Lew Hoad-A discussion on his career

[pc1]

..

 

[Dan Lobb]

Personally I think there is a chance Vines could have been as great as any player. Same with Tilden.

I also feel that guys like Kramer and Gonzalez have been sorely underrated because people have forgotten about them and can only look at the record book which shows Laver with several Grand Slams. Gonzalez only has two amateur classic majors yet it is interesting that I read Rosewall commenting that Gonzalez was number one until he retired. People today don't know how many years Gonzalez was the top player in the world.

I figure it this way if we want to think about how the past players MAY do today. I think there is no doubt the past male players like Gonzalez, Kramer and Laver were far more talented on an absolute level than Serena Williams. Yet Serena can serve over 120 mph and hit with tremendous power off the ground. Gonzalez at around 6'3 and 1/2 inches (that's what his family tells me) with great strength and mobility would probably serve at a far greater speed than Serena. Vic Braden, who did computer analysis wrote in the late 1990s that Gonzalez would serve in the 140 mph range if he played at that time. I have no doubt he would be great today given adjustment to current tech. Look at a guy like John Isner who was and is among the top players due mainly to that serve of his. Well Gonzalez's serve also was awesome but his movement and strokes were far smoother and superior to Isner's in my opinion.

But yes I do think some players could be slaughtered today but at the same time if some players went to the past to play with wood, some may be slaughtered in the past also.

I think one player from the past made for today's game is Lew Hoad. His topspin strokes would be perfect combined with his serve, power and speed.

Any comments @Dan Lobb on Hoad?

The comments that have survived regarding Hoad's physical strength indicate that he would be a standout athlete in today's tennis world.
His weight lifting regime would overwhelm any player today.
There was an account of how he once lifted a chair by its front legs with a man still seated in it. I cannot see anyone around today capable of that.
Gonzales stated that Hoad's physical strength was his primary asset, "He was such a strong son of a b*******, if he wanted to win, you couldn't beat him."

 

[chrisb]

You saw Vines, Kramer and Gonzalez play?

You saw Vines, Kramer and Gonzalez play?

Not Vines Kramer and Gonzo. Only saw film of Vines and Budge saw the other 2

 

[Limpinhitter]

Not Vines Kramer and Gonzo. Only saw film of Vines and Budge saw the other 2

If I understand your post, you saw Kramer and Gonzalez play live. Wow! Lucky you! You must be older than BobbyOne! Did you see them play each other?

 

[pc1]

I have seen Gonzalez hit with Mr. Peanut. (No joke.)

http://www.planters.com/get-to-know-planters/planters-through-the-years

 

[chrisb]

If I understand your post, you saw Kramer and Gonzalez play live. Wow! Lucky you! You must be older than BobbyOne! Did you see them play each other?

74 No Kramer V Segura Gonzo many times on their barnstorming tour

 

[BobbyOne]

At Indian Wells Fed was in the quarter of doom with everybody in it. He survived the others lost case closed. You can`t compare 1970 to 2017. That is a false equivalency. The ball travelled about 55 mph on groundies and a couple of guys could hit triple figures on serves. A lot of guys trained in the pubs and practiced only on court. 1/2 the guys were enabled pansey asks from wealthy families that did this before they went to Wall Street. Today we have disciplined athletes that train on and off court, have strict diets and all the most advanced techniques done through biomechanical research.

chrisb, Ever heard about Harry Hopman?

 

[BobbyOne]

I wouldn`t go to the extreme and say that it would be a slaughter.

Let`s just talk about the 2 players that at this point have the most consensus regarding their GOAT status: Fed and Laver.

Which one is better? Which one is greater? I find the second question much easier to answer than the first one.

Who is better? Impossible to know for sure. What i would say is the following, from a statistical point of view it is a fact that Fed has more chances of being better than Laver than the other way around. As i said before, Fed dominated a field much bigger than Laver. So he has the numbers on his side. Does it make him better by default? No, but it is a good indicator.

One thing that i noticed reading on this part of the forum is that the posters who grew up in the 50`s , 60`s and 70`s always put at the very top or near the top players of that period? Concidence? Don`t think so. Nostalgic bias? Most likely.
Why don`t they put players pre WW2 at the top? Vines was as dominant as anyone, so was Tilden, so was Wilding, Doherty, Renshaw, etc? The answer is that they do not value the competition pre WW2 as much as the following decades. So it begs the question, why don`t they apply the same logic with players that emerged 30 or 40 years later than their sweetharts?

ARFED, The times of Renshaw, Wilding and even Tilden had relative weak fields while after WW2 had already strong fields.

Tennis does not increase on the top with every decade. Otherwise old players of one generation would not be able to cope with the following generation. Laver and Rosewall could match Newcombe and partly Borg/Connors, Connors was able to cope with Agassi, and so on. Nowadays old Federer dominates the younger players.

 

[BobbyOne]

74 No Kramer V Segura Gonzo many times on their barnstorming tour

chrisb, Admirable. You must have been a child. At that age I did not already how a tennis ball looks like...

 

[chrisb]

chrisb, Ever heard about Harry Hopman?

Of course he worked at PW Tennis Academy on Long Island, learned a lot from him. He was the reason we had so many Aussie stars in that time period. Now as to what I said. They would sometimes go split squad as they called it, going to 2 different tournys at the same time Harry could only be at 1 site, and when the cat is away the mice will play. Understand my gist

 

[chrisb]

chrisb, Admirable. You must have been a child. At that age I did not already how a tennis ball looks like...

My friends Dad was a teaching pro, I went along for the ride

 

[pc1]

Of course he worked at PW Tennis Academy on Long Island, learned a lot from him. He was the reason we had so many Aussie stars in that time period. Now as to what I said. They would sometimes go split squad as they called it, going to 2 different tournys at the same time Harry could only be at 1 site, and when the cat is away the mice will play. Understand my gist

Did you live on Long Island Chris?

 

[BobbyOne]

Of course he worked at PW Tennis Academy on Long Island, learned a lot from him. He was the reason we had so many Aussie stars in that time period. Now as to what I said. They would sometimes go split squad as they called it, going to 2 different tournys at the same time Harry could only be at 1 site, and when the cat is away the mice will play. Understand my gist

chrisb, The best players were the pros. You refer to the amateurs. Some amateurs might have been under-trained (f.e. old Drobny) but the pros were in good shape. Their best practice was a heavy schedule of matches. They played much more than the current players do.

A minor point: Please write "tourney".

 

[ARFED]

ARFED, The times of Renshaw, Wilding and even Tilden had relative weak fields while after WW2 had already strong fields.

Tennis does not increase on the top with every decade. Otherwise old players of one generation would not be able to cope with the following generation. Laver and Rosewall could match Newcombe and partly Borg/Connors, Connors was able to cope with Agassi, and so on. Nowadays old Federer dominates the younger players.

The process that i am tlaking about does not take place from one generation to another. The leap in quality it`s not that fast generally. It takes several decades like from the 20`s to the 60`s. There is a noticeable increase in the pool of talent, quali

ARFED, The times of Renshaw, Wilding and even Tilden had relative weak fields while after WW2 had already strong fields.

Tennis does not increase on the top with every decade. Otherwise old players of one generation would not be able to cope with the following generation. Laver and Rosewall could match Newcombe and partly Borg/Connors, Connors was able to cope with Agassi, and so on. Nowadays old Federer dominates the younger players.

The leap in quality of play does not happen that fast, like from one generation to the next (roughly a decade), it takes usually several decades for the changes to be noticeable. This apply to all the sports generally.

Why Tilden dominated a weak field and Gonzalez a strong one? Because you say so? Did you watch tennis in the early twenties? You didn`t even watch tennis in the 50`s.
BTW i agree with you, Tilden dominated over a weak field in his era when we compare that era to the one Gonzalez or Rosewall played in. By the same token i also think that the field these last 2 dominated is also abismally inferior to the one that Sampras reigned upon.

I am not implying that Federer is a superior athlete per se when comparing him to Laver for instance. I am well aware of the differences in training regimes, nutrition, medical treatments, etc. All i am saying is that Federer (or Djokovic, Nadal, etc) had to impose himself over a superior field (the numbers back this up, i am sorry but there is no 2 ways around that), chances are that he is the superior player. Chances being the operative word here, nothing is for sure.

I have talked to several coaches and trainers (football, rugby, tennis, basketball), many have more than 30 years of experience on their fields and the answer is almost always the same. The pool of talent from where to pick the next talents has never been bigger and it never cease to increase. Keep in mind that i am only talking about Argentina here, wouldn`t know if this trend applies to every country but i am willing to bet that this is the case in majority of them.

 

[Limpinhitter]

74 No Kramer V Segura Gonzo many times on their barnstorming tour

Segura too? Wow! That's an enviable privilege. But, I'm not sure you are older than BobbyOne. He's older than Methuselah.

 

[BobbyOne]

The process that i am tlaking about does not take place from one generation to another. The leap in quality it`s not that fast generally. It takes several decades like from the 20`s to the 60`s. There is a noticeable increase in the pool of talent, quali


The leap in quality of play does not happen that fast, like from one generation to the next (roughly a decade), it takes usually several decades for the changes to be noticeable. This apply to all the sports generally.

Why Tilden dominated a weak field and Gonzalez a strong one? Because you say so? Did you watch tennis in the early twenties? You didn`t even watch tennis in the 50`s.
BTW i agree with you, Tilden dominated over a weak field in his era when we compare that era to the one Gonzalez or Rosewall played in. By the same token i also think that the field these last 2 dominated is also abismally inferior to the one that Sampras reigned upon.

I am not implying that Federer is a superior athlete per se when comparing him to Laver for instance. I am well aware of the differences in training regimes, nutrition, medical treatments, etc. All i am saying is that Federer (or Djokovic, Nadal, etc) had to impose himself over a superior field (the numbers back this up, i am sorry but there is no 2 ways around that), chances are that he is the superior player. Chances being the operative word here, nothing is for sure.

I have talked to several coaches and trainers (football, rugby, tennis, basketball), many have more than 30 years of experience on their fields and the answer is almost always the same. The pool of talent from where to pick the next talents has never been bigger and it never cease to increase. Keep in mind that i am only talking about Argentina here, wouldn`t know if this trend applies to every country but i am willing to bet that this is the case in majority of them.

ARFED, Look at Hoad's playing arm and compare it with Federer's. That says it all.

It's common sense that the 1920's had weaker fields than the 1950's. In the latter time six giants of tennis played each other in the same (pro) group.

 

[chrisb]

Did you live on Long Island Chris?

Yup and took the Aussies to the OBI

 

[pc1]

Yup and took the Aussies to the OBI

I live on Long Island also. Played at the Port Washington Tennis Academy a number of times. Ever play at the Carefree Racquet Club or Christopher Morley?

 

[BobbyOne]

Segura too? Wow! That's an enviable privilege. But, I'm not sure you are older than BobbyOne. He's older than Methuselah.

Limpin, Thanks for this honourable comparison with a "star" of the Bible who did not have dementia.

I'm not so sure regarding your extreme age as you have forgotten since more than a year that it's your duty in a serious forum to apologize for a rather mean and primitive lie (and to retract your other lies about me and to correct your silly numbers of Laver's majors)...

 

[pc1]

Segura too? Wow! That's an enviable privilege. But, I'm not sure you are older than BobbyOne. He's older than Methuselah.

Some poster actually thought I saw Bill Tilden play. Maybe by Time Machine someday. LOL.

I think I hit the ball pretty well for a guy who saw Bill Tilden.

 

[chrisb]

I live on Long Island also. Played at the Port Washington Tennis Academy a number of times. Ever play at the Carefree Racquet Club or Christopher Morley?

You mean the indoor courts in CM, yup with my son who lives in Port. Also a couple of times at Carefree. Live in Suffolk

 

[pc1]

You mean the indoor courts in CM, yup with my son who lives in Port. Also a couple of times at Carefree. Live in Suffolk

I live in Nassau county. Carefree has had the rep of being the best indoor club on Long Island. What's your favorite indoor club in Suffolk?

 

[chrisb]

I live in Nassau county. Carefree has had the rep of being the best indoor club on Long Island. What's your favorite indoor club in Suffolk?

I teach so I really don`t play too much in Suffolk. Play a lot in PW. Clubs not too good in Suffolk I guess KP has the best Rep. Don`t play three though

 

[Limpinhitter]

The comments that have survived regarding Hoad's physical strength indicate that he would be a standout athlete in today's tennis world.
His weight lifting regime would overwhelm any player today.
There was an account of how he once lifted a chair by its front legs with a man still seated in it. I cannot see anyone around today capable of that.
Gonzales stated that Hoad's physical strength was his primary asset, "He was such a strong son of a b*******, if he wanted to win, you couldn't beat him."

In my view, Hoad's greatest asset on the tennis court was his balance, timing, and eye-hand coordination. Physical upper body strength provides a minor benenfit at best.

 

[ARFED]

ARFED, Look at Hoad's playing arm and compare it with Federer's. That says it all.

It's common sense that the 1920's had weaker fields than the 1950's. In the latter time six giants of tennis played each other in the same (pro) group.

Common sense? Come on now Bobby, surely you can come up with a better argument than that. Something that is asserted without evidence can be disproven without evidence. Anyway, let`s just keep it civil, at least for this time, and agree to disagree on this issue.

 

[tom williams]

The comments that have survived regarding Hoad's physical strength indicate that he would be a standout athlete in today's tennis world.
His weight lifting regime would overwhelm any player today.
There was an account of how he once lifted a chair by its front legs with a man still seated in it. I cannot see anyone around today capable of that.
Gonzales stated that Hoad's physical strength was his primary asset, "He was such a strong son of a b*******, if he wanted to win, you couldn't beat him."

Back again Dan i read a story many years about Lew Hoad at a hotel in Paris where the Australian players were staying, there was trouble out the front with a couple of chaps , so Lew flatterned both of them . TW

 

[Gary Duane]

ARFED, The times of Renshaw, Wilding and even Tilden had relative weak fields while after WW2 had already strong fields.

Tennis does not increase on the top with every decade. Otherwise old players of one generation would not be able to cope with the following generation. Laver and Rosewall could match Newcombe and partly Borg/Connors, Connors was able to cope with Agassi, and so on. Nowadays old Federer dominates the younger players.

So true, Bobby. Again and again we have seen aging ATGs play very well against the youngest players coming up.

Equipment is throwing off all discussions. Right now you will hear today's players criticized as well as praised for the play style, as if somehow it is still possible to serve and volley in 2017 the way it was done int 1967, or it should have been possible for Laver and Co. to regularly hit rifle shots, as they do today, using only wood and gut.

Of course there is at least one member here who will tell us that players in the 60s served as fast and hit groundstrokes as fast, on a regular basis, as modern players.

 

[Gary Duane]

chrisb, The best players were the pros. You refer to the amateurs. Some amateurs might have been under-trained (f.e. old Drobny) but the pros were in good shape. Their best practice was a heavy schedule of matches. They played much more than the current players do.

A minor point: Please write "tourney".

Everyone playing tennis today is pampered compared to the top pros on the tour in the 50s and 60s, before Open tennis. There is a reason why they dominated Open tennis so much - they were tough. They had to play everywhere, in any weather, any surface. They often played sick or injured. No excuses back then. You got paid, you played...

 

[Dan Lobb]

Back again Dan i read a story many years about Lew Hoad at a hotel in Paris where the Australian players were staying, there was trouble out the front with a couple of chaps , so Lew flatterned both of them . TW

That is consistent with other stories I have read...in school, he flattened a school bully.

 

[BobbyOne]

Common sense? Come on now Bobby, surely you can come up with a better argument than that. Something that is asserted without evidence can be disproven without evidence. Anyway, let`s just keep it civil, at least for this time, and agree to disagree on this issue.

ARFED, I only react harshly after having been attacked. And I was not uncivilized this time at all. It was you who got personally ("because you say so?").

It's your right to not believe that common sense in this case is right but it's my right to believe that that common sense is right. Even a poster who hates me (since 2014) and who is a Tilden admirer always agreed that Tilden had a weaker opposition than Gonzalez or Laver.

 

[BobbyOne]

So true, Bobby. Again and again we have seen aging ATGs play very well against the youngest players coming up.

Equipment is throwing off all discussions. Right now you will hear today's players criticized as well as praised for the play style, as if somehow it is still possible to serve and volley in 2017 the way it was done int 1967, or it should have been possible for Laver and Co. to regularly hit rifle shots, as they do today, using only wood and gut.

Of course there is at least one member here who will tell us that players in the 60s served as fast and hit groundstrokes as fast, on a regular basis, as modern players.

Gary, Thanks. Let's look at the almost endless careers of Tilden, Gonzalez and Rosewall who succeeded against two or even three younger generations.

 

[ARFED]

ARFED, I only react harshly after having been attacked. And I was not uncivilized this time at all. It was you who got personally ("because you say so?").

It's your right to not believe that common sense in this case is right but it's my right to believe that that common sense is right. Even a poster who hates me (since 2014) and who is a Tilden admirer always agreed that Tilden had a weaker opposition than Gonzalez or Laver.

Bobby, i didn`t say that you were uncivilized nor did i say that your response was harsh. Thing is that "common sense" was never a valid response in the history of debates and you now this.

BTW i will be travelling to the Trentino next week to visit my cousins, so i will make the trip to Salzburg of which they told me it is beautiful. You are more than welcome to join me if you are nearby and discuss, over some coffee and biscuits, about the respective strenght of Rosewall`s and Federer`s field.

 

[70sHollywood]

The process that i am tlaking about does not take place from one generation to another. The leap in quality it`s not that fast generally. It takes several decades like from the 20`s to the 60`s. There is a noticeable increase in the pool of talent, quali


The leap in quality of play does not happen that fast, like from one generation to the next (roughly a decade), it takes usually several decades for the changes to be noticeable. This apply to all the sports generally.

Why Tilden dominated a weak field and Gonzalez a strong one? Because you say so? Did you watch tennis in the early twenties? You didn`t even watch tennis in the 50`s.
BTW i agree with you, Tilden dominated over a weak field in his era when we compare that era to the one Gonzalez or Rosewall played in. By the same token i also think that the field these last 2 dominated is also abismally inferior to the one that Sampras reigned upon.

I am not implying that Federer is a superior athlete per se when comparing him to Laver for instance. I am well aware of the differences in training regimes, nutrition, medical treatments, etc. All i am saying is that Federer (or Djokovic, Nadal, etc) had to impose himself over a superior field (the numbers back this up, i am sorry but there is no 2 ways around that), chances are that he is the superior player. Chances being the operative word here, nothing is for sure.

I have talked to several coaches and trainers (football, rugby, tennis, basketball), many have more than 30 years of experience on their fields and the answer is almost always the same. The pool of talent from where to pick the next talents has never been bigger and it never cease to increase. Keep in mind that i am only talking about Argentina here, wouldn`t know if this trend applies to every country but i am willing to bet that this is the case in majority of them.

I generally agree but I think we have to consider the place of tennis in the sporting hierarchy, at least for recent history. Because of the tennis boom in the 70's there may be a higher number of top athletes born in the 70's and 80's who took up tennis instead of other sports compared with those born in the 90's for example.

Just quickly regarding field strength of the 20's v the 50's. An old, famous coach, Mercer Beasley, ranked Tilden as the best ever for a long time but in the early 60's changed his mind to Gonzalez, partly because he felt the competition was stronger (and also because of the "big game").

 

[chrisb]

Everyone playing tennis today is pampered compared to the top pros on the tour in the 50s and 60s, before Open tennis. There is a reason why they dominated Open tennis so much - they were tough. They had to play everywhere, in any weather, any surface. They often played sick or injured. No excuses back then. You got paid, you played...

50s and 60?????? The pros had to barnstorm to stay alive. Wimbledon saw the future and had a pro tourny on their hallowed grounds I believe in 67. They drew so well that they opened The Championships to the pros in 68. Those pros for the most part were not as good as todays pros. The training off court is so much better today that you are watching superior play today not seen in that era. To be fair to older players , who were the best of their time greatness should be simply done by eras, not in totality. Could Tilden beat Fed. The 20s Big Bill would get killed by the 2017 Federer. And it is really stretching trying to anticipate that Tildon would have been able to do the training required of todays players

 

[pc1]

The process that i am tlaking about does not take place from one generation to another. The leap in quality it`s not that fast generally. It takes several decades like from the 20`s to the 60`s. There is a noticeable increase in the pool of talent, quali


The leap in quality of play does not happen that fast, like from one generation to the next (roughly a decade), it takes usually several decades for the changes to be noticeable. This apply to all the sports generally.

Why Tilden dominated a weak field and Gonzalez a strong one? Because you say so? Did you watch tennis in the early twenties? You didn`t even watch tennis in the 50`s.
BTW i agree with you, Tilden dominated over a weak field in his era when we compare that era to the one Gonzalez or Rosewall played in. By the same token i also think that the field these last 2 dominated is also abismally inferior to the one that Sampras reigned upon.

I am not implying that Federer is a superior athlete per se when comparing him to Laver for instance. I am well aware of the differences in training regimes, nutrition, medical treatments, etc. All i am saying is that Federer (or Djokovic, Nadal, etc) had to impose himself over a superior field (the numbers back this up, i am sorry but there is no 2 ways around that), chances are that he is the superior player. Chances being the operative word here, nothing is for sure.

I have talked to several coaches and trainers (football, rugby, tennis, basketball), many have more than 30 years of experience on their fields and the answer is almost always the same. The pool of talent from where to pick the next talents has never been bigger and it never cease to increase. Keep in mind that i am only talking about Argentina here, wouldn`t know if this trend applies to every country but i am willing to bet that this is the case in majority of them.

I generally agree but I think we have to consider the place of tennis in the sporting hierarchy, at least for recent history. Because of the tennis boom in the 70's there may be a higher number of top athletes born in the 70's and 80's who took up tennis instead of other sports compared with those born in the 90's for example.

Just quickly regarding field strength of the 20's v the 50's. An old, famous coach, Mercer Beasley, ranked Tilden as the best ever for a long time but in the early 60's changed his mind to Gonzalez, partly because he felt the competition was stronger (and also because of the "big game").

No one can tell of course but ARFED is correct in discussions about the pool of talent. The bigger the amount of players the better chance for a gifted talent or many gifted talents.

I've always wondered about musical prodigies, math, chess and tennis prodigies. I am curious whether the person with the great talent in that area may have never been exposed to music chess or tennis so they didn't have a chance to be great.

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

 

[BobbyOne]

Bobby, i didn`t say that you were uncivilized nor did i say that your response was harsh. Thing is that "common sense" was never a valid response in the history of debates and you now this.

BTW i will be travelling to the Trentino next week to visit my cousins, so i will make the trip to Salzburg of which they told me it is beautiful. You are more than welcome to join me if you are nearby and discuss, over some coffee and biscuits, about the respective strenght of Rosewall`s and Federer`s field.

ARFED, You began with an unfriendly question ("Because you say it?") and you plead for civilized discussion without reason (I was not uncivilized).

Common sense can be right in some cases and can be wrong in other cases. In the Tilden/Gonzalez case it's right: Pancho had to play five giants of tennis at the same time while Tilden did not.

