give us contemporary support. Check the USPLTA website, the OFFICIAL one, and see that. Also, all the contemporary media coverage and program books describe the Cleveland event as the "Pepsi-Cola World Pro Tennis Championships", no mention anywhere of "U.S. Pro". Sports Illustrated referred to Cleveland as the "POC (Pepsi-Cola?) World Pro", again, no mention of "U.S. Pro".

Kramer applied to the USPLTA to have the Forest Hills event officially recognized as the U.S. Pro in 1959...now, why would he do that if a U. S. Pro already existed? He was granted his request, on condition that it was held at Forest Hills, which happened in 1963.

 

[Gary Duane]

Ken won when Hoad and Gonzales were past prime....that says it all.

Dan, you're talking about physical condition in the case of Hoad, right? Even so, that doesn't "say it all" because you are assuming not only that Hoad declined (undoubtedly true) but that Rosewall did not improve, which I would absolutely disagree with. We don't know that a healthy Hoad would have continued to dominate Rosewall. Maybe. Maybe not.

 

[Gary Duane]

Gonzalez was 6'3 and a half.

Why is Pancho's height misreported? I would expect if anything it would be exaggerated, not underestimated!

 

[Dan Lobb]

Dan, you're talking about physical condition in the case of Hoad, right? Even so, that doesn't "say it all" because you are assuming not only that Hoad declined (undoubtedly true) but that Rosewall did not improve, which I would absolutely disagree with. We don't know that a healthy Hoad would have continued to dominate Rosewall. Maybe. Maybe not.

Of course, we cannot be sure about that....but judging from what other players at the time were estimating.

 

[Gary Duane]

Of course, we cannot be sure about that....but judging from what other players at the time were estimating.

Right. As I keep saying, Hoad is before my time. I remember Rosewall and Laver because they continued to play for far longer. And Gonzales played for perhaps the longest of all of them. The thing about players who hit an early peak and then fade is they can be remember as being even better than they were OR not fully appreciated.

 

[pc1]

Why is Pancho's height misreported? I would expect if anything it would be exaggerated, not underestimated!

Have no idea but this is the height that I have read about and that his family confirmed was correct.

 

[Dan Lobb]

Right. As I keep saying, Hoad is before my time. I remember Rosewall and Laver because they continued to play for far longer. And Gonzales played for perhaps the longest of all of them. The thing about players who hit an early peak and then fade is they can be remember as being even better than they were OR not fully appreciated.

Hoad was certainly fully appreciated by his colleagues, as such players as Gonzales, Laver, Rosewall, Cooper, Buchholz, Bedard, Davidson, and others rated him GOAT....no other player achieved such acclaim from other players.
It is historians of tennis, who did not see Hoad at his prime, who have refused to include him in the top 10, based on career numbers, although his career numbers compare well with other players with short prime periods, such as Budge, Borg, McEnroe, Becker, Edberg.

 

[Gary Duane]

Hoad was certainly fully appreciated by his colleagues, as such players as Gonzales, Laver, Rosewall, Cooper, Buchholz, Bedard, Davidson, and others rated him GOAT....no other player achieved such acclaim from other players.

It is historians of tennis, who did not see Hoad at his prime, who have refused to include him in the top 10, based on career numbers, although his career numbers compare well with other players with short prime periods, such as Budge, Borg, McEnroe, Becker, Edberg.

As always it's a shame that there is not more hard data on this period.

I think you know how much I hate GOAT discussions. This kind of silliness starts because people insist on comparing people in different eras.

But obviously you are the best of your own era, or you aren't. And obviously he was the very best, if only for a shorter period of time than most. So people SHOULD listen to the opinions of all those other great players!

 

[treblings]

Hoad was certainly fully appreciated by his colleagues, as such players as Gonzales, Laver, Rosewall, Cooper, Buchholz, Bedard, Davidson, and others rated him GOAT....no other player achieved such acclaim from other players.
It is historians of tennis, who did not see Hoad at his prime, who have refused to include him in the top 10, based on career numbers, although his career numbers compare well with other players with short prime periods, such as Budge, Borg, McEnroe, Becker, Edberg.

I can understand how you feel, Dan.

that´s why i always look at reports, articles, etc from that time period,
to get a feeling for what really happened and what people at the time felt.

 

[thrust]

Right. As I keep saying, Hoad is before my time. I remember Rosewall and Laver because they continued to play for far longer. And Gonzales played for perhaps the longest of all of them. The thing about players who hit an early peak and then fade is they can be remember as being even better than they were OR not fully appreciated.

The unique fact about Rosewall is that he won his first two slams at 18, his last two at 36-37. Sampras won his first at 19, his last at 31, Gonzales won his first at 20, his last pro slam at 31, Laver won his last slam at 31, his first at 22. Sampras retired at 31, Rosewall, Laver and Gonzales were top ten player into their late thirties. IMO, longevity should be an important factor in any great players resume. Longevity, Rosewall is the GOAT, since 1953, the year he won his first slam.