Discussion in 'Former Pro Player Talk' started by 90's Clay, Aug 22, 2012.
I'm sorry, I meant 1956 US Championships.
Segura played at the French Pro at Roland Garros from 1958-1962, with his best finish being the semi finals in 1961. Segura didn't play at the 1956 French Pro, and there was no pro tournament at Roland Garros from 1950-1955 and 1957.
Strange that he didn't play at RG in 1956, why was this? He played at Wembley in 1956. And this is not a great RG record for someone of Segura's clay abilities. In 1957, he lost the semi-final of the biggest clay event of the year at The Hague to Hoad, who then beat Rosewall in five long sets in the final.
It's just curious with you: Every time when your idol lost a match or a tournament, he had a crisis of confidence, was in confusion, was injured or suffered from that terrible Wembley smoke which always handicapped Hoad and never his conquerors, especially Rosewall.
You should concede that Hoad was not that superhuman you make out of him...
I have no idols, my friend.
As far as indoors, yes, it appears that Hoad never won an indoor tournament, despite appearing in many finals.
He won plenty of indoor matches on the 4-man tour in the late fifties, but these were best-of-three affairs.
His big wins were in outdoor tournaments. Hoad's style of play was super-aggressive and required lots of oxygen. In the indoor smoke dens of Wembley, Melbourne Arena (where Rosewall outlasted him in 1960), Cleveland Arena, MSG (although he won a three-set marathon classic against Gonzales in 1959), Stade Coubertin, etc., the lack of exygen was a handicap in a long match.
Yes, you don't have idols. You just have ONE idol. Please stop that silly oxygen stuff!
I thought you have more understanding for history than kiki has...
Please explain me why Rod Laver, who also played super-aggressive, did much better than Hoad indoors (4 Wembley majors. 1 French Pro and many other tough indoor titles). Where did he get extra oxygen from??
You know Dan I cannot believe you wrote you have no idols. I just don't know what to think!
Please get off this stuff about smoked filled arenas and oxygen. Hoad had a great game but he did lose and his high risk game could cause some losses at times.
Laver didn't need extra oxygen. His overall game did the work for him. Perhaps the speed of his racquet swing caused the smoke to disappear. lol.
Rod Laver did run out of gas in the 1963 Stade Coubertin fianl (see the London Times account).
Laver had a much smaller body mass than Hoad, and muscle mass.
Sure, I spend a lot of space promoting Hoad's achievement. This is because his career is grossly underrepresented and underrated. I cannot say the same for Laver, Gonzales, Kramer, Budge, Tilden who are the real objects of mass idolatry and superficial adulation.
I should add Federer, Nadal, Sampras, etc. etc.
Winning the most titles is not the best way to rate a career.
Somehow I don't see people screaming about the greatness of these players today so I don't see where you say they are objects of mass idolatry and superficial adulation.
First of all these players accomplished great things in their tennis careers so to call this superficial adulation to me makes absolutely no sense. So I suppose in Laver's case three Grand Slams, amateur, Pro and Open isn't enough. I suppose 200 tournaments won isn't enough. I suppose winning on all surfaces isn't enough. Despite all this I don't exactly see Laver being as popular as former members of the Beatles.
I appreciate the accomplishments of great players. I appreciate the accomplishments of Lew Hoad as well as his Magic Twin Ken Rosewall.
You don't have to put down other greats to promote Hoad. I believe for example that if you gave Hoad the racquets of today he would have to worry about net rushers because he would hit the ball through his opponents.
Hoad's career achievements were admirable. But, over the course of a career, they pale by comparison to his contemporaries, Gonzales, Rosewall and Laver, no less Federer, Nadal and Sampras. Perhaps it would be more apropos to argue that Hoad's peak level of play, or talent, was as great as anyone who ever played. Many Aussies seem to think so. But, it can't be seriously argued that Hoad's career is underappreciated by comparison to these other champions. "Underrepresented?" I'm not sure what you mean by that. But, if you mean that Hoad's career isn't talked about as much as these others here on TT, then you may have a point. And, clearly, you aim to remedy that percieved error.
Very nice post Limpinhitter.
I also agree.
I would say further that his actual achievements are not understood or even mentioned today.
Most notably, the two Ampol world championships of 1958 and 1959, which were discussed frequently in the contemporary literature, are rarely mentioned today. That is like saying we will not discuss the number one ATP ranking in the coverage of today's players.
Again, to say that his achievements "pale in comparison" to Gonzales, Rosewall, Laver (all of whom rate Hoad as number one all-time), Federer, Nadal, Sampras simply perpetuates the kind of idolatry caused by press puffery. For example, I have no doubt that Federer and Sampras would be overwhelmed on clay by Hoad, assuming the same equipment was used by all.
I wonder that there were Ampol world championships in 1958 and that the tournament series in 1959 were called that way.
Your IDOL was ranked No. 4 for 1958 and 1959 by Kramer but I concede that Kramer was not always objective to say the least.
I don't think it's realistic to say that Federer or Sampras would be overwhelmed by Hoad on clay. Frankly, I think Federer would have a winning record against Hoad on clay by a wide margin. Like Sampras, Hoad was a big hitting, first strike player. When his game was off, there was no plan "B." He just lost. Clay does not reward that approach to tennis. Federer not only has a bigger, better, more consistent ground game than Hoad had, coming to net on clay against Federer is clearly not a winning approach for anyone, including Hoad. Perhaps Hoad would have a winning record on clay against Sampras. They played similar big hitting, first strike tennis. Sampras had the bigger, better serve, Hoad had the better backhand. But, I can't see any justification for saying that Sampras would be overwhelmed by Hoad on clay.
Maybe Federer would not be overwhelmed by Hoad on clay but I believe that in a big final on clay Hoad would prevail. He was awesome on dirt.
Federer also does not have a plan B. That's the reason that he loses quite often to Nadal and others. He is not versatile like a Rosewall or a Laver.
How does Federer have all those come from behind 2 set wins if he doesn't have a plan B? Also a few come from behind wins against Nadal:
I have generally spoken. Of course there can be a few exceptions. Federer has his usual game all the time: great service, big forehand, run around his backhand or defensive backhand slice. It often works very well but often also not.
Also his opponent can become weaker during a match. Then Federer prevails.
You seem to know only little about the great Aussies...
The only aussie he most likely knows is Hewitt, who happens to be the least aussie of them all.
Rosewall was called POCKETS by all his pro mates
Perhaps you know more about Rosewall and Laver, but saying Federer isn't versatile is sheer idiocy. It's apparent you either resent him for stealing the thunder from past greats or you just haven't watched tennis in awhile. If you think Laver and Rosewall are better players, fine - but saying absolutely hilarious things like "Federer isn't versatile" and using some baffling logic to argue your point isn't going to get you anywhere.
Tell me about the legend Kodes.
What do you want to know about the three times major winner Jan Kodes? In which way could I help you better?
How arduous and stressful was it for him to fight off legend after legend at the '73 Wimbledon?
Oh¡ Even if Borg,Connors and Nastase ( the recent RG champion) were scheduled to play Kodes at some stage, they didn´t make it.Kodes was really lucky to win the biggest event of the year with three all time greats being favoured over him.
Same thing happened to John Newcombe in the 1971 USO and Stan Smith in the 1973 USO.Kodes was simply too lucky and beat them when at their peak.
Can we move into the 1970/71 FO?
Kramer's rankings were a joke, period.
You wonder about the Ampol World Championship tour, which was recognized by Kramer and the tour?
Read the London Times, New York Times, World Tennis, Globe and Mail, Sports Illustrated, etc.
All of these discuss the Ampol tour for BOTH 1958 and 1959, won in both years by Hoad, and the bonus money pool.
Also, I think that Ampol would have preserved the records, and you can contact them if you like.
Sampras game was a carbon copy of Gonzales', except Gonzales was a more graceful faster athlete. Hoad and Gonzales played a classic on clay in the 1958 Roland Garros, Hoad winning a great match in four sets. Hoad had a complete range of strokes, more than Sampras.
Federer does have a tactical problem, which I think stemmed from his regrettable decision to split with Roche. He really doesn't have a plan B, and when his tactics fail, he never changes to something else, but seems befuddled. He needs a good coach.
Yes. Regale me with tales of how Kodes masterfully, skillfully conquered four total seeds in the two events, twice including the legendary Franulovic, who was a major champion at heart, if not mind, body, or reality.
Without getting into Xs and Os, Federer can adeptly play both offense and defense. That's, simply put, two plans right there.
When Roger is fit and hot, he doesn't need a Plan B, but when he is tired or off, he can really look indecisive.
According to Joe McCauley's book Hoad won only ONE tournament (Kooyong) in 1958. I doubt he has won the whole series if there was one at all...
You have read so much about this matter, please tell us which other tournaments Hoad has won that year.
...and a better backhand as well...
Bobby, I have checked online, and Ampol still exists.
The series for 1958 was referred to in Sports Illustrated, with Hoad as the winner. Points were awarded not just for winning, but for victories in the round-robin format which prevailed in 1958 with six players.
Thus, Hoad won at Kooyong, Gonzales won at Forest Hills, but Hoad beat Gonzales at Forest Hills, Kooyong, and Roland Garros, and these wins entered into the points system and gave Hoad the overall championship. The LA Masters was won by Segura, Sydney by Sedgman.
Wembley and the "US Pro" do not appear to be designated tournaments in the Ampol system, which centred on outdoor events. The bonus pool was distributed according to the place finish, with Hoad first.
For 1959, the series of tournaments was expanded to 14 designated events, and Hoad finished first again.
This Ampol system was designed to establish the overall number one player, whereas the 4-man Pro championship tour of small-town America, playing in high school gyms and staying in cheap motels, was designed as a two-man show, and not really a true world championship event.
This changes the calibration of listings for the world number one.
Sampras was one of the quickest, most explosive players of all time. No one had any significant advantage in athleticism over Sampras. Conditioning, perhaps was an issue on clay due to Sampras' inherited anemia disease - thalessemia minor. Sampras also had a bigger better forehand, and a bigger better serve, than either Gonzeles or Hoad, even though they both had great serves. What Sampras seemed to lack was the mindset needed to consistently win on clay, which he did on several occasions, just not at the FO. But, it's impossible to know if he wasn't just managing his anemia.
In any event, I would agree that both Gonzales and Hoad were better clay court players than Sampras. But, to say either would overwhelm Sampras on clay is not credible.
Sampras would have been disadvantaged on faster surfaces against Hoad or Gonzales, who were as quick and graceful as cats. Sampras, like Newcombe, had a propensity for slow, awkward moves, and I remember seeing him land awkwardly and twist his ankle in the final of the US Open against Rafter, which cost him the match (and Rafter was no gazelle, either).
Newcombe lost at least one slam final to sprained ankles, caused by his stumbling moves, for example in the 1966 US final, where he won the first set against Stolle before twisting his ankle, and losing the match as a result, much like Sampras.
Not sure if Sampras had a bigger forehand than Hoad or Gonzalez. He may have but Hoad and Gonzalez had huge forehands. Gonzalez was timed at over 112 mph on his forehand in 1951 with wood. It was clearly a major weapon.
Let's put it this way, all three were super athletes and had three of the greatest serves of all time.
I strongly doubt that in 1958 there were bonus points for beating Gonzalez (and others). In 1959 there were no bonus points at all.
Even if Hoad was the winner (I still doubt): he was a weak "World Champion" considering that he only won one tournament and was only once a finalist.
Of course the 4 man tour was the proper event to determine the world's best.
No bonus points in 1959? Check the sources.
World Tennis, New York Times, London Times, Sports Illustrated, the Ampol company itself.
There is no need to be unaware.
It seems as though the final point standings for 1959 were never given, similary to the 1964 tour. We only know the order of the 8 players.
Or do you know more?
The reason I put Lendl above Nadal is though he has 2 less slams he made a lot more slam finals plus has 5 season end finals (plus 2 WCT finals as well - (realise Nadal wasn't able to compete in those). He currently also has one more Masters 1000 equivalent. To top that off he has nearly 3 x as much time as number 1 as Nadal. I also think Nadal has been greately aided by the homegenization of surfaces. Lendl would have loved present day Wimbledon. Nadal I don't believe would have won Wimbledon with pre-2002 conditions. (That is not to say his achievements aren't great - they are).
Franulovic, who had just beaten Ashe, was considered one of the best clay courters of the 1970´s.Kodes did also beat Nastase; for your info, Nastase won 2 GS titles + 4 masters, which was the record till Lendl broke it 15 years later.
In 1973, as mentioned, beat Taylor and Metrevali ( normally top 15 players) but was lucky that none of the all time greats Nastase,Borg and Connors met him, since they lost before the finals.
Kodes, however, wa sunlucky to win any of his 2 USO finals, he lost in reverse situations the players he had gunned down ( lost to Smith while beating peak Newk and lost to Newk while beating peak Smith)
And he could oncly conquer the DC as captain, when in 1980 Czeckoslovakia beat Italy at Prague (Lendl and underrated Smid being the singles players)...he lost to that tennis amchine called Bjorn Borg, at Stockholm, in the 1975 final.
Other than that, he reached multiple slam,WCT or Masters semis, not in Australia which was a minor event compared to Dallas,Masters,Paris,Newy York or London until the middle 80´s, as you probably know.
He beat Roche,Ashe,Smith in the same event on clay or Gimeno,Nasty and Orantes in the same event too...which is something not many would be able to do...do you want to discuss his style of play?
Kramer,Perry,Newcombe, Tilden should also be considered.Budge may be a better player than Becker and Hoad was at Lendl´s level if not higher.
I'm surprise you didn't include Kodes.
Separate names with a comma.