Alas, YOU are a complete anachronism. You live only in 1959 -the only year where Hoad has a claim of having been the world's No.1. Your stubbornness to accept historical facts is remarkable...
Men's Season with the most achievement
- Thread starter timnz
- Start date
Alas, YOU are a complete anachronism. You live only in 1959 -the only year where Hoad has a claim of having been the world's No.1. Your stubbornness to accept historical facts is remarkable...
I have great esteem for Vines, but there has always been one aspect of his game which has given me pause. Other players, notably Budge, had a greater range of shots.
I notice that Danzig stated that Vines' serve was the "hardest and flattest"....well, perhaps it is good to add something more to the serving repertoire than "hard and flat".
Hoad hit a combination of spin and speed, which probably makes for a more difficult return, and many spin shots from the ground.
pc1
G.O.A.T.
Vines did have a variety of serves including one of the best second serves Kramer had seen. I believe he ranked it second only to Newcombe's. It's just that he was famous for his flat first serve as I assume players like Gonzalez and Hoad were.
I do wonder if Budge had a greater range of shots. Some felt that Budge couldn't serve and volley because he had long strokes. Vines, while he wasn't a serve and volley was known for his effectiveness when he served and volleyed. I have seen videos of Vines using the drop shot well and I understand that he could lob well also. Vines was apparently a faster player than Budge also with more service variety. Budge had the superior backhand while Vines had the superior forehand.
I do have no doubt that Hoad had a greater variety of shots than Vines. Hoad may have had a greater variety of shots than anyone so I don't think that's bad at all. The key to me is that both players did not seem to have a stroke weakness.
I do think the bottom line is that both are linked in the tennis history books because of their immense talent, how young they were when they first won, the great power and the legends of both that they were invincible when on their game.
That would be a dream matchup of Hoad versus Vines on grass in a Wimbledon final with both playing their best.
I will say that Hoad probably wasn't the golfer Vines became. LOL. Incidentally I think the NY Times was incorrect that Vines never won a golf tournament in the Pros. I believe he won several.
http://articles.latimes.com/1990-12-11/sports/sp-6213_1_ellsworth-vines/2
https://www.washingtonpost.com/arch...est-man/4a7692aa-cc70-404e-8124-42b7a0dd625f/
http://articles.latimes.com/1990-03-01/sports/sp-2429_1_ellsworth-vines
Last edited:
Truthfully, I was unaware of Vines pro tour record. Four pro majors, while better than Hoad's record, is not that great. Three amateur slams is not that of an all time great either, IMO. As for Nusslein, did he ever play the regular amateur circuit? If he did, fact is, he never won an amateur slam. I had never heard of Nusslein or the Czech player Kozeluh before I saw the list of pro major winners in the Bud Collins book. I seriously doubt the Budge said the Nusslein was the greatest player he ever played against, or really meant it.
pc1
G.O.A.T.
Vines' lifetime winning percentage is also extremely high. He won a number of Pro Tours including two over the Great Fred Perry, a very strong Nusslein and a still strong but older Bill Tilden. Vines was a consistently powerfully player. If I counted correctly (could be a little off) but I remember a few years ago I counted Vines' record in the three important tournaments in Wembley, the US Pro and the French Pro and the regular classic majors. His winning percentage in those tournaments I believe was just fractionally behind Borg for the highest of all time.
Vines was simply an awesome player and dominant for many years.
Nusslein was a superb player. Just because a person hasn't heard of a player doesn't mean he wasn't great.
Last edited:
Yes, and Kramer was not just a top ten in the world in '57, he had a winning record over Segura (14-11 thus far documented) and a possible winning record over Hoad (11-11 thus far documented). The edge over Segura -- with Kramer winning at least once even on clay -- is particularly impressive, considering everything that Segura did in '57.
Kramer also won his only meeting in '57 with Pancho Gonzalez, at Wembley. The only player Kramer did not do well against was Rosewall: 2-19 thus far documented.
Bobby a couple of weeks back you mentioned that World Tennis had Kramer finishing ahead of Segura on the European/Asian tour, behind Rosewall and Hoad. WT does report that, and it's repeated in McCauley. But Kramer actually finished fourth on that tour, behind Ken, Lew and Pancho. Jack did really well against both Hoad and Segura but Rosewall beat him so many times that his overall win/loss record is comfortably fourth.
WT had records of only a few matches on the '57 overseas tours -- just what Kramer provided them. (And this is all that McCauley had as well.) They knew only what Kramer was telling them. Kramer gave them some running H2H tallies among the four players but those numbers are all wrong. I did a study of this, after I researched the '57 overseas tours, trying to make sense of Kramer's numbers. The numbers themselves are off, perhaps because the European tour (and the Asian tour) had no prize given out at the end, so there was no need to keep a careful count. The South African tour DID have a prize given out at the end and on that tour all numbers were kept meticulously; the same was true for the Australian tour. But the European/Asian numbers are not accurate, and I have no explanation for how Kramer might have produced them.
For example if you add up all the H2H numbers given on Oct. 15, you have some of the men playing many more matches than others, which makes no sense. All 4 men played at every stop and should have the same number of total matches played.
Anyway I had meant to post my analysis of those numbers, but I put it off in hopes that I could find the handful of still-missing results on the European/Asian tours (South Africa and Australia are fully accounted for, as I said).
What this means is that we really should throw out the statements in World Tennis about the European/Asian tour, if what we want is to know the placements of the players in terms of overall win/loss. For example WT reports that Rosewall and Hoad finished the European tour in a tie for first place: this is conclusively wrong. In Europe Ken was 19-10, Lew 14-14.
The only sense in which Rosewall and Hoad are tied according to Kramer's numbers (and keep in mind, those are wrong) is that they are tied 3-3 with each other, while both men have leads over Kramer and Segura. In that sense, too, Kramer can be third, since he has a winning H2H over Segura, who had losing H2H’s against all of his troupe-mates.
So there is some sense to what Kramer reported to World Tennis, according to Kramer's own numbers -- but again I have to stress that his numbers are wrong.
And even if they were correct, I think most of us, in considering placements on a tour like this one, would want overall win/loss records rather than H2H's.
pc1
G.O.A.T.
Thrust,
It depends on how of these "Pro Majors" that he entered.
Let's look at the record
1934
French Pro-Vines didn't play
US Pro-Vines wins two rounds before losing to the eventual champion Nusslein in five sets.
Vines of course won the World Championship Tour over Tilden and another small tour with Cochet, Tilden and Plaa. Vine also another tournament over the likes of Tilden, Cochet, and Plaa.
Wembley
Vines won the tournament with a 5-0 record defeating Plaa, Maskell, Barnes, Nusslein and Tilden. Nusslein finish second with a 4-1 record.
So Vines was 7-1 in "Pro Majors" and won 1 tournament out of 2 entered.
1935
French Pro
Vines won the French Pro with a 3-0 record.
US Pro
Vines did not enter
Wembley
Vines won it by defeating Tilden in the final
So Vines was 6-0 in the "Pro Majors" and won two out of two entered.
Vines reported led the tour with Stoefen 25-1 before Nusslein took over.
1936
French Pro
Vines didn't enter
US Pro
Vines didn't enter
Wembley
Some reports have Vines defeating Nusslein in the final but others have the event cancelled.
So let's say Vines didn't win Wembley in 1936. That would mean he won 3 "Pro Majors" out of four entered. If he won Wembley in 1936 he would have won four out of five.
So he only lost one match out of all the Pro Majors he entered up to 1938 when he was number one.
1939
Wembley
Did not enter
French Pro
Lost to Budge in the final.
He had a 2-1 record.
US Pro
Won the US Pro over Perry in the final in four sets.
He had a 4-0 record.
So if I counted correctly Vines won four of six pro majors entered with a 19-2 record. It's hard to be much better than that.
I think his focus was on the tours even over the tournaments.
There is no more uncertainty about '36 Wembley being cancelled. That is a settled question -- and has been for some time.
And of course Vines entered the '39 Wembley.
I have Vines winning 4 of 7 pro majors with a record of 22-4.
For his career he won 7 of 14 majors with a record of 53-8.
pc1
G.O.A.T.
That is great record for an inconsistent player. That's a great record for any player!
pc1
G.O.A.T.
I know you mentioned Wembley a while ago but I didn't want to just rely on my memory for this. So I wanted to hedge my bets. So don't feel upset about that.
pc1
G.O.A.T.
Okay. Just wanted to let you know my thinking on that post. Sometimes I have to rely on my memory to save time instead of confirming everything that might take a while because I'm very busy.
Bottom line is that the supposedly inconsistent Vines won consistently and had a great record.
@thrust hopefully will realize Vines was a great player.
I thnk that you have to keep in mind the purpose of that tour, which was to prepare Hoad for the world championship series against Gonzales, it was a teaching opportunity for Kramer and Hoad.
So, really, it was in effect an exhibition tour, without a final prize, and therefore Kramer could be casual about the numbers, partly to shield Hoad from getting negative publicity early in his pro career, to build up the Gonzales tour.
I think that Kramer was up front at the time about that aspect of the 1957 tour, its purpose being to prepare Hoad, everything else secondary.
That was clear in the press coverage.
Last edited:
thrust, It does not speak for you that you did not hear the names of Nüsslein and K. Kozeluh until recently even though I admit that both players, now in the HOF, are little known among tennis fans. Nüsslein was never an amateur and I believe also Kozeluh was an amateur only a short time if at all.
Regarding your doubt about Budge's statement: Nüsslein's widow presented me several maps with contemporary newspaper clippings collected and compiled by Nüsslein himself and there you can read exactly Budge's word. I concede that it was spoken already in 1935 but Don had seen before players like Tilden, Richards, Vines, Allison and several other top players.
Please read krosero's newspaper report about the great Budge/Nüsslein match at Wembley in 1939 where both players have collected the same amount of games (Budge won 13-11, 2-6, 6-4).
Nüsslein was a top three or four player from 1933 to 1939. I rate him as the best claycourter of the world in that period.
Last edited:
Limpinhitter
G.O.A.T.
As I see it, if Hoad consistently played at or near his best, he would have been #1 for several years.
I am impressed with Hoad's total wins against top players, which on an annual basis, is far ahead of any other player, past or present.
This shows incredible consistency, in spite of nagging back trouble.
krosero, Thanks for these clarifications. I'm sorry that I seem to having forgot your exact compilation of the numbers of those 1957 tours which you have made earlier. Yes, Kramer's (and WT's) numbers make only sense regarding the hth balances. It's a shame that Kramer presented totally wrong overall stats.
Dan, I think that Gonzalez, Rosewall and Laver were equally successful against top players.
Well I compiled the results but as far as I can recall I've never posted calculations of the win/loss records -- apart from South Africa and Australia.
And I think this was clear already but I want to reiterate: Kramer's H2H numbers are wrong so ultimately his statements do not hold up in any way. For example, if I calculate the true H2H figures as of Oct. 15, and use those instead of Kramer's H2H figures, the picture is significantly different, EVEN if we use Kramer's strange metric of counting up H2H leads. Rosewall won the European tour in terms of overall win/loss, as we know now; but let's count up H2H leads now, following Kramer's strange metric; but we'll use correct figures. Rosewall still ends up winning. There is no "tie" between him and Hoad as of Oct. 15, because Ken has a H2H edge over everyone, and Hoad in actual fact trails Segura as well.
But Bobby this is quite an extraordinary situation, that Rosewall should have won the European tour of '57 but it was hardly known at the time and even mis-reported as a tie between him and Hoad. I can't think of another such example in tennis history. Yes, there are tours about which we know next to nothing and still a handful of tours for which may not even know the winner; but in this '57 case we've got the manager of the tour, who participated himself in the tour, giving statements to the press about it and even providing tallies.
