pc1
G.O.A.T.
I believe Geist is partial to Rosewall.
Men's Season with the most achievement
- Thread starter timnz
- Start date
The problem with nominating Laver's 1967 year a grand slam is the absence of a major clay tournament on the pro circuit for that year, very unfortunate, as Laver was totally dominant that year, and would almost certainly have won a Roland Garros Pro or equivalent.
The concept of Grand Slam originated in the 1930's, actually 1933, and referred to winning the Australian, French, British, and American national titles, the major Davis Cup nations. This made it special, winning on essentially three different surfaces, as American grass was different from Australian grass, which was much drier and firmer.
Comparing Hoad's greatest year, 1959, to Laver's greatest years, 1967 or 1969, we see a similar amount of playing time in both, in Hoad's case over 150 matches, for Laver 122 matches in 1969, perhaps fewer in 1967.
However, I would give Hoad the edge because of the greater strength of the field in 1959, which included not only a younger and stronger Rosewall, but also Gonzales, Sedgman, both still in peak form, plus Trabert, Segura, Cooper, Anderson, Rose, Hartwig, McKay, Giammalva, all of them playing well.
Laver's opposition in 1967 included a past-peak Rosewall, a post-prime Gonzales, Gimeno, Stolle, Ralston, but little else. At Birmingham, teaching pro Alan Mills defeated both Mike Davies and Butch Buchholz, which shows that there was little depth to the pro ranks at this time.
pc1
G.O.A.T.
Dan,
I have no doubt Hoad had far greater competition in 1959 but can you review Hoad's record in 1959 for me again? I know he won the Tournament of Champions and beat Gonzalez in their individual encounters on tour 15 to 13.
My apologies, of course, I should have stated "McGregor", not McKay, who would not turn pro until 1961.
Yes, Hoad's greatest achievements that year were:
1) The hth on the 4-man tour of the U.S.A., where he defeated all three opponents, Gonzales (15-13), Cooper (18-2) and Anderson (9-5), although because all matches were weighted equally, Gonzales had the best overall won-lost record. The plurality of matches on that tour were divided between two series, Hoad/Gonzales and Cooper/Anderson, 28 matches in each, with only a smaller number allotted to the rookie/veteran pro series. Gonzales in 1969 claimed that this was the only time that he lost a hth series, obviously discounting his own rookie year against Kramer.
2) The Forest Hills event was the most prestigious of the year, but was part of a 14-tournament series which also claimed to be a world championship involving all 12 of the top pros. Points were awarded and bonus money tied to the points. Hoad finished first, Gonzales second (he played only 12 of the 14 events, skipping Roland Garros and the second Kooyong tournament), Rosewall third, Sedgman fourth, Trabert fifth, Anderson sixth, Segura seventh, Cooper eighth.
This was the first ever Grand Prix style championship series for the pro tennis world, repeated again in 1964 for a 17 tournament series, with points awarded according to finishing position. Thus, it was necessary to play off for third or lower positions to determine points standing.
The actual composition of the 14 tournaments has been shrouded in mystery, although it appears from McCauley's book that it began on January 10, 1959 and concluded on January 1 or 2, 1960, both tournaments at Kooyong stadium in Melbourne. McCauley gives wrong dates for the 1960 event, which began on December 25, 1959, not Jan. 2 1960 as McCauley claimed.
Further, Trabert finished ahead of Anderson on the points list, indicating that no credit was given for Anderson's win at Wembley, which would have elevated him above Trabert in the final standings. Thus, it would seem that Wembley was not included in the tournament series, nor was the Cleveland World Pro event, which included only the four-man field plus Segura. Cooper received no points for winning the Scarborough tournament, and finished behind Segura.
I would suggest the following tournaments as the 14 events,
1) Kooyong Jan, 10-15
2) Brisbane Jan. 20-24
3) Perth Jan. 26-30
4) Sydney Feb. 4-8
5) Adelaide Feb. 11-14
6) L.A. Masters June 5-14
7) Toronto June 16-21
8) Forest Hills June 23-28
9) Roland Garros Sept. 8-13
10) Perth Nov. 26-28
11) Adelaide Dec. 1-6
12) White City Dec. 8-13
13) Brisbane Dec. 15-19
14) Kooyong Dec. 25-Jan. 1 or 2
Last edited:
pc1
G.O.A.T.
Thanks Dan.
I finally completed the suggested list of 14 tournaments. It can be seen that 10 of the 14 were in Australia, where the major stadiums would sell out for a big pro tennis event, unlike Forest Hills at this time.
Why so many in Australia? Because the funding of the series was provided by Ampol and Qantas, two Australian major companies, looking for public visibility in their home market.
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 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.
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:
No prob, do you have the final point standings?
No, nothing on that, although in early 1960 Anderson published an article in World Tennis.
A few days before the final event at Kooyong, which started on Dec.25, Hoad turned down Kramer's offer to play the 4-man tour in 1960, stating that he wanted to spend more time with his family, and had won over $250,000 in tennis prize money after 2 1/2 years as a pro, plus much more in endorsements and investments, and didn't need to make more. This story was published in the New York Times. Also, Kramer tried to urge Hoad to sign on again, noting that Gonzales might soon retire and not be able to play Hoad again. This was not enough to sway Hoad, and apparently Gonzales also talked of immediate retirement the same week.
Perhaps these negotiations prompted Gonzales to skip the final event at Kooyong.
I haven't seen that article but Peter Rowley, in his Rosewall bio, related what Anderson said:
Mal Anderson, in World Tennis, said that for 1959 Kramer established a point system with 7 for first, 4 for second, 3 for third, 2 for fourth and 1 for fifth and sixth over 14 tourneys, and Hoad was 1, Gonzales 2, and Rosewall 3, Sedgman 4, Trabert 5, Anderson 6, Segura 7 and Cooper 8.
That point system gives Hoad a total of 20 points after 5 tournaments, as reported in the LA Times in the link above.
McCauley actually reports a different point system. It's essentially the same, only the points are smaller: 5 points for the winner, 3 for second place, 2 for third and 1 for fourth. Using these numbers, Hoad's total is 13 points after 5 events, as McCauley reports.
But the two systems are essentially the same. McCauley's points are smaller, but the result is the same, with Hoad leading after 5 tourneys, Rosewall in second place, followed by Sedgman and Gonzalez in third and fourth.
It's possible that Kramer changed to slightly larger numbers, by the time of the LA Times report (on the eve of the LA Masters in June). With the smaller numbers only 4 players in a given tournament could receive any points; larger numbers make it possible to offer points to players finishing fifth or sixth in a tournament (that's just my guess as to why the points system would have changed).
The Sept. 23 article I linked to above is certainly using Anderson's larger numbers. That article has Gonzalez at 32 points for the year. That's the exact number I calculate for him, using Anderson's numbers, and going with your list of the tournaments (McCauley has complete results for Pancho so I use Gonzalez as the example here).
Incidentally, I said that the reference to 12 events must be a mistake, but that is not necessarily true. Kramer put these tours together as well as he could but not all of the events would have been booked by the time of any given news report. Maybe 12 is the number that had been set up and finalized by the time of the LA Times report. Just another possibility.
Another article I saw (can't recall which) mentioned only 10 tournaments.
But I think it's clear that the final number was 14.
Have you seen Anderson's article? Do you have any other info from it?
Last edited:
Interesting these conflicts between Gonzalez and Kramer, though I can't see here a reason for Gonzalez to skip the final tournament.
I think Gonzalez was essentially out of the running for first place, after 13 events. The 13th event was Brisbane. Gonzalez lost to Rosewall in a close final, 1–6, 7–5, 8–6, 8–6 (McCauley calls it a superb match). If Gonzalez had won that match, he and Hoad would have been tied with 5 titles each.
As it was, after losing Brisbane, Gonzalez stood at 50 points, Hoad at 56 (I'm calculating forward from the Sept. 23 standings, given right after RG). Gonzalez could have shot up to 57 points by entering and winning Melbourne, but Hoad could reach 58 just by finishing in fourth place in the Melbourne event, which would not have been difficult to do.
[Edit: reaching fourth place originally would have meant making the semis. After Gonzalez' withdrawal, the format in Melbourne was changed to round-robin.]
Gonzalez's loss to Rosewall at Brisbane didn't eliminate him mathematically but, as far as I can tell, it significantly reduced his chances.
Last edited:
Incidentally, though I haven't studied closely the records of the big three players in '59, it looks like Hoad has a good case for co-#1. This series of 14 tournaments was obviously lucrative and quite competitive -- somewhat like the Masters series today.
Great achievement imo, for Hoad to finish first, taking 6 of the 14 titles.
Hoad edged Gonzalez in titles 6-4 but, if I'm counting correctly, trailed Pancho 3-5 in their personal meetings in this series: the reverse of what happened in the H2H tour, in which Hoad had the edge in the personal meetings but Gonzalez had the better overall record.
In the 14-tournament series, Gonzalez edged Rosewall in titles 4-2 but lost to Ken in three of their 4 personal meetings: Rosewall won in Brisbane (twice) and the LA Masters, with Gonzalez winning in Sydney.
Hoad did better than Gonzalez did, against Rosewall: Lew took 6 of 8 matches against Ken in this Ampol series.
Great achievement imo, for Hoad to finish first, taking 6 of the 14 titles.
Hoad edged Gonzalez in titles 6-4 but, if I'm counting correctly, trailed Pancho 3-5 in their personal meetings in this series: the reverse of what happened in the H2H tour, in which Hoad had the edge in the personal meetings but Gonzalez had the better overall record.
In the 14-tournament series, Gonzalez edged Rosewall in titles 4-2 but lost to Ken in three of their 4 personal meetings: Rosewall won in Brisbane (twice) and the LA Masters, with Gonzalez winning in Sydney.
Hoad did better than Gonzalez did, against Rosewall: Lew took 6 of 8 matches against Ken in this Ampol series.
Yes, I saw a copy of that issue of World Tennis on offer for sale, but was not sure how to go about getting it.
There must surely be an archive or collection of World Tennis somewhere.
I think that you have discovered here the reason for Gonzales' withdrawal from the Kooyong event. Incidentally,
Can't find an explanation for his withdrawal in either the LA Times or the NY Times. LA Times did have this on Sept. 23, concerning Gonzalez' withdrawal from French Pro and other European matches:
Mr. Kramer came to Europe with his stable of top tennis players—Pancho Segura, Ashley Cooper, Lewis Hoad, Mervyn Rose, Ken Rosewall, Frank Sedgman, Mal Anderson and Tony Trabert.
Missing was Kramer’s star, Pancho Gonzales, who decided at the last minute he didn’t want to come.
This was quite a blow, because Mr. Kramer had promised to produce Mr. Gonzales on the European courts and tennis promoters from Hamburg to Manchester were visibly and financially shaken.
“I’m in a spot,” Kramer said. “I’ve got to punish Gonzales for what he did to me. I can’t suspend him, so the only thing I can do is bench him. He’s not going to play tennis until I say he can play. If I’m going to get professional tennis off the ground, I can’t let kids like Gonzales push me around.”
The circumstances behind Mr. Gonzales’ refusing to come to Europe are vague. He agreed to come on Aug. 29 and word was flashed to the tennis courts in Great Britain and on the continent. When he didn’t show, promoters started cutting the guaranties and Mr. Kramer had to reshuffle his schedule.
“Manchester cut me from a $6,000 guaranty to $4,000 and insisted that if Gonzales didn’t show they wanted Lew Hoad. Hoad was scheduled to play in Nuernberg. I had to fly Hoad to Manchester, and then Nuernberg cut our guaranty because Hoad didn’t play there. You can see the repercussions of this thing.”
“Why do you think he didn’t come?”
“He’s always had bad luck at Wembley and in Paris, and some of the guys think this may have had something to do with it. But he can’t just play when he wants to. All the fellows are mad at him because it’s affected their gate.”
Missing was Kramer’s star, Pancho Gonzales, who decided at the last minute he didn’t want to come.
This was quite a blow, because Mr. Kramer had promised to produce Mr. Gonzales on the European courts and tennis promoters from Hamburg to Manchester were visibly and financially shaken.
“I’m in a spot,” Kramer said. “I’ve got to punish Gonzales for what he did to me. I can’t suspend him, so the only thing I can do is bench him. He’s not going to play tennis until I say he can play. If I’m going to get professional tennis off the ground, I can’t let kids like Gonzales push me around.”
The circumstances behind Mr. Gonzales’ refusing to come to Europe are vague. He agreed to come on Aug. 29 and word was flashed to the tennis courts in Great Britain and on the continent. When he didn’t show, promoters started cutting the guaranties and Mr. Kramer had to reshuffle his schedule.
“Manchester cut me from a $6,000 guaranty to $4,000 and insisted that if Gonzales didn’t show they wanted Lew Hoad. Hoad was scheduled to play in Nuernberg. I had to fly Hoad to Manchester, and then Nuernberg cut our guaranty because Hoad didn’t play there. You can see the repercussions of this thing.”
“Why do you think he didn’t come?”
“He’s always had bad luck at Wembley and in Paris, and some of the guys think this may have had something to do with it. But he can’t just play when he wants to. All the fellows are mad at him because it’s affected their gate.”
Last edited:
I think that the format at Kooyong was changed from knock-out to a round-robin preliminary series, then a best-of-five sets final between the number one and two finishers in the round robin portion. Hoad and Rosewall skipped their preliminary match in the round robin, which would have been unnecessary and redundant.
As it was, the final between Hoad and Rosewall was perhaps their greatest ever match, a marathon classic, described by the N. Y. Times reporter as the greatest ever match at Kooyong.
Not online unfortunately. Every once in a while I've gone to check the microfilm at the library (talk about old technology), but the print is not a very good one, which makes for slow going. Impossible to run searches on it, of course. Hopefully someday their archives will be put online.
It was definitely a round-robin all the way through. Hoad and Rosewall had their match on the final day of the tournament, Saturday, Jan. 2, but it was not a final; their meeting was already scheduled, round-robin style. You can see it here: https://news.google.com/newspapers?id=CYVVAAAAIBAJ&sjid=Sq8DAAAAIBAJ&pg=4851,4502786
The matches reported in that article were played on Wednesday night, Dec. 30. Hoad and Rosewall were scheduled to meet on Saturday, Jan. 2, regardless of their standings by then. Hoad needed to beat Sedgman on Friday in order to have any chance at the first prize -- or else his meeting with Rosewall would be just a dead rubber.
I think what did happen is that when Saturday arrived and both men were still in contention for the top prize, their match was expanded to best of five.
Last edited:
It seems pretty close between Hoad and Gonzalez in 1959. I think even more now, seeing this thread, that we should look at the whole tour with tournaments series and all tours, not only the World Series or the so called pro majors. Hoad had by far his best year on the pro tour with a 82-43 record (my count after McCauley, this could be incomplete). For 1958 i have Hoad at 53-71, a clear negative record. Gonzalez had for 1959 74-24 ( following McCauley). Percentage wise, Gonzalez is clearly higher, on win- loss difference Hoad is 39, Gonzalez 50. For overall record, i see a slight, but distinctive advantage for Gonzalez (with all reservations for incompleteness). Gonzalez won the US pro at Cleveland in 3 straight sets over Hoad, Hoad reversed the result in clear 4 sets at Forest Hills. In personal head to head i read once a 22-22 tie or a 23-22 lead for Hoad. If those hth numbers could be confirmed, then my McCauley counts of overall win-loss records for 1959 would be of course incomplete and have to be corrected for both Gonzalez and Hoad. Gonzalez won the 4 man World Series, but Hoad won the personal tour 15-13. Hoad obviously won this Ampol tournament series with 6 wins vs. Gonzalez with 4 wins, with Gonzalez skipping several events. With all reservations regarding the corrcet and full numbers: All things together, it seems still close, but for my book, Hoad had needed the Wembley crown that year to get the undisputed pro crown for 1959.
Rosewall was not that far behind, in personal hth he had an advantage over Gonzalez (6-4 or 8-4) and was quite even overall with Hoad. Overall by Andrew Tas stats, he was 62-32 for the year 1959, a win- loss difference of 30 (as said Gonzalez 50, Hoad, 39). As a reference point is may be interesting to compare Rosewalls stats with his 1967 stats. In 1967 he was 59-24, a difference of 35. So in 1967 he was not much better than in 1959, maybe in 1967 it wasn't so easy on the pro tour either. Laver in 1967 had 94-26, a win-loss difference of 68 matches.
Rosewall was not that far behind, in personal hth he had an advantage over Gonzalez (6-4 or 8-4) and was quite even overall with Hoad. Overall by Andrew Tas stats, he was 62-32 for the year 1959, a win- loss difference of 30 (as said Gonzalez 50, Hoad, 39). As a reference point is may be interesting to compare Rosewalls stats with his 1967 stats. In 1967 he was 59-24, a difference of 35. So in 1967 he was not much better than in 1959, maybe in 1967 it wasn't so easy on the pro tour either. Laver in 1967 had 94-26, a win-loss difference of 68 matches.
Last edited:
The 1967 tour was a much less competitive tour than 1959.
I think that you have to focus on events which claimed to be world championships, and in 1959 that meant the 4-man tour of the U.S.A. and the Ampol world tournament series.
Wembley had less prestige in some years than in others, and in 1959 Wembley was excluded from the world tournament series, which could explain why the final was contested by Anderson and Segura, who finished near the bottom of the world pro tour. The Cleveland World Pro was also excluded from consideration that year.
I've gone over the results for each day of the Melbourne round-robin and I've made a list below.
There are a few differences from McCauley's results. McCauley seems to have used World Tennis, but WT did not provide exact dates or a clear chronology of what happened on the last two days of the tournament. They also did not report the final round-robin meeting of the event, which took place close to midnight after the Hoad-Rosewall marathon, between Olmedo and Anderson. Olmedo won that match, so McCauley's final standings should be revised to read Olmedo in fifth place with a 2-3 record, Anderson in sixth with 1-4.
A preview in The Age on Dec. 22, Kramer saying that he will attempt to bring Gonzalez back from America for this Melbourne tournament: https://news.google.com/newspapers?id=r6UUAAAAIBAJ&sjid=Sq8DAAAAIBAJ&pg=4117,3675066
A preview on Dec. 24, announcing Hoad’s withdrawal from the 1960 tour and Gonzalez’ withdrawal from Melbourne: https://news.google.com/newspapers?id=sKUUAAAAIBAJ&sjid=Sq8DAAAAIBAJ&pg=6724,3914526
A preview on Dec. 26, mentioning attempts to bring back Gonzalez from America: https://news.google.com/newspapers?id=saUUAAAAIBAJ&sjid=Sq8DAAAAIBAJ&pg=4283,4068603
Dec. 26, Saturday night:
Olmedo d. Sedgman 11-9, 6-1
Segura d. Hoad 6-3, 8-6
Dec. 28, Monday night:
Rosewall d. Olmedo 6-3, 6-3
Sedgman d. Anderson 6-4, 9-7
https://news.google.com/newspapers?id=tKUUAAAAIBAJ&sjid=Sq8DAAAAIBAJ&pg=3274,4295242
Dec. 29, Tuesday night:
Sedgman d. Segura 6-1, 6-2
Hoad d. Olmedo 6-2, 6-4
Rosewall d. Anderson 6-4, 8-6
https://news.google.com/newspapers?id=tKUUAAAAIBAJ&sjid=Sq8DAAAAIBAJ&pg=4655,4358152
Dec. 30, Wednesday:
Hoad d. Anderson 6-4, 6-4
Rosewall d. Sedgman 10-8, 6-3
Segura d. Olmedo 6-2, 6-4
https://news.google.com/newspapers?id=CYVVAAAAIBAJ&sjid=Sq8DAAAAIBAJ&pg=4851,4502786
The Age previewed the final two days at https://news.google.com/newspapers?id=u54UAAAAIBAJ&sjid=Rq8DAAAAIBAJ&pg=2474,76209
Jan. 1, Friday night:
Rosewall d. Segura 6-4, 6-1
Hoad d. Sedgman 6-3, 6-3
Jan. 2, Saturday afternoon:
Anderson d. Segura 2-6, 7-5, 6-1
Jan. 2, Saturday night:
Hoad d. Rosewall 6-3, 10-8, 4-6, 15-13
Olmedo d. Anderson 8-6 (cut short due to length of Hoad/Rosewall match)
Report from The Age at https://news.google.com/newspapers?id=vJ4UAAAAIBAJ&sjid=Rq8DAAAAIBAJ&pg=7083,356521
That last report has Hoad going 24-23 over Gonzalez in 1959.
There are a few differences from McCauley's results. McCauley seems to have used World Tennis, but WT did not provide exact dates or a clear chronology of what happened on the last two days of the tournament. They also did not report the final round-robin meeting of the event, which took place close to midnight after the Hoad-Rosewall marathon, between Olmedo and Anderson. Olmedo won that match, so McCauley's final standings should be revised to read Olmedo in fifth place with a 2-3 record, Anderson in sixth with 1-4.
A preview in The Age on Dec. 22, Kramer saying that he will attempt to bring Gonzalez back from America for this Melbourne tournament: https://news.google.com/newspapers?id=r6UUAAAAIBAJ&sjid=Sq8DAAAAIBAJ&pg=4117,3675066
A preview on Dec. 24, announcing Hoad’s withdrawal from the 1960 tour and Gonzalez’ withdrawal from Melbourne: https://news.google.com/newspapers?id=sKUUAAAAIBAJ&sjid=Sq8DAAAAIBAJ&pg=6724,3914526
A preview on Dec. 26, mentioning attempts to bring back Gonzalez from America: https://news.google.com/newspapers?id=saUUAAAAIBAJ&sjid=Sq8DAAAAIBAJ&pg=4283,4068603
Dec. 26, Saturday night:
Olmedo d. Sedgman 11-9, 6-1
Segura d. Hoad 6-3, 8-6
Dec. 28, Monday night:
Rosewall d. Olmedo 6-3, 6-3
Sedgman d. Anderson 6-4, 9-7
https://news.google.com/newspapers?id=tKUUAAAAIBAJ&sjid=Sq8DAAAAIBAJ&pg=3274,4295242
Dec. 29, Tuesday night:
Sedgman d. Segura 6-1, 6-2
Hoad d. Olmedo 6-2, 6-4
Rosewall d. Anderson 6-4, 8-6
https://news.google.com/newspapers?id=tKUUAAAAIBAJ&sjid=Sq8DAAAAIBAJ&pg=4655,4358152
Dec. 30, Wednesday:
Hoad d. Anderson 6-4, 6-4
Rosewall d. Sedgman 10-8, 6-3
Segura d. Olmedo 6-2, 6-4
https://news.google.com/newspapers?id=CYVVAAAAIBAJ&sjid=Sq8DAAAAIBAJ&pg=4851,4502786
The Age previewed the final two days at https://news.google.com/newspapers?id=u54UAAAAIBAJ&sjid=Rq8DAAAAIBAJ&pg=2474,76209
Jan. 1, Friday night:
Rosewall d. Segura 6-4, 6-1
Hoad d. Sedgman 6-3, 6-3
Jan. 2, Saturday afternoon:
Anderson d. Segura 2-6, 7-5, 6-1
Jan. 2, Saturday night:
Hoad d. Rosewall 6-3, 10-8, 4-6, 15-13
Olmedo d. Anderson 8-6 (cut short due to length of Hoad/Rosewall match)
Report from The Age at https://news.google.com/newspapers?id=vJ4UAAAAIBAJ&sjid=Rq8DAAAAIBAJ&pg=7083,356521
That last report has Hoad going 24-23 over Gonzalez in 1959.
This is a treasure trove of fascinating information, Krosero. Congratulations on good work.
So, it looks like someone counted the year long matches between Hoad and Gonzales at 24 to 23 in Hoad's favour. This would add further status to Hoad's achievement that year.
It would appear from the context of the report that the 24 to 23 match tally of Hoad over Gonzales for 1959 on the year originates with an official source, namely the Kramer tour.
After Hoad's great effort of 1959, in which he apparently played more than 150 matches, he never again got into the groove of a tour or a season until January 1963, when he won his first 14 matches against Laver. It was Laver's turning pro which stimulated Hoad to undertake fitness training in late 1962 and practise hard on his game again.
I've had another email from BobbyOne, which has prompted me to do a little more digging into this Ampol series. He noted that the total points I calculated for the players for the entire year-long series do not line up with the numbers given by McCauley (on p. 99 McCauley gives the total points earned in the "Australian tournaments").
BobbyOne also doubted that Wembley was not included in the series. On both counts his instincts have proven right. I've done a little searching today and have found Wembley listed as one of the Ampol tournaments.
I've found, too, a lot of conflicting information about the total number of tournaments. A lot of the information can be reconciled, especially for the first 5 events of the year; there appears no question about those and all the numbers line up nicely; but a lot of the material just brings up more questions.
I do think that Anderson's original statement that there were 14 tournaments is a solid basis and may yet be proven correct. But instead of attempting to answer all these questions myself, let me just start by getting the new information out there. Any ideas and comments would be welcome.
Ampol announced its plan at the beginning of the year: http://trove.nla.gov.au/ndp/del/article/131618684.
They name 11 tournaments: Melbourne, Brisbane, Sydney, Adelaide, Perth, Paris, Wembley, Vienna, Forest Hills, Los Angeles and “a tournament at Melbourne Olympic pool in November, 1959.”
Ampol standings after 2 events: http://trove.nla.gov.au/ndp/del/article/103090581
LA Times, in a preview of the Masters on June 3:
Up to this point everything is actually clear. All the numbers line up perfectly, and all of the first 6 events can be identified.
Questions start popping up right after the Masters.
- Was Toronto one of the tournaments? It's not listed in any article I've found. Yet Gonzalez won this event, and without winning 7 points there he would not reach the 32 points that we know he had on the eve of the French Pro: http://trove.nla.gov.au/ndp/del/article/131614593. He reaches 32 exactly, if he's given points for Toronto and the next tournament, Forest Hills.
- What about South Africa? It's on the LA Times list as one of the events, but does that mean the South Africa tour of November? If so, was the whole tour counted, or just a portion? Rosewall, Anderson, Segura and Cooper all participated. It does make some sense that this was included, because in the final standings at the end of the year, per McCauley, Rosewall trailed Gonzalez in total points by only 41 to 43. Rosewall won 2 of the 14 tournaments we named upthread, while Gonzalez won 4, which should put Gonzalez well ahead of Rosewall in points. But Rosewall won this South Africa tour which could explain how he got so close to Gonzalez by year's end.
- What about those last 5 events in Australia, in December? The Sept. 23 link names all of them as part of the world series, but other links name only Melbourne as one of the Ampol events. Including all 5, as well as Toronto, Wembley and South Africa, takes us beyond 14.
Again any comments/ questions/help is welcome. Again thanks to Dan for putting his list together; and to BobbyOne for, essentially, proofing my work.
BobbyOne also doubted that Wembley was not included in the series. On both counts his instincts have proven right. I've done a little searching today and have found Wembley listed as one of the Ampol tournaments.
I've found, too, a lot of conflicting information about the total number of tournaments. A lot of the information can be reconciled, especially for the first 5 events of the year; there appears no question about those and all the numbers line up nicely; but a lot of the material just brings up more questions.
I do think that Anderson's original statement that there were 14 tournaments is a solid basis and may yet be proven correct. But instead of attempting to answer all these questions myself, let me just start by getting the new information out there. Any ideas and comments would be welcome.
Ampol announced its plan at the beginning of the year: http://trove.nla.gov.au/ndp/del/article/131618684.
They name 11 tournaments: Melbourne, Brisbane, Sydney, Adelaide, Perth, Paris, Wembley, Vienna, Forest Hills, Los Angeles and “a tournament at Melbourne Olympic pool in November, 1959.”
Ampol standings after 2 events: http://trove.nla.gov.au/ndp/del/article/103090581
LA Times, in a preview of the Masters on June 3:
There are 10 pro net tournaments booked around the world this year and this is the sixth. Still to be held are the championships at New York, Paris, Wembley (London), South Africa and Melbourne.
After half of these tests Hoad leads with 20 points. He will be the favorite here. The definite Australia imprint on Kramer’s troupe is shown by the fact that Rosewall is second with 17 and Sedgman third with 16. Gonzales, the product of Los Angeles public courts and the LATC, stands fourth with 14.
$5,000 Goes to Winner
When the 10 tournaments have run their course the player with the most points collects $5,000 and the Ampol trophy, donated by an Aussie firm.
In addition to this, and the opening up of his purse strings for the California Youth Tennis Foundation, Kramer is paying the winner of the most matches here—each player meets the rest—$3,000. Second place is worth $2,000 and $1,600 goes to the third best.
After half of these tests Hoad leads with 20 points. He will be the favorite here. The definite Australia imprint on Kramer’s troupe is shown by the fact that Rosewall is second with 17 and Sedgman third with 16. Gonzales, the product of Los Angeles public courts and the LATC, stands fourth with 14.
$5,000 Goes to Winner
When the 10 tournaments have run their course the player with the most points collects $5,000 and the Ampol trophy, donated by an Aussie firm.
In addition to this, and the opening up of his purse strings for the California Youth Tennis Foundation, Kramer is paying the winner of the most matches here—each player meets the rest—$3,000. Second place is worth $2,000 and $1,600 goes to the third best.
Up to this point everything is actually clear. All the numbers line up perfectly, and all of the first 6 events can be identified.
Questions start popping up right after the Masters.
- Was Toronto one of the tournaments? It's not listed in any article I've found. Yet Gonzalez won this event, and without winning 7 points there he would not reach the 32 points that we know he had on the eve of the French Pro: http://trove.nla.gov.au/ndp/del/article/131614593. He reaches 32 exactly, if he's given points for Toronto and the next tournament, Forest Hills.
- What about South Africa? It's on the LA Times list as one of the events, but does that mean the South Africa tour of November? If so, was the whole tour counted, or just a portion? Rosewall, Anderson, Segura and Cooper all participated. It does make some sense that this was included, because in the final standings at the end of the year, per McCauley, Rosewall trailed Gonzalez in total points by only 41 to 43. Rosewall won 2 of the 14 tournaments we named upthread, while Gonzalez won 4, which should put Gonzalez well ahead of Rosewall in points. But Rosewall won this South Africa tour which could explain how he got so close to Gonzalez by year's end.
- What about those last 5 events in Australia, in December? The Sept. 23 link names all of them as part of the world series, but other links name only Melbourne as one of the Ampol events. Including all 5, as well as Toronto, Wembley and South Africa, takes us beyond 14.
Again any comments/ questions/help is welcome. Again thanks to Dan for putting his list together; and to BobbyOne for, essentially, proofing my work.
Last edited:
The conflicting reports show imo two things: 1. There was a concept emerging to form a Grand Prix like series of tournaments worldwide (which makes more sense than an only Australia series). Remember that Kramer later was also the founder of the ILTF Grand Prix in 1970. The concept foreshadows the 1960s, when the pros played series of tournaments in Australia, US, Europe and South Africa. Such a year long tournament series imo would be a progression to the old World Series concept with only two players playing a hth series over 3 or 4 months.
2. The pro reality marred this ideal concept: We see a real mess of changes, in the whole concept and in single decisions. From the press reports it seems, that Kramer changed the Melbourne Event to a Round Robin in the last minute, and then he played a final nevertheless. Several events are included or excluded in the last minute and so on. The whole pro scene was instable and fragile, and nobody knew what was really telling. For 1959, as the same press reports show, we have a "World tournament Champion" in Hoad, and a "World Champion" in Gonzalez. And if i remember it right, Kramer had a world ranking for 1959 with Gonzalez first, Sedgman 2, Rosewall 3 and Hoad 4, which seems ridiculous regarding his own concept, and even makes more of a mess out of it.
2. The pro reality marred this ideal concept: We see a real mess of changes, in the whole concept and in single decisions. From the press reports it seems, that Kramer changed the Melbourne Event to a Round Robin in the last minute, and then he played a final nevertheless. Several events are included or excluded in the last minute and so on. The whole pro scene was instable and fragile, and nobody knew what was really telling. For 1959, as the same press reports show, we have a "World tournament Champion" in Hoad, and a "World Champion" in Gonzalez. And if i remember it right, Kramer had a world ranking for 1959 with Gonzalez first, Sedgman 2, Rosewall 3 and Hoad 4, which seems ridiculous regarding his own concept, and even makes more of a mess out of it.
jean pierre
Professional
Definitely Vilas 1977.
I have serious doubts that either Wembley or Vienna were included in the series, in spite of the early planning which included both events on a provisional basis.
Wembley, like the Cleveland World Pro, was a stand-alone, independently managed event, and not managed by the Kramer tour. It would be difficult for the Kramer group to dictate terms of involvement to the Wembley people, or to Jack March in Cleveland, which by itself would be enough to preclude either event from participating in the series. However, it is clear that an attempt was made to include both Wembley and Vienna. Ultimately, Vienna was folded into the Grand Prix d'Europe, a separate tour of Europe won by Sedgman during the summer.
If Ampol points were awarded for Wembley, Anderson would have finished ahead of Trabert, which was not the case.
It is possible that Ampol points were awarded for the African tour in the fall. This series overlapped with the first two Australian events in the fall.
Last edited:
Kramer's "list" was merely his own subjective evaluation. The objective ranking given out by Kramer's office was the final Ampol standings.
On a preliminary basis, looking at player participation, Anderson played in more events than Trabert, Trabert skipped the fall series in Australia, so if Wembley earned Anderson points, he should be well ahead of Trabert.
Also, there was no event in November at the Melbourne Olympic Pool.
McCauley's final numbers for the series:
I'm not sure how these numbers were calculated. I've been putting the series of tournaments in an Excel sheet where I can easily eliminate certain tournaments and try different combinations. So far I can't figure them out.
The press reported that Gonzalez was still in the running for the final prize at the moment he left for America. Kramer said Gonzalez was still in the running but voluntarily gave up his chance.
Working backward from McCauley's final numbers, we can calculate the standings at the moment Gonzalez dropped.
If the final event in Melbourne was worth 7 points to the winner (Anderson's point system), then on the eve of Melbourne the points would be:
Hoad 44
Gonzalez 43
By entering and winning Melbourne Gonzalez could have jumped to 50, beyond Hoad's reach.
If Melbourne awarded the winner 5 points -- the smaller points system reported by McCauley and found in the early Ampol announcement I linked to -- then we have this on the eve of Melbourne:
Hoad 46
Gonzalez 43
Gonzalez is still in the running here too. By entering and winning Melbourne he could jump up to 48. However, Hoad could reach 48 himself, just by finishing third in Melbourne. Who knows how it would have been decided in that case.
But again none of this is certain until we can learn more about the series and its point system(s).
[Post edited to correct a mathematical error.]
This [Hoad's win at Melbourne] earned him an extra purse of $5,500 put up by the sponsors, Ampol, for the man earning the most points in total from the series of Australian tournaments. The final standings were 1. Hoad 51 points, 2. Gonzales 43, 3. Rosewall 41, 4. Sedgman 32.
I'm not sure how these numbers were calculated. I've been putting the series of tournaments in an Excel sheet where I can easily eliminate certain tournaments and try different combinations. So far I can't figure them out.
The press reported that Gonzalez was still in the running for the final prize at the moment he left for America. Kramer said Gonzalez was still in the running but voluntarily gave up his chance.
Working backward from McCauley's final numbers, we can calculate the standings at the moment Gonzalez dropped.
If the final event in Melbourne was worth 7 points to the winner (Anderson's point system), then on the eve of Melbourne the points would be:
Hoad 44
Gonzalez 43
By entering and winning Melbourne Gonzalez could have jumped to 50, beyond Hoad's reach.
If Melbourne awarded the winner 5 points -- the smaller points system reported by McCauley and found in the early Ampol announcement I linked to -- then we have this on the eve of Melbourne:
Hoad 46
Gonzalez 43
Gonzalez is still in the running here too. By entering and winning Melbourne he could jump up to 48. However, Hoad could reach 48 himself, just by finishing third in Melbourne. Who knows how it would have been decided in that case.
But again none of this is certain until we can learn more about the series and its point system(s).
[Post edited to correct a mathematical error.]
Last edited:
I've been adding up the numbers in Excel and I actually have Anderson well behind Trabert, even with Wembley included. If you take Wembley out he falls back even farther and may drop below Segura. I'll post more specifics a little later; there are still some questions about what players earned in certain places when they finished at a low position (seventh or eighth). And how many points were earned in South Africa is totally unknown. But more later.
That's right, but that was just early planning. The event may not have been nailed down until later. At that point even the first Melbourne event (January '59) had not taken place.
Wembley, by the way, was not just listed in those early articles. It was also in the list by the LA Times and by then it was June 3.
With Wembley, we get a total of 15 tournaments by any calculation.
Wembley was held on September 19, well after June 3. I do not recall seeing any mention of the Ampol series or points in the London Times coverage of the 1959 Wembley event, although I do recall seeing a mention of Ampol points in the Toronto press coverage of the Toronto event.
Note that McCauley states that at the 1959 Wembley, "for some unknown reason, the top pros fell short of their normal high standards", explainable if Wembley was outside the Ampol series.
Krosero, I don't suppose you could find some contemporary press coverage of the 1959 Wembley tournament?
Last edited:
That may be true. That quote specifies that those were the final Ampol standings "after 5 tournaments." When McCauley reports the standings after Hoad's final win in Melbourne (p. 99), he again refers to the "series of Australian tournaments," as if that were a separate tour from the first.
I've had a look in the London Times and I didn't see a reference to Ampol. But that by itself doesn't mean much imo. If you go the Trove site of Australian newspapers and run searches for Ampol (and, say, "Hoad"), there are not that many. Ampol is mentioned, in December 1959, at Sydney and Melbourne but not the other tournaments. I also don't recall seeing Ampol mentioned in the New York Times coverage of Forest Hills and that was surely an Ampol event.
Why do you think Wembley would not be interested in being a part of the Ampol series, if French Pro and all these other tournaments worldwide were involved?
Do you recall in which newspaper you saw the Toronto reference?
Toronto Star.
Wembley had a separate management from the Kramer tour, whereas the other Ampol events were directly managed by Kramer. That alone would create a barrier to including either Cleveland or Wembley.
In either case, you would certainly get 15 tournaments, not the 14 that were actually included.
But why would Wembley not wish to be involved?
Dan, this is what I have for each player by the end of the year, using the 7-points-to-the-winner system. I calculated the points in Excel; I'm including the 14 tournaments you listed, and Wembley.
Hoad 64
Gonzalez 50
Rosewall 42
Sedgman 41
Trabert 25
Anderson 16
Segura 16
Cooper 13
This is the order in which the players finished the series, per Anderson. In my list Anderson and Segura are actually tied, so perhaps I'm slightly off somewhere. I had to make some judgment calls on players finishing 7th and 8th in a tournament. Anderson, per McCauley, said that all quarterfinalists received 1 point. Per Rowley, Anderson said it was 1 point for 5th and 6th place each, and nothing is said about 7th or 8th. I went ahead and gave 1 point each to the 7th and 8th place players.
A few other minor judgment calls: McCauley does not list any third-place match in Toronto. I've given Hoad 2 points, Trabert 3. This makes it possible for them to reach, exactly, the totals they each had after Paris, per the Sept. 23 link.
At the Masters there was a 3-way tie among Trabert, Rosewall and Segura; I've given each player 2 points. Again this lines up Trabert and Rosewall with their Sept. 23 totals.
But as you can see these are all minor issues, and the point totals I have leave the players in the series-end positions that Anderson reported for them.
Removing Wembley would produce this:
Hoad 63
Gonzalez 50
Rosewall 39
Sedgman 40
Trabert 23
Anderson 9
Segura 12
Cooper 12
Now Rosewall has dropped to fourth place, and Anderson to last.
I stress again that none of these series-end totals are known from published sources. They are my own calculations (feel free to check my numbers). And adding South Africa would change the totals to some degree (but how many points do we give for that event/tour?)
But the totals must have looked something like what I have here, because they do line up with the published standings on Sept. 23, through Paris.
As for McCauley's series-end totals, I still cannot figure them out.
It would be great if someone could find Anderson's article in World Tennis. Rowley/McCauley said that Anderson wrote in early 1960.
Presumably Anderson would say something about his win at Wembley. Perhaps he produced a list of the tournaments.
Hoad 64
Gonzalez 50
Rosewall 42
Sedgman 41
Trabert 25
Anderson 16
Segura 16
Cooper 13
This is the order in which the players finished the series, per Anderson. In my list Anderson and Segura are actually tied, so perhaps I'm slightly off somewhere. I had to make some judgment calls on players finishing 7th and 8th in a tournament. Anderson, per McCauley, said that all quarterfinalists received 1 point. Per Rowley, Anderson said it was 1 point for 5th and 6th place each, and nothing is said about 7th or 8th. I went ahead and gave 1 point each to the 7th and 8th place players.
A few other minor judgment calls: McCauley does not list any third-place match in Toronto. I've given Hoad 2 points, Trabert 3. This makes it possible for them to reach, exactly, the totals they each had after Paris, per the Sept. 23 link.
At the Masters there was a 3-way tie among Trabert, Rosewall and Segura; I've given each player 2 points. Again this lines up Trabert and Rosewall with their Sept. 23 totals.
But as you can see these are all minor issues, and the point totals I have leave the players in the series-end positions that Anderson reported for them.
Removing Wembley would produce this:
Hoad 63
Gonzalez 50
Rosewall 39
Sedgman 40
Trabert 23
Anderson 9
Segura 12
Cooper 12
Now Rosewall has dropped to fourth place, and Anderson to last.
I stress again that none of these series-end totals are known from published sources. They are my own calculations (feel free to check my numbers). And adding South Africa would change the totals to some degree (but how many points do we give for that event/tour?)
But the totals must have looked something like what I have here, because they do line up with the published standings on Sept. 23, through Paris.
As for McCauley's series-end totals, I still cannot figure them out.
It would be great if someone could find Anderson's article in World Tennis. Rowley/McCauley said that Anderson wrote in early 1960.
Presumably Anderson would say something about his win at Wembley. Perhaps he produced a list of the tournaments.
Trying to get the Wembley committee to accept Kramer's plans and directives regarding the Ampol series might have been like asking two divas to sing a duet together from a single sheet of music...hard to arrange.
It would be much simpler for Kramer to organize and direct his own series of tournaments, which I think is what happened.
Very interesting, Krosero. But if you give some points for South Africa, which I think is probably what happened during the overlapping events, then perhaps you go back to the original standings.
Also, consider that Gonzales may have decided to skip Europe after Wembley was dropped, assuming that it was dropped.
Last edited:
