Wimbledon 1974 - Rosewall's draw from hell

[NedStark]

Just run through Wimbledon 1974 wikipedia page, I notice that 39-year-old Rosewall's draw was absolutely bonker.

4R: young big-serving Tanner, who upsetted Seed No.8 Ashe in 3R
QF: Newcombe, Seed No.1, US Open and WTC winner, undefeated on Wimbledon grass since 1970. Newk torched Rosewall in 1973 US Open in their most recent meeting.
SF: Smith, Seed No.4, Nottingham winner (giving Connors a bagel in final), undefeated on Wimbledon grass since 1972.
F: Connors, Seed No.3. We all know what happened.

The fact that Rosewall defied expectations, went through the toughest Wimbledon draw you can get between 1974 and 1979, and reached the final made his run even more impressive.

 

[AnOctorokForDinner]

Dangerous server (future WB finalist) + two quasi-defending champions is super tough. No wonder Rosewall had nothing left in the tank for the bulldozer that was peak Connors.

 

[NedStark]

Dangerous server (future WB finalist) + two quasi-defending champions is super tough. No wonder Rosewall had nothing left in the tank for the bulldozer that was peak Connors.

And both quasi-defending champions came into the tournament with good results, especially Newk.

 

[buscemi]

I'd also add Amritraj in the second round as part of the draw from hell. In the four biggest grass court tournaments of 1973-1974, his results were:

1973 Wimbledon: Lost in the QF to eventual champion Kodes, 7-5 in the fifth set
1973 U.S. Open: Beat Laver in the third round before ultimately losing to Rosewall in the QF
1974 Wimbledon: Straight setted Lutz (a solid player) in the first round before losing to Rosewall in the second round
1974 U.S. Open: Beat Borg in the second round and straight setted #11 seed Riessen in the fourth round before losing to Rosewall in the QF

Damn, Amritraj must have hated Rosewall after those three losses.

 

[thrust]

I'd also add Amritraj in the second round as part of the draw from hell. In the four biggest grass court tournaments of 1973-1974, his results were:

1973 Wimbledon: Lost in the QF to eventual champion Kodes, 7-5 in the fifth set
1973 U.S. Open: Beat Laver in the third round before ultimately losing to Rosewall in the QF
1974 Wimbledon: Straight setted Lutz (a solid player) in the first round before losing to Rosewall in the second round
1974 U.S. Open: Beat Borg in the second round and straight setted #11 seed Riessen in the fourth round before losing to Rosewall in the QF

Damn, Amritraj must have hated Rosewall after those three losses.

I saw Rosewall beat Amritraj one year at Forest Hills. There is a story that Gonzalez was helping VJ as a part time coach. The first time VJ was to play Rosewall at Forest Hills Pancho told him repeatedly, do NOT serve to Ken's backhand. Having played Ken well over 100 times, Pancho knew every inch of Ken's game. In his first serving game, VJ perhaps seeing this little old guy across the net probably thought the old guy would not return his serves very well. He then proceeded to serve to Ken's backhand, losing the game easily. Pancho was so mad that he left the stadium disgusted. When VJ asked someone in the locker room after the match where Pancho was, he was told Pancho was flying back to Los Angeles.

 

[Mustard]

It's amazing that Rosewall beat Newcombe at 1974 Wimbledon, coming 3 years after Newcombe's 6-1, 6-1, 6-3 massacre of Rosewall in the 1971 Wimbledon semi final. Newcombe was getting annoyed that a match against Connors kept eluding him in 1974.

 

[thrust]

It's amazing that Rosewall beat Newcombe at 1974 Wimbledon, coming 3 years after Newcombe's 6-1, 6-1, 6-3 massacre of Rosewall in the 1971 Wimbledon semi final. Newcombe was getting annoyed that a match against Connors kept eluding him in 1974.

Ken went into that match with Newcombe having played a long 5 set match against Cliff Richey, who like his sister Nancy, had a very strong baseline game, hitting the ball hard and flat. In that neither had strong serves, there were many long rallies. Ken beat Newcombe in the 74 Wimbledon and USO semis. Jimmy Connors was Ken's killer in 74, as he could beat anyone else that year but Jimmy. Newcombe went on to beat Jimmy in the finals of the 75 AO, just a few months after he lost to Rosewall in the 74 USO semifinal.

