Men's Season with the most achievement

[Dan Lobb]

Dan, You have partly convinced me. Here you have experienced what I must face every day from your side at tennis matters: Almost never getting any support. I'm sorry for me not knowing the Canadians. But still Vienna has the better orchestras.

You live in Vienna, right? So you are lucky enough to hear the Vienna Philharmonic.
But, unlike myself, you have not heard the Chicago Symphony, the New York Philharmonic, the Boston Symphony, the Toronto Symphony, all of whom I have recently heard in their home locations. Very impressive they are. And they get high level conducting.

 

[Dan Lobb]

Here is your Schumann concerto played by a 17 year old Canadian pianist (now 20), who visited my piano professor in 2009 shortly before he signed a long term recording contract with Deutsche Grammaphon (at age 14)....very impressive, a bit like Lipatti.
Yes, Bobby, this is a top European orchestra.

 

[BobbyOne]

You live in Vienna, right? So you are lucky enough to hear the Vienna Philharmonic.
But, unlike myself, you have not heard the Chicago Symphony, the New York Philharmonic, the Boston Symphony, the Toronto Symphony, all of whom I have recently heard in their home locations. Very impressive they are. And they get high level conducting.

Dan, The Vienna Philharmonic are widely acknowledged as the best orchestra at all. Ask Zubin Mehta, Mariss Jansons, Bernard Haitink and others.

 

[BobbyOne]

Here is your Schumann concerto played by a 17 year old Canadian pianist (now 20), who visited my piano professor in 2009 shortly before he signed a long term recording contract with Deutsche Grammaphon (at age 14)....very impressive, a bit like Lipatti.
Yes, Bobby, this is a top European orchestra.

Dan, Thanks for providing this. The beginning of the Schumann concerto is one of the most beautiful at all.

 

[Dan Lobb]

Dan, The Vienna Philharmonic are widely acknowledged as the best orchestra at all. Ask Zubin Mehta, Mariss Jansons, Bernard Haitink and others.

Which Vienna Phil.? Depends on the conductor...of course, those special horns have a unique sound. I have many recordings of your orchestra.

 

[hoodjem]

Dan, The Vienna Philharmonic are widely acknowledged as the best orchestra at all. Ask Zubin Mehta, Mariss Jansons, Bernard Haitink and others.

I would opine that it is "among the best."

The Top-5:
Berliner Philharmoniker
Amsterdam Concertgebouw
Wiener Philharmoniker
Chicago Symphony Orchestra
London Symphony Orchestra

 

[BobbyOne]

I would opine that it is "among the best."

The Top-5:
Berliner Philharmoniker
Amsterdam Concertgebouw
Wiener Philharmoniker
Chicago Symphony Orchestra
London Symphony Orchestra

hoodjem, You seem to be the only music fan who ranks Concertgebouw ahead of Wiener Philharmoniker. I'm sure even Bernard Haitink yould choose the Vienna orchestra. Berliner Ph. is a good choice but I fear it decreased after Karajan's death.

 

[BobbyOne]

Here is your Schumann concerto played by a 17 year old Canadian pianist (now 20), who visited my piano professor in 2009 shortly before he signed a long term recording contract with Deutsche Grammaphon (at age 14)....very impressive, a bit like Lipatti.
Yes, Bobby, this is a top European orchestra.

Dan, Which orchestra accompanied? I did not read a name.

 

[Dan Lobb]

Dan, Which orchestra accompanied? I did not read a name.

Orchestra of Academy of Santa Cecilia, Rome conducted by Sir Antonio Pappano. This performance was in 2013, but the recording with these forces was made in September 2015 in London.

Hoodjem was giving you the list of the polling of international critics made by the Gramophone magazine in 2007, which was,

1. Amsterdam Concertgebouw
2. Berlin Philharmonic
3. Vienna Philharmonic
4. London Symphony
5. Chicago Symphony

 

[Dan Lobb]

Orchestra of Academy of Santa Cecilia, Rome conducted by Sir Antonio Pappano. This performance was in 2013, but the recording with these forces was made in September 2015 in London.

Hoodjem was giving you the list of the polling of international critics made by the Gramophone magazine in 2007, which was,

1. Amsterdam Concertgebouw
2. Berlin Philharmonic
3. Vienna Philharmonic
4. London Symphony
5. Chicago Symphony

This orchestra has performed in the Vienna Musikverein, so you may have heard of them.

 

[BobbyOne]

This orchestra has performed in the Vienna Musikverein, so you may have heard of them.

Dan, I have heard its name but it's not one of the top orchestras.

 

[Dan Lobb]

Dan, I have heard its name but it's not one of the top orchestras.

Judging by their list of conductors and music directors, you would have to rate it highly.
Sinopoli, Gatti, Myung Whun Chung, currently Pappano, who is also music director of the Royal Opera.

That is a strong list. The orchestra was founded in 1585, and gave world premieres of Resphigi's famous orchestral works. Italy's top orchestra.

Sinopoli and Chung have recorded extensively with your beloved Vienna Philharmonic.

 

[krosero]

krosero, Thanks a lot for your hint to McCauley's statement. I was away from home for several hours but I was going to quote Joe's book even though Joe did not say explicitly that Rosewall did not practice at all. I found his hint when searching for the source in several books myself. By the way, I did not find the word "unphased" in my big dictionary...

Yes, I do know that Joe possessed most or even all issues of World Tennis (plus Lawn Tennis & Badminton, by the way).

When I read that Rosewall did not practice (or not significantly) I firstly thought if that was not an arrogant attitude but I soon realized that the gap between Muscles and Rocket at that time was so wide that the former was not forced to fear Rod at that time and to practice especially for the series.

Thanks for your defending words about my attitude to write about Rosewall.

My great Thank You for pc1 and his "like" for your post! I'm a bit surprised, to be honest.

Exactly, I found this in an article written by Hoad for World Tennis, early in '64:

The story of Rod as an amateur and Rod as a pro is the discovery by a player of the fundamentals of tennis. Rod had the potential as an amateur because he always came up with a good shot, but he was not the player that Hopman and the general public thought he was. He learned quickly and eagerly, but he had a lot to learn.

A few weeks before Rod turned pro, I found that I was to play him. This came as a great shock to me; I hadn’t played much and I thought that Ken as the Professional Champ would play all the matches against Laver in Australia. I decided to get into best possible shape, which was tough to do in the short time allotted, and I ran, did exercises and practiced 10 days in a row. Ken thought so little of Rod’s ability as a player that he stayed at Brisbane in his apartment at Surface Paradise and he did not come down until two days before the matches.

We all practiced together after Rod played the Challenge Round against Mexico. I felt that Rod had great talent but he was not overpowering, and the first night I played him I was quite confident I could handle his case. The two things that worried me were the fact that Laver was a lefty (I hadn’t played a left-hander in three years) and that we were going to play on grass at night. The grass would be slippery and it would be hard to keep one’s footing.

I led 4-2 in the first, slipped around a bit and lost the set. I switched to spikes early in the second and in the next three sets I did not have much trouble. Primarily I had found the knack of handling his lefty serve. Neale Fraser, who was in the gallery, said he had never seen Rocket play as well.

The weaknesses in Rod’s game then were his first serve (it only went into court 50% of the time instead of 65% or 70%); his second serve (it had lots of American twist but it stood up and begged to be hit); his return of serve (instead of trying to blast it through me, he should have been content to get it back, then gone for the passing shot off the next one); his first volley (he went for winners instead of volleying for depth, then forcing me to make the shot); his errors on easy balls (he missed 7 or 8 which might have made the difference between two or three games when he was 30-40 on my serve or 30-15 on his own); his overhitting, which was reminiscent of McKinley (at 30-15 Chuck hits a high topspin forehand volley set-up at 100 miles an hour; it goes out 3” and the crowd goes “oooh” appreciatively, but instead of being at 40-15 he is at 30-all).

Rocket was disappointed after the match, although he said he had never played better. He felt that the experience he had gained was vast and he saw a world of difference between the amateurs and the pros. He was sure he would do better the next day. Besides, he had earned $2200 and he didn’t have to play until 2 P.M. the next day. The match cost him £700 because he got 25% of the gate when he lost and 30% when he won (I got 20%). His enthusiasm was enormous, and the next day he was at the courts at 11:00 to practice for his afternoon match. At this stage he thought he really had a good chance against Ken. This was not the case. Ken played his typically solid game and Rocket made as many mistakes as he had against me. He lost 6-3, 6-2, 6-4. Next I played Rod in Brisbane and defeated him 6-4, 6-2, 6-4. The following night Ken won over Rocket in four sets. By the end of our Australian tour, I had beaten Laver by 8 matches to none and Ken had beaten him by 6 to 2. Rosewall and Laver then went to New Zealand and Rosewall won all seven matches. Not once during these meetings did Rod get really discouraged….

The new Laver is difficult to play. I feel I play well against him because I play a little like him. Rod likes to play against Ken because he can take a swing at the serve. Conversely, Ken has difficulty handling Rod’s serve, not because it is so good but because Rod is a lefty. Gonzales has a serve that is so good that he can force Laver wide on his backhand. Pancho hits a lot of first serves straight at him, which I do too, and Rod cannot decide what to do.

Rod is a natural athlete. He is very quick but he does not have great anticipation at net. His anticipation is much better from the back court. Gonzales says that if he can get Rod’s first serve back, then get to Rod’s first volley, he has the best of it. Pancho has enough deception in his passing shots to have Laver of two minds as to where he will hit. On the other hand, Rod knows where Ken will hit every ball!​

So this also confirms that Rosewall and Hoad practiced with Laver before the tour. The Challenge Round ended Dec. 28. Laver arrived in Sydney, where the tour would begin, on Monday the 31st, and made his pro debut against Hoad on Saturday Jan. 5. With Ken not even arriving until Thursday!

 

[pc1]

Exactly, I found this in an article written by Hoad for World Tennis, early in '64:

The story of Rod as an amateur and Rod as a pro is the discovery by a player of the fundamentals of tennis. Rod had the potential as an amateur because he always came up with a good shot, but he was not the player that Hopman and the general public thought he was. He learned quickly and eagerly, but he had a lot to learn.

A few weeks before Rod turned pro, I found that I was to play him. This came as a great shock to me; I hadn’t played much and I thought that Ken as the Professional Champ would play all the matches against Laver in Australia. I decided to get into best possible shape, which was tough to do in the short time allotted, and I ran, did exercises and practiced 10 days in a row. Ken thought so little of Rod’s ability as a player that he stayed at Brisbane in his apartment at Surface Paradise and he did not come down until two days before the matches.

We all practiced together after Rod played the Challenge Round against Mexico. I felt that Rod had great talent but he was not overpowering, and the first night I played him I was quite confident I could handle his case. The two things that worried me were the fact that Laver was a lefty (I hadn’t played a left-hander in three years) and that we were going to play on grass at night. The grass would be slippery and it would be hard to keep one’s footing.

I led 4-2 in the first, slipped around a bit and lost the set. I switched to spikes early in the second and in the next three sets I did not have much trouble. Primarily I had found the knack of handling his lefty serve. Neale Fraser, who was in the gallery, said he had never seen Rocket play as well.

The weaknesses in Rod’s game then were his first serve (it only went into court 50% of the time instead of 65% or 70%); his second serve (it had lots of American twist but it stood up and begged to be hit); his return of serve (instead of trying to blast it through me, he should have been content to get it back, then gone for the passing shot off the next one); his first volley (he went for winners instead of volleying for depth, then forcing me to make the shot); his errors on easy balls (he missed 7 or 8 which might have made the difference between two or three games when he was 30-40 on my serve or 30-15 on his own); his overhitting, which was reminiscent of McKinley (at 30-15 Chuck hits a high topspin forehand volley set-up at 100 miles an hour; it goes out 3” and the crowd goes “oooh” appreciatively, but instead of being at 40-15 he is at 30-all).

Rocket was disappointed after the match, although he said he had never played better. He felt that the experience he had gained was vast and he saw a world of difference between the amateurs and the pros. He was sure he would do better the next day. Besides, he had earned $2200 and he didn’t have to play until 2 P.M. the next day. The match cost him £700 because he got 25% of the gate when he lost and 30% when he won (I got 20%). His enthusiasm was enormous, and the next day he was at the courts at 11:00 to practice for his afternoon match. At this stage he thought he really had a good chance against Ken. This was not the case. Ken played his typically solid game and Rocket made as many mistakes as he had against me. He lost 6-3, 6-2, 6-4. Next I played Rod in Brisbane and defeated him 6-4, 6-2, 6-4. The following night Ken won over Rocket in four sets. By the end of our Australian tour, I had beaten Laver by 8 matches to none and Ken had beaten him by 6 to 2. Rosewall and Laver then went to New Zealand and Rosewall won all seven matches. Not once during these meetings did Rod get really discouraged….

The new Laver is difficult to play. I feel I play well against him because I play a little like him. Rod likes to play against Ken because he can take a swing at the serve. Conversely, Ken has difficulty handling Rod’s serve, not because it is so good but because Rod is a lefty. Gonzales has a serve that is so good that he can force Laver wide on his backhand. Pancho hits a lot of first serves straight at him, which I do too, and Rod cannot decide what to do.

Rod is a natural athlete. He is very quick but he does not have great anticipation at net. His anticipation is much better from the back court. Gonzales says that if he can get Rod’s first serve back, then get to Rod’s first volley, he has the best of it. Pancho has enough deception in his passing shots to have Laver of two minds as to where he will hit. On the other hand, Rod knows where Ken will hit every ball!​

So this also confirms that Rosewall and Hoad practiced with Laver before the tour. The Challenge Round ended Dec. 28. Laver arrived in Sydney, where the tour would begin, on Monday the 31st, and made his pro debut against Hoad on Saturday Jan. 5. With Ken not even arriving until Thursday!

I believe this story of course. Still it's no excuse for Rosewall. If he didn't practice and lost a few matches because of that, well that's tough luck.

Interesting comments respectively about Gonzalez's serve and Ken's serve and how Laver tried to handle the serves. This is early in 1964 so I would guess that Laver adjusted even more as the year went on and improved.

 

[krosero]

I believe this story of course. Still it's no excuse for Rosewall. If he didn't practice and lost a few matches because of that, well that's tough luck.

Interesting comments respectively about Gonzalez's serve and Ken's serve and how Laver tried to handle the serves. This is early in 1964 so I would guess that Laver adjusted even more as the year went on and improved.

PC1, I didn't post it to make any excuse or comment of any kind about Rosewall's peformance in the series. BobbyOne, Dan and I had last been talking about finding exact sources for two issues: how much Rosewall practiced before the tour; and whether Hoad and Rosewall practiced with Laver at all before Laver's first pro match (something we've been debating for years).

 

[pc1]

PC1, I didn't post it to make any excuse or comment of any kind about Rosewall's peformance in the series. BobbyOne, Dan and I had last been talking about finding exact sources for two issues: how much Rosewall practiced before the tour; and whether Hoad and Rosewall practiced with Laver at all before Laver's first pro match (something we've been debating for years).

I didn't think you were posting it as an excuse. Just saying it's similar to the old Aussie adage, if you're hurt you don't play. If you play you're not hurt. I was just writing in a roundabout way that Laver's win were legit.

 

[BobbyOne]

Judging by their list of conductors and music directors, you would have to rate it highly.
Sinopoli, Gatti, Myung Whun Chung, currently Pappano, who is also music director of the Royal Opera.

That is a strong list. The orchestra was founded in 1585, and gave world premieres of Resphigi's famous orchestral works. Italy's top orchestra.

Sinopoli and Chung have recorded extensively with your beloved Vienna Philharmonic.

Dan, I'm sorry but I never heard of Myung Whun Chung. In Vienna we use to have the very best conductors. Hope not to be too arrogant though. We always had Furtwängler, Walter, Toscanini, Klemperer Kleiber 1&2, Krips, Böhm, Bernstein, Maazel, Abbado and so on.

 

[BobbyOne]

Exactly, I found this in an article written by Hoad for World Tennis, early in '64:

The story of Rod as an amateur and Rod as a pro is the discovery by a player of the fundamentals of tennis. Rod had the potential as an amateur because he always came up with a good shot, but he was not the player that Hopman and the general public thought he was. He learned quickly and eagerly, but he had a lot to learn.

A few weeks before Rod turned pro, I found that I was to play him. This came as a great shock to me; I hadn’t played much and I thought that Ken as the Professional Champ would play all the matches against Laver in Australia. I decided to get into best possible shape, which was tough to do in the short time allotted, and I ran, did exercises and practiced 10 days in a row. Ken thought so little of Rod’s ability as a player that he stayed at Brisbane in his apartment at Surface Paradise and he did not come down until two days before the matches.

We all practiced together after Rod played the Challenge Round against Mexico. I felt that Rod had great talent but he was not overpowering, and the first night I played him I was quite confident I could handle his case. The two things that worried me were the fact that Laver was a lefty (I hadn’t played a left-hander in three years) and that we were going to play on grass at night. The grass would be slippery and it would be hard to keep one’s footing.

I led 4-2 in the first, slipped around a bit and lost the set. I switched to spikes early in the second and in the next three sets I did not have much trouble. Primarily I had found the knack of handling his lefty serve. Neale Fraser, who was in the gallery, said he had never seen Rocket play as well.

The weaknesses in Rod’s game then were his first serve (it only went into court 50% of the time instead of 65% or 70%); his second serve (it had lots of American twist but it stood up and begged to be hit); his return of serve (instead of trying to blast it through me, he should have been content to get it back, then gone for the passing shot off the next one); his first volley (he went for winners instead of volleying for depth, then forcing me to make the shot); his errors on easy balls (he missed 7 or 8 which might have made the difference between two or three games when he was 30-40 on my serve or 30-15 on his own); his overhitting, which was reminiscent of McKinley (at 30-15 Chuck hits a high topspin forehand volley set-up at 100 miles an hour; it goes out 3” and the crowd goes “oooh” appreciatively, but instead of being at 40-15 he is at 30-all).

Rocket was disappointed after the match, although he said he had never played better. He felt that the experience he had gained was vast and he saw a world of difference between the amateurs and the pros. He was sure he would do better the next day. Besides, he had earned $2200 and he didn’t have to play until 2 P.M. the next day. The match cost him £700 because he got 25% of the gate when he lost and 30% when he won (I got 20%). His enthusiasm was enormous, and the next day he was at the courts at 11:00 to practice for his afternoon match. At this stage he thought he really had a good chance against Ken. This was not the case. Ken played his typically solid game and Rocket made as many mistakes as he had against me. He lost 6-3, 6-2, 6-4. Next I played Rod in Brisbane and defeated him 6-4, 6-2, 6-4. The following night Ken won over Rocket in four sets. By the end of our Australian tour, I had beaten Laver by 8 matches to none and Ken had beaten him by 6 to 2. Rosewall and Laver then went to New Zealand and Rosewall won all seven matches. Not once during these meetings did Rod get really discouraged….

The new Laver is difficult to play. I feel I play well against him because I play a little like him. Rod likes to play against Ken because he can take a swing at the serve. Conversely, Ken has difficulty handling Rod’s serve, not because it is so good but because Rod is a lefty. Gonzales has a serve that is so good that he can force Laver wide on his backhand. Pancho hits a lot of first serves straight at him, which I do too, and Rod cannot decide what to do.

Rod is a natural athlete. He is very quick but he does not have great anticipation at net. His anticipation is much better from the back court. Gonzales says that if he can get Rod’s first serve back, then get to Rod’s first volley, he has the best of it. Pancho has enough deception in his passing shots to have Laver of two minds as to where he will hit. On the other hand, Rod knows where Ken will hit every ball!​

So this also confirms that Rosewall and Hoad practiced with Laver before the tour. The Challenge Round ended Dec. 28. Laver arrived in Sydney, where the tour would begin, on Monday the 31st, and made his pro debut against Hoad on Saturday Jan. 5. With Ken not even arriving until Thursday!

krosero, Thanks for the Hoad report from World Tennis. By the way, Hoad seems to be incorrect at the scores of two matches. He is definitely wrong that Rosewall won 6 Australian matches against Laver. Correct is four matches.

I'm sorry but I'm confused now by the given December and January dates. What do you think on which days the three practiced together? It seems to be a very short span.

If Rosewall did practice only a little (one or two days; we had heard that he was not in good shape during the Aussie tour), then it's yet a reasonable excuse=explanation (among maybe other reasons) why he lost two matches to rookie Laver. My dictionary tells that there are reasonable excuses and non-reasonable excuses.

I don't understand why the Rosewall critics in this forum don't accept handicaps players can have from time to time, but curiously only when Rosewall is concerned. I remember f.i. that pc1 used to write that Borg had several handicaps (injuries etc.) when losing at the US Open.

 

[krosero]

No problem. According to the Sydney newspapers, Laver arrived in Sydney on the Monday before the first tour match, which was on Saturday. So I presume he and Hoad could have practiced together that entire week. Rosewall joined them by Thursday, going by Hoad's account.

It's just a span of a few days and I had always been interested in getting more specific information about this because of our dispute about how many matches Laver lost to Hoad. Laver recalled in 2000 that he lost their first 14 meetings. Dan proposed (correct me if I'm wrong Dan), that some of the matches could have been practice matches, since all sources from that time period say that it was only 8 straight losses.

In fact now with this new excerpt from Hoad, we have now Laver, Rosewall and Hoad -- all three main participants -- saying, back then, that it was only 8 matches. Laver and Rosewall both said so in a couple of interviews from '63 that I posted in a past thread.

 

[BobbyOne]

No problem. According to the Sydney newspapers, Laver arrived in Sydney on the Monday before the first tour match, which was on Saturday. So I presume he and Hoad could have practiced together that entire week. Rosewall joined them by Thursday, going by Hoad's account.

It's just a span of a few days and I had always been interested in getting more specific information about this because of our dispute about how many matches Laver lost to Hoad. Laver recalled in 2000 that he lost their first 14 meetings. Dan proposed (correct me if I'm wrong Dan), that some of the matches could have been practice matches, since all sources from that time period say that it was only 8 straight losses.

In fact now with this new excerpt from Hoad, we have now Laver, Rosewall and Hoad -- all three main participants -- saying, back then, that it was only 8 matches. Laver and Rosewall both said so in a couple of interviews from '63 that I posted in a past thread.

krosero, So it looks as though Rosewall practiced only one or two days. I believe he got in a groove after several days and found his peak form in New Zealand where he lost only one set in seven matches.

 

[Dan Lobb]

Exactly, I found this in an article written by Hoad for World Tennis, early in '64:

The story of Rod as an amateur and Rod as a pro is the discovery by a player of the fundamentals of tennis. Rod had the potential as an amateur because he always came up with a good shot, but he was not the player that Hopman and the general public thought he was. He learned quickly and eagerly, but he had a lot to learn.

A few weeks before Rod turned pro, I found that I was to play him. This came as a great shock to me; I hadn’t played much and I thought that Ken as the Professional Champ would play all the matches against Laver in Australia. I decided to get into best possible shape, which was tough to do in the short time allotted, and I ran, did exercises and practiced 10 days in a row. Ken thought so little of Rod’s ability as a player that he stayed at Brisbane in his apartment at Surface Paradise and he did not come down until two days before the matches.

We all practiced together after Rod played the Challenge Round against Mexico. I felt that Rod had great talent but he was not overpowering, and the first night I played him I was quite confident I could handle his case. The two things that worried me were the fact that Laver was a lefty (I hadn’t played a left-hander in three years) and that we were going to play on grass at night. The grass would be slippery and it would be hard to keep one’s footing.

I led 4-2 in the first, slipped around a bit and lost the set. I switched to spikes early in the second and in the next three sets I did not have much trouble. Primarily I had found the knack of handling his lefty serve. Neale Fraser, who was in the gallery, said he had never seen Rocket play as well.

The weaknesses in Rod’s game then were his first serve (it only went into court 50% of the time instead of 65% or 70%); his second serve (it had lots of American twist but it stood up and begged to be hit); his return of serve (instead of trying to blast it through me, he should have been content to get it back, then gone for the passing shot off the next one); his first volley (he went for winners instead of volleying for depth, then forcing me to make the shot); his errors on easy balls (he missed 7 or 8 which might have made the difference between two or three games when he was 30-40 on my serve or 30-15 on his own); his overhitting, which was reminiscent of McKinley (at 30-15 Chuck hits a high topspin forehand volley set-up at 100 miles an hour; it goes out 3” and the crowd goes “oooh” appreciatively, but instead of being at 40-15 he is at 30-all).

Rocket was disappointed after the match, although he said he had never played better. He felt that the experience he had gained was vast and he saw a world of difference between the amateurs and the pros. He was sure he would do better the next day. Besides, he had earned $2200 and he didn’t have to play until 2 P.M. the next day. The match cost him £700 because he got 25% of the gate when he lost and 30% when he won (I got 20%). His enthusiasm was enormous, and the next day he was at the courts at 11:00 to practice for his afternoon match. At this stage he thought he really had a good chance against Ken. This was not the case. Ken played his typically solid game and Rocket made as many mistakes as he had against me. He lost 6-3, 6-2, 6-4. Next I played Rod in Brisbane and defeated him 6-4, 6-2, 6-4. The following night Ken won over Rocket in four sets. By the end of our Australian tour, I had beaten Laver by 8 matches to none and Ken had beaten him by 6 to 2. Rosewall and Laver then went to New Zealand and Rosewall won all seven matches. Not once during these meetings did Rod get really discouraged….

The new Laver is difficult to play. I feel I play well against him because I play a little like him. Rod likes to play against Ken because he can take a swing at the serve. Conversely, Ken has difficulty handling Rod’s serve, not because it is so good but because Rod is a lefty. Gonzales has a serve that is so good that he can force Laver wide on his backhand. Pancho hits a lot of first serves straight at him, which I do too, and Rod cannot decide what to do.

Rod is a natural athlete. He is very quick but he does not have great anticipation at net. His anticipation is much better from the back court. Gonzales says that if he can get Rod’s first serve back, then get to Rod’s first volley, he has the best of it. Pancho has enough deception in his passing shots to have Laver of two minds as to where he will hit. On the other hand, Rod knows where Ken will hit every ball!​

So this also confirms that Rosewall and Hoad practiced with Laver before the tour. The Challenge Round ended Dec. 28. Laver arrived in Sydney, where the tour would begin, on Monday the 31st, and made his pro debut against Hoad on Saturday Jan. 5. With Ken not even arriving until Thursday!

This confirms what I had read elsewhere, that both Hoad and Rosewall practised with Laver before the first match. There was ample time for some practice matches between Hoad and Laver, and also between Laver and Rosewall.

 

[Dan Lobb]

Dan, I'm sorry but I never heard of Myung Whun Chung. In Vienna we use to have the very best conductors. Hope not to be too arrogant though. We always had Furtwängler, Walter, Toscanini, Klemperer Kleiber 1&2, Krips, Böhm, Bernstein, Maazel, Abbado and so on.

Myung Whun Chung is Principal Guest Conductor of the Dresden Staatskapelle, one of the best German orchestras, and also French Radio Symphony....Chung has made several recordings with the Vienna Philharmonic and the London Symphony.
Sinopoli also recorded with the Vienna Philharmonic. I presume you have heard of Gatti. Leonard Bernstein was President of this Italian orchestra.

 

[Dan Lobb]

krosero, Thanks for the Hoad report from World Tennis. By the way, Hoad seems to be incorrect at the scores of two matches. He is definitely wrong that Rosewall won 6 Australian matches against Laver. Correct is four matches.

I'm sorry but I'm confused now by the given December and January dates. What do you think on which days the three practiced together? It seems to be a very short span.

If Rosewall did practice only a little (one or two days; we had heard that he was not in good shape during the Aussie tour), then it's yet a reasonable excuse=explanation (among maybe other reasons) why he lost two matches to rookie Laver. My dictionary tells that there are reasonable excuses and non-reasonable excuses.

I don't understand why the Rosewall critics in this forum don't accept handicaps players can have from time to time, but curiously only when Rosewall is concerned. I remember f.i. that pc1 used to write that Borg had several handicaps (injuries etc.) when losing at the US Open.

Rosewall had several days to practise with Laver, and Rosewall appeared in top form in his early matches against Laver.

 

[Dan Lobb]

No problem. According to the Sydney newspapers, Laver arrived in Sydney on the Monday before the first tour match, which was on Saturday. So I presume he and Hoad could have practiced together that entire week. Rosewall joined them by Thursday, going by Hoad's account.

It's just a span of a few days and I had always been interested in getting more specific information about this because of our dispute about how many matches Laver lost to Hoad. Laver recalled in 2000 that he lost their first 14 meetings. Dan proposed (correct me if I'm wrong Dan), that some of the matches could have been practice matches, since all sources from that time period say that it was only 8 straight losses.

In fact now with this new excerpt from Hoad, we have now Laver, Rosewall and Hoad -- all three main participants -- saying, back then, that it was only 8 matches. Laver and Rosewall both said so in a couple of interviews from '63 that I posted in a past thread.

Again, there were substantial gaps in the January schedule which could have accommodated exhibition matches. These would not have entered into the official count.

 

[Dan Lobb]

krosero, So it looks as though Rosewall practiced only one or two days. I believe he got in a groove after several days and found his peak form in New Zealand where he lost only one set in seven matches.

Rosewall was in his groove from the first match against Laver, as is evident from the clips we have.

 

[BobbyOne]

This confirms what I had read elsewhere, that both Hoad and Rosewall practised with Laver before the first match. There was ample time for some practice matches between Hoad and Laver, and also between Laver and Rosewall.

Dan, Ample time? One or two days for Rosewall. Please buy a watch equal if a golden one or not!

 

[BobbyOne]

Rosewall was in his groove from the first match against Laver, as is evident from the clips we have.

Dan, If you use a one-minute clip...

 

[Dan Lobb]

Dan, Ample time? One or two days for Rosewall. Please buy a watch equal if a golden one or not!

Almost a week for Hoad/Laver practice matches, plus large gaps in the January schedule for exhibition matches.

 

[NonP]

The Russians are great, I once had the opportunity to chat briefly with Ashkenazy, but their greatest success is in non-German repertoire. Richter had great success with the Brahms 2, some Beethoven sonatas, avoided the mature concertos. Ashkenazy recorded Mozart concertos with success.
You missed a few Canadian names...here is my list...Glenn Gould (#1), Anton Kuerti, Ronald Turini, Janina Fialkowska, Louis Lortie, Marc Andre Hamelin, Jon Kimura Parker, Angela Hewitt, Jan Lisiecki, Stewart Goodyear, plus some of my fellow students, who have issued important CD's, Arthur Rowe, Bruce Vogt, Sandra Mogenson. My professor arranged a live recording of a lecture/performance which I gave on a wonderful Bosendorfer in 1970, which I might upload some day.

I hate to sound flippant because the one that's about to serve as a reference point is a true charmer in person (and on FB too before I called it quits), but of all those "prominent" pianists you named and excluding the three heavyweights I've already mentioned (Gould, Hamelin, Hewitt) only Lortie and Lisiecki are even close to household names in classical circles, and even these two probably aren't more fashionable than somebody like Simone Dinnerstein. Like I said Canada is nowhere near close to Russia in churning out one piano wunderkind after another.

BTW I just checked my records and funnily enough it turns out that I saw Hewitt and Dinnerstein only a day apart from each other back in 2014. Overall Angela was better, if only because it's very hard to screw up Mozart's 22nd as long as you let it play itself, as of course is Hewitt's wont. Here, again from the FB graveyard (you really owe me big time, 'cause I'd actually re-deactivated my account after that last post on Wang's concert before logging back in):

Last nite was mainly to see Angela Hewitt who was making her Kennedy Center debut with Mozart's delicious Piano Concerto No. 22 (one of the precious few I like). The greatest Bach interpreter of our time was as good as I expected, with nary a wrong step and an unmistakable sprezzatura that allowed the music to flow like oil (as Mozart himself once instructed). David Zinman and the NSO provided ample support and after the intermission gave a rousing performance of Richard Strauss' iconic Also sprach Zarathustra (yes, it includes that theme from the Kubrick film).

Speaking of whom, this was my first time seeing Zinman live and I must say I was taken aback by how short he was. (Didn't get a chance to see him up close but I'd say he's 5'6" tops.) I also got to meet with Hewitt in the green room, and while she was gracious and generous with her time the line was fairly long so I wasn't able to chat much. Still I managed to embarrass myself as I wished her to come back to the DC area soon, to which she responded she'd just played The Art of Fugue in Baltimore recently. And I'd just gotten her to autograph my copy of her new AoF album! Ay ay ay....

Another noted Bach specialist, Simone Dinnerstein, was tonight's recitalist. And the program? Schumann's Kinderszenen (Scenes from Childhood), Bach's French Suite No. 5 & Schubert's great final piano sonata. Hefty stuff for sure, however sunny (mostly in major keys), not to mention very risky 'cause Lord knows how many pianists past and present have tackled this music. You better damn make sure you're bringing something special to this repertoire, otherwise you're wasting everyone's time.

And Dinnerstein passed the test, but just barely. I really wish I could be more enthusiastic here as she's by nearly all accounts (including mine from tonite) a sweetheart and she often justifies the massive hype she's received ever since her self-financed Goldberg Variations hit the market. But this is the Internet and I'll freely admit to liking someone but disliking her work here.

The Schumann was the worst of the lot, as it suffered most from her predictable end-phrases and rubatos which as usual served to mask a lack of original ideas. Individually "Hasche-Mann" was unusually and indefensibly brisk (though the boldness was admirable), while the sforzandos in "Fürchtenmachen" sounded less like frights and more like panic attacks. On the plus side, I was also going to harp on her relatively limited dynamic range because if Simone hit a single pianissimo throughout the 13 pieces I didn't hear it, but I just took out and skimmed my sheet music and it turns out pp is in fact largely absent from the score. Bravo for the fastidious attention to detail that so many (including the big names) have missed!

The French Suite fared better, though there were some questionable legatos where the music would have called for a more Gouldian approach. During the intermission audience members were encouraged to write down questions for Simone and upon her return she did provide refreshingly candid answers. Her favorite Bach piece? The Goldberg Variations though it's the most tiring. How many hours does she practice every day? 5-6 hours on average (trust me, many of her peers aren't so straightforward with this question). What advice would she give to a young budding pianist? Quality/consistency matters more than quantity, so make sure to practice every day you brush your teeth.

Then she admitted that this was the first time she was playing Schubert's masterpiece in public. She needn't have worried: this was her best performance of the night, a few wrong notes notwithstanding. She said she used to listen to Artur Schnabel's recording of this sonata all the time during and after her pregnancy, and one could certainly see the great Austrian maestro's influence in her careful handling of the metrics, not to mention pure love for the score. (Schnabel once said, "I play Beethoven for money, Schubert I play for love.") This time I stood up to applaud, and not merely out of protocol.

Simon also held a post-performance autograph session, which I wasn't able to take full advantage of since I'd left her Goldbergs CD at home. I playfully said to her, "The Schubert wasn't half bad!" but then I added "... for a first-time performance" which came dangerously close to damning with faint praise, but she was quick and gracious enough to note my intention with a smile. Hope to see her again, though preferably in programs that are more suited to her strengths.

And here are a couple of pix from each post-performance CD signing:

Dan, The Vienna Philharmonic are widely acknowledged as the best orchestra at all. Ask Zubin Mehta, Mariss Jansons, Bernard Haitink and others.

I would opine that it is "among the best."

The Top-5:
Berliner Philharmoniker
Amsterdam Concertgebouw
Wiener Philharmoniker
Chicago Symphony Orchestra
London Symphony Orchestra

Orchestra of Academy of Santa Cecilia, Rome conducted by Sir Antonio Pappano. This performance was in 2013, but the recording with these forces was made in September 2015 in London.

Hoodjem was giving you the list of the polling of international critics made by the Gramophone magazine in 2007, which was,

1. Amsterdam Concertgebouw
2. Berlin Philharmonic
3. Vienna Philharmonic
4. London Symphony
5. Chicago Symphony

These lists are frankly useless. They might have held some value in the early days of gramophone, but you'll be hard-pressed to find a single long-standing metropolitan orchestra today that cannot perform most of the standard repertoire (and even most new commissioned works) to exacting standards--given the right leadership, of course. I go see the National and Baltimore Symphonies all the time (currently led respectively by Christoph Eschenbach and Marin Alsop, both far from obscure names internationally) and I guarantee you, if you put them or any other major orchestras under the same conductor and had them play the same music nearly everyone including most critics wouldn't be able to tell the difference.

Many of the current members of these orchestras have lived, studied and performed abroad and vice versa, and these days it's quite nonsensical to think of any orchestra as a nationally or culturally monolithic unit.

 

[Dan Lobb]

I hate to sound flippant because the one that's about to serve as a reference point is a true charmer in person (and on FB too before I called it quits), but of all those "prominent" pianists you named and excluding the three heavyweights I've already mentioned (Gould, Hamelin, Hewitt) only Lortie and Lisiecki are even close to household names in classical circles, and even these two probably aren't more fashionable than somebody like Simone Dinnerstein. Like I said Canada is nowhere near close to Russia in churning out one piano wunderkind after another.

BTW I just checked my records and funnily enough it turns out that I saw Hewitt and Dinnerstein only a day apart from each other back in 2014. Overall Angela was better, if only because it's very hard to screw up Mozart's 22nd as long as you let it play itself, as of course is Hewitt's wont. Here, again from the FB graveyard (you really owe me big time, 'cause I'd actually re-deactivated my account after that last post on Wang's concert before logging back in):



And here are a couple of pix from each post-performance CD signing:

These lists are frankly useless. They might have held some value in the early days of gramophone, but you'll be hard-pressed to find a single long-standing metropolitan orchestra today that cannot perform most of the standard repertoire (and even most new commissioned works) to exacting standards--given the right leadership, of course. I go see the National and Baltimore Symphonies all the time (currently led respectively by Christoph Eschenbach and Marin Alsop, both far from obscure names internationally) and I guarantee you, if you put them or any other major orchestras under the same conductor and had them play the same music nearly everyone including most critics wouldn't be able to tell the difference.

Many of the current members of these orchestras have lived, studied and performed abroad and vice versa, and these days it's quite nonsensical to think of any orchestra as a nationally or culturally monolithic unit.

Having recently heard the Chicago Symphony, the New York Philharmonic, the Boston Symphony (twice within a year), and the Toronto Symphony many, many times on subscription, I agree with you in general, they all have strengths, although there are some individual differences in sound production, partly due to acoustics.
I heard Haitink conduct both the Chicago Symphony and the New York Philharmonic within a year...same man, same interpretive approach. The conductor or soloist is all-important in the performance.

I gave you a list of PROMINENT Canadian pianists, which exceeds the number of PROMINENT Russian or American pianists...I am biased towards Germanic repertoire, so the Russian and French pianists are handicapped in my system. "Household names"?...not relevant...few pianists are household names, certainly not the Russian bunch.

I think that Anton Kuerti is major, and he and Stewart Goodyear have recorded the Beethoven sonatas complete in very acclaimed sets. Janina Fialkowska is a prominent name, and plays with big time orchestras. She was Rubenstein's favourite pupil, and Ronald Turini was Horowitz' favourite student....they have lots on Youtube.
Jon Kimura Parker has recorded a classic CD of the Tchaikovsky and Prokofiev 3 with Previn and the Royal Philharmonic, plus the best recording of the Barber concerto with Atlanta Symphony.

 

[Dan Lobb]

The Russians are great, I once had the opportunity to chat briefly with Ashkenazy, but their greatest success is in non-German repertoire. Richter had great success with the Brahms 2, some Beethoven sonatas, avoided the mature concertos. Ashkenazy recorded Mozart concertos with success.
You missed a few Canadian names...here is my list...Glenn Gould (#1), Anton Kuerti, Ronald Turini, Janina Fialkowska, Louis Lortie, Marc Andre Hamelin, Jon Kimura Parker, Angela Hewitt, Jan Lisiecki, Stewart Goodyear, plus some of my fellow students, who have issued important CD's, Arthur Rowe, Bruce Vogt, Sandra Mogenson. My professor arranged a live recording of a lecture/performance which I gave on a wonderful Bosendorfer in 1970, which I might upload some day.

Here are some of my fellow students, ( I studied with my piano professor from 1967 to 1971, but kept in touch over the years). My piano professor attended my wedding.

Arthur Rowe,

Sandra Mogensen,

 

[Dan Lobb]

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.

Thank you again, Krosero, for this enormously important research, which elucidates the entire year of 1959/60 as the greatest ever year of professional tennis.

 

[Dan Lobb]

Dan, I'm sorry but I never heard of Myung Whun Chung. In Vienna we use to have the very best conductors. Hope not to be too arrogant though. We always had Furtwängler, Walter, Toscanini, Klemperer Kleiber 1&2, Krips, Böhm, Bernstein, Maazel, Abbado and so on.

Bobby, I place some of the Furtwangler, Walter, and Klemperer recordings of German masterpieces at the top of my list.

However, for the best performances of French music, the Montreal Symphony with Charles Dutoit stands at the summit,

And the greatest performances of English music are by the Toronto Symphony with Peter Oundjian,

 

[Dan Lobb]

Thank you again, Krosero, for this enormously important research, which elucidates the entire year of 1959/60 as the greatest ever year of professional tennis.

The post above contains Krosero's research which has revealed the 1959 tournament world championship.

The press report states that Hoad "was crowned the new world professional tournament champion".

This leaves no doubt that Hoad was world pro champion at this point in time.

 

[Dan Lobb]

[Here is Krosero's summary post of the 1959 tournament championship:]

Krosero wrote:


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.


This is Krosero's summary of his press findings.

Note that the final press statement claims that Hoad "was crowned the new world professional tournament champion", therefore this was an official world championship event sanctioned by Kramer.

Hoad should be regarded as world champion from January 2, 1960 until May when Gonzales won the 1960 world title.

 

[Dan Lobb]

Here is Krosero's summary post of the 1959 tournament championship:

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.


This is Krosero's summary of his press findings.

Note that the final press statement claims that Hoad "was crowned the new world professional tournament champion", therefore this was an official world championship event sanctioned by Kramer.

Hoad should be regarded as world champion from January 2, 1960 until May when Gonzales won the 1960 world title.

Kramer planned another tournament series for 1960, but scrapped the idea in April when Gonzales refused to participate.

 

[Dan Lobb]

Kramer planned another tournament series for 1960, but scrapped the idea in April when Gonzales refused to participate.

Kramer was apparently annoyed that Hoad refused to sign for the 1960 4-man tour.
Kramer issued his personal rankings (not his official rankings) during his contract disagreement with Hoad, and placed Hoad 4th, yes, 4th, among the pros, behind not only Gonzales, but also Sedgman and Rosewall (whom Hoad owned throughout that year on the championship tour).
Perhaps he was trying to goad Hoad into playing the spring tour.

 

[xFedal]

IMO '84 Mac is the only guy in the Open era who'd have more than a puncher's chance to take down Sampras or Federer at his best. If forced to pick I'd say Pete's superior power and athleticism would be just enough to edge out Mac, but of course that might just be the fanboy in me talking.



I thought pc1 had already incorporated your research. So how would you calculate Budge's GW %s? As for Mac's I just went by the ATP tally. Mac's '84 playing activity page on the ATP site is missing about half of the year's rankings, so I had to do the other half manually by going to each player's rankings history and looking up the info myself (which BTW is why it took me so long to put it all together). Of course there are some grey areas, like Dallas WCT which was apparently held over several weeks (so I had to google exactly when Mac played Curren when the South African was still ranked in the top 10) and like the Team World Cup whose results could be excluded as it was closer to an exo than a bona fide tourney.

But however you slice them I think Mac's %s would still be higher by some margin than either Fed's or Novak's, and that's really the main takeaway here. To clearly surpass Mac's miracle season one would need to win all the major tourneys on every surface in the same year a la Laver and maintain Mac's ridiculous consistency which even Rocket never approached. That's a virtually unthinkable achievement in the modern era, given how even Fed and Nole fell short (in fact neither of them came within a set of winning his FO final, unlike Mac).

Why don't you use tennis abstract instead of ATP?

 

[BobbyOne]

Kramer was apparently annoyed that Hoad refused to sign for the 1960 4-man tour.
Kramer issued his personal rankings (not his official rankings) during his contract disagreement with Hoad, and placed Hoad 4th, yes, 4th, among the pros, behind not only Gonzales, but also Sedgman and Rosewall (whom Hoad owned throughout that year on the championship tour).
Perhaps he was trying to goad Hoad into playing the spring tour.

Dan, I must contradict, Those were Kramer's official rankings published in Lawn Tennis & Badminton (and maybe elsewhere).

 

[Dan Lobb]

Dan, I must contradict, Those were Kramer's official rankings published in Lawn Tennis & Badminton (and maybe elsewhere).

Bobby, I must contradict, these were Kramer's personal rankings, his OFFICIAL ranking had Hoad as world champion.
The official rankings were published in World Tennis magazine by Anderson.

 

[BobbyOne]

Bobby, I must contradict, these were Kramer's personal rankings, his OFFICIAL ranking had Hoad as world champion.
The official rankings were published in World Tennis magazine by Anderson.

Dan, I must contradict, the final standings of the AMPOL tour were NOT the official standings of the Kramer bureau! You seem to confuse Joe's wording "Kramer's own rankings" with "Kramer's personal rankings".

By the way, widely respected French tennis magazine, "L'Equipe", ranked Hoad at No.5 for 1959 (albeit unjustified).

 

[Dan Lobb]

Dan, I must contradict, the final standings of the AMPOL tour were NOT the official standings of the Kramer bureau! You seem to confuse Joe's wording "Kramer's own rankings" with "Kramer's personal rankings".

By the way, widely respected French tennis magazine, "L'Equipe", ranked Hoad at No.5 for 1959 (albeit unjustified).

Of course, unjustified, but similar to Kramer's private musings.

No, the Ampol world championship represented the official rankings of the Kramer tour, including all the top pros.

 

[BobbyOne]

Of course, unjustified, but similar to Kramer's private musings.

No, the Ampol world championship represented the official rankings of the Kramer tour, including all the top pros.

Dan, No comment. It's senseless.

 

[Dan Lobb]

Dan, No comment. It's senseless.

it is senseless for Kramer to issue two sets of rankings for the same year, as the Ampol rankings reflected the full pro field over a twelve month period.
Rosewall put his best energies into the Ampol series, winning three events...Sedgman won two tours outside the Ampol series.

 

[BobbyOne]

it is senseless for Kramer to issue two sets of rankings for the same year, as the Ampol rankings reflected the full pro field over a twelve month period.
Rosewall put his best energies into the Ampol series, winning three events...Sedgman won two tours outside the Ampol series.

Dan, Rosewall won only two events in the AMPOL series.

Even if it's senseless, Kramer did issue two sets of rankings. Learn history!!!

 

[Dan Lobb]

Dan, Rosewall won only two events in the AMPOL sreies.

Even if it's senseless, Kramer did issue two sets of rankings. Learn history!!!

Bobby, Rosewall won THREE events in the Ampol series....see above, Krosero's research...two Brisbane tournaments, and the South African tour.
Kramer's office issued one set of rankings, Kramer himself issued a contradictory set of rankin's as a concomitant to his discussions over contract with Hoad.

 

[BobbyOne]

Bobby, Rosewall won THREE events in the Ampol series....see above, Krosero's research...two Brisbane tournaments, and the South African tour.
Kramer's office issued one set of rankings, Kramer himself issued a contradictory set of rankin's as a concomitant to his discussions over contract with Hoad.

Dan, I don't think that the South African Tour was part of the TOURNAMENT tour (forgot if krosero thinks it was). There was no tournament in South Africa. We still don't know exactly which events were part of the tour and which ones not.

 

[Dan Lobb]

Dan, I don't think that the South African Tour was part of the TOURNAMENT tour (forgot if krosero thinks it was). There was no tournament in South Africa. We still don't know exactly which events were part of the tour and which ones not.

Krosero found evidence that the South African tour was part of the Ampol tour..I guess you missed our discussion above with Krosero on this issue.

 

[Dan Lobb]

[Post from Krosero]


Krosero wrote:



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:

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.​

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]

Here is the count by Krosero which argues for including the South African tour as part of the 1959 world series.

Dan, As far as I understand krosero's words, he assumes but is not sure if the South African tour actually was a part of the long tournament tour.