Discussion in 'Former Pro Player Talk' started by pc1, Sep 17, 2012.
Kodes had a nice looking moustache
Dan Lobb "a bit biassed" is the understatement of the century...
The 1973 US Open final was the battle of great moustaches. Sorry I rank Newcombe as the BOAT of moustaches in tennis defeating Kodes in a very tough defeat. But Kodes is clearly top tier in this area and superior to Laver and Rosewall.
But now Kodes does not wear a beard anymore. Thus he is in the Laver&Rosewall league...
Bobby, you are not "a bit biased"? Not even "a bit"?
Don't you find it amazing the Hoad and Rosewall (The Magic Twins) came around at about the same time and did they were born within a short time of each other? One was the swashbuckling low percentage player with great power and touch and the other was the practically perfect baseline player who learned how to play offensively. The perfect contrast in styles.
While I know you are amazed at the exploits of Hoad you have to admit it was some heck of a rivalry.
Yes, I have come to upgrade my opinion of Rosewall, and I would rate Rosewall at #5 all-time.
I still believe that his best tennis was played in the late 1950's at the major pro venues : Roland Garros, which he won in 1958 and 1960, and Forest Hills ,where he nearly won in 1958 and 1959, playing against the top two players of all time (by Rosewall's own ranking), coming within a point or two of beating them both, and losing a great final at Kooyong to Hoad on Jan. 7, 1960 in a match described by the New York Times as the greatest ever played at Kooyong.
In the early 1960's, Rosewall maintained his quality of play while his principal opponents declined, and I think that this reduces the value of some of his titles won at that time. Also, in 1972 the WCT final at Dallas was played against an opponent, Laver, who was experiencing at 34 years of age some serious back problems of his own which contributed to the loss.
I judge the value of a player's achievement by the quality of his opposition.
I always thought it looked like a vanilla milkshake on his upper lip. John Newcombe had the GMOAT. Marty Riessen was a close second.
Maybe I am a bit but at least I always try to stay objective even at my favourite player. For instance I had thought for years that Rosewall deserved the alone No.1 place for 1961 but later I realized that Gonzalez was as strong that year.
I'm ready to learn when another person gives a good argument against my view.
I wish you the same objective approach regarding Hoad.
Again I must contradict at several points.
Just a question: Why do you rank now Rosewall at No.5 (of course I would appreciate this) when you try to belittle him repeatedly? You always write that Rosewall had weak competition at his wins, Wembley was not a great tournament, Hoad lost to Muscles because of the smoke there and so on...
If you are consequent and logic you should give Rosewall a place about between No. 15 and 25!
His main opponents did not decline all in the early 1960s: Gonzalez claimed he was still the top player till 1961, Segura had a matchpoint against Rosewall in the 1962 Wembley, Sedgman was tough till 1965 (two matchpoints against Laver in the 1965 Wembley and so on.
I am not astonished that you even belittle Rosewall's masterpiece at the 1972 WCT finals. Several experts rank that match as the all-time greatest. Laver was 34? Rosewall was 37!. Laver never complained about back problems then. You know that Rod won several WCT tournaments that year including three wins over Rosewall.
Can you tell me which devilish circumstances enabled Rosewall to win at the 1970 US Open, the 1971 AO and Dallas and at the other many majors he won???
Tiriac is the best ever followed by Newk and Kodes,Stan Smith,Tomas Smid and young Orantes are ranked next
Riessen'!! Yes, goid choice.I forgot Fibak and for beards,Bob Hewitt
Most similar player to Hoad today
Sorry I disagree. Newcombe is certainly the most intimidating with his facial hair. Newcombe has the GMOAT.
Back to topic. I was thinking if any player was similar to Hoad in today's game. Oddly enough considering the differences in the game today in that it's a baseline game first I think it's Rafael Nadal!
Obviously both are known for being very strong with huge muscles. Hoad for his time used huge amounts of topspin and Nadal uses the most topspin in the game today. Both are very quick and excellent at the net. Hoad had the clearly bigger serve but Nadal, especially at the 2010 US Open can hit a powerful serve also. Both can use their strength to flick shots pass opponents when you didn't think they had any chance to.
I do think Hoad is more talented.
I was not trying to belittle Rosewall, but point out important factors to keep his wins in perspective.
Clearly, it makes no sense to rate Rosewall's career below Hoad's unless there were mitigating factors which place Rosewall's titles in a different light.
Laver apparently did complain to someone about back trouble in the 1972 final, because I read that somewhere.
In the early sixties, Gonzales was winding down his career, and, like Hoad, was a part-time player. There is no argument there.
In the early seventies, Laver was absent from the finals of the slam events, and Rosewall's main competition was Newcombe (Newcombe beat a wearied Rosewall in the 1970 Wimbledon final, and beat Rosewall 6-3, 6-1, 6-0 in the 1971 Wimbledon semi-final, a worse thrashing than he received from Connors in the 1974 final.)
Sorry, I do not regard the Dallas event on a par with Wimbledon or Forest Hills.
Both Nadal and Hoad had injury problems which interrupted their careers.
Hoad, according to Laver's evaluation, had extraordinary volleying ability, and Gonzales singled out Hoad's overhead as the best.
Hoad's game was more of a net-rushing style than Nadal, but the game today is less of a serve-and -volley system than it was in the fifties and sixties.
You may not, but, in the minds of the pros, the WCT Finals in Dallas was more important than any of the majors because it paid 10x's as much prize money. The majors were still, begrudgingly, paying nothing more than nominal prize money as if they were still amateur events in which pros were, also begrudgingly, allowed to participate.
I have difficulty accepting an indoor event on a par with a major outdoor event. It really becomes a different game.
That's your shortcoming. It was the most coveted title among the pros who played for money, because it paid, by far, the highest prize money.
IMO they have very few if any similarity
You rate all arguments which disprove your claims as "no arguments". I must confess I hardly can stand you!
Dan Lobb thinks: "Rosewall beat Gonzalez and Hoad? That cannot be! So I just say that G. and H. were part-time players (and the smoke was too heavy for them )".
I can tell you that Gonzalez played more in 1961 than Rosewall did. Furthermore you could omit most feats of several players over Gonzalez because he used to have part-time seasons. Hoad played pretty much in the early 1960s...
It's not convincing that you have read once about a Laver back trouble at the 1972 WCT finals. At least the Millions of spectators in the Coliseum and on TV did not find any sign of back troubles. You just belittle every Rosewall achievement!
Your next inaccuracy: I never claimed that Dallas is on par with Wimbledon and US Open (even though Rosewall himself rates his two Dallas wins as his greatest). I did say that some experts rank the 1972 final as the all-time greatest match.
Newcombe crushed Rosewall 6-3,6-1,6-1 to be correct. You should know that Muscles was tired then after his marathon match against Cliff Richey, one of the all-time classics at Wimbledon.
Dan, I would have thought you react to my sadness about that you doubt almost every statement of mine.
I have given you a proud list of Rosewall victims at majors in the early 1960s but you ignored it totally. There were 11 (eleven!) all time greats from Gonzales to Sedgman and from Laver to Gimeno.
You ignore that Rosewall was 4:3 against Newcombe in majors. Newk was at his peak and Rosewall was an old man then.
You also ignore the other top opponents of Rosewall in the early 1970s like Roche, Ashe, Okker, Smith and so on.
I find it crazy that you rank Rosewall at fifth place- a player who never did great things and won 23 (or 25) majors just by a fluke!!!
Maybe you are a nice guy in life but you are disgusting in tennis discussions!
As long as I live I will be convinced that wrong-thinking people can improve but I fear you are a great exception....
P.S. We now had long discussions on Hoad and on Rosewall. I don't know if the readers find them boring or not (or even funny). I would like to stop the discussion but I must confess that I hate it to let your sometimes ignorant and stubborn "arguments" uncommentated and not disproved!!!
Thanks, Limpinhitter, for supporting me in a point.
Regarding 1971 I would rank the Dallas event as the No. 2 or 3 tournament of the year, regarding 1972 similary. The reason is that the 1971 French Open and US Open had limited fields as had the 1972 French Open and Wimbledon.
I think, in the Hoad-Rosewall comparison, the Wembley finals could be vital. Look, in terms of longevity, Rosewall is clearly ahead. Hoads career is limited, he was a factor until 1965/66, while Rosewall lasted much longer, even in open tennis. In amateur tennis until 1956, Hoad had occasions of sheer brilliance, but Rosewall won more. Hoad however has won the biggie, Wimbledon 1956 (in 1957 Rosewall had turned pro). If we consider the pro years, especially the Hoad peak years, i think, that Rosewall did better in 1957, while Hoad did slightly better in 1958 and 59. Now comes the vital factor: the Wembley finals 61, 62 and 63. Wembley was the most significant event for the pros, as Hoad himself writes in his own book and in the Alan Trengove book, Art of Tennis. It was the only pro event, sanctioned by the ILTF, and in most Yearbooks of the time, it is the only pro event which is mentioned. It had the best crowd and the best publicity with the BBC and all leading tennis correspondents of the time in attention. At RG one could give Rosewall the advantage of a slow court, but on the fast Wembley court, i would naturally going by the style of play, favor Hoad in those years. I don't know, why Hoad couldn't beat Rosewall even once indoors on a fast surface, but it seems that in those years, Rosewall was simply the better player. Hoad also couldn't win the event in the years 1957-60, despite his many attempts.
urban, thanks for explaining the Wembley case in a calm way (I concede I'm not always so calm in answering Dan Lobb...).
I hope that Dan is impressed by your words.
Yes, indoor game was probably Rosewall's weakest game. I rank 1) Clay; 2) Grass; 3) Indoors. But it's curious: If we include Dallas Rosewall has won 25 majors. 13 of them were indoor events, 8 played on grass and only 6 on clay. Thus the Little Masters must have been pretty strong indoors. People maybe are not aware that Rosewall beat a peak Laver four times in a row in the French Pro indoors.
There is a big factor in Hoad vs Rosewall:both knew each other and their respective games perfectly and that must affect both tactically and mentaly
If Borg and Vitas fi didn't practise so much together Vitas would have beaten Borg some times
Edit. Delete post.
But ex-champions often pick their own closest rivals.
Vines picked Budge, who dethroned him. Tilden, when asked in 1950 who were the best players of the first half of the century, behind himself, picked Cochet, Lacoste, Johnston, Budge, Perry, and Vines.
Gonzalez, Rosewall and Laver all picked Hoad. Pancho, in another interview, picked Kramer, who gave him the worst beating of his career (somewhat like Hoad gave Laver).
This is all perfectly normal but it suggests in what way ex-champions are biased.
Yes, you can argue that a choice of GOAT carries more credibility when it is made by those who played the champion in question. They knew what it was like to play him, after all.
On the other hand they don't know what it was like to play champions from eras other than their own.
Sammy Giammalva beat both Budge and Riggs at Tuscaloosa in 1959 to win his first pro tournament. Was Giammalva one of the greats?
Sedgman's last great showing was in 1959.
Hoad did not play the tour in 1960, 1961, 1962.
In the 1958 and 1959 tours, neither Cleveland nor Wembley was included in the Ampol world championship tour, which decided the bonus money pool. These tournaments were not managed by the Kramer organization, and were not included in the championship tour. The top pros concentrated on the designated tournaments. The 1959 Wembley event was won by Anderson, well down the money list.
After 1959, the Ampol series, and Forest Hills, were discontinued due to Hoad's semi-retirement, and Wembley became more important BY DEFAULT.
Hoad was carrying extra pounds after the 1959-60 season, and tended to tire in long matches. What does this sound like?
It sounds like Rosewall merely maintained his level of play after 1960, while his principal opponents declined.
End of argument, my friend.
Dan, you annoy me more and more with every new post of yours. Your new post is an impertinence. I'm proud enough about my tennis knowledge that I can't accept such a behaviour.
FIRST you ignore all my arguments of my long last recent posting. At no single point you reply to my argument. At no single point you would concede:" Bobby, we have a different view at the things but you are right in this point or that. You have me convinced that a point of mine was wrong"
I have reflected about your personality and still wonder who you are. Are you mean? I thought to myself:"No, he is not mean, he does not know better"
Then I thought you are insane and I insulted you a few times for that. But you do have the intelligence for a tactics to give me always new strange "arguments" in order to not being forced to give answer to my arguments. The same happened in your discussion with krosero when you did not reflect his reasonable views and when you invented the strangest arguments to "prevail" over him in the discussion...
Now I believe you are a mixture of mean and insane. You seem to have a blockade in your mind to write reasonably. I understand that my requests to you about discussing as reasonable people do are fruitless.
SECOND your new arguments are very irrational.
What has Giammalva to do with our discussion???
His wins against Budge and Riggs in 1959 (!) were hardly masterpieces.
Sedgman was very strong in 1962, 1963, 1964 and 1965. You can't battle out two matchpoints against a peak Laver at Wembley in 1965 if you are a weak player. He twice beat Laver in those years too.
Hoad did play a part of the 1961 tour (not too successful, by the way).
There was no big tour in 1962 at all as you know. But Hoad did play much in Europe that year.
End of our discussion? Maybe.
On one hand I find your attitude obnoxious and I would like to stop answering you. On the other hand I confess I like to disprove silly statements and views.
My hope is that also other posters disprove your theses as Limpinhitter and urban and pc1 have already done.
Learn a certain culture of discussing!
Wembley became more important by DEFAULT? That's miles even below you own level...
The lobb and bobby one show never ending
Guys you are boring to death
Why don't just follow on by e mail?
Sedgman won his last event in 1959. Is this an inconvenient fact? Apparently.
Hoad took a long layoff after injuring himself in the Tokyo 1960 final against Rosewall, and was out of shape for the 1961 tour, which he withdrew from shortly with a broken foot.
He won the Italian clay tour in 1962, but ran out of gas in the Wembley final. What does this mean? His conditioning was suspect.
Why no tour in 1962? Was Rosewall that much lacking in box-office power? Or were his opponents too far deteriorated?
No answer is also an answer, a telling answer.
Sedgman winning in 1959 does not disprove my remark about Sedgman's matchpoints in 1965.
Sedgman won his last tournament as late as 1970.
It's not only a discussion about tennis but also my trial to show HOW serious discussions should be made.
I miss any contradiction of yours to Lobb's strange statements.
The more posters contradict Dan the greater is the probability that he gives up his trolling...
I did not have such tennis discussions with you because you mostly have reasonable views. I only contradict you regarding Vines, Nüsslein & Co and Segura...
Lobb is so stubborn as you
Hoad is very fascinating and I find his team with great Rosewall even more fascinating
But Laver,Rosewall and Pancho have him best or very close to best ever and that is enough for me
He , Kodes and a few more are just as underrated here as Vines but specially Nusslein and Segura are overrated IMO
Vinws is a true champion while Segura and Nusslein are the best ever journeymen but not champions
Thanks that you call me stubborn and put me into the same pot as Dan.
I would have thought that intelligent people can distinguish into serious and trolling argumentation...
i would contribute more to the discussion if i knew what it was. i don´t most of the time. i can see Dans tactics to change the subject and to bring up obscure points. one usually does that when one runs out of arguments.
was Lew Hoad at his peak the best ever? maybe, but i haven´t seen the man play so it´s hard to have a definite opinion.
was Lew Hoad the greatest of all time in terms of career achievements?
easy to answer. no, and not even close.
i would love to be able to travel back in time to a Hoad match and quietly sit in the stands and enjoy
treblings, thanks a lot for your post. Believe me: I was sure that you are one of the understanding posters here and that you can easily differ between serious thought arguments (even conceding that the serious poster can make mistakes here and there: I do know that I'm not perfect at all) and the attitude to give unserious arguments instead of serious ones.
I stress that I'm aware that Dan knows much about tennis history. For example I had not known before him about the 1957 claycourt tournaments at De Hague and Cairo.
I think the problem with Dan is that he mixes right and wrong facts and arguments in order to confuse his discussion's partner, equal if it is krosero or BobbyOne...
I agree regarding your opinions about Lew Hoad.
Thanks once more. Your post was a true refreshment for me...
I wouldn't count on it. Look at TMF, tomorrow he'll pretend the lessons of today never happened.
Dan and Bobby surely are two great experts but looking at their rivalry is becoming to look as a Dibbs vs Solomon cc match with both at their prime
And they're becoming (have become) very boring. It's so unnecessary. We're all here to discuss a great player, not argue about the whys and wherefores of his career. I saw him play many times (did any of you?) and I can tell you he was an incredible player when on, and lackadaisical at best when he was off. The players who played with and against him are surely the best judges of how good he was. His inconsistency is the reason his career stats aren't better and everyone realises that.
I would pick either the 1957 Wimbledon final against Cooper (6-2, 6-1, 6-2), or the 1959 Tournament of Champions final against Gonzales (6-1, 5-7, 6-2, 6-1). They were Hoad's best performances on the biggest stages.
of these two matches i would probably choose the one against Gonzales.
another one of those players i would have loved to have seen
Can you possible discuss in detail your opinions about Hoad, his strokes, etc?
his playing days were a bit before my time. i own a dunlop maxply lew hoad decal model, do you?
Yes, as it happens, I do. I also own a racquet that used to belong to Art Larsen (US Open Champion 1950), and a Seamco Rosewall racquet, autographed by him (in my presence while I was talking to him at the Sydney Olympic Centre).
P.S. Rosewall was amazed and delighted that my racquet was in such beautiful condition (virtually mint). I think it brought back a few memories.
A castle is built one brick at a time.
I wish... It was a long time ago and I was just a teenager then, but in comparison to other great players of the time (Seixas, Patty, Drobny, etc etc) it was easy to see he was a cut above the rest. The power was just amazing and he seemed able to execute any stroke with ease. On the other hand, when he was off his game, it was hard to believe it was the same player.
Separate names with a comma.