Yes, Some people say that Salzburg is the most beautiful city at all (it might not be my own opinion).

Thanks for your offer but I'm glad we are far from each other for good reason (I refer to your old threat)...

 

[BobbyOne]

50s and 60?????? The pros had to barnstorm to stay alive. Wimbledon saw the future and had a pro tourny on their hallowed grounds I believe in 67. They drew so well that they opened The Championships to the pros in 68. Those pros for the most part were not as good as todays pros. The training off court is so much better today that you are watching superior play today not seen in that era. To be fair to older players , who were the best of their time greatness should be simply done by eras, not in totality. Could Tilden beat Fed. The 20s Big Bill would get killed by the 2017 Federer. And it is really stretching trying to anticipate that Tildon would have been able to do the training required of todays players

chrisb, The current and recent players are playing faster mostly because of modern technology. A great player would succeed in any era.

 

[Limpinhitter]

A couple of New

Bobby, i didn`t say that you were uncivilized nor did i say that your response was harsh. Thing is that "common sense" was never a valid response in the history of debates and you now this.

BTW i will be travelling to the Trentino next week to visit my cousins, so i will make the trip to Salzburg of which they told me it is beautiful. You are more than welcome to join me if you are nearby and discuss, over some coffee and biscuits, about the respective strenght of Rosewall`s and Federer`s field.

The respective strength of Rosewall's and Federer's competition is a very interesting subject.

 

[ARFED]

ARFED, You began with an unfriendly question ("Because you say it?") and you plead for civilized discussion without reason (I was not uncivilized).

Common sense can be right in some cases and can be wrong in other cases. In the Tilden/Gonzalez case it's right: Pancho had to play five giants of tennis at the same time while Tilden did not.

Yes, Some people say that Salzburg is the most beautiful city at all (it might not be my own opinion).

Thanks for your offer but I'm glad we are far from each other for good reason (I refer to your old threat)...

Naaa Bobby, don`t be affraid, i wouldn`t touch you. I don`t know if what you have is contagious

 

[tom williams]

Personally I think there is a chance Vines could have been as great as any player. Same with Tilden.

I also feel that guys like Kramer and Gonzalez have been sorely underrated because people have forgotten about them and can only look at the record book which shows Laver with several Grand Slams. Gonzalez only has two amateur classic majors yet it is interesting that I read Rosewall commenting that Gonzalez was number one until he retired. People today don't know how many years Gonzalez was the top player in the world.

I figure it this way if we want to think about how the past players MAY do today. I think there is no doubt the past male players like Gonzalez, Kramer and Laver were far more talented on an absolute level than Serena Williams. Yet Serena can serve over 120 mph and hit with tremendous power off the ground. Gonzalez at around 6'3 and 1/2 inches (that's what his family tells me) with great strength and mobility would probably serve at a far greater speed than Serena. Vic Braden, who did computer analysis wrote in the late 1990s that Gonzalez would serve in the 140 mph range if he played at that time. I have no doubt he would be great today given adjustment to current tech. Look at a guy like John Isner who was and is among the top players due mainly to that serve of his. Well Gonzalez's serve also was awesome but his movement and strokes were far smoother and superior to Isner's in my opinion.

But yes I do think some players could be slaughtered today but at the same time if some players went to the past to play with wood, some may be slaughtered in the past also.

I think one player from the past made for today's game is Lew Hoad. His topspin strokes would be perfect combined with his serve, power and speed.

Any comments @Dan Lobb on Hoad?

 

[pc1]

Naaa Bobby, don`t be affraid, i wouldn`t touch you. I don`t know if what you have is contagious

It would have been nice if you both could meet.

 

[tom williams]

chrisb, The current and recent players are playing faster mostly because of modern technology. A great player would succeed in any era.

Yes i would agree with that comment i do not think the players today are any fitter and stronger than the players of the 50s and 60s, when you look at Hoad and Conzales in a match in Melbourne Jn 1958 that went 80 games Conzales said later when he changed ends half way though the 4th set he thought Hoad had just started the match and it was 95 degrees fah,i know Dan will like that .Cheers TW

 

[chrisb]

chrisb, The current and recent players are playing faster mostly because of modern technology. A great player would succeed in any era.

Todays players are using better tech , they have advanced training methods too. Todays game is much more physical. Could 5 9 Laver hit the 125 serve today? Guess we will never know

 

[chrisb]

Yes i would agree with that comment i do not think the players today are any fitter and stronger than the players of the 50s and 60s, when you look at Hoad and Conzales in a match in Melbourne Jn 1958 that went 80 games Conzales said later when he changed ends half way though the 4th set he thought Hoad had just started the match and it was 95 degrees fah,i know Dan will like that .Cheers TW

You are kidding right. I can run down 50 mph groundies easier then 80mph groundies. The swing speeds today require much more effort then the mostly arm swings of the 50s and 60s. I don`t think todays players drink and smoke as much as the guys did then. And I know they did.

 

[BobbyOne]

Naaa Bobby, don`t be affraid, i wouldn`t touch you. I don`t know if what you have is contagious

ARFED, You and your supporters suffer from a bad illness: stupidity and senseless agression!

 

[tom williams]

You are kidding right. I can run down 50 mph groundies easier then 80mph groundies. The swing speeds today require much more effort then the mostly arm swings of the 50s and 60s. I don`t think todays players drink and smoke as much as the guys did then. And I know they did.

No not kidding i have seen the players from the 50s and 60s Conzales, Hoad ,Laver etc and the moderns Federer and co.both Conzales and Hoad could serve 120 mph with old wooden racquets what would they do with the racquets today.cheers TW

 

[Dan Lobb]

Here are the results from the Australian Pro in 1959, which had the strongest and deepest field of any Australian Pro.

Adelaide, Memorial Drive Feb. 11 to Feb 14, 1959

Preliminary round
Rose df. Hartwig 6-3

Quarterfinals
Hoad df. Rose 6-8, 14-12, 6-4
Trabert df. Gonzales 6-3, 1-6, 11-9
Rosewall df. Segura 6-1, 6-2
Sedgman df. Anderson 8-6, 6-3

Semifinals
Hoad df. Trabert 6-3, 6-3
Rosewall df. Sedgman 4-6, 10-8, 6-1

Final
Hoad df. Rosewall 5-7, 7-5, 6-4

And this event was surpassed by the two Kooyong tournaments that year, and the White City event in December.

This looks like a major? Memorial Drive was certainly a major venue, a large stadium outdoor on grass.

 

[Dan Lobb]

Dan, your list is far from complete. And it includes a match (in Cairo) which never took place, as well as a match (in Scheveningen, The Hague) which was not part of a tournament.

In addition, you've got Hoad leading Rosewall 7-3 on clay, but you've listed only 9 matches.

This is what I have, using Andrew Tas' record of Rosewall's career, with a few of my own findings incorporated.


Rosewall trailed Hoad 18-22 (but led 11-10 as pros) through 1960 in all tournaments.

That is a count of all tournaments on all surfaces. The count includes these two Hoad wins, for which the surface is unknown:

August 13-14, 1957
Memphis University Club, surface unknown
SF Hoad d. Rosewall 6-2, 2-6, 6-2

June 9-12 1960
Pacific Coast Pro Champs Santa Barbara, surface unknown
F Hoad d. Rosewall 6-1 4-6 6-3

*******************************************************************************​

May 4-10 1960
Australian Professional Indoor Championships Olympic Pool Melbourne
MF Rosewall d. Hoad 63 911 810 75 63

June 17-19 1960
San Francisco Pro Champs, indoors in Cow Palace
F Rosewall d. Hoad 7-5 7-5

Rosewall 2-0 Hoad through 1960 in indoor tournaments

*******************************************************************************​

July 27 1957
Masters RR Los Angeles
Outdoors on cement
Rosewall d. Hoad 6-3, 6-4

June 28 - July 6 1958
Masters RR Los Angeles on cement
Rosewall d. Hoad 6-4, 6-2

June 5-14 1959
Masters RR Los Angeles on cement
RR Hoad d. Rosewall 62 26 64

June 21-29 1960
Jack Kramer Masters RR Los Angeles on cement
F Rosewall d. Hoad 10-12 6-3 6-4

Rosewall 3-1 Hoad (all meetings as pros) through 1960 in cement tournaments

*******************************************************************************​

August 24 – September 2 1951
Sydney Metropolitan Hardcourt, Naremburn Sydney on clay
SF Rosewall d. Hoad 62 1210

April 26 – May 3 1952
Australian Hardcourt Championships Melbourne on clay
MF Hoad d. Rosewall 26 61 16 62 119

March 6-14 1953
Australian Hardcourt Championships Sydney on clay
SF Hoad d. Rosewall 61 36 61 68 75

March 4-7 1955
NSW Hardcourt Championships Armidale on clay
MF Hoad d. Rosewall 63 63

September 20 1958
World Pro Hardcourt Champs Roland Garros (French Pro) on clay
Rosewall d. Hoad 3-6, 6-2, 6-4, 6-0 in the final

September 8-13 1959
French Pro Champs Roland Garros on clay
No.3 Hoad d. Rosewall 6-3 4-6 6-2

September 12-18 1960
French Pro Champs Roland Garros on clay
(World Hardcourt Pro Ch.)
F Rosewall d. Hoad 6-2 2-6 6-2 6-1

November 11-14 1960
Japanese Pro Champs Tokyo on clay
F Hoad d. Rosewall 6-2 0-6 3-6 6-1 13-11

Rosewall 3-5 Hoad (2-2 as pros) through 1960 in claycourt tournaments

*******************************************************************************​

July 19 - August 19 1951
White City Club Championships, Sydney, probably on grass (?)
QF Rosewall d. Hoad 46 63 108

June 15-22 1953
Queens Club Championships London on grass
MF Hoad d. Rosewall 86 108

August 2-9 1953
Eastern Grass Court Championships South Orange
SF Hoad d. Rosewall 64 61 57 64

November 12-23 1953
New South Wales Championships Sydney on grass
F Hoad d. Rosewall 86 46 97 108

November 26 - December 8 1953
Victorian Championships Melbourne on grass
F Hoad d. Rosewall 97 86 36 63

August 2-8 1954
Eastern Grass Court Championships South Orange
F Hoad d. Rosewall 63 64 63

January 21-31 1955
AUSTRALIAN Championships Adelaide on grass
MF Rosewall d. Hoad 97 64 64

June 13-18 1955
Queens Club Championships London on grass
F Rosewall d. Hoad 62 63

November 9-19 1955
New South Wales Championships Sydney on grass
MF Hoad d. Rosewall 62 63 26 61

December 26 1955 - January 9 1956
Manly Seaside Championships Sydney probably on grass
F Hoad d. Rosewall 62 61

January 21-30 1956
AUSTRALIAN National Championships on grass
Brisbane
MF Hoad d. Rosewall 64 36 64 75

June 24 – July 7 1956
Wimbledon GBR on grass
F Hoad d. Rosewall 62 46 75 64

August 28 – September 9 1956
US Championships New York on grass
F Rosewall d. Hoad 46 62 63 63

November 22 - December 2 1956
South Australian Championships Adelaide on grass
MF Rosewall d. Hoad 61 75 61

December 6-17 1956
Victorian Championships Melbourne on grass
F Rosewall d. Hoad 46 46 61 64 63

July 18, 1957
Tournament of Champions RR Forest Hills
Outdoors on grass
Rosewall d. Hoad 6-3, 9-7, 4-6, 6-3

January 23-30 1958
Ampol Melbourne Professional Round Robin Championships on grass
Hoad d. Rosewall 4-6, 8-6, 6-4

June 16-24 1958
Tournament of Champions Forest Hills on grass
Rosewall d. Hoad 6-2, 9-7

January 27-30 1959
Western Australian Professional Championships Perth on grass
SF Hoad d. Rosewall 62 108

February 1-8 1959
N.S.W. Professional Championships Marks Oval Sydney on grass
3RD Rosewall d. Hoad 63 63

February 11-14 1959
South Australian Professional Championships Norwood Oval Adelaide on grass
F Hoad d. Rosewall 57 75 64

June 21-28 1959
Tournament of Champions Forest Hills on grass
SF Hoad d. Rosewall 57 64 75 64

December 15-19, 21 1959
Queensland Professional Championships Brisbane on grass
SF Rosewall d. Hoad 86 63 36 46 60

December 26 28-31 1959 - January 1-2 1960
Qantas Professional Round Robin Championships Melbourne on grass
MS Hoad d. Rosewall 63 108 46 1513

Rosewall 10-14 Hoad (4-5 as pros) through 1960 in grasscourt tournaments

Removing the indoor and cement (which were also indoor?) tournament results gives Hoad a substantial edge through 1960, 19 to 11 on grass and clay. (I exclude the 1951 events, during junior days.)

There were two "unknown" surface matches, both won by Hoad.

I think that Hoad would be happy with 21 to 11 in tournaments on grass and clay, (plus unknown).
There were reports in the media that Hoad would win about 2/3 of his encounters with Rosewall through 1960. This is fairly accurate.

 

[Dan Lobb]

Removing the indoor and cement (which were also indoor?) tournament results gives Hoad a substantial edge through 1960, 19 to 11 on grass and clay. (I exclude the 1951 events, during junior days.)

There were two "unknown" surface matches, both won by Hoad.

I think that Hoad would be happy with 21 to 11 in tournaments on grass and clay, (plus unknown).
There were reports in the media that Hoad would win about 2/3 of their encounters through 1960. This is fairly accurate.

This certainly suggests that Hoad's consistency in tournament play is greater than is generally believed by some posters.

This period includes substantial downtime for Hoad due to his back injury, and yet shows a high percentage of consistency in the results.

Kramer assessed Hoad as follows,

"He might have been the best, but day-to-day and week-to-week he was the most inconsistent of all the greatest players."

That assessment is inconsistent with the numbers.

 

[BobbyOne]

This looks like a major? Memorial Drive was certainly a major venue, a large stadium outdoor on grass.

Dan Lobb, It is not a major and never was.