 

[NedStark]

Ken went into that match with Newcombe having played a long 5 set match against Cliff Richey, who like his sister Nancy, had a very strong baseline game, hitting the ball hard and flat. In that neither had strong serves, there were many long rallies. Ken beat Newcombe in the 74 Wimbledon and USO semis. Jimmy Connors was Ken's killer in 74, as he could beat anyone else that year but Jimmy. Newcombe went on to beat Jimmy in the finals of the 75 AO, just a few months after he lost to Rosewall in the 74 USO semifinal.

It's amazing that Rosewall beat Newcombe at 1974 Wimbledon, coming 3 years after Newcombe's 6-1, 6-1, 6-3 massacre of Rosewall in the 1971 Wimbledon semi final. Newcombe was getting annoyed that a match against Connors kept eluding him in 1974.

More recently, Newk also straight-setted Ken in US Open 1973 SF. And Ken reached that SF without dropping a set.

 

[NedStark]

It's amazing that Rosewall beat Newcombe at 1974 Wimbledon, coming 3 years after Newcombe's 6-1, 6-1, 6-3 massacre of Rosewall in the 1971 Wimbledon semi final. Newcombe was getting annoyed that a match against Connors kept eluding him in 1974.

Ironically, if there is anyone who could be the first to beat that Connors, it would be Newk (well, it was also the case in real life). He actually played Jimbo not long ago in Slam, and he knew to beat him while it took the rest of the tour a year to find a way to beat Connors.

As for Ken, Connors was simply a horrible matchup for the old veteran due to his vicious return - against Ken's feeble serve.

 

[Dan Lobb]

Ironically, if there is anyone who could be the first to beat that Connors, it would be Newk (well, it was also the case in real life). He actually played Jimbo not long ago in Slam, and he knew to beat him while it took the rest of the tour a year to find a way to beat Connors.

As for Ken, Connors was simply a horrible matchup for the old veteran due to his vicious return - against Ken's feeble serve.

There was a slight difference in years, also, Ken was almost 40, Connors 21.

Ken had to play a much tougher lineup to reach the final than Connors did.

Actually, Newk defeated Ken in that 1971 Wimbledon by a much more decisive margin than Connors achieved in the 1974 final.
And Ken was emerging from tough matches against Smith and Newcombe.
Newcombe and Smith had given their best in the demanding WCT series, whereas Connors and Rosewall had skipped the big tour and rested their bodies.

 

[Dan Lobb]

And both quasi-defending champions came into the tournament with good results, especially Newk.

And were over-tennised from the WCT circuit.

 

[abmk]

Great effort from Rosewall going through that draw at 39-40.

But Newk putting in too much focus/energy on the WCT circuit was a factor as well.
He had thrashed Rosewall in Wim 71 and beaten him comfortably in USO 73 (their last 2 encounters on grass)

 

[WCT]

I forgot that he beat Newcombe at both Wimbledon and the US Open in 1974. Very impressive. We can speculate all day on what would have happened if Connors had to play Newcombe, but I sure don't think he would have beaten him the way he did Rosewall. So, Rosewall did him a favor. But you could say that for countless players in countless draws. You can only play who is left in the draw to play.

Rosewall was still winning tournaments several years later. Amazing longevity.

 

[CHillTennis]

Just run through Wimbledon 1974 wikipedia page, I notice that 39-year-old Rosewall's draw was absolutely bonker.

4R: young big-serving Tanner, who upsetted Seed No.8 Ashe in 3R
QF: Newcombe, Seed No.1, US Open and WTC winner, undefeated on Wimbledon grass since 1970. Newk torched Rosewall in 1973 US Open in their most recent meeting.
SF: Smith, Seed No.4, Nottingham winner (giving Connors a bagel in final), undefeated on Wimbledon grass since 1972.
F: Connors, Seed No.3. We all know what happened.

The fact that Rosewall defied expectations, went through the toughest Wimbledon draw you can get between 1974 and 1979, and reached the final made his run even more impressive.

Yeah, that's brutal. I agree.

 

[jrepac]

I forgot that he beat Newcombe at both Wimbledon and the US Open in 1974. Very impressive. We can speculate all day on what would have happened if Connors had to play Newcombe, but I sure don't think he would have beaten him the way he did Rosewall. So, Rosewall did him a favor. But you could say that for countless players in countless draws. You can only play who is left in the draw to play.

Rosewall was still winning tournaments several years later. Amazing longevity.

he played for a LONG time...Jimmy was just a very bad matchup for him...that USO final was brutal

 

[Dan Lobb]

he played for a LONG time...Jimmy was just a very bad matchup for him...that USO final was brutal

Rosewall had a good win over Connors in 1973 and pushed him hard in 1977 in Australia. I could see Rosewall winning his share of matches against Connors if they were both in the same age bracket.

 

[buscemi]

Rosewall had a good win over Connors in 1973 and pushed him hard in 1977 in Australia. I could see Rosewall winning his share of matches against Connors if they were both in the same age bracket.

1973 or 1972 (in Los Angeles)? And I guess he pushed him a bit in 1977 in Australia, but it was still a straight set win, 7-5, 6-4, 6-2.

 

[Dan Lobb]

1973 or 1972 (in Los Angeles)? And I guess he pushed him a bit in 1977 in Australia, but it was still a straight set win, 7-5, 6-4, 6-2.

I watched that 1977 match live on television, and the play was very close. On a normal day Rosewall wins that match but Connors was pumped that day, as he usually was against the old Rosewall.

If they were in the same age bracket I would expect Rosewall to win a good share of their matches.

Connors later had the same trouble with Lendl that Rosewall had with Connors, and there was only an 8 year difference between Connors and Lendl.

 

[WCT]

I watched that 1977 match live on television, and the play was very close. On a normal day Rosewall wins that match but Connors was pumped that day, as he usually was against the old Rosewall.

If they were in the same age bracket I would expect Rosewall to win a good share of their matches.

Connors later had the same trouble with Lendl that Rosewall had with Connors, and there was only an 8 year difference between Connors and Lendl.

Connors beat him 7 times and 6 were badly. And he beat him on all 4 surfaces. At that point, Connors was indeed a very bad matchup for him. But none of those victories came until Rosewall was 39 1/2 plus years old. This Connors fan strongly suspects that if he was playing a 29 year old Rosewall that we would not be seeing the same results. Nothing close to them.

 

[Dan Lobb]

Connors beat him 7 times and 6 were badly. And he beat him on all 4 surfaces. At that point, Connors was indeed a very bad matchup for him. But none of those victories came until Rosewall was 39 1/2 plus years old. This Connors fan strongly suspects that if he was playing a 29 year old Rosewall that we would not be seeing the same results. Nothing close to them.

Agree. If Rosewall was in absolute prime late 1950s early 1960s about 1959-63 Rosewall age 24-29 would win a good share of matches against Connors.

 

[jrepac]

Rosewall had a good win over Connors in 1973 and pushed him hard in 1977 in Australia. I could see Rosewall winning his share of matches against Connors if they were both in the same age bracket.

"Age is a cruel mistress"
A bit of karma bit Jimmy on the butt in the '91 US semis as well

 

[jrepac]

I watched that 1977 match live on television, and the play was very close. On a normal day Rosewall wins that match but Connors was pumped that day, as he usually was against the old Rosewall.

If they were in the same age bracket I would expect Rosewall to win a good share of their matches.

Connors later had the same trouble with Lendl that Rosewall had with Connors, and there was only an 8 year difference between Connors and Lendl.

From what I've seen of the Rosewall Connors match, I don't think it's that comparable to Lendl Connors from '85 on. Jimmy was older, but in most cases it was less about getting blown off the court (like Rosewall was) and more about Lendl playing rope-a-dope, slicing him to death and being much more consistent. Still, the age gap never helps when you are in your mid-30s and the other guy in his 20's, no question. In his 30's, I think Jimmy was better off playing S&V guys actually as his return was still quite potent and points much shorter. He usually played Becker quite tightly (but no wins), had a very good record against Edberg and still pulled off a couple wins vs. Mac

 

[Dan Lobb]

From what I've seen of the Rosewall Connors match, I don't think it's that comparable to Lendl Connors from '85 on. Jimmy was older, but in most cases it was less about getting blown off the court (like Rosewall was) and more about Lendl playing rope-a-dope, slicing him to death and being much more consistent. Still, the age gap never helps when you are in your mid-30s and the other guy in his 20's, no question. In his 30's, I think Jimmy was better off playing S&V guys actually as his return was still quite potent and points much shorter. He usually played Becker quite tightly (but no wins), had a very good record against Edberg and still pulled off a couple wins vs. Mac

I think that Connors was at his best on hard rubber surfaces.

 

[NedStark]

Agree. If Rosewall was in absolute prime late 1950s early 1960s about 1959-63 Rosewall age 24-29 would win a good share of matches against Connors.

Rosewall had a crappy serve and happened to play a heavy serve-and-volley game (although not a full-blown serve-and-volleyer like Laver or Gonzales). Connors would have racked up return winners for fun.

Unlike Rosewall's one-hander contemporary rivals who tended to chip back his serves, Connors simply blasted them for winners.

 

[Dan Lobb]

Rosewall had a crappy serve and happened to play a heavy serve-and-volley game (although not a full-blown serve-and-volleyer like Laver or Gonzales). Connors would have racked up return winners for fun.

Unlike Rosewall's one-hander contemporary rivals who tended to chip back his serves, Connors simply blasted them for winners.

Rosewall faced tough competition in his own era from Gonzales and Hoad, both of whom had the edge on him, although Rosewall seemed to have the edge on others. Trabert won some big matches against Rosewall, and really hammered him at Roland Garros in 1959. Rosewall did not dominate the scene until these players had passed their prime.

Rosewall only played a relative handful of matches against Connors, and even those were when Rosewall was about 40 years old, Tough to draw any conclusions from that.

 

[abmk]

Rosewall faced tough competition in his own era from Gonzales and Hoad, both of whom had the edge on him, although Rosewall seemed to have the edge on others. Trabert won some big matches against Rosewall, and really hammered him at Roland Garros in 1959. Rosewall did not dominate the scene until these players had passed their prime.

Rosewall only played a relative handful of matches against Connors, and even those were when Rosewall was about 40 years old, Tough to draw any conclusions from that.

Rosewall had the edge on Hoad.
(the h2h stats from TennisBase)

in the amateurs, from 51 to 56 : Hoad lead Rosewall 13-7
in the pros :
57 - Rosewall lead Hoad 16-15
58 - Rosewall lead Hoad 10-2 (major part of this was due to Hoad's injury problems)
59 - Tied 8 all in h2h
60 - Tied 4 all in the h2h

So in the pros , from 57-60, Rosewall lead 38-29. Basically neck to neck in every year apart from 58 (which was really due to injuries)

So by the end of 1960, the h2h was 45-42 in favour of Rosewall.


After that, Hoad was affected by injuries and declined considerably. From then on, it was 33-3 in favour of Rosewall to make it 78-45 finally.


Combining from 57-61 (these 2 pro champs , the FH ToC in 57,58,59 and Sydney ToC 57, 59 & Melbourne ToC in 58) (Edit : Corrected)

Rosewall with 6 wins
Hoad with 2 wins

h2h : Rosewall leads 5-2

Rosewall is such a clear leader. Tells the story of 57-61 b/w Rosewall and Hoad.

 

[Dan Lobb]

Rosewall had the edge on Hoad.
(the h2h stats from TennisBase)

in the amateurs, from 51 to 56 : Hoad lead Rosewall 13-7
in the pros :
57 - Rosewall lead Hoad 16-15
58 - Rosewall lead Hoad 10-2 (major part of this was due to Hoad's injury problems)
59 - Tied 8 all in h2h
60 - Tied 4 all in the h2h

So in the pros , from 57-60, Rosewall lead 38-29. Basically neck to neck in every year apart from 58 (which was really due to injuries)

So by the end of 1960, the h2h was 45-42 in favour of Rosewall.


After that, Hoad was affected by injuries and declined considerably. From then on, it was 33-3 in favour of Rosewall to make it 78-45 finally.