When you study Kramer's numbers it's obvious that he thought he needed to convince the press that Hoad was being successfully primed for Gonzalez and that Lew was everything he had been marketed as.
So, some of the numbers were obviously cooked: but even the accurate numbers did not get as much press as they should have. The South African tour, which Rosewall won, had accurate numbers, because a prize was awarded at the end; but there is no record in World Tennis of who won that tour.
What WT -- or Kramer as their source, probably -- did with the Australian tour is even worse. As you know Rosewall took the Australian tour of Dec. 57 overwhelmingly, with a 15-5 record, beating out Hoad, Sedgman and Segura. Ken had a 4-1 edge over Lew on that tour.
Now look at how WT reported it: "Lew Hoad finished the first portion of his Australian tour with substantial leads over Segura, Sedgman and Kramer and a 3-match lead over Rosewall."
Those numbers make no sense at all, no matter how you look at them.
And that's all.
Rosewall had just finished pummeling all his rivals, and yet WT treats it like Hoad's story and presents him as victorious.
The other person who gets shafted by Kramer's numbers is Pancho Segura. At one point WT "reports" that Segura is doing the most poorly of all the troupe and is lagging in fourth place, behind Rosewall/Hoad and Kramer. But I actually have Segura slightly ahead of Kramer in win/loss records for the entire period in Europe, South Africa and Asia (after which Kramer dropped out). If you include the earlier South America tour, won by Segura, Pancho is comfortably ahead of Kramer.
So it looks to me that Kramer's numbers were not just protecting Hoad's image, but also his own.
You forget, this was all about training Hoad, and preparing for the world championship tour.....Kramer was clear about that in the press reports.
No excuse at all for presenting bad numbers -- and for failing to publicize the accurate numbers that were made in South Africa and Australia.
And Segura was shafted too, you forget: that had nothing to do with Hoad.
The '57 tour was called a warm-up tour, and so was the '63 Down Under tour in which Laver met Hoad and Rosewall for the first time. The exact same phrase you have used constantly to put down the '57 tour was used for the '63 tour.
So when Hoad got his knocks as a green rookie, you consider the tour as little better than practice matches. But six years later when Hoad, as a strong veteran, gets his chance to knock around a green rookie, you treat it like the most important tour in history -- even going as far as pushing false numbers for it, and even telling us that Hoad's fabled 14-match winning streak over Laver must have included important practice matches!
abmk
Bionic Poster
I already mentioned some of these stats earlier in this thread :
https://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/ind...-most-achievement.539913/page-8#post-11575950
krosero, Thanks again for clarifying. I did not formulate exactly. I only meant the Rosewall/Hoad 3:3 hth and the leading hth of Kramer only against Segura as you have written in the previous post. I understand that Kramer finished fourth, especially by his desaster hth against Rosewall.
pc1
G.O.A.T.
Vines didn't play that many majors and he was world champion for years. Rosewall would not have won many majors either if he did not have the opportunity to play many.
thrust, In Vines's time there were not many majors. But he did so well in the big tours. A player who we can rate as No.1 for 5 to 7 years must be regarded as ATG and as one the best of them!
No, no "false" numbers, those are numbers put out by Laver and Buchholz who actually played that tour, so, that is a very strong source.
And, no, I rate both tours as "exhibition" tours within the TB classification, not championship tours.
However, there is no comparison as to which was the more important tour, that is a "no contest".
The 1963 Australian tour was a big money tour.
Segura "shafted"? Come on. he was invited to the big money tour in 1958, not Rosewall.
Rosewall got "shafted".
Last edited:
mtincoronel76
Rookie
I would said:
1- McEnroe 1984
2- Laver 1969
3- Vilas 1977
4- Borg 1978
5- Djokovic 2015
1- McEnroe 1984
2- Laver 1969
3- Vilas 1977
4- Borg 1978
5- Djokovic 2015
Fascinating post! Assuming you numbers are correct, and I am sure they are, you prove the fact that Rosewall has always been underrated due to the fact that he was Not the star or darling of the tennis press. It seems more and more that Gonzalez, Hoad the Laver were the stars Ken, the day to day winner or toughest competition for the stars.
The main point about that 1957 tour is that placements were not important.
It was a tour whose sole purpose was to prepare Hoad to meet Gonzales in the biggest money tour ever staged, a tour which, if managed properly, could make everyone well off financially...which it did, with the exception of Rosewall, who was mysteriously excluded from that historic 1958 four-man tour.
The actual results of that practice tour in 1957 were insignificant, which is why Kramer was so casual about them.
This provides an explanation for that tour.
LOL! You never cease to come up with excuses for your Idol Hoad.
What? No excuses here, except possibly for Kramer.
I guess you missed the point which Krosero was making about Kramer's funny numbers.
I was explaining Kramer's purposes in this tour, which was to prepare Hoad for that historic 1958 big money tour.
The great mystery is, why was Rosewall left off of the tour for 1958?
Rosewall was expecting to be included, but was not.
Why?
He understood my point exactly right.
Yes, how great Rosewall was ...but that is not the point of that tour, which was merely a preparation tour for Hoad.
Kramer was clear about that.
It would be missing the point to make something out of those numbers.
And Kramer was clear about NOT making anything out of them.
The big question is why Rosewall was ignored for the biggest money tour of that era, the 1958 tour?
Kramer was clear about that.
It would be missing the point to make something out of those numbers.
And Kramer was clear about NOT making anything out of them.
The big question is why Rosewall was ignored for the biggest money tour of that era, the 1958 tour?
Last edited:
Do not put words into my mouth, or associate my username with your views.
Your views do not coincide with mine, do not worry.
My references to your posts have to do with reports and data, and not your opinions.
You gave approval to Thrust's statement that Rosewall was an underrated player, which is what you presumably meant by his views coinciding with yours....so?
You stated "He understood my point exactly right."
I was responding to that....
Dan you have now repeatedly referred to the 1958 tour as a 4-man tour when you know perfectly well that the championship tour of '58 was a 2-man series between Gonzalez and Hoad. You know as well as anyone that Segura and Trabert were merely the opening act (Kramer once called it the "animal act"), on a nightly basis, for the championship matches between Gonzalez and Hoad. Yet you keep claiming that Segura was chosen over Rosewall to be part of that "historic", as you put it, animal act.
Why are you falsely referring to the 1958 championship tour as a four-man tour?
Sure, two of the players were the undercard, but they travelled with the two big stars on that huge money-making tour.
It was not a round robin affair, of course. I think that most of us here are aware of that.
But the percentages of the returns were calculated on a four-player basis, with Hoad getting 20%, (25% when he won his match against Gonzales), Gonzales getting 20 % win or lose, and both the undercard players getting a percentage which would represent a great income for that year.
I am personally disappointed that Rosewall was not part of the four player tour, which would presumably have matched him against Trabert.
I find it very strange that Kramer did not invite Rosewall to participate.
thrust, Rosewall was not the darling of the press but he was the darling of the spectators, at least in Europe, more than Pancho or Rod.
Dan, Because he lost the 1957 tour to Gonzalez. Get serious!
Dan Lobb, You will have a place in Talk Tennis' history as a really unique poster...
Dan Lobb, It could be that Kramer considered Rosewall's great achievements at end-1957 (winning Wembley and several tours) and that he did not want to letting play Muscles in the "animal act".
But I assume you are "disappointed" about Kramer's decision ("ignoring" Rosewall) in order to belittle the Little Master as you use to do regarding the 1961 tour and regarding Rosewall's possible No.1 places in 1960 and 1961 and his sure No.1 place in 1962...
In World Tennis there is a short notice reporting in January 1958 that Rosewall "turned down" an offer by Kramer; and Rosewall says in the Peter Rowley book that "Kramer offered me the fill-in as No. 3 or No. 4 man, but I did not want that, as I wanted to have a chance to compete for the top and I knew I could play pro tournaments."
All of which directly contradicts your recent claims that Rosewall was not invited to be a part of the tour--which you based on what documentation, exactly? No documentation at all, in fact.
It is very obvious to me that this all goes back to the 1961 world series, which you claimed, again without evidence, that Rosewall was not invited to join. I showed you last week that Kramer intended to have Rosewall as one of 6 men who would play for the championship -- it was a 6-man series by then, with no more animal act, all players competing for the title: and therefore completely different from the 1958 situation, though you've done your best to make the situation appear to be the same by referring to 1958 as a "4-man" series that Rosewall was shut out of. Which you've done, no doubt, just to bolster your disproved claim that Rosewall was shut out of the '61 series and replaced by Olmedo. As soon I showed you the evidence that Rosewall chose himself to withdraw from the '61 Series, you started making this very strange reference to the '58 Series as a "4-man" series, and you started claiming that Rosewall was "strangely" replaced in it by Segura (to your great disappointment, as you've made sure to add). You've been repeating that claim now at least once a day, even repeating it in my 1939 thread, where it would have derailed the topic.
Sorry, actual documentation is against you in both cases ('58 and '61). You want to build an argument that will actually be taken seriously? Build it on actual documentation.
I've had enough of your games.
Bobby you may have forgotten what Rosewall told Rowley, which I posted above. What Rosewall said, and what he decided, of course, was perfectly natural. He had asked Kramer to expand the 2-man Series of '58 into a 3-man playoff featuring himself (Ken) along with Lew and Gorgo, which Kramer refused to do. So Ken was shut out of the championship matches; that is well known. But then it's no surprise that he didn't want to be part of the animal act. He wanted to play for the championship, not to be the opening act for it.
There weren't many World Series runner-ups who settled to be merely the opening act in later Series. Segura and Trabert both did so, but Segura had been doing the "opening act" even before he got a chance to play for the championship in '51. Otherwise, who did it? Perry lost two Series to Vines in 1937-38, and you didn't see him asking to play the opening act for Budge and Vines in 1939. He did show up again later in '39, of course, when he was given a chance to go against Budge directly in his own Series (which means incidentally that Budge had to win the championship twice that year; nothing about this was official).
krosero, Thanks for this clarification! Shame on me to having forgotten the Rowley quote. It seems as though I'm getting old...
Yes, I recalled that Rosewall was disappointed about not getting an offer for the 1958 series, but with your references here, it appears that Rosewall was disappointed at not getting a chance at the number one spot.
As it turned out, that 1958 world series would be the most successful and lucrative world championship series ever in the old pro pre-open era, the first and only series to break the $1 million mark, and the "animal act" or undercard players would make a lot of money.
I am sure that Trabert and Segura were well satisfied being such well-paid "animals".
Rosewall would not get a big pay cheque in that year.
Hoad's box office power transformed the professional tennis circuit in terms of money.
Hoad's drawing power was similar to Arnold Palmer later in golf.
Last edited:
krosero, Let me correct two sentences from pc1: Nüsslein beat Vines at the US Pro in 1934 in four sets. Tilden, not Nüsslein, finished second in the 1934 Wembley tournament even though Nüsslein had a better match record than Tilden and had a win in their personal clash.
Despite the fact that Hoad lost the 1958 hth series to Gonzales, it was Hoad, and not Rosewall, who was invited to play in the 1959 4-man world championship tour of America.
This was a recognition of Hoad's unique box office power at that time, and again, after losing the 1959 series to Gonzales, Hoad was AGAIN invited to play the 1960 world championship tour, not Rosewall.
Hoad was clearly over-tennised after playing 120+ matches in 1958 and 160+ matches in 1959, and refused to play the 1960 tour.
Rosewall was brought in as a last minute replacement for Hoad, and apparently did not have time to properly prepare for that 1960 tour, losing it almost as soon as it began.
