Limpinhitter
G.O.A.T.
He may be referring to Vines' and Hoad's high risk, aggressive styles of play. Like Laver and Sampras, they were attackers who didn't temporize or compromise their approach, even if it meant going down in flames.
Men's Season with the most achievement
- Thread starter timnz
- Start date
He may be referring to Vines' and Hoad's high risk, aggressive styles of play. Like Laver and Sampras, they were attackers who didn't temporize or compromise their approach, even if it meant going down in flames.
Dan you are entering full-time troll territory recently, especially with these repeated claims about Rosewall. Where did you get the idea that Rosewall was a replacement for Hoad in the 1960 World Series? It was a 4-man tour and Rosewall, Hoad and Gonzalez could all have played alongside the new recruit, Olmedo. In the end Hoad didn't play, and Segura did, which if anything would suggest that Hoad's replacement was Segura, not Rosewall.
But that's just the lazy way of looking at it, without looking for any documentation. You want to know what the documented situation actually was? Hoad withdrew from the tour on December 24, 1959. As far back as December 2 the press already reported that the players "definitely set" for the 1960 world series were Gonzalez, Rosewall and Olmedo. Kramer was reportedly going to choose two more (for singles and doubles duty), to be chosen among Sedgman, Segura, Hoad and Trabert. Kramer told the press that Hoad and Trabert were still undecided about whether they would play.
So this is now the third time in the space of a week that you've claimed -- from nothing except your imagination -- false claims about Rosewall and whether or not he was invited to play (1958, 1960, 1961). Every single case has turned out to be actually the opposite of what you've claimed.
The pro tour did not revolve around Hoad; and conversely, though Rosewall was not top box-office, he was not the mere water boy that you're making him out to be.
You will no doubt reply to this with more of your imaginings, but for once try to actually find solid documentation to build arguments on.
I normally don't buy any of your claims without checking them first but you've really hit a new low the past couple of weeks.
Well, that report about Rosewall definitely set as early as December 2 for the 1960 tour is news to me, and, yes, that changes my understanding, at least partly.
Your point about 1959?.....Hoad invited, despite his loss in 1958, Rosewall still not invited?
How is that picture not consistent with what I suggested above?
abmk
Bionic Poster
Krosero,
Please continue to expose the fake news/wrong posts , so others can know the truth and get a better understanding.
One question though : Why did Hoad, Trabert withdraw from the 1960 World Series ?
I think that my point stands that Hoad was over-tennised in early 1960, having played almost 300 matches over the previous two years.
Rosewall played about a small fraction of that amount.
And Rosewall's invitation for the 1959 tour? It looks like it was going to be another Hoad/Gonzales matchup before the 1958 season had even ended, there were press reports that Hoad and Gonzales would "finish" their supposedly incomplete 100 match tour during 1959.
Do I hear the sound of coins in the register?
I don't know who you mean by "he" (thrust?) but though the high-risk style was a part of Vines' reputation (accurately), Vines was also talked about as someone who could be great one day and lose to a nobody the next. I don't have the quotes on hand now, but these type of things were said by people with some authority; I believe Tilden said something along those lines; Vines even described himself in those terms in very late interviews, e.g., 1990.
But honestly I really don't see that in his pro record. Yes in his amateur record you can see it (though not in '31 which was an amazingly consistent season, with few losses). But not in the pros. Budge had higher percentages and was more consistent; that's why you always hear the formula: Budge was greater over 365 days but Vines on his day was unbeatable. That much is true. But that doesn't mean that Vines' record was inconsistent and spotty. It was just slightly less consistent than Budge's which is hardly a flaw.
Last edited:
Usually, when Hoad lost a match, it was not because he was whaling away with terrific powerful drives which were out of control.
Hoad loaded his shots with spin, which meant that they were not sailing all over the place.
When Hoad lost, it was because he appeared tired and not putting a lot of physical effort into the play, sluggish.
Did you link those reports to the forum? I do not recall seeing them.
abmk
Bionic Poster
abmk
Bionic Poster
I will say this for Hoad though :
you could argue he was #2 player in 56 ( after Gonzales ), right ?
was arguably #1 in 59
and would've probably been #1/#2 in 58 without injury issues. (it wasn't inconsistency that was the problem, but rather his injury issues)
deacsyoga
Banned
That is one big issue against Hoad in ranking him highly despite his amazing peak level play which all his peers of the era acknowledged. Many argue there isnt a single year he was the #1 player. 1959 is the only year he has a possible case but I think most give that to Gonzales still. Isnt that the year Gonzales came back from a big deficit on their head to head tour to still win that?
Back when players were ranking far more by level of play and peak play than achievements which is the opposite of todays mindset, some even had him as the GOAT though, even over Laver, Gonzales, Tilden. Including a few of those themselves. By contrast Rosewall seems to be ranked well downwards by his peers at the time under the same rational of thinking.
I agree with you injuries were an even bigger problem for him than inconsistency. Or a lot of the inconsistency was injury related, only some of it his game and playing style.
abmk
Bionic Poster
no, that was 58.
Gonzales came back in part due to Hoad's injuries and in part due to working on his topspin BH and improving it.
In 59, in the 4 man pro tour with Gonzales, Hoad, Anderson and Cooper, Hoad actually lead Gonzales 15-13, but finished second as he lost some matches to Anderson and Cooper, while Gonzales was ruthless vs both of them, not losing a single match.
" In the four-man 1959 Kramer Pro Tour, which ran from mid-February through May, Hoad won against Gonzales by 15 matches to 13 and also won his head-to-head's with newly turned pro Ashley Cooper (18–2) and Mal Anderson (9–5). With a win-loss record of 42–20 he finished second in the ranking behind Gonzales (47–15) "
In 1959 there were two championship tours, the 4-man American tour in the spring with the two rookies, and the 12 month tournament series in which all the top pros participated in a 16 tournament series. Hoad won this series, with a 72% winning proportion, Gonzales finished second with a 71% match winning proportion.
For the year as a whole, including off-tour events, Hoad led Gonzales in hth 24 to 23.
Hoad probably has the edge for 1959.
Kramer amended his somewhat whimsical list of greats in 2007 when he mentioned in chronological order Vines, Budge, Gonzales, Hoad, Federer as the greatest.
Kramer obviously downgraded Laver and Rosewall, Laver had refused to sign with Kramer in 1961, Kramer retired after that as manager.
It looks like Rosewall was difficult to sign in 1958 on Kramer's terms. In 1959, it looks like Rosewall was not involved in discussions for the 1959 4-man tour....UNLESS, Krosero can reach into the bag of press reports and find something else to fill out our understanding on that.
I am not holding my breath for 1959 and Rosewall.
abmk
Bionic Poster
In 1959 , Tennisbase has Gonzales-Hoad h2h tied at 19 all (not including exhos)
in exhos, it is 4-3 to Gonzales.
Actually, the press reports for this year of 1959 are available on this thread above, showing the results of the Ampol tour, Hoad first with 6 tournament wins, Gonzales second with 4 tournament wins, Rosewall third with 3 tournament wins, Sedgman and Trabert and Anderson with one win each...a collection of giants, the greatest collection of pro players ever for a tour.
The year hth for Hoad over Gonzales is reported at 24 to 23.
Limpinhitter
G.O.A.T.
That is what I meant. Another way to describe it is streaky. Laver was streaky, sometimes within the course of a match. It goes with the territory when you play the ultra aggressive, uncompromising, high power game that players like Vines, Hoad and Laver played.
I am not sure.
Laver and Hoad, at least, may have looked cold at times, but when they were giving a full effort, they had good control.
They did not always give a full effort, but when they got "into" a match, their control was good.
Their consistency numbers were as good as any.
Vines also had good consistency numbers. In the end, a win is the objective, how that win is accomplished is up to the player.
Last edited:
Limpinhitter
G.O.A.T.
When you play that brand of tennis, some inconsistency goes with the territory.
Kramer and Gonzales were also power players, and had some inconsistency, although Kramer had less inconsistency than perhaps any other power player.
In terms of wins over top twenty players, Kramer had similar numbers to Hoad on an annualized basis.
Limpinhitter
G.O.A.T.
Gonzalez was not a power player, he was a touch player with a big serve. Kramer was more of a mix of power and touch. Laver and Hoad were all power all the time.
Although, Hoad and Laver used heavy spin to control the ball, much different than flat strokes.
pc1
G.O.A.T.
Many think Kramer was the most consistent player ever. They also said that about Budge.
So Hoad only lost when he was either tired, injured or just hitting balls wildly not caring where they were landing- Amazing Theory-LOL!
I guess Rosewall only lost when he was tired, injured or not caring.....wow, excuses, excuses...
Limpinhitter
G.O.A.T.
The new information on the Forest Hills TOC helps us understand that 1959 tour in a broader context.
We now have a currency exchange multiplier to convert the 1959 Ampol awards into U.S. dollars, assuming that the payments were made in January 1960.
I have made the calculations below, working from Krosero's invaluable references to Australian newspaper reports of the time in the post above.
For finishing first in the Ampol world tour, Hoad received a special money prize of 2,500 GBP, which translates into $7,000 U.S.
For winning the Kooyong event, which carried total prize money of 6,000 GBP and a first prize of 1,000 GBP ($2,800 U.S.), Hoad also received an additional 1,000 GBP, for a total payday of 3,500 GBP or $9,800 U.S.
Last edited:
In 1958, Hoad received $7,000 for winning the Kooyong event, the biggest money tournament in the old pro era.
So, altogether, Hoad's payday for winning the 1958 Kooyong TOC was $7,000 for winning the singles, plus a further $700 for the doubles play, a total of $7,700.
On January, 1960, Hoad's payday was $9,800, plus whatever doubles money he earned.
For winning the Forest Hills TOC in 1959, Hoad won $3,000 for the singles victory, plus about $1,500 for winning the doubles, total about $4,500. Another good payday.
[This is a reposting of an earlier discussion,
Here is Krosero's post from above, page 2.]
[NoMercy....
Please note that the series would conclude with FIVE tournaments in Australia, not THREE.]
Krosero wrote....
Dan, I believe your list is correct. Some months ago I made a brief attempt to list up all 14 tournaments; I did not get as far as you have, but the information I gathered supports the list you have here.
This article was published on Sept. 23, right after RG and during Wembley: http://trove.nla.gov.au/ndp/del/article/131614593
It says that the world series will end with 5 tournaments in Australia: the same ones you have named.
It seems that the 14-tournament series visited the same 5 cities in Australia (Perth, Sydney, Brisbane, Melbourne, Adelaide) both at the beginning of the year and at the end; in between there were visits to 4 cities outside of Australia (LA, Toronto, New York, Paris).
On May 31 the LA Times, in a preview of the LA Masters, published the point standings, noting that 5 tournaments had been played so far:
This corresponds nicely with the 5 tournaments you've listed for the beginning of the year. Going by the results in McCauley, Hoad would have accumulated 20 points, since he won two of those first five events and finished in fourth place at each of the others.
The reference to 12 tournaments is, I'm sure, a mistake. We have 10 events alone counting the two Aussie jaunts of 5 cities each; the links above confirm that the LA Masters and RG were Ampol events, which brings us to 12 already. We know the TOC at Forest Hills was an Ampol event, which is 13. Toronto must be the fourteenth.
So Hoad played all 14 events, Gonzalez skipping two.
Rosewall played 12 of the 14. He missed Perth and Adelaide in late Nov/early December because he was finishing up his tour in South Africa.
I wonder why Gonzalez skipped the final event in Melbourne. He had been scheduled to play at RG but reneged at the last minute, apparently as part of an ongoing feud with Kramer; but Gonzalez's chances there would not have been good anyway. Melbourne is another story.
Hoad won Melbourne to finish the series with 6 titles. Gonzalez won 4. That means that if Gonzalez had gone to Melbourne and won it, he would have tied Hoad with 5 titles each.
But as you noted this was a points race and I wonder if Gonzalez already was eliminated from contention, after losing to Rosewall at Brisbane.
It's hard to understand, otherwise, why he would have given up a chance at such a lucrative prize.
[Here was my reply,
Thank you for those discoveries, which I did not know about. Great stuff, Krosero.]
Here is Krosero's post from above, page 2.]
[NoMercy....
Please note that the series would conclude with FIVE tournaments in Australia, not THREE.]
Krosero wrote....
Dan, I believe your list is correct. Some months ago I made a brief attempt to list up all 14 tournaments; I did not get as far as you have, but the information I gathered supports the list you have here.
This article was published on Sept. 23, right after RG and during Wembley: http://trove.nla.gov.au/ndp/del/article/131614593
It says that the world series will end with 5 tournaments in Australia: the same ones you have named.
It seems that the 14-tournament series visited the same 5 cities in Australia (Perth, Sydney, Brisbane, Melbourne, Adelaide) both at the beginning of the year and at the end; in between there were visits to 4 cities outside of Australia (LA, Toronto, New York, Paris).
On May 31 the LA Times, in a preview of the LA Masters, published the point standings, noting that 5 tournaments had been played so far:
… the players will be out to earn points toward the Ampol Open Trophy and the $5,500 that goes to the winner after 12 tournaments. After five tournaments, Hoad leads with 20 points, Rosewall is second with 17, Sedgman third with 16, and Gonzales fourth with 14.
This corresponds nicely with the 5 tournaments you've listed for the beginning of the year. Going by the results in McCauley, Hoad would have accumulated 20 points, since he won two of those first five events and finished in fourth place at each of the others.
The reference to 12 tournaments is, I'm sure, a mistake. We have 10 events alone counting the two Aussie jaunts of 5 cities each; the links above confirm that the LA Masters and RG were Ampol events, which brings us to 12 already. We know the TOC at Forest Hills was an Ampol event, which is 13. Toronto must be the fourteenth.
So Hoad played all 14 events, Gonzalez skipping two.
Rosewall played 12 of the 14. He missed Perth and Adelaide in late Nov/early December because he was finishing up his tour in South Africa.
I wonder why Gonzalez skipped the final event in Melbourne. He had been scheduled to play at RG but reneged at the last minute, apparently as part of an ongoing feud with Kramer; but Gonzalez's chances there would not have been good anyway. Melbourne is another story.
Hoad won Melbourne to finish the series with 6 titles. Gonzalez won 4. That means that if Gonzalez had gone to Melbourne and won it, he would have tied Hoad with 5 titles each.
But as you noted this was a points race and I wonder if Gonzalez already was eliminated from contention, after losing to Rosewall at Brisbane.
It's hard to understand, otherwise, why he would have given up a chance at such a lucrative prize.
[Here was my reply,
Thank you for those discoveries, which I did not know about. Great stuff, Krosero.]
Last edited:
This indicates a variable points system.
Dan this post of mine is from 2015; it was my first post on the subject of which tournaments were included in the tour. I went with 14 tourneys because that's what Anderson reported. I settled on 13 in a later post, which I linked to yesterday in the other thread, and as you can see the point totals line up quite nicely, just as in the reconstructions made by @NoMercy and @elegos7 :
https://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/index.php?threads/world-no-1-by-year.295675/page-52#post-10503591
Yes, Krosero, and I gave you a response to which you added a "like"...I have pulled it forward to the end of that thread (World No. 1 by Year) so that you can see it.
Last edited:
Krosero, you show the two different systems here.
It is not correct to suggest that the 1959 Ampol included only 13 events, because we have seen that all 16 of the Ampol events were actually played out as planned.
The only discussion is about whether or not all 16 events were awarded first place bonus money points, especially the 3 split-field events.
That does not affect the total number of events on that tour, only the distribution of first-place bonus money points.
There were no points awarded for 2nd or 3rd place bonus money, because they did not exist.
So this is not a comprehensive ranking of players, which might be accomplished better through a money-won list, not through a bonus point list related ONLY to first place.
We should try to be precise in our language, about what it is we are actually trying to show.
And not jump to wild conclusions without evidence, AND try to link unrelated data.
It was a "non-sequitur" to jump from 1st place bonus money to the scope of the tour....that caused some posters a lot of confusion.
Last edited:
These were major paydays for that era.
There is now new information on the 1959/60 Ampol tour from an official program issued by the Kramer tour to accompany the final series of tournaments in Australia.
The official program refers to this Ampol world tour as "the world series".
See post #1919 on the thread "Tennis in the Second Golden Age of Sports" in this forum.
Last edited:
It now appears from the official program that three of the final series in Australia (Perth, Adelaide, and Brisbane) may have been lumped together as the "Hallmark TOC".
Perhaps partial points were awarded to all three events.
It does not appear that the South African tour was given any Ampol Trophy points, judging from the program.
Thus, there would be 15 tournaments in all, but perhaps a combination of weight for three of the final five Australian events.
tom williams
Rookie
Dan has anyone in tennis history played as many matches in 2 years as Lew Hoad having played 150 matches in 1959 and close to that in 1958. Cheers TW
Good question.
Hoad played about 120 matches in 1958 and about 160 matches In 1959, all against tough opponents, no easy matches.
That is about 280 matches in two seasons, a huge total.
Considering the quality of opponents, that is unparalleled.
The current crop of tennis stars would wilt just thinking about it.
pc1
G.O.A.T.
I do wonder how much that added to the back problems that Lew Hoad had.
Perhaps playing so much was a foolish decision, which shortened his career in winning important tournaments?
I think that you are right, he was forced off the tour three times during 1958 with back trouble.
That intensive schedule was determined by money making maximization, but probably hurt Hoad's back further.
Last edited:
"Minor" hth series?
Here is what the fall tour official publication for the 1961 tour said, "[the Hoad/Gonzales] series generated tremendous interest throughout the world."
Not exactly "minor".
Last edited:
The official Kramer tour program for the 1959 Ampol series has been found.
The Ampol tour is referred to as "the world series" in this official program.
Last edited:
Last edited:
Using the official program, we can now confirm McCauley's final points totals for the 1959/60 Ampol tour (although McCauley excluded Kooyong from his list
of events, which would have thrown off his points totals!).
Just before the final five Australian events, the official tour program gives the points totals as Hoad 37, Gonzales 32.
Giving Hoad 7 points for Kooyong, 4 points for Sydney, and 3 points for Brisbane gives a total of 51, confirming McCauley's total.
Giving Gonzales 7 points for Sydney and 4 points for Brisbane makes a total of 43, again confirming McCauley, exactly.
Going into Kooyong, Hoad led 44 points to Gonzales' 43. So Gonzales could have won the tour with a final win at Kooyong.
Last edited:
So, the question remains, why did Gonzales skip the final event and leave all that nice money on the table?
Perhaps it was similar to Budge skipping the final and most important tournament of 1939, Budge claiming that he was tired after a long season,
and not able to make the major effort necessary to win that event. Budge did not want to lose a major final to Vines just before Vines retired.
And Hoad was not renewing his pro contract at that time in 1959, so perhaps Gonzales did not want to risk losing a major match to Hoad in that situation.
L'Impartial, the French newspaper, called Gonzales "temperamental" for walking away. Perhaps "tired" is a better explanation.
We now have a complete listing of the bonus points awarded to all the players who participated in that historic 1959/60 Ampol Tournament Tour.
I have started with the totals given in the tour brochure after ten events, leaving the five final events in Australia, for which only three were
awarded points.
McCauley's final points totals are correct for the players he found, although McCauley apparently did not understand that these points totals
applied for the entire 12-month series of 15 tournaments. He was thinking in terms of two unconnected five-event series, and the points merely related to the
final five events. I do not blame McCauley for the confusion, but the tennis writers who relied on defective accounts.
I have worked out the points for the last three events and added them to the points listed in the official tour brochure. So, here it is,
Final Ampol Bonus Points Totals for the 1959/60 Ampol Tournament Tour
1) Hoad 51 points
2) Gonzales 43 points
3) Rosewall 41 points
4) Sedgman 32 points
5) Trabert 25 points
6) Segura 14 points
7) Anderson 14 points
8) Cooper 8 points
9) Rose 1 point
10) Olmedo 1 point
11) Hartwig 0 points
12) McGregor 0 points
13) Giammalva 0 points
A strong list of participants, including 11 Hall of Fame players, all 11 of whom won major singles titles, which must be some kind of record for any pro tour ever.
Last edited:
