Lew Hoad-A discussion on his career

Dan Lobb

G.O.A.T.
1) 100% indoor on boards, played in 3 different cities. Manila was indoor on clay.
2) The bonus money was already won by Hoad, because Pancho was not playing in Kooyong. So the day of the final they were playing just for the first prize.
3) Tokyo was the fifth event of the year, $10,000. Ken won top4 events.
4) This is your assumption. I never found anything saying Hoad-Gonzales series in GB was run because of Lew’s Retirement in WS
1) Tokyo was three different cities? Now I am really confused.
We heard before that the Tokyo venue was definitely indoor on clay...Manila was indoor on clay ...perhaps Tokyo also?
2) The money was not awarded until 1960, so a giant record payday for Hoad. The income tax man says 1960.
3) Ken did not win at Kooyong.
4) The Britain series was apparently arranged after Hoad had recovered, so it has the appearance of a replacement series for the expected WS final series.
5) Again, I am interested in level of play, who did the best...that means 1960 Kooyong final, 1961 Kramer Cup final match, where Hoad played perhaps his last peak performance against a stunned Trabert, who had clobbered Rosewall in the opener.
 

Dan Lobb

G.O.A.T.
Every match up has its own history.
Rosewall going up and Hoad going down, plus they knew each other like husband and wife...
And Ken took the edge
For my money, Ken had to win a WS or at least some series against Gonzales to get the top spot...didn't happen.
Ken got stunned in 1960 WS, Ken did not play in 1961 WS...case closed.
It is clear that Ken was outlasting Hoad and Gonzales, as they passed their peaks...no sign that Ken actually improved over the late fifties.
Hoad outperformed both Ken and Gonzales in the top deciders in 1960/61, which I rate as Kooyong, British hth series, Kramer Cup.
 

NoMercy

Hall of Fame
1) Tokyo was three different cities? Now I am really confused.
We heard before that the Tokyo venue was definitely indoor on clay...Manila was indoor on clay ...perhaps Tokyo also?
2) The money was not awarded until 1960, so a giant record payday for Hoad. The income tax man says 1960.
3) Ken did not win at Kooyong.
4) The Britain series was apparently arranged after Hoad had recovered, so it has the appearance of a replacement series for the expected WS final series.
5) Again, I am interested in level of play, who did the best...that means 1960 Kooyong final, 1961 Kramer Cup final match, where Hoad played perhaps his last peak performance against a stunned Trabert, who had clobbered Rosewall in the opener.
1) Japan Pro (singles event) was held at the Tokyo Metropolitan Gymnasium, indoor on boards, Nov 8-11. The Metropolitan Gym had no clay, ever. Just boards and then carpet.
It was the Venue of first Masters in 1970.
Manila Pro was held at Rizal Coliseum, indoor on clay. The Rizal Colisuem was a clay venue, always played on clay even in the Open Era.
2) Bonus money was given to Hoad on Jan 2, but he had already won it before the tournament began. So he was just playing for the first prize money. I’m just saying that because of your statement about Hoad winning where the most money were on the line. On Jan 2 there were less money on the line than in Wembley.
3) Again, to me Kooyong is part of 1959.
Top4 event of 1960 are:
Wembley $22,500
Melbourne indoor (played at the Olympic pool on canvas), Los Angeles, Paris $15,000
4) Can’t reply to this because I never heard about that, but it’s for sure not a top event
5) I agree about Rosewall not being the number in 1960, but for sure Hoad was behind both Pancho and Ken. Peak and not peak
 
Last edited:

abmk

Bionic Poster
For my money, Ken had to win a WS or at least some series against Gonzales to get the top spot...didn't happen.
Ken got stunned in 1960 WS, Ken did not play in 1961 WS...case closed.
It is clear that Ken was outlasting Hoad and Gonzales, as they passed their peaks...no sign that Ken actually improved over the late fifties.
Hoad outperformed both Ken and Gonzales in the top deciders in 1960/61, which I rate as Kooyong, British hth series, Kramer Cup.


what you "think" (or I should say delude yourself ) as top events doesn't matter. What matters is what were regarded as the top ones.

3 top events in 60 - World Series, French Pro, Wembley Pro. Top events won by Hoad in 60 = 0 , Rosewall = 2
3 top events in 61 - Wembley Pro, French Pro, World Series. Top events won by Hoad in 61 = 0, Rosewall = 2

If #1 in 60 goes to Gonzales because of winning WS comprehensively over Rosewall, #1 in 61 goes to Rosewall because of winning the 2 best attended events - Wembley Pro and French Pro.
Hoad is not even in the picture.

Kooyong is 59.
mentioning Gonzales-Hoad British tour as top event is hilarious.
same for Kramer Cup.
 

Dan Lobb

G.O.A.T.
1) Japan Pro (singles event) was held at the Tokyo Metropolitan Gymnasium, indoor on boards, Nov 8-11. The Metropolitan Gym had no clay, ever. Just boards and then carpet.
It was the Venue of first Masters in 1970.
Manila Pro was held at Rizal Coliseum, indoor on clay. The Rizal Colisuem was a clay venue, always played on clay even in the Open Era.
2) Bonus money was given to Hoad on Jan 2, but he had already won it before the tournament began. So he was just playing for the first prize money. I’m just saying that because of your statement about Hoad winning where the most money were on the line. On Jan 2 there were less money on the line than in Wembley.
3) Again, to me Kooyong is part of 1959.
Top4 event of 1960 are:
Wembley $22,500
Melbourne indoor (played at the Olympic pool on canvas), Los Angeles, Paris $15,000
4) Can’t reply to this because I never heard about that, but it’s for sure not a top event
5) I agree about Rosewall not being the number in 1960, but for sure Hoad was behind both Pancho and Ken. Peak and not peak
1) Thanks for the info on the Tokyo event...this might be the only indoor wood event that Hoad ever won, almost everything else he won was on grass or clay.

2) But the money for the tour was not really "won" until the cheque passed hands. The tax man counts Jan. 3 as payday for that Ampol tour.

3) Well, to me 1960 is 1960...I do not have the capability of dreaming that away. It counts as the top event for 1960.

4) Krosero found the data and the dates...clearly arranged after Hoad returned to the tour, a special series to replace the expected Hoad/Gonzales WS final series, which did not materialize.

This is important because, as I stated above, Ken could not logically claim number one until he prevailed over Gonzales in some hth series, which, of course, never happened. Ken was bulldozered by Gonzales in the 1960 WS, and Rosewall decided not to contest the 1961 WS against Gonzales.

No play, no pay.

5) Well, there was no announced tournament tour championship for either 1960 or 1961, as far as I can see, and no championship award, so I cannot see an event surpassing Kooyong in 1960 or the British tour in 1961 to decide on which player achieved the highest level of play.
 
Last edited:

NoMercy

Hall of Fame
1) Thanks for the info on the Tokyo event...this might be the only indoor wood event that Hoad ever won, almost everything else he won was on grass or clay.

2) But the money for the tour was not really "won" until the cheque passed hands. The tax man counts Jan. 3 as payday for that Ampol tour.

3) Well, to me 1960 is 1960...I do not have the capability of dreaming that away. It counts as the top event for 1960.

4) Krosero found the data and the dates...clearly arranged after Hoad returned to the tour, a special series to replace the expected Hoad/Gonzales WS final series, which did not materialize.

This is important because, as I stated above, Ken could not logically claim number one until he prevailed over Gonzales in some hth series, which, of course, never happened. Ken was bulldozered by Gonzales in the 1960 WS, and Rosewall decided not to contest the 1961 WS against Gonzales.

No play, no pay.

5) Well, there was no announced tournament tour championship for either 1960 or 1961, as far as I can see, and no championship award, so I cannot see an event surpassing Kooyong in 1960 or the British tour in 1961 to decide on which player achieved the highest level of play.
1) He won also a tournament in Adelaide in 1962 and one in Aberavon in 1969 (being part of the Dewars Cup)
2-3) You can think like this if it makes you feel better, but top event in 1960 was Wembley, like almost every year
4) I found data and dates too, but it was not clearly arranged for what you think. The players were just touring all over Europe. Pancho played also a H2H series in France vs Rosewall, losing to Ken 3 out of 5.
5) Plain and simple: Hoad did not win any important events after January 3rd, 1960

I think our points are clear, no need to keep going
 

Dan Lobb

G.O.A.T.
1) He won also a tournament in Adelaide in 1962 and one in Aberavon in 1969 (being part of the Dewars Cup)
2-3) You can think like this if it makes you feel better, but top event in 1960 was Wembley, like almost every year
4) I found data and dates too, but it was not clearly arranged for what you think. The players were just touring all over Europe. Pancho played also a H2H series in France vs Rosewall, losing to Ken 3 out of 5.
5) Plain and simple: Hoad did not win any important events after January 3rd, 1960

I think our points are clear, no need to keep going
1) Thanks for the info.
2) 3) I think that a world championship event surpasses Wembley in significance..otherwise, Rosewall would be number one in 1957, Anderson number one in 1959...not.
4) Hoad and Gonzales played an 11 match series in Britain (including Wembley), I am not sure that there was a distinct Gonzales/Rosewall SERIES in Europe that year. Are you including RG?
The British series was on grass, whereas I think that Rosewall would be favoured over Gonzales on red clay....that is some handicap for Gonzales.
5) Again there was no tournament tour in 1960 or 1961, just individual events, so we need some other measure.
Nothing to challenge the scope of the Ampol series, which makes the winner number one.
 
Last edited:

NoMercy

Hall of Fame
1) Thanks for the info.
2) 3) I think that a world championship event surpasses Wembley in significance..otherwise, Rosewall would be number one in 1957, Anderson number one in 1959...not.
4) Hoad and Gonzales played an 11 match series in Britain (including Wembley), I am not sure that there was a distinct Gonzales/Rosewall SERIES in Europe that year. Are you including RG?
The British series was on grass, whereas I think that Rosewall would be favoured over Gonzales on red clay....that is some handicap for Gonzales.
5) Again there was no tournament tour in 1960 or 1961, just individual events, so we need some other measure.
Nothing to challenge the scope of the Ampol series, which makes the winner number one.
Replying only to point 4.
British series was 10 matches, I don't include Wembley because it was not part of it.
I know 6 venues out of 10: 3 on grass, 1 on clay, 2 indoor.
So it was a mixed surface series, like almost every one of them.

French series was 5 matches, I don't include RG because it was not part of it.
It was played indoor and on clay, Rosewall winning 3-2
 

Dan Lobb

G.O.A.T.
Replying only to point 4.
British series was 10 matches, I don't include Wembley because it was not part of it.
I know 6 venues out of 10: 3 on grass, 1 on clay, 2 indoor.
So it was a mixed surface series, like almost every one of them.

French series was 5 matches, I don't include RG because it was not part of it.
It was played indoor and on clay, Rosewall winning 3-2
I think that 7 were grass.
Rosewall winning on clay over Gonzales is no surprise.
 

NoMercy

Hall of Fame
I think that 7 were grass.
Rosewall winning on clay over Gonzales is no surprise.
Hoad won indoor in Dundee, don't know who won in Nottingham (indoor).
Gonzales won on clay at Edinburgh.
Bristol (Hoad), Dublin (Gonzales), Scarborough (Hoad) on grass.

Gonzales won indoor at St. Jean de Luz and outdoor at La Baule.
Rosewall won outdoor at Archachon and Le Touquet.
At Dieppe Rosewall won, don't know the venue
 

Dan Lobb

G.O.A.T.
Hoad won indoor in Dundee, don't know who won in Nottingham (indoor).
Gonzales won on clay at Edinburgh.
Bristol (Hoad), Dublin (Gonzales), Scarborough (Hoad) on grass.

Gonzales won indoor at St. Jean de Luz and outdoor at La Baule.
Rosewall won outdoor at Archachon and Le Touquet.
At Dieppe Rosewall won, don't know the venue
Sounds like Rosewall won on clay, again, no surprise.
 

Dan Lobb

G.O.A.T.
1) He won also a tournament in Adelaide in 1962 and one in Aberavon in 1969 (being part of the Dewars Cup)
2-3) You can think like this if it makes you feel better, but top event in 1960 was Wembley, like almost every year
4) I found data and dates too, but it was not clearly arranged for what you think. The players were just touring all over Europe. Pancho played also a H2H series in France vs Rosewall, losing to Ken 3 out of 5.
5) Plain and simple: Hoad did not win any important events after January 3rd, 1960

I think our points are clear, no need to keep going
The Aberavon, Wales tournament which Hoad won in 1969 featured wins by Hoad over el Shafei, Hewitt, and Cox, very good showing for Hoad at that time, but not comparable to the tough fields of the earlier era.
 
Last edited:

Dan Lobb

G.O.A.T.
The Aberavon, Wales tournament which Hoad won in 1969 featured wins by Hoad over el Shafei, Hewitt, and Cox, very good showing for Hoad at that time, but not comparable to the tough fields of the earlier era.
It looks like we have Hoad winning at Carlyon Bay near St. Austell, Cornwall and then again at Cardiff, Wales, both in the 1964 tour.
Hoad also won his last tournament at Aberavon, Wales in 1969.

Hoad must have felt at home in Cornwall and Wales.
 

Dan Lobb

G.O.A.T.
It looks like we have Hoad winning at Carlyon Bay near St. Austell, Cornwall and then again at Cardiff, Wales, both in the 1964 tour.
Hoad also won his last tournament at Aberavon, Wales in 1969.

Hoad must have felt at home in Cornwall and Wales.
These wins now change the lifetime hth between Hoad and Gonzales....they are not included in the Tennis Base results.
 

Dan Lobb

G.O.A.T.
Always nice to actually post the link:

1957 Pancho Gonzales defeats Lew Hoad in U.S. Pro Tournament of Champions

I have posted the link to the 1967 Wimbledon clip on the thread "Tennis in the Second Golden Age of Sports"...it includes a look at Hoad's awesome lob which won that match, never seen such a lob.
 

Dan Lobb

G.O.A.T.
In the official program for the Kramer pro's 1961/62 tournament series in Australia, there is this strange assessment of Hoad,

"Lewis Hoad, one of the world's most popular tennis players, is faced with a crisis.
He doesn't know whether to continue with his tennis career or to enter business.
This indecision has caused him to lose many matches overseas this year.
Despite this mental problem, he has also been handicapped physically with a recurring back injury and a broken bone in his foot. Lew, this season, has played his most erratic tennis and has been lucky to hold his place in the top five seedings on form.

In form he is undoubtedly the most dangerous player in the world but he seems to give his best efforts when matched against Pancho Gonzales. These two always have stirring battles and their match series created tremendous interest throughout the world."

So, the foot problem that year was finally revealed to be a broken bone, not merely a sore ligament, as the press release earlier in the year had claimed.
 

Dan Lobb

G.O.A.T.
"In form he is undoubtedly the most dangerous player in the world but he seems to give his best efforts when matched against Pancho Gonzales. These two always have stirring battles and their match series created tremendous interest throughout the world."

This statement from the late 1961 official pro program indicates that the Hoad/Gonzales tour of Britain was regarded as an important event for 1961.
 

Dan Lobb

G.O.A.T.
In the official program for the Kramer pro's 1961/62 tournament series in Australia, there is this strange assessment of Hoad,

"Lewis Hoad, one of the world's most popular tennis players, is faced with a crisis.
He doesn't know whether to continue with his tennis career or to enter business.
This indecision has caused him to lose many matches overseas this year.
Despite this mental problem, he has also been handicapped physically with a recurring back injury and a broken bone in his foot. Lew, this season, has played his most erratic tennis and has been lucky to hold his place in the top five seedings on form.

In form he is undoubtedly the most dangerous player in the world but he seems to give his best efforts when matched against Pancho Gonzales. These two always have stirring battles and their match series created tremendous interest throughout the world."

So, the foot problem that year was finally revealed to be a broken bone, not merely a sore ligament, as the press release earlier in the year had claimed.
"In form....undoubtedly the most dangerous player in the world"

This could serve as a summation for Hoad's entire career, not just 1961.

But 1961 would be Hoad's last year when he could produce his best form, it declined after the 1961 Kramer Cup final round.
 

EloQuent

Legend
Skimmed the beginning of this thread and this jumped out at me. Today's players face each other tops 5-8 times in a year. Wouldn't it have been amazing to have had this kind of H2H matchup of the Big4? Each playing each of the others 20 times within a single season?

And here's the final result of the 1959 4-man tour:

1. Pancho Gonzales 47-15
2. Lew Hoad 42-20
3. Ashley Cooper 21-40
4. Mal Anderson 13-48
 

Dan Lobb

G.O.A.T.
Skimmed the beginning of this thread and this jumped out at me. Today's players face each other tops 5-8 times in a year. Wouldn't it have been amazing to have had this kind of H2H matchup of the Big4? Each playing each of the others 20 times within a single season?
The tennis fans and audiences of the late fifties were spoiled with an overabundance of great tennis talent.

However, it meant that the winning percentages of those late fifties giants were lower than today's numbers for top players.
 

EloQuent

Legend
The tennis fans and audiences of the late fifties were spoiled with an overabundance of great tennis talent.

However, it meant that the winning percentages of those late fifties giants were lower than today's numbers for top players.
Idk, it's really hard to compare eras, with so little competition we really can't know how they would match up to later players. Of course with so few professional players it's easy for a quartet to stand out.
 

Dan Lobb

G.O.A.T.
Idk, it's really hard to compare eras, with so little competition we really can't know how they would match up to later players. Of course with so few professional players it's easy for a quartet to stand out.
In the late fifties, Kramer had signed most of the top players, so you had twelve strong pros under contract to Kramer by 1959.
The top ten players of 1959 would compare favourably to the top 10 players today.
 

Dan Lobb

G.O.A.T.
Max Robertson, author of "The Encyclopedia of Tennis", agreed with Rosewall's 2010 list on the identity of the top three players all-time.

1) Hoad

2) Gonzales

3) Laver
 

Fiero425

Legend
Max Robertson, author of "The Encyclopedia of Tennis", agreed with Rosewall's 2010 list on the identity of the top three players all-time.

1) Hoad

2) Gonzales

3) Laver

I have so much more reverence and respect for these and other past champions; esp. Hoad who's so little referenced even though owning Laver! He didn't have rackets with retro-rockets and grooved strings to help impart even more power and spin on the ball! Add on the homogenized courts over varying surfaces, it was made easier for players of today to "own it!" It's amazing that 3 players (Fedalovic) of this one era will wind up with most if not ALL of the tennis records dealing with majors, Masters, longevity, streaks, and how they surpassed the efforts of past era stars! :rolleyes: :p ;)
 
Last edited:

thrust

Legend
what you "think" (or I should say delude yourself ) as top events doesn't matter. What matters is what were regarded as the top ones.

3 top events in 60 - World Series, French Pro, Wembley Pro. Top events won by Hoad in 60 = 0 , Rosewall = 2
3 top events in 61 - Wembley Pro, French Pro, World Series. Top events won by Hoad in 61 = 0, Rosewall = 2

If #1 in 60 goes to Gonzales because of winning WS comprehensively over Rosewall, #1 in 61 goes to Rosewall because of winning the 2 best attended events - Wembley Pro and French Pro.
Hoad is not even in the picture.

Kooyong is 59.
mentioning Gonzales-Hoad British tour as top event is hilarious.
same for Kramer Cup.
Great post, one of the best Ever!
 

Dan Lobb

G.O.A.T.
"In form he is undoubtedly the most dangerous player in the world but he seems to give his best efforts when matched against Pancho Gonzales. These two always have stirring battles and their match series created tremendous interest throughout the world."

This statement from the late 1961 official pro program indicates that the Hoad/Gonzales tour of Britain was regarded as an important event for 1961.
This nails it for 1961.
 

Dan Lobb

G.O.A.T.
The winner of the Kooyong Classic, the week before the Australian Open, is now awarded the Lew Hoad Memorial Trophy.

Kooyong was the venue for many of Hoad's greatest wins,

1953 Davis Cup final
1956 Australian Championship
1958 Kooyong Tournament of Champions
1958 World Championship tour match vs. Gonzales
1960 Kooyong Pro
1963 Pro tour match vs. Laver
 
Last edited:

pc1

G.O.A.T.
Dan,

It's obvious you consider Lew Hoad to be the most talented player in your lifetime. Who do you consider among the most talented after Hoad?

For example I consider Laver, Mecir, McEnroe, Gonzalez, Kramer among players in the past among the most talented.
 

Dan Lobb

G.O.A.T.
Dan,

It's obvious you consider Lew Hoad to be the most talented player in your lifetime. Who do you consider among the most talented after Hoad?

For example I consider Laver, Mecir, McEnroe, Gonzalez, Kramer among players in the past among the most talented.
I go with Rosewall's choice, after Hoad, he ranked Gonzales, Laver, Federer. I think that in terms of mental toughness and intelligence, which is the directing engine for longer series success, Kramer should also be included. Also, among post-WWII players, I rate Sedgman, Rosewall, Newcombe, McEnroe, Sampras all at least equal to Nadal and Djokovic on grass (perhaps not on rubber).

I think that the current surface changes over the older era are at least as important as the racquet changes.
 

Dan Lobb

G.O.A.T.
Max Robertson, author of "The Encyclopedia of Tennis", agreed with Rosewall's 2010 list on the identity of the top three players all-time.

1) Hoad

2) Gonzales

3) Laver
Max Robertson's ratings may well have influenced Rosewall's ratings. Robertson published in 1988, Rosewall in 2010.
 

Dan Lobb

G.O.A.T.
So what's wrong with winning on clay? Nadal is an ATG because of winning so much on clay.
The point was that Rosewall won his French series over Gonzales 3 matches to 2, with all three wins on clay.

It was not a surprise for Rosewall to win over Gonzales on clay.

Offhand, I do not know the lifetime hth between Rosewall and Gonzales on clay, but it was probably in Rosewall's favour.

For my own rating system, I look at grass, not clay.
 

thrust

Legend
The point was that Rosewall won his French series over Gonzales 3 matches to 2, with all three wins on clay.

It was not a surprise for Rosewall to win over Gonzales on clay.

Offhand, I do not know the lifetime hth between Rosewall and Gonzales on clay, but it was probably in Rosewall's favour.

For my own rating system, I look at grass, not clay.
To each his own, but IMO, clay courts require a more complete game. Grass, especially before the nineties was mostly a serve and volley game as was the indoor courts on the pro tour.
 

Dan Lobb

G.O.A.T.
To each his own, but IMO, clay courts require a more complete game. Grass, especially before the nineties was mostly a serve and volley game as was the indoor courts on the pro tour.
Grass is the real thing.

Most great classic matches were on grass.

Other surfaces are substitutes.
 

Dan Lobb

G.O.A.T.
Hoad was capable of manhandling anyone on his best days. That includes even Pancho Gonzalez (I had a problem finding the Times report on the '59 Forest Hills final, but you mentioned it was Danzig, so I found it under his name; I'll post from it in another post).

I think Connors, out of the 3 mentioned, might have the best chance of beating Hoad -- particularly on hard courts which were his best surface. I say Connors because he loved pace. Of course if Hoad can blast the ball enough times past Connors, he'll win; but the match would be pure fireworks imo.

Connors' return and passing game were roughly comparable to Rosewall's -- and though Rosewall was surprisingly good at handling pace, I'd still give the nod to Connors for ability to reach, and blast back, unreachable serves.

Connors' service game, too, was roughly comparable to Rosewall's.

Needless to say Rosewall had the winning H2H over Hoad -- but could be decisively beaten by Hoad on Lew's best days, as could practically anyone in tennis history.

In other words I don't think a Hoad/Connors rivalry would have looked dramatically different from the Hoad/Rosewall rivalry.

And for a sheer slugfest you probably couldn't do better than Hoad/Connors.
Wonderful post from six years ago.
 
Last edited:

Dan Lobb

G.O.A.T.
[Post by Krosero]
In '77 Hoad gave an interview again to Dave Anderson of the New York Times, during the USO. Excerpts below:

Some tennis people have forgotten how good Lew Hoad was; others never knew because a spinal ailment shortened his career.​
But many remember the grandeur that was Lew Hoad two decades ago. In those years before open tennis, he won Wimbledon twice with a serve that scorched the grass, then he turned pro and challenged Pancho Gonzalez's reign as no other did. After his first look at Lew Hoad across a net, Pancho Gonzalez was asked what he thought of the rookie's game.​
"Every shot," he said, "comes out of a cannon."​
And when Pancho Gonzalez was asked years later to select his toughest opponent, he never hesitated.​
“Lew Hoad,” he said, “was probably the best and the toughest player when he wanted to be.”​
Mostly, that meant when Lew Hoad’s spinal ailment let him be. In a London tournament, he once took a set from Pancho Gonzalez, 6-0, in 13 minutes. And in 1959, when Pancho Gonzalez was as good as ever, Lew Hoad had a 13-2 lead [actually 10-5] on their tour. But then his back slowed him. It had first hurt in 1956, when he won the Australian, French and Wimbledon titles. All he needed for a grand slam was to win at Forest Hills, but he lost the final to Ken Rosewall in a swirling, chilly wind.​
“In that wind, I couldn’t toss the ball up high on my serve,” Lew Hoad was saying now in the West Side locker room. “I think I had beaten Kenny about 12 straight times until that match.”​
.... In the tennis boom now, it's often forgotten that touring pros once were treated as outlaws.​
"At one stage we were banned in Australia, and in England we had to play on cricket pitches and in ice rinks, we couldn't use the tennis stadiums. Over here, we used to drive all night from one city to another and we were lucky to get the result in the paper. Somebody has a sore toe now and it's all over the front page, but we played with sprained ankles, with a pulled shoulder, we had to because if we didn't play, there was no match. What a life it was in those days, but I'd probably do it all over again. The great thing that came out of it is what's happened to tennis now."​
Lew Hoad was a teen-age prodigy with Ken Rosewall when Harry Hopman ruled the Australian Davis Cup team.​
"It's great that Kenny's still playing so well," Lew Hoad said. "I think he just loves to play bloody tennis. I used to think that it was an ego thing for him, that he wanted to prove he could still handle the up-and-coming guys, but now I think he just enjoys the competitive part of it. Even if my back never bothered me, I never would've played as long as Kenny has. I'm not built that way....​
"How would you have done," somebody asked Lew Hoad, "against Jimmy Connors and Bjorn Borg and Guillermo Vilas."​
"I think I would've handled them," Lew Hoad said seriously.​


[Reply by Dan Lobb]
As I recall, Hoad led the 1959 tour 13-5, but lost 8 out of the last 10 matches to Gonzales.
Hoad claimed in a 1984 interview that his back began to bother him when he had the big lead, and he had to pace himself to complete the long season, in which he eventually played over 150 matches.
Regarding Connors, Borg, and Vilas, Hoad could have said "I would have MANhandled them." and been more accurate.
[/QUOTE]
Another great post from six years ago.
 
a pilsen will do just fine:)
although one pilsen is like playing one set of tennis, not really enough

i heard a story once about how Hoad served a large beer to Newcombe on live television, only he had spiked it with a shot of whiskey. anybody else remembers that?
I saw that on television i think it was about 1977.TW
 

Dan Lobb

G.O.A.T.
If you click on this link, you will get the search box for British Pathe.

Type "Gonzales beats Hoad" in the search box, click on "Search", and it will bring up a clip of a 1958 Hoad/Gonzales match, part of their classic Australian series.

Type "Hoad Davidson", and you will get a clip of Hoad and Davidson winning a 5 set doubles match over Okker and Riessen at Wimbledon in 1968.

https://www.britishpathe.com/video/query
 

Dan Lobb

G.O.A.T.
There is still more.

Click on the link below, type "Lew Hoad Returns Home" in the search box, click on "search", and bring up a clip showing Hoad at home in Sydney visiting his parents with his wife and children.

This is just prior to the start of the 1958 tour with Gonzales, and Hoad discusses the prospects with his father.

https://www.britishpathe.com/video/query
 

Dan Lobb

G.O.A.T.
I never heard of those pro-slams until much later! If Bud Collins or Vic Braeden didn't bring it up, the tennis fans were in the dark! The tennis magazines didn't really go into either and I was a subscriber of "Tennis Magazine" for at least 30 years! I collected the record book published every Feb.! I actually had to wait until 1986 to see if Martina won all 3 events at the '85 Lipton Int'l in FLA! She did BTW; partnering with Gigi Fernandez & Heinz Gunthardt in those limited occasions of MxD! :rolleyes::p;)
Fascinating.

It appears that the concept of "Pro Slam" was not historical, but invented many years after the fact.

It has no official status when discussing the history of tennis.
 
Top