Mustard, One thing should be obvious: Dan Lobb is more obsessed by his darling than BobbyOne is obsessed by his. Dan seems to be in the TMF sphere...
Success Story, by Lew Hoad
- Thread starter newmark401
- Start date
Mustard, One thing should be obvious: Dan Lobb is more obsessed by his darling than BobbyOne is obsessed by his. Dan seems to be in the TMF sphere...
hoodjem
G.O.A.T.
Degrees of blackness.
The idiom "The pot calling the kettle black" is used in a situation where a person is considered guilty of the very thing of which they accuse another. It dates from the time when cooking was done over an open hearth fireplace; both the kettle and the cooking pot would be suspended above it and collect the same amount of soot. The earliest instances date from the early 17th century.
I simply follow the facts to where they lead.
I do not buy into the typical commercial hype and hackery which passes for tennis analysis.
Bobby, I have made many critical remarks on my posts, I am not a blind hero-worshipper.
I do not see any critical remarks from you about your idol.
In 1969, Hoad told a London Times reporter (Bellamy) that anyone who considered him some sort of hero was experiencing some mental problem.
Last edited:
Dan, Hoad played only a second role in the 1958 F.H. tournament. The two leaders were Gonzalez and Rosewall.
Dan, You should read my and your own posts more intensively.
kiki
Banned
The Cold War coincidence with the brightest moments of social equity, justice and welfare is no mere coincidence.Due to the pressure from the " Evil" Soviets, the Western leaders had to give something to their people so to avoid a big revolution.
It is one of the saddest, yet most exciting lessons from history.The Soviet Union did harm to their people but helped sooo much the western people..
Now, what is the pressure form Chine? more deregulation and wild west capitalism...
kiki
Banned
Yes, I know." The third way".
kiki, excellent analysis.
kiki, Probably a tamed Capitalism (like many years in Sweden) is better than a tamed Communism. But we don't know what would have happened if the Sowjets would not have invaded Czechoslovakia under Dubcek. Maybe a Socialism with "human face" would have arisen.
kiki
Banned
Yes, sounds realistic.It would have developed a kind of socialism like Yugoslavia.Not a stalinist regim like that following.
Hoad and Gonzales played the final, marquee match of the 1958 Forest Hills Pro tournament, and it was the match of the tournament.
Hoad df. Gonzales df. Rosewall df. Hoad
And around it went.
Inconclusive.
All matches counted towards points in the overall tournament championship and bonus money pool for 1958.
Dan Lobb's mathematics. In fact Hoad finished only fourth.
Last edited:
First in the tournament series on points and money, in which Forest Hills formed a part.
When all is said and done.
newmark401
Professional
Success Story, by Jaroslav Drobny
Some interesting comments. I'm going to add a similar piece on Jaroslav Drobny today.
-----
Some interesting comments. I'm going to add a similar piece on Jaroslav Drobny today.
-----
Good rating system.
tom williams
Rookie
tom williams
Rookie
Hello Dan i myself is a Hoad fan i saw him play Conzales and Sedgman in the late fifties and Laver in Sydney Jan 1963, when i look at the tennis today i find it boring with both players camped on the baseline waiting for one to make a mistake, i often wonder what the past champions would do today with the new equipment, they say the players today are fitter i do not buy that,i think Hoad and Emerson could play all day and all night and still be ready for the next day,to see Hoad and Conzales in todays draw i think it would very interesting.Cheers Tom Williams
tom williams
Rookie
Back again just about every one turned up in my home town to watch Hoad play Sedgman at school all of us wanted a Lew Hoad tennis racquet and also a Norm Oneil cricket bat but none of us got either111.tw
Great to hear from you, Tom.
I envy you that you got to see Hoad and Gonzales play each other in their prime years, I wish I could get into a time machine and see those matches.
Also Laver/Hoad in Sydney.
It's a crying shame that what film footage that was made of the great match ups from those years are not available to the public today.
All the copyright concerns keep them tied up in the vault.
Great to hear your reminiscences, Tom.
Keep in touch.
Again, I Have to agree with You-LOL! When Laver and Rosewall were asked a few years ago who was the greatest they ever played, both said Hoad, which surprised. At fist thought they said that because they did not want acknowledge each other and neither had much love for Gonzalez. Having learned more about Hoad's 58-59 here, it seems they may have been telling the truth. Assuming bot Ken and Rod are correct, this is where consistency becomes important. Between 60-63 Lew usually played very well, but was overtaken by Rosewall, then Laver. Did Ken peak then, or did Hoad decline? Probably a combination of both, which deprives Hoad from being in the top tier of all time greats, accomplishment wise, IMHO.The footage is of no value in storage
I would still pick Hoad for 1961...he won a hth series against Gonzales, and won the key match of the 1961 Kramer Cup, described by McCauley as a "historic" event.
There was no pro tour in 1962, so no official champion that year, and Hoad was clearly playing better than the other pros in the 1963 Australian tour.
Dan Lobb, Why not picking Hoad for 1963 (beat Laver clearly in Australia), 1964 (won the New Zealand tour) and 1965 (beat Laver at Sydney)?
Alas, I must correct you again (as so often): There was a pro tour in 1962 (albeit not in the USA) and there was an official champion that year. If you research a bit you even will find his name...
tom williams
Rookie
tom williams
Rookie
Back again Dan i was wondering what the thoughts and the thoughts of the people on this foram would be if Lew Hoad was to to play Roger Federer how do you think the match would go Hoad playing with the modern equipment he would be able to generate great power as i havei said i saw him play in his prime and the ball left his racquet like a bullet. cheers TW
tom, I believe that Hoad would win if they played one single match but I'm not sure if he also would win a series of 100 matches against consistent Federer.
I would assess his chances of beating Fed in a big match as better than 70%, Hoad had a much better backhand and volleys and overhead.
He just had too much.
I envy you your memories of seeing Hoad at his peak.
Last edited:
I have just posted a clip from that match.
hoodjem
G.O.A.T.
I recall Fed’s “renaissance” at the 2017 AO final defeating his nemesis Nadal. I am certain there were many positive things that Fed did to reverse the trend there.
But what I noticed most was Fed was not letting Nadal pummel him when Nadal would use his main tactic of hitting his high-spinning lefty forehand to Fed’s backhand, forcing Fed to back up and play defensive. When this would happen Fed would take the ball on the rise early, thus shortening the point, and often finding Nadal out of position and with little time to react.
I remember thinking: “That’s what Hoad would have done—hit your backhand on the rise.”
But what I noticed most was Fed was not letting Nadal pummel him when Nadal would use his main tactic of hitting his high-spinning lefty forehand to Fed’s backhand, forcing Fed to back up and play defensive. When this would happen Fed would take the ball on the rise early, thus shortening the point, and often finding Nadal out of position and with little time to react.
I remember thinking: “That’s what Hoad would have done—hit your backhand on the rise.”
This did not happen for 1958. There was only a 5% edge for Hoad of the total gate on those evenings when he won, otherwise, when Gonzales won, the share of the gate was equal for both players.
So Hoad got an extra 5% for those 36 matches he won, whereas Gonzales had an equal share for the 51 matches he won.
However, that $200,000 figure for Hoad included the 1957 4-man tour, which would reduce the amount for 1958.
Very little difference in money on the world tour.
Hoad had a tournament edge in 1958 over Gonzales in big tournaments of 4-2 (winning over Gonzales at Kooyong, White City, Roland Garros, Forest Hills, losing at Cleveland Arena and L.A. Tennis Club).
Last edited:
Here is some tour footage from 1958 between Hoad and Trabert on clay in Germany in July. Hoad would injure his back problem in the Roland Garros final that year.
The clip begins with some rare footage from the 1957 Wimbledon final.
Last edited:
The 1958 hth score between Gonzales and Hoad is usually given as 51 to 36.
However, they clearly played more matches against each other than that, including the big six tournaments at Kapyong, White City, Los Angeles, Cleveland, Forest Hills, Roland Garros, which makes six more matches. They probably played some more matches in minor events in Europe.
Here is an AI analysis of the points system from the pre-open era (1959) compared to the current ATP points system.
"In 1959, tennis promote Jack Kramer introduced a structured point system for the Ampol Open Trophy, a circuit of 15 professional tournaments. While this was a groundbreaking attempt to objectify professional rankings, it differed fundamentally from today's PIF ATP Rankings in scale, purpose, and mechanics.
1. Scope: Tour vs. Global Circuit
Feature
1959 Ampol System (Hoad)
Modern ATP System (Sinner/Djokovic)
In 1959, the Ampol Open Trophy used a rudimentary points system to determine the "World Professional Champion." Translating
Lew Hoad’s 1959 season into today’s PIF ATP Rankings reveals a massive shift in how "dominance" is mathematically weighted.
1. Point Value Comparison
In 1959, points were scarce and linear. Today, they are exponential to reward "Big Title" winners.
Result
1959 Ampol Points
Modern ATP Points (Grand Slam)
2. Hoad's 1959 Season: Translated
Under the modern 19-tournament "Best Of" rule, Hoad’s season would be anchored by his "Pro Major" performances.
"In 1959, tennis promote Jack Kramer introduced a structured point system for the Ampol Open Trophy, a circuit of 15 professional tournaments. While this was a groundbreaking attempt to objectify professional rankings, it differed fundamentally from today's PIF ATP Rankings in scale, purpose, and mechanics.
1. Scope: Tour vs. Global Circuit
- 1959 System: It was a closed circuit designed for a small group of approximately 12 contract professionals. The points determined the winner of that specific "World Series" rather than a global pool of thousands of players.
- Today's System: The ATP ranking is an open, global meritocracy covering over 2,000 players. It determines entry and seeding for virtually all professional tournaments worldwide.
- 1959 System: This was a seasonal points race. Once the 15-tournament series ended, the player with the most points (Lew Hoad in 1959) was crowned the champion.
- Today's System: It uses a rolling 52-week "Best Of" system. Points "drop off" exactly one year after they are earned, meaning a player's rank is a continuous reflection of their performance over the last 12 months rather than a reset at year-end.
| Total Events | 15 specific tournaments | Up to 19-20 "Best Of" results |
| Field Strength | Extremely concentrated; top players played each other constantly | Broad; players only face top seeds in later rounds |
| Bonus Points | Used to award points for specific achievements like "best player of the series" | Strictly round-based; bonus points for beating top players were largely phased out by 2000 |
| Outcome | Lew Hoad was named World No. 1 based on points, even though some critics still preferred Pancho Gonzales subjectively | The No. 1 rank is indisputable based on the math |
Feature
1959 Ampol System (Hoad)
Modern ATP System (Sinner/Djokovic)
In 1959, the Ampol Open Trophy used a rudimentary points system to determine the "World Professional Champion." Translating
Lew Hoad’s 1959 season into today’s PIF ATP Rankings reveals a massive shift in how "dominance" is mathematically weighted.
1. Point Value Comparison
In 1959, points were scarce and linear. Today, they are exponential to reward "Big Title" winners.
| Winner | 7 pts | 2,000 pts |
| Runner-up | 4 pts | 1,300 pts |
| Semi-finalist | 3 pts | 800 pts |
| Quarter-finalist | 1 pt | 400 pts |
Result
1959 Ampol Points
Modern ATP Points (Grand Slam)
2. Hoad's 1959 Season: Translated
Under the modern 19-tournament "Best Of" rule, Hoad’s season would be anchored by his "Pro Major" performances.
- Forest Hills Tournament of Champions (Winner): This was the premier pro event of 1959.
- Modern Translation: 2,000 pts (Grand Slam equivalent).
- Ampol Circuit (6 Tournament Wins): Hoad won 6 of the 15 circuit events (including Perth and Adelaide).
- Modern Translation: Approximately 3,000 pts (equivalent to winning three ATP 1000s or six ATP 500s).
- Head-to-Head Tours: Hoad played a massive volume of "one-night-stand" matches, including a 4-man tour where he went 42–20 (beating Pancho Gonzales 15–13).
- Modern Translation: These would likely count as Exhibition matches or ATP Finals-style group stages, contributing roughly 1,000–1,500 pts.
- Estimated Modern Total: ~6,500 to 7,500 ATP Points."
- Modern Translation: Approximately 3,000 pts (equivalent to winning three ATP 1000s or six ATP 500s).
Last edited:
Not that i am interested in all the dubious things posted here. But i see more and more false information here on this board, based on AI or fake videos or dubious fake sources, which are claiming, it would be true. AI only samples wikipedia articles, which can be heavily manipulated. So many citations here are self-citations. Its a shame for posters like No Mercy, Pro tennis hsitorian, Scott Tennis or Krosero, who did earnest, hard and careful research by studying contemporary sources like press articles, data bases and books. I am glad, that i due to age, have no longer to examine student works at the university, its now a real Sysiphos-work to separate authentic research from AI generated crap.
If you studied computer science you might remember the motto of all researchers, "Garbage in, garbage out." The computer generated products are only as good as the information which is fed into them.
If the information contained is false or fake, it is not worth reproducing in a video like this, which is an imaginery collection of memories.
Where did you locate the false information?
AI can be useful in reviewing large amounts of data.
By our hand count, Hoad held a lifetime head-to-head edge over Gonzales on grass of 21-14.
Bt AI, we learn that Hoad also held a lifetime hth edge over Laver on grass.
"Grass H2H Estimate Context Hoad vs. LaverHoad leads ~15–10+ Hoad famously "pummeled" a young Laver when the latter first turned pro in 1963, winning their first 8 to 14 matches straight on Australian/NZ grass."
There was also the Sydney semifinal in 1965 where Hoad won the third place match over Laver, I doubt that this match has been included in the total.
For Hoad to lead the lifetime grass court hth over both Gonzales and Laver, both of whom were great grass court players, tells us something.
By our hand count, Hoad held a lifetime head-to-head edge over Gonzales on grass of 21-14.
Bt AI, we learn that Hoad also held a lifetime hth edge over Laver on grass.
"Grass H2H Estimate Context Hoad vs. LaverHoad leads ~15–10+ Hoad famously "pummeled" a young Laver when the latter first turned pro in 1963, winning their first 8 to 14 matches straight on Australian/NZ grass."
There was also the Sydney semifinal in 1965 where Hoad won the third place match over Laver, I doubt that this match has been included in the total.
For Hoad to lead the lifetime grass court hth over both Gonzales and Laver, both of whom were great grass court players, tells us something.
Last edited:
I read that Hoad trained very hard to get into his best possible shape to play Laver in 63, which obviously paid off for their first 20 matches, or so. When was the last year that Hoad played either: Pancho, Ken and Rod?
Hoad played Pancho for the last time on grass at Wimbledon in 1967, a win, and on cement in Johannesburg, South Africa in 1971, a loss.
Last played Rosewall in 1967 in semifinal at Wimbledon.
Last played Laver in late 1966 at Peacock Gap, California, a win for Hoad.
Hoad semi-retired at the end of January 1963 and played only limited tennis thereafter.
Last edited:
Where was the documentation?
In 1963, Hoad and Laver did not play against each other in New Zealand.
Hoad was 3-1 over Laver in the 1964 New Zealand tour.
Here is what AI has to say about surfaces in New Zealand.
"Grass courts were the dominant surface for competitive tennis in New Zealand during the 1950s and 1960s. Major venues like the Stanley Street Courts (now the ASB Tennis Centre) in Auckland and Wilding Park in Christchurch hosted domestic and international tournaments on natural grass.
Te Ara Encyclopedia of New Zealand +2
Key Details:
- Major Tournaments: The Auckland Invitation Tournament (the forerunner to the modern ASB Classic) was a premier grass-court event from its inception in 1956.
- International Stars: Grass surfaces allowed New Zealand to attract overseas tennis superstars like Lew Hoad, Pancho Gonzales, and Ken Rosewall for regular international tours.
- Local Clubs: Grass was the standard for numerous local clubs across the country, though many eventually transitioned to hard courts in the late 1970s because grass was expensive to maintain and could only be used for a few months each summer. "
The venue featured outdoor natural grass courts from its inception in 1922 until they were replaced by hard courts in 1977. Therefore, the 1969 New Zealand Open (part of the Benson & Hedges Open) was played on grass. "
" In the 1960s, Queensland’s tennis courts were primarily a form of clay, but they were locally known as "ant bed" (or dirt) courts rather than traditional European red clay.
The "Ant Bed" Surface
- Material Composition: These courts were made from crushed mounds of dirt built by termites, mixed with sand or loam.
- The Playing Experience: When compacted and rolled, the material created a smooth, firm, and surprisingly fast pinkish-brown surface.
- Widespread Use: Because natural clay and grass were difficult or expensive to maintain across the harsh, expansive Queensland climate, ant bed courts were a staple of residential backyards, country towns, and local clubs.
- Legendary Origins: Queensland tennis legends like Rod Laver, Roy Emerson, and Mal Anderson honed their early skills on backyard ant bed courts."
Last edited:
Despite his supposed inferior peak level, Rosewall has a winning H-H against all his main rivals, except for Gonzalez and Laver.
Hoad- 69-32 in favor of Ken
Segura- 91-39
Trabert- 48-20
Sedgman- 45-20
Kramer- 22-3
Newcombe- 12-10- All between the ages of 33-40
Gonzalez- 81-120
Laver- 70- 94
Hoad- 69-32 in favor of Ken
Segura- 91-39
Trabert- 48-20
Sedgman- 45-20
Kramer- 22-3
Newcombe- 12-10- All between the ages of 33-40
Gonzalez- 81-120
Laver- 70- 94
I am not sure of what your source is for this list.
The Wikipedia source offers some variant numbers,
List of tennis rivalries - Wikipedia
Hoad-Rosewall 51-84
Gonzales-Rosewall 117-87
Laver-Rosewall 89-75
I saw them yesterday on Tennis Abstract. The numbers you post are the ones I had seen before.I am not sure of what your source is for this list.
The Wikipedia source offers some variant numbers,
List of tennis rivalries - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org
Hoad-Rosewall 51-84
Gonzales-Rosewall 117-87
Laver-Rosewall 89-75
I think that the Wiki numbers are probably more reliable, prepared by Krosero for Tennisbase, I believe.
Probably, needless to say, I prefer Krosero-Tennisbase numbers
For what it is worth (probably a lot in this question) we have the AI repsonse to a question about Tennis Base numbers.
"The Tennis Base database documented a lifetime head-to-head record on grass between Lew Hoad and Rod Laver, showing 15 wins to 5 in favour of Lew Hoad.
Context Behind the Grass Dominance
While Rod Laver eventually captured the overall lifetime head-to-head across all surfaces due to Hoad's escalating back injuries in the mid-1960s, the grass-court metric remains heavily skewed in Hoad's direction for a few key reasons:
This Tennis Base number is probably skewed in favour of Laver because there were reportedly another 5 matches in that Australian tour period in January 1963 which Hoad won, which, if added, would lift the final number to 20 wins to 5 lifetime for Hoad over Laver on grass surfaces. That is a substantial margin, similar to the thumping which Gonzales put on Rosewall in the 1960 pro tour (which was actually 20 to 4 in favour of Gonzales).
So that makes it two of the all-time GOAT players on grass over whom Hoad held a dominance on grass surfaces, 21 to 14 over Gonzales and 20 to 5 over Laver, establishing grass as definitely Hoad's preferred surface. And several of these wins took place late in Hoad's career while he was already semi-retired.
"The Tennis Base database documented a lifetime head-to-head record on grass between Lew Hoad and Rod Laver, showing 15 wins to 5 in favour of Lew Hoad.
Context Behind the Grass Dominance
While Rod Laver eventually captured the overall lifetime head-to-head across all surfaces due to Hoad's escalating back injuries in the mid-1960s, the grass-court metric remains heavily skewed in Hoad's direction for a few key reasons:
- The 1963 Pro Debut Onslaught: When Laver turned professional at the beginning of 1963, his first assignment was a grueling head-to-head tour against Hoad and Ken Rosewall across Australia and New Zealand. Because these matches were played outdoors on traditional Australian grass courts, Hoad used his grass-court mastery to win their first 8 consecutive matches on the surface.
- Surface Availability: After 1963, the professional tour rarely played on grass, opting instead for indoor wood, cement, or portable canvas courts. Because of this, Laver had very few opportunities to chip away at Hoad's grass-court lead before Hoad's semi-retirement."
This Tennis Base number is probably skewed in favour of Laver because there were reportedly another 5 matches in that Australian tour period in January 1963 which Hoad won, which, if added, would lift the final number to 20 wins to 5 lifetime for Hoad over Laver on grass surfaces. That is a substantial margin, similar to the thumping which Gonzales put on Rosewall in the 1960 pro tour (which was actually 20 to 4 in favour of Gonzales).
So that makes it two of the all-time GOAT players on grass over whom Hoad held a dominance on grass surfaces, 21 to 14 over Gonzales and 20 to 5 over Laver, establishing grass as definitely Hoad's preferred surface. And several of these wins took place late in Hoad's career while he was already semi-retired.
Last edited:
Crap numbers again, i doubt they are stemming from tennis base, maybe are your own fictive and phanstasy numbers... Only in tournament play (without any tour matches in Queensland and elsewhere in Australia, see for instance 1.2.1966)), Laver beat Hoad 1964 at Perth and Brisbane- Miilton, 1965, at Brisbane- Milton, Melbourne Kooyong, Hobart, 1966: at Perth, Melbourne Kooyong, Forest Hills and a w/o at Adelaide. I count by the lists of Chris Jordan and Andrew Tas a 9-2 hth for Laver on grass in tournament play. As said, many NZ matches in 1963 and 1964 were played indoors, i have discussed that with Korsero and saw myself pictures of indoor matches there in 1964. Do better research. Its tiring and boring.
Last edited:
You have access to TennisBase?
Of course tour matches on grass are included, the Queensland tour in 1964 was on hard clay, from what I hear.
In that January 1963 period, Hoad had about 13 matches won on grass over Laver. There may have been one or two on clay or indoor, but I have not seen the identification of them.
The NZ series in 1964 was 3-1 for Hoad, and there are definitely grass venues at the stops on that 1964 NZ tour. What made you think otherwise? Sure, the 1963 NZ tour was played partly indoors, but Hoad did not play in that tour, it was strictly between Rosewall and Laver.
Hoad won over Laver at White City in both 1965 (3rd place) and in 1966.
So that brings us to about 18 wins on grass right there. Not sure why you have a problem with that.
Last edited:
