Whats your top 10 of all time right now?

Dan Lobb

G.O.A.T.
GOAT Federer
2 Nadal
3 Laver
4 Novak Djokovic
5= Gonzales
5= Sampras
7 Rosewall
8 Borg
9 Tilden
10 Budge
I will take the word of the Little Cornishman, Rosewall himself, for the top group of four, listed here in descending order from one to four, which he assembled in 2010. After that, it is anyone's guess.

This is grass only, no clay allowed, according to level of play achieved. Minimum one world championship, six majors.

Top Tier
Hoad Gonzales Laver Federer

Second Tier
Sampras Rosewall Sedgman Newcombe McEnroe Borg Kramer Vines Budge Tilden Williams

Third Tier
Riggs Trabert Segura Nadal Djokovic Connors Lendl Vilas Lacoste Cochet Smith Ashe Nastase Kodes Drobny Emerson Santana Gimeno
 
Last edited:

KG1965

Legend
Continue to discuss only of slams, judging the career of
- Pancho Gonzalez without the World Tours :eek::eek::eek::eek::eek:which he won
- Laver without going into the merits of the 210 tournaments :eek::eek::eek::eek::eek:that Rod won,
it's disgusting
We end up aligning with the media that in fact exclude Pancho from any ranking, because they are unable to analyze the World Tours of that old period and seriously underestimate Laver considering only the 11 slams (of which half are immensely less than 50 tournaments that the aussie has won).

The only way to eliminate competing opponents is to eliminate what they have won. Take away their drinking water.
 
Last edited:

Sport

G.O.A.T.
Gonzales and Laver played in an era where the pool of professional tennis players was much smaller and thus the competition was smaller as well. Tennis was less professionalized. It is only fair that we ignore their inflated achievements outside Majors. We already recognize their Pro Slams as Majors, which is more than enough credit of their greatness.

In the 1960s Wilt Chamberlain averaged 50 points per game, yet he is almost universally not considered the basketball GOAT due to the lesser degree of competition he faced and the lower professionalization of the sport.
 

Sport

G.O.A.T.
Pro Slams are not so relevant as modern Grand Slams. The pool of players was much smaller and so was the competence. The sport was less professionalized and with less professional players. Sports evolve and get better with time, and so do players. Therefore, I will judge Pro Slams and Grand Slams differently.

Criterion:
Pro Slams = 0.5 points
Grand Slams = 1 point

Different tiers of all-time greats:

Tier 1 (16+ points): Federer, Nadal, Djokovic
Tier 2 (10-15 points): Sampras, Borg, Laver, Rosewall, Tilden
Tier 3 (7-9 points): Gonzales, Agassi, Lendl, Agassi, Emerson, Wilander


*Only the Tier 1 are solid GOAT candidates
**Emerson is excluded from the tier 2 of all-time greats because he won the vast majority of his Grand Slams when Laver and Rosewall were banned form competing in Grand Slams.
 
Last edited:

Sport

G.O.A.T.
Continue to discuss only of slams, judging the career of
- Pancho Gonzalez without the World Tours :eek::eek::eek::eek::eek:which he won
- Laver without going into the merits of the 210 tournaments :eek::eek::eek::eek::eek:that Rod won,
it's disgusting
We end up aligning with the media that in fact exclude Pancho from any ranking, because they are unable to analyze the World Tours of that old period and seriously underestimate Laver considering only the 11 slams (of which half are immensely less than 50 tournaments that the aussie has won).

The only way to eliminate competing opponents is to eliminate what they have won. Take away their drinking water.
Winning 180 Mickey Mouse tournaments equivalent to nowadays ATP 250s does not equate to a modern Grand Slam.

The number of Slams is the most relevant GOAT criterion, not the number of Mickey Mouse tournaments.
 

Belgrad13

Rookie
Since the development progresses rather slowly, it is difficult to get a clean cut.
And since everyone can choose for themselves when it takes place, no date is certain. Not guaranteed 1968.
 

Dan Lobb

G.O.A.T.
Gonzales and Laver played in an era where the pool of professional tennis players was much smaller and thus the competition was smaller as well. Tennis was less professionalized. It is only fair that we ignore their inflated achievements outside Majors. We already recognize their Pro Slams as Majors, which is more than enough credit of their greatness.

In the 1960s Wilt Chamberlain averaged 50 points per game, yet he is almost universally not considered the basketball GOAT due to the lesser degree of competition he faced and the lower professionalization of the sport.
The old pro tours were groups of elite players, usually less than 8, at their peak in 1959 featuring 12 tough pros. That was like going into the quarterfinal matches every time out, a rigorous challenge. No easy matches, and the winning percentages then were much lower than today as a result.

I would recommend using metrics which cross the decades boundaries. For example, number of 100+ wins seasons, adjusting it for today's season.

You could adjust for surface, compare results on the top grass tournaments of each season. Say, take the top 3 grass events each year, which would cross all barriers.
 

Ivan69

Hall of Fame
Sounds like a wrong thread?

Sent from my SM-G965W using Tapatalk
All time needs to include all surfaces, not just grass.
Guys, let Dan Lobb live in his endless delusions. Favoring the grass for years as the most important and "historic" surface he doesn't know many many things.
He doesn't know that the World tours were held indoors.
He doesn't know that the European tours were held on clay or indoors with the small exception of some matches in GB held on grass.

In order to support my statements here is the breakdown of some players' matches by surface (pro period):
Laver - 304 on clay, 247 on grass, 362 on hard outdoor, 724 indoors
Gonzales - 269 clay, 292 grass, 237 hard, 996 indoor
Rosewall - 433 clay, 347 grass, 379 hard, 811 indoor
It appears that grass was the LESS used surface.

Lobb does know ONLY about a couple of tournaments in Australia and in the USA and some small tours in Aus held on grass. Trying to skyrocketing his idol Hoad on grass Lobb doesn't know even the stats of Hoad by surface: 206 clay, 187 grass, 129 hard out, 406 indoor.
 

Ivan69

Hall of Fame
Gonzales and Laver played in an era where the pool of professional tennis players was much smaller and thus the competition was smaller as well. Tennis was less professionalized. It is only fair that we ignore their inflated achievements outside Majors. We already recognize their Pro Slams as Majors, which is more than enough credit of their greatness.

In the 1960s Wilt Chamberlain averaged 50 points per game, yet he is almost universally not considered the basketball GOAT due to the lesser degree of competition he faced and the lower professionalization of the sport.
I think I told you before. You need to know a lot about the pre-OE when discussing it. Small competition? Let's see. Laver, Gonzales, Rosewall, Hoad, Sedgman, Trabert, Segura were the top guys of the 50s and 60s. Kramer, Riggs and Budge were the top in the 40s. Budge, Vines, Tilden, Perry, Nusslein were the top of the 30s. The competition in some years was much bigger than in some decades of the OE.

Please have in mind that Wilt Chamberlain is still placed by some experts among the top 10 all time.
 

Ivan69

Hall of Fame
Pro Slams are not so relevant as modern Grand Slams. The pool of players was much smaller and so was the competence. The sport was less professionalized and with less professional players. Sports evolve and get better with time, and so do players. Therefore, I will judge Pro Slams and Grand Slams differently.

Criterion:
Pro Slams = 0.5 points
Grand Slams = 1 point

Different tiers of all-time greats:

Tier 1 (16+ points): Federer, Nadal, Djokovic
Tier 2 (10-15 points): Sampras, Borg, Laver, Rosewall, Tilden
Tier 3 (7-9 points): Gonzales, Agassi, Lendl, Agassi, Emerson, Wilander


*Only the Tier 1 are solid GOAT candidates
**Emerson is excluded from the tier 2 of all-time greats because he won the vast majority of his Grand Slams when Laver and Rosewall were banned form competing in Grand Slams.
When judging only slams as a criterion then please tell me - how many slams is equal 1 tour to? Rosewall won 19 tours, Gonzales - 16, Laver - 13, Tilden - 12.
 

Ivan69

Hall of Fame
Winning 180 Mickey Mouse tournaments equivalent to nowadays ATP 250s does not equate to a modern Grand Slam.

The number of Slams is the most relevant GOAT criterion, not the number of Mickey Mouse tournaments.
Mickey Mouse tournaments are considered by those guys who know nothing about the pre-OE.
Rosewall has 83 big titles (best and second best tournaments and tours), Laver - 81.

Slams are not the only criterion. It's not surprising that the Big 3 now and in the past hardly want(ed) to win every Masters or ATP Finals.
 

Dan Lobb

G.O.A.T.
Guys, let Dan Lobb live in his endless delusions. Favoring the grass for years as the most important and "historic" surface he doesn't know many many things.
He doesn't know that the World tours were held indoors.
He doesn't know that the European tours were held on clay or indoors with the small exception of some matches in GB held on grass.

In order to support my statements here is the breakdown of some players' matches by surface (pro period):
Laver - 304 on clay, 247 on grass, 362 on hard outdoor, 724 indoors
Gonzales - 269 clay, 292 grass, 237 hard, 996 indoor
Rosewall - 433 clay, 347 grass, 379 hard, 811 indoor
It appears that grass was the LESS used surface.

Lobb does know ONLY about a couple of tournaments in Australia and in the USA and some small tours in Aus held on grass. Trying to skyrocketing his idol Hoad on grass Lobb doesn't know even the stats of Hoad by surface: 206 clay, 187 grass, 129 hard out, 406 indoor.
Welcome back, Ivan, I will endeavour to continue your education concerning the old pro tour.

Of course the old pro tours were mainly on indoor venues, like local high school gyms, public arenas, ice hockey rinks with the ice still down, lovely smokey dens everywhere.

That was an economic necessity. Not a first choice of places to play tennis. You should understand that.

Grass courts were the prestige locations, and better quality facilities, which is why they should be given greater emphasis.

I concentrate on lifetime stats on grass, like Hoad 20-14 lifetime against Gonzales on grass,, or Gonzales 22-12 against Rosewall lifetime on grass.

Those are stats which actually tell us something. Indoor results are just stops on the tour, of interest only to the bank account.

Ivan, I will give some pointers about how to evaluate the variety of locations for the old pro game. Stay tuned.
 

Ivan69

Hall of Fame
Welcome back, Ivan, I will endeavour to continue your education concerning the old pro tour.

Of course the old pro tours were mainly on indoor venues, like local high school gyms, public arenas, ice hockey rinks with the ice still down, lovely smokey dens everywhere.

That was an economic necessity. Not a first choice of places to play tennis. You should understand that.

Grass courts were the prestige locations, and better quality facilities, which is why they should be given greater emphasis.

I concentrate on lifetime stats on grass, like Hoad 20-14 lifetime against Gonzales on grass,, or Gonzales 22-12 against Rosewall lifetime on grass.

Those are stats which actually tell us something. Indoor results are just stops on the tour, of interest only to the bank account.

Ivan, I will give some pointers about how to evaluate the variety of locations for the old pro game. Stay tuned.
I am always here when you tell fairy-tales.
Economic necessity? No, dear Lobb, no. Indoor tennis was always appropriate and preferred especially due to the different climate conditions and the related risks taken for that.

Grass tournaments were prestigious but not most prestigious as you try to convince the audience. Everybody knows what is your emphasis and everybody can see that you have not much chances for hyping the guy. Save your efforts.

Besides indoor, clay stats also smash your theory. That was what it was. You don't like it but take it. ;)
 

Dan Lobb

G.O.A.T.
I am always here when you tell fairy-tales.
Economic necessity? No, dear Lobb, no. Indoor tennis was always appropriate and preferred especially due to the different climate conditions and the related risks taken for that.

Grass tournaments were prestigious but not most prestigious as you try to convince the audience. Everybody knows what is your emphasis and everybody can see that you have not much chances for hyping the guy. Save your efforts.

Besides indoor, clay stats also smash your theory. That was what it was. You don't like it but take it. ;)
Ivan, you like counter-factuals too much...tennis was invented for grass in the late 1800's, and the greatest players of tennis have always been grass court players,

and Wimbledon has always been the official/unofficial world centre for supreme tennis. Clay? For those who cannot afford grass...sorry, but that is just the reality.

I always look at grass results, that tells me who is the best player. So did the great Rosewall when he drew up his famous list in 2010 of the top 4 players all-

time.....Hoad, Gonzales, Laver, Federer, grass court geniuses all of them. That tells you everything you need to know, from the expert Rosewall himself.
 

Ivan69

Hall of Fame
Ivan, you like counter-factuals too much...tennis was invented for grass in the late 1800's, and the greatest players of tennis have always been grass court players,

and Wimbledon has always been the official/unofficial world centre for supreme tennis. Clay? For those who cannot afford grass...sorry, but that is just the reality.

I always look at grass results, that tells me who is the best player. So did the great Rosewall when he drew up his famous list in 2010 of the top 4 players all-

time.....Hoad, Gonzales, Laver, Federer, grass court geniuses all of them. That tells you everything you need to know, from the expert Rosewall himself.
Read the facts, Lobb! Well, you don't like them. It's ok. Your fairy-tales are appropriate usually for the babies.
"Clay? For those who cannot afford grass..."!?!?!?!? You become the candidate for 2020 jokes competition.
No more comments. i am waiting for your next "cherries of the cake".
 

Dan Lobb

G.O.A.T.
Read the facts, Lobb! Well, you don't like them. It's ok. Your fairy-tales are appropriate usually for the babies.
"Clay? For those who cannot afford grass..."!?!?!?!? You become the candidate for 2020 jokes competition.
No more comments. i am waiting for your next "cherries of the cake".
I just gave you the facts, as understood by Rosewall himself, he chose four grass greats to put at the top of all the great players....that should tell you what you want to know.
 

Ivan69

Hall of Fame
I just gave you the facts, as understood by Rosewall himself, he chose four grass greats to put at the top of all the great players....that should tell you what you want to know.
For sure Kenny didn't know that the "grass great" Hoad had the incredible ..... 7 pro titles on grass.
And the poor Kenny had the negligible ..... 22 pro titles on grass. :oops:
Facts, Lobb, facts! Not opinions. You are going to be the biggest contender for 2020 trophy.
 

Dan Lobb

G.O.A.T.
For sure Kenny didn't know that the "grass great" Hoad had the incredible ..... 7 pro titles on grass.
And the poor Kenny had the negligible ..... 22 pro titles on grass. :oops:
Facts, Lobb, facts! Not opinions. You are going to be the biggest contender for 2020 trophy.
Rosewall knew everything about Hoad, and rated him #1. I trust Rosewall's rating ability more than yours, Ivan.

How many matches did you play against Hoad?
 

BGod

Legend
OE
1. Djokovic
2. Federer
3. Borg
4. Nadal
5. Sampras
6. Lendl
7. Connors
8. McEnroe
9. Agassi
10. Becker
 

Dan Lobb

G.O.A.T.
For sure Kenny didn't know that the "grass great" Hoad had the incredible ..... 7 pro titles on grass.
And the poor Kenny had the negligible ..... 22 pro titles on grass. :oops:
Facts, Lobb, facts! Not opinions. You are going to be the biggest contender for 2020 trophy.
22 pro titles on grass? What are the dates for those?

Hoad had more than 7 major grass titles.
Two Wimbledon, one Australian, 2 TOC, Kooyong, 2 Memorial, 2 Perth, at least 10.
And all within 1956-59, four seasons only, like Mickey Wright with her four dominant years on the LPGA from 1961 to 1964.

Over that same four season period, Hoad won 10 important grass tournaments, Gonzales won 3 grass tournaments (3 TOC), Rosewall won 3 important grass tournaments (1 U.S., 2 Brisbane).

Last time I looked, 10 > 3, not even close.
 
Last edited:

Ivan69

Hall of Fame
22 pro titles on grass? What are the dates for those?

Hoad had more than 7 major grass titles.
Two Wimbledon, one Australian, 2 TOC, Kooyong, 2 Memorial, 2 Perth, at least 10.
And all within 1956-59, four seasons only, like Mickey Wright with her four dominant years on the LPGA from 1961 to 1964.

Over that same four season period, Hoad won 10 important grass tournaments, Gonzales won 3 grass tournaments (3 TOC), Rosewall won 3 important grass tournaments (1 U.S., 2 Brisbane).

Last time I looked, 10 > 3, not even close.
You even don't read. I wrote "7 pro titles on grass". But here some bad news. TB changed recently the surface of the first 1959 South Australian Pro in Adelaide to hard outdoor. It seems that the surface is the same as the first Sydney and the first Melbourne - wooden boards outdoor.
So, the grass pro titles of Hoad go to 6, out of which 3 are the big titles - Melb 58, Melb 59 and FH 59.
Total grass titles of Hoad are 25.

As usual you have a wrong info about Gonzalez and Rosewall.
Pancho has 8 pro grass titles out of which 5 are the big pro titles. Pancho has 13 total grass titles.
Rosewall has 11 big grass pro titles. Rosewall has 36 total grass titles.
 

Ivan69

Hall of Fame
I pointed out that I was looking at that peak tennis period of 1956-1959....you are straying way outside that period.

Okay, I knew that the first Sydney was on that portable wood court, probably not even held in Sydney at all, but in Newcastle, north of Sydney on the coast,

where the Marks Oval is located. I avoided them in my totals, in case you did not notice.

Now, where do you see 22 pro grass titles for Rosewall? I see only 3 major grass titles for Rosewall in that 1956-1959 era I referred to, the 1956 U.S. title, and

two at Brisbane in 1959. That makes three. The next one comes in 1961 at Sydney. That's outside the peak era for pro tennis, and I see a weak field in

that 1961 event. So I guess you are looking well beyond 1959 for those 22 events. Not interested.

Pancho has three grass titles for that 1956-59 era, the three TOC events. What else do you see? That first Sydney event in 1959 was on wood.

Hoad has the 1956 Australian and Wimbledon, 1957 Wimbledon, 1958 Kooyong TOC, and six major grass titles on the world championship circuit in 1959.

That's a 10 count. It's a no contest. That four year period shows Hoad as dominant on grass as Mickey Wright was in her dominant four year period 1961-1964.
I don't give a damn what period you are "likely" to look. Tennis doesn't start in 1956 and doesn't end in 1959. When you started the theme "the grass great Hoad" you have to take all the pros and cons of the "greatness".
 

Dan Lobb

G.O.A.T.
I don't give a damn what period you are "likely" to look. Tennis doesn't start in 1956 and doesn't end in 1959. When you started the theme "the grass great Hoad" you have to take all the pros and cons of the "greatness".
The period 1956-59 is when the pro field was at its peak of strength, and the only year in which the pro tour held a year long tournament series was 1959, with

the advertised top 8 players in the world in those events. The pro tour never had such strength going forward. In the 1958/1959 seasons, Kramer designated a

series of pro grass majors, three per year, which helps to define the parameters. But I think that I have included all pro grass tournaments here.

Also, a number of players had their best playing period in the late fifties, some of whom faded after 1960. So that is a definable era, which may be the strongest

ever.

So, you have no objection to the numbers above, considering that they refer to that particular 1956-59 period?

If we look only at pro play in that era, and exclude the amateur circuit, we would have Hoad with six pro grass tournament wins, Gonzales with three,

Rosewall with three. (I have awarded the Slazenger Pro to Rosewall for 1958.) Segura gets one in 1957, the White City TOC. Sedgman one in 1958, the Sydney

Masters. Cooper one.

In table form,

1957
Segura (Sydney TOC)
Gonzales (Forest Hills TOC)

1958
Hoad (Kooyong TOC)
Gonzales (Forest Hills TOC)
Sedgman (Sydney Masters)
Rosewall (Slazenger Pro)

1959
Hoad (Memorial Dr., Adelaide), (Perth twice), (Forest Hills TOC), (Qantas Kooyong)
Gonzales (Sydney TOC)
Rosewall (Brisbane twice)
Cooper (Slazenger Pro)
 
Last edited:

Ivan69

Hall of Fame
The period 1956-59 is when the pro field was at its peak of strength, and the only year in which the pro tour held a year long tournament series was 1959, with

the advertised top 8 players in the world in those events. The pro tour never had such strength going forward. In the 1958/1959 seasons, Kramer designated a

series of pro grass majors, three per year, which helps to define the parameters. But I think that I have included all pro grass tournaments here.

Also, a number of players had their best playing period in the late fifties, some of whom faded after 1960. So that is a definable era, which may be the strongest

ever.

So, you have no objection to the numbers above, considering that they refer to that particular 1956-59 period?

If we look only at pro play in that era, and exclude the amateur circuit, we would have Hoad with seven pro grass tournament wins, Gonzales with three,

Rosewall with three. (I have awarded the Slazenger Pro to Rosewall for 1958.) Segura gets one in 1957, the White City TOC. Sedgman one in 1958, the Sydney

Masters. Cooper one.

In table form,

1957
Segura (Sydney TOC)
Gonzales (Forest Hills TOC)

1958
Hoad (Kooyong TOC)
Gonzales (Forest Hills TOC)
Sedgman (Sydney Masters)
Rosewall (Slazenger Pro)

1959
Hoad (Memorial Dr., Adelaide twice), (Perth twice), (Forest Hills TOC), (Qantas Kooyong)
Gonzales (Sydney TOC)
Rosewall (Brisbane twice)
Cooper (Slazenger Pro)
You are free to live in your delusions. Since years we know that you don't like the historical facts.
 

Dan Lobb

G.O.A.T.
You are free to live in your delusions. Since years we know that you don't like the historical facts.
Ivan, could you show us those 22 pro grass titles for Rosewall, it would be interesting to see where they are located.

I believe that I included all grass tournaments above for the 1957-59 period, which was the richest period for pro grass play.
 

Ivan69

Hall of Fame
Ivan, could you show us those 22 pro grass titles for Rosewall, it would be interesting to see where they are located.

I believe that I included all grass tournaments above for the 1957-59 period, which was the richest period for pro grass play.
Finally you need to spend some time for reading. I told you this maybe for a 100th time when you start arguing with the people. Your info is too too limited.
Knowing well of your disrespect to Rosewall his titles or anything else are not really interesting for you.
You know, I am nobody for you but I will tell your biggest mistake in tennis. You are a man of "love or hate" in terms of players. Thus you are not able to assess every player's career objectively and adequately. I don't mind that your idol is Hoad. I do respect him also. But I do mind when you write wrong statements and wrong conclusions.
For your info Rosewall is not my idol. I have grown up with the game of Lendl and Becker.
Be happy! ;)
 

Dan Lobb

G.O.A.T.
Finally you need to spend some time for reading. I told you this maybe for a 100th time when you start arguing with the people. Your info is too too limited.
Knowing well of your disrespect to Rosewall his titles or anything else are not really interesting for you.
You know, I am nobody for you but I will tell your biggest mistake in tennis. You are a man of "love or hate" in terms of players. Thus you are not able to assess every player's career objectively and adequately. I don't mind that your idol is Hoad. I do respect him also. But I do mind when you write wrong statements and wrong conclusions.
For your info Rosewall is not my idol. I have grown up with the game of Lendl and Becker.
Be happy! ;)
Well, you know, Lendl appeals to me also. The Czech composer Rudolf Friml (student and friend of Dvorak) composed the great Canadian musical "Rose Marie",

which put our country on the musical radar of the world. So I am grateful to the great Czech people and their musical genius, and I will always be a fan of Lendl

and Kodes and Drobny (who relieved Lendl of the burden of having to win a Wimbledon championship) and Mandlikova and Navratilova, and the Czech ice

hockey players.

However, I do believe that the late fifties constitutes a distinct era of a group of pros who defined the sport, the strongest field ever assembled.

That makes their tournament structure of special interest.
 
Last edited:

NoMercy

Hall of Fame
The period 1956-59 is when the pro field was at its peak of strength, and the only year in which the pro tour held a year long tournament series was 1959, with

the advertised top 8 players in the world in those events. The pro tour never had such strength going forward. In the 1958/1959 seasons, Kramer designated a

series of pro grass majors, three per year, which helps to define the parameters. But I think that I have included all pro grass tournaments here.

Also, a number of players had their best playing period in the late fifties, some of whom faded after 1960. So that is a definable era, which may be the strongest

ever.

So, you have no objection to the numbers above, considering that they refer to that particular 1956-59 period?

If we look only at pro play in that era, and exclude the amateur circuit, we would have Hoad with seven pro grass tournament wins, Gonzales with three,

Rosewall with three. (I have awarded the Slazenger Pro to Rosewall for 1958.) Segura gets one in 1957, the White City TOC. Sedgman one in 1958, the Sydney

Masters. Cooper one.

In table form,

1957
Segura (Sydney TOC)
Gonzales (Forest Hills TOC)

1958
Hoad (Kooyong TOC)
Gonzales (Forest Hills TOC)
Sedgman (Sydney Masters)
Rosewall (Slazenger Pro)

1959
Hoad (Memorial Dr., Adelaide twice), (Perth twice), (Forest Hills TOC), (Qantas Kooyong)
Gonzales (Sydney TOC)
Rosewall (Brisbane twice)
Cooper (Slazenger Pro)
Only Perth was played on grass during the January/February swing.
And the day of the final King Pancho described Hoad’s performance “the greatest display of power tennis on grass under lights I have ever seen.” The other four events (plus the ONS in Sydney) were played on boards.

PS please remove the Slazenger among the big events. $2,800 total prize money and $420 to the winner are prizes for monks, not for professional tennis players
 

Dan Lobb

G.O.A.T.
Only Perth was played on grass during the January/February swing.
And the day of the final King Pancho described Hoad’s performance “the greatest display of power tennis on grass under lights I have ever seen.” The other four events (plus the ONS in Sydney) were played on boards.

PS please remove the Slazenger among the big events. $2,800 total prize money and $420 to the winner are prizes for monks, not for professional tennis players
I thought that I saw Adelaide in Feb. listed as Memorial. I will recheck.

That's a nice quote from Pancho, do you have a source for that quote?

I only added Slazenger because I thought that by doing so I would thereby be including all of the grass tournaments. But sure, Slazenger was not a major event.

You are right, that money is peanuts.
 

NoMercy

Hall of Fame
I thought that I saw Adelaide in Feb. listed as Memorial. I will recheck.

That's a nice quote from Pancho, do you have a source for that quote?

I only added Slazenger because I thought that by doing so I would thereby be including all of the grass tournaments. But sure, Slazenger was not a major event.

You are right, that money is peanuts.
Adelaide was played at Norwood Oval.
Almost all the Jan/Feb venues were not the usual ones, as per ban versus the pros.
Very few stops let the pros play in the usual locations, one of them was Rockhampton, at Victoria Park.

You can find it in many USA newspapers from 31 Jan, the New York Daily News for example.
 

NoMercy

Hall of Fame
Thanks for that...I found a report in the Singapore paper, but no location.

I do not see any tournaments at Rockhampton for 1959, certainly not for the main tour.

I think that I found the location for "Sydney" in Jan, 1959...it was really Newcastle at Marks Oval, the Marks Oval is in the countryside close to Newcastle.

There is no Marks Oval in Sydney, only a walking park called "Marks Park" which has no seating facilities, unlike Marks Oval at Newcastle.

Now, perhaps the result from Newcastle was REPORTED in a Sydney newspaper, which could be how McCauley understood that Marks Oval was actually in

Sydney...that is my best guess.

So that changes the list. But I think that otherwise I have included above all of the grass tournaments in those three years, right?

And any source for that quote from Gonzales?
Sydney Jan/Feb tournament was played at the Sydney Athletics Field.
Rockhampton was just one stop of the tour, not a tournament. But it was one of the very few classic venue that didn’t ban the pros, another one was Wagga Wagga for example.

I already wrote the source: Nee York Daily Mail. But there are many more, it was just the same AP went over various newspapers.
 

Dan Lobb

G.O.A.T.
Sydney Jan/Feb tournament was played at the Sydney Athletics Field.
Rockhampton was just one stop of the tour, not a tournament. But it was one of the very few classic venue that didn’t ban the pros, another one was Wagga Wagga for example.

I already wrote the source: Nee York Daily Mail. But there are many more, it was just the same AP went over various newspapers.
Thanks for this, good stuff. I wonder then how McCauley reported "Marks Oval"? The Marks Oval is not even in Sydney, a long way away, so this is strange.

But McCauley has some odd reports.

New York Daily Mail for Feb. 15? Sounds good.
 

NoMercy

Hall of Fame
Thanks for this, good stuff. I wonder then how McCauley reported "Marks Oval"? The Marks Oval is not even in Sydney, a long way away, so this is strange.

But McCauley has some odd reports.

New York Daily Mail for Feb. 15? Sounds good.
Because the other name is Marks Athletics Field. It’s in Kensington, 4 miles south to downtown Sydney.

New York Daily Mail, 31 Jan.
 

Dan Lobb

G.O.A.T.
The period 1956-59 is when the pro field was at its peak of strength, and the only year in which the pro tour held a year long tournament series was 1959, with

the advertised top 8 players in the world in those events. The pro tour never had such strength going forward. In the 1958/1959 seasons, Kramer designated a

series of pro grass majors, three per year, which helps to define the parameters. But I think that I have included all pro grass tournaments here.

Also, a number of players had their best playing period in the late fifties, some of whom faded after 1960. So that is a definable era, which may be the strongest

ever.

So, you have no objection to the numbers above, considering that they refer to that particular 1956-59 period?

If we look only at pro play in that era, and exclude the amateur circuit, we would have Hoad with six pro grass tournament wins, Gonzales with three,

Rosewall with three. (I have awarded the Slazenger Pro to Rosewall for 1958.) Segura gets one in 1957, the White City TOC. Sedgman one in 1958, the Sydney

Masters. Cooper one.

In table form,

1957
Segura (Sydney TOC)
Gonzales (Forest Hills TOC)

1958
Hoad (Kooyong TOC)
Gonzales (Forest Hills TOC)
Sedgman (Sydney Masters)
Rosewall (Slazenger Pro)

1959
Hoad (Memorial Dr., Adelaide), (Perth twice), (Forest Hills TOC), (Qantas Kooyong)
Gonzales (Sydney TOC)
Rosewall (Brisbane twice)
Cooper (Slazenger Pro)
Revised list, major grass wins, late fifties era, world Top 8 players.

1957
Segura (Sydney TOC)
Gonzales (Forest Hills TOC)

1958
Hoad (Kooyong TOC)
Sedgman (Sydney Masters)
Gonzales (Forest Hills TOC)

1959
Hoad (Perth twice) (Adelaide, Memorial Dr./ December) (Forest Hills TOC) (Qantas Kooyong)
Gonzales (Sydney TOC)
Rosewall (Brisbane twice)

Totals:
Hoad 6
Gonzales 3
Rosewall 2
Sedgman 1
Segura 1

Conclusion: Top grass player of late fifties was Hoad.
 

NoMercy

Hall of Fame
Revised list, major grass wins, late fifties era, world Top 8 players.

1957
Segura (Sydney TOC)
Gonzales (Forest Hills TOC)

1958
Hoad (Kooyong TOC)
Sedgman (Sydney Masters)
Gonzales (Forest Hills TOC)

1959
Hoad (Perth twice) (Adelaide, Memorial Dr./ December) (Forest Hills TOC) (Qantas Kooyong)
Gonzales (Sydney TOC)
Rosewall (Brisbane twice)

Totals:
Hoad 6
Gonzales 3
Rosewall 2
Sedgman 1
Segura 1

Conclusion: Top grass player of late fifties was Hoad.
Again, only Perth was played on grass in Jan/Feb swing. That means also NO Brisbane
 

Dan Lobb

G.O.A.T.
Again, only Perth was played on grass in Jan/Feb swing. That means also NO Brisbane
Right you are...so here is the re-revised list.

1957
Segura (White City TOC)
Gonzales (Forest Hills TOC)

1958
Hoad (Kooyong TOC)
Sedgman (White City Masters)
Gonzales (Forest Hills TOC)

1959
Hoad (Perth twice) (Adelaide Memorial Drive/November) (Forest Hills TOC) (Qantas Kooyong)
Gonzales (White City TOC)
Rosewall (Brisbane)

Totals:
Hoad: 6
Gonzales: 3
Sedgman: 1
Segura: 1
Rosewall: 1

Conclusion: Top grass player of the late fifties was Hoad.
 

Ivan69

Hall of Fame
Right you are...so here is the re-revised list.

1957
Segura (White City TOC)
Gonzales (Forest Hills TOC)

1958
Hoad (Kooyong TOC)
Sedgman (White City Masters)
Gonzales (Forest Hills TOC)

1959
Hoad (Perth twice) (Adelaide Memorial Drive/November) (Forest Hills TOC) (Qantas Kooyong)
Gonzales (White City TOC)
Rosewall (Brisbane)

Totals:
Hoad: 6
Gonzales: 3
Sedgman: 1
Segura: 1
Rosewall: 1

Conclusion: Top grass player of the late fifties was Hoad.
Adelaide and both Perth were not even close to Sydney, Melbourne, Brisbane and FH. If you consider the top grass tournaments of the late 50s these 4 are the top.
 
Top