Combining from 57-61 (these 2 pro champs , the FH ToC in 57,58,59 and Sydney ToC 57, 59 & Melbourne ToC in 58) (Edit : Corrected)

Rosewall with 6 wins
Hoad with 2 wins

h2h : Rosewall leads 5-2

Rosewall is such a clear leader. Tells the story of 57-61 b/w Rosewall and Hoad.

Hoad had a better record than Rosewall in the world championship tours, which were much more important than the minor events.

In the 1957 world championship tour, Rosewall was 26-50 , just a few months later Hoad was 36-51.

In the 1959 world pro tour Hoad was 42-20 including 15-13 against Gonzales, a few months later Rosewall was 32-25 in the world pro tour including 4-20 against Gonzales.

In the 1959 world championship tournament series, Rosewall finished in 3rd place and had 2 wins over Hoad in the series, Hoad finished in 1st place and had 6 wins over Rosewall.

Rosewall and Hoad both withdrew from the 1961 world pro tour.

 

[Dan Lobb]

Rosewall had the edge on Hoad.
(the h2h stats from TennisBase)

in the amateurs, from 51 to 56 : Hoad lead Rosewall 13-7
in the pros :
57 - Rosewall lead Hoad 16-15
58 - Rosewall lead Hoad 10-2 (major part of this was due to Hoad's injury problems)
59 - Tied 8 all in h2h
60 - Tied 4 all in the h2h

So in the pros , from 57-60, Rosewall lead 38-29. Basically neck to neck in every year apart from 58 (which was really due to injuries)

So by the end of 1960, the h2h was 45-42 in favour of Rosewall.


After that, Hoad was affected by injuries and declined considerably. From then on, it was 33-3 in favour of Rosewall to make it 78-45 finally.


Combining from 57-61 (these 2 pro champs , the FH ToC in 57,58,59 and Sydney ToC 57, 59 & Melbourne ToC in 58) (Edit : Corrected)

Rosewall with 6 wins
Hoad with 2 wins

h2h : Rosewall leads 5-2

Rosewall is such a clear leader. Tells the story of 57-61 b/w Rosewall and Hoad.

In 1957, Hoad led Rosewall 16-15 on the world 4-man tour, which was not a major tour.

In terms of rankings, Hoad was ranked ahead of Rosewall in most years.

Hoad ranked No. 1 in 1953, 1956, and 1959. Rosewall had some No. 1 rankings in 1960 and 1961, although Hoad was ranked No. 2 behind Gonzales in 1958 and 1960. For 1957 Hoad was ranked No. 3 but ahead of Rosewall by Quist. Hoad also had No. 1 rankings in 1961 and 1962.
Rosewall ranked himself No. 1 for 1962, which is not usually counted as a bona fide ranking.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Top_ten_ranked_male_tennis_players_(1912%E2%80%931972)

 

[Dan Lobb]

From what I've seen of the Rosewall Connors match, I don't think it's that comparable to Lendl Connors from '85 on. Jimmy was older, but in most cases it was less about getting blown off the court (like Rosewall was) and more about Lendl playing rope-a-dope, slicing him to death and being much more consistent. Still, the age gap never helps when you are in your mid-30s and the other guy in his 20's, no question. In his 30's, I think Jimmy was better off playing S&V guys actually as his return was still quite potent and points much shorter. He usually played Becker quite tightly (but no wins), had a very good record against Edberg and still pulled off a couple wins vs. Mac

No, I watched the match live on TV and Rosewall pushed Connors hard in every game, it looked like the outcome was in doubt.

 

[abmk]

In 1957, Hoad led Rosewall 16-15 on the world 4-man tour, which was not a major tour.

In terms of rankings, Hoad was ranked ahead of Rosewall in most years.

Hoad ranked No. 1 in 1953, 1956, and 1959. Rosewall had some No. 1 rankings in 1960 and 1961, although Hoad was ranked No. 2 behind Gonzales in 1958 and 1960. For 1957 Hoad was ranked No. 3 but ahead of Rosewall by Quist. Hoad also had No. 1 rankings in 1961 and 1962.
Rosewall ranked himself No. 1 for 1962, which is not usually counted as a bona fide ranking.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Top_ten_ranked_male_tennis_players_(1912%E2%80%931972)

nope, Rosewall was better than Hoad in 53-55, 57, 60-68.
Hoad was only better in 56,58,59.

only a laughable evaluation can think Hoad was anywhere near #1 in 53.
Hoad was #1 in amateurs in 56, but Gonzales #1 for the year in reality

delusional to say Hoad was #2 in 60. Gonzales won the world tour and Rosewall won the 2 important pro slams.

Hoad being #50 in 61 and 62 is just as accurate as him being #1 in either of those years - aka a laughable joke.
Rosewall was much better than Hoad in both 61 and 62.

OFF Court with Jack kramer posted by @krosero

In 1959, he played the then pro king, Gonzales, seven times in tournaments and beat him on five occasions. Despite these fine victories Rosewall was never given the credit he deserved, particularly after he lost the 1960 world’s tour. Tennis fans looked upon Hoad and Gonzales as the top players, with Ken a far-distant third. Along with his lack of size, Rosewall was plagued by a comparatively weak serve and some forehand problems when he joined the professional ranks. He has now developed a very adequate serve. It is not an overpowering delivery, but with it he can exploit any weakness an opponent may have, and because of his amazing quickness and volleying skill, he is able to rush the net with the best of them.

Today there is no disputing the little master’s greatness. He has consistently proved himself throughout 1961 and ’62 to be top class of the field.

He has never shown a dislike for money; a trait which he might have picked up from the original thrift merchant among the pros, the Melbourne Midas, Frank Sedgman. While Sedgman and Rosewall don’t quite have a corner on the money market, they are giving it a good try.

As can be expected in the circumstances, the bigger the stake, the taller and tougher Rosewall seems to get. For example, look at his record in the big professional tournaments for all the leading players competing since 1958. The Paris Hard Courts: 1958, Rosewall; 1959, Trabert; 1960, Rosewall; 1961, Rosewall; 1962, Rosewall. Wembley Indoors: 1958, Sedgman; 1959, Mal Anderson; 1960, Rosewall; 1961, Rosewall; 1962, Rosewall.

Silenced For All Time

It is interesting to note that while Gonzalez was getting all the plaudits as the king of the pros, he was not able to win one of the big prize money events during this period. This year, of course, he is in retirement. On top of this, Rosewall has silenced for all time those who felt that Hoad was the better player of the two. Ken has “owned” Hoad during ’60, ’61 and ’62. And don’t think for one moment that Hoad is not trying to beat his countryman when they clash.

 

[abmk]

Hoad had a better record than Rosewall in the world championship tours, which were much more important than the minor events.

In the 1957 world championship tour, Rosewall was 26-50 , just a few months later Hoad was 36-51.

In the 1959 world pro tour Hoad was 42-20 including 15-13 against Gonzales, a few months later Rosewall was 32-25 in the world pro tour including 4-20 against Gonzales.

In the 1959 world championship tournament series, Rosewall finished in 3rd place and had 2 wins over Hoad in the series, Hoad finished in 1st place and had 6 wins over Rosewall.

Rosewall and Hoad both withdrew from the 1961 world pro tour.

more misleading BS.

1. French Pro and Wembley Pro with top players were major events, not minor ones. US pro less important than these 2.

2. Skipping that Rosewall won the 63 world pro tour

3. Rosewall didn't play in the 61 world pro tour. Hoad did play, but had injury, so couldn't finish. Not the same thing.
And in 61 French Pro and Wembley Pro had all the top guys playing.

4. My point was about h2h between Hoad and Rosewall anyways. Hoad had the edge in amateurs. Rosewall slight edge in pros from 57-60 and a massive edge afterwards.

5. If we stick to 57-60 only in the pros vs the field, Rosewall was better in 57 and 60. Hoad better in 58 & 59. I'll give Hoad the edge due to being better vs Gonzales. But afterwards 61-68, its a complete blowout in favour of Rosewall.

 

[thrust]

more misleading BS.

1. French Pro and Wembley Pro with top players were major events, not minor ones. US pro less important than these 2.

2. Skipping that Rosewall won the 63 world pro tour

3. Rosewall didn't play in the 61 world pro tour. Hoad did play, but had injury, so couldn't finish. Not the same thing.
And in 61 French Pro and Wembley Pro had all the top guys playing.

4. My point was about h2h between Hoad and Rosewall anyways. Hoad had the edge in amateurs. Rosewall slight edge in pros from 57-60 and a massive edge afterwards.

5. If we stick to 57-60 only in the pros vs the field, Rosewall was better in 57 and 60. Hoad better in 58 & 59. I'll give Hoad the edge due to being better vs Gonzales. But afterwards 61-68, its a complete blowout in favour of Rosewall.

TRUE! IMO, Ken"s main problem with rankings, was that his game was not as flashy or powerful as Lew's or Pancho's which led fans and jealous players to underrate his accomplishments. There was always the excuse that whenever Ken beat Lew it was because Lew was injured, even though in those 5 pro major finals they played, Lew was able to beat every one but Ken.

 

[MissileBackHand99]

OFF Court with Jack kramer posted by @krosero

Such a GREAT article. Rosewall is not only ridiculously underrated by the casual and newer tennis fans of the last 15-20 yrs...he was also underrated during his prime years as well

 

[thrust]

Such a GREAT article. Rosewall is not only ridiculously underrated by the casual and newer tennis fans of the last 15-20 yrs...he was also underrated during his prime years as well

INDEED!

 

[Dan Lobb]

nope, Rosewall was better than Hoad in 53-55, 57, 60-68.
Hoad was only better in 56,58,59.

only a laughable evaluation can think Hoad was anywhere near #1 in 53.
Hoad was #1 in amateurs in 56, but Gonzales #1 for the year in reality

delusional to say Hoad was #2 in 60. Gonzales won the world tour and Rosewall won the 2 important pro slams.

Hoad being #50 in 61 and 62 is just as accurate as him being #1 in either of those years - aka a laughable joke.
Rosewall was much better than Hoad in both 61 and 62.

OFF Court with Jack kramer posted by @krosero

Your post is riddled with errors, you obviously like incomplete reports.

Kramer was trying to promote the pro tour in early sixties, so his memory conveniently failed him on those numbers. Rosewall was 6-5 against Gonzales in 1959. Rosewall was 3-1 against Gonzales in the world championship series, but Gonzales still finished No. 2 ahead of Rosewall at No. 3.

The contemporary ranking authorities placed Hoad at #1 for 1953 for good reasons, Hoad was 6-0 over Rosewal for that year.

Here again is the list of rankings for 1953, compiled by the best observers of the day.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Top_ten_ranked_male_tennis_players_(1912%E2%80%931972)

Check the Hoad bio on Wiki for the sources of other years rankings, Hoad was ranked #1 in 1953 (Phillipe Chatrier, Noel Brown), 1956 (Tingay, Potter), 1959 (official ranking on Kramer's points system), 1961 (Mulloy), 1962 (UPI poll).

You seem to lack any support for your claims, so I cannot give you much credit for those.

And, no, the world championship tours and tournament series were the most lucrative and important events by far. Simple numbers of dollars prove that.

 

[thrust]

Your post is riddled with errors, you obviously like incomplete reports.

Kramer was trying to promote the pro tour in early sixties, so his memory conveniently failed him on those numbers. Rosewall was 6-5 against Gonzales in 1959. Rosewall was 3-1 against Gonzales in the world championship series, but Gonzales still finished No. 2 ahead of Rosewall at No. 3.

The contemporary ranking authorities placed Hoad at #1 for 1953 for good reasons, Hoad was 6-0 over Rosewal for that year.

Here again is the list of rankings for 1953, compiled by the best observers of the day.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Top_ten_ranked_male_tennis_players_(1912%E2%80%931972)

Check the Hoad bio on Wiki for the sources of other years rankings, Hoad was ranked #1 in 1953 (Phillipe Chatrier, Noel Brown), 1956 (Tingay, Potter, 1959 (official ranking on Kramer's points system), 1961 (Mulloy), 1962 (UPI poll).

You seem to lack any support for your claims, so I cannot give you much credit for those.

And, no, the world championship tours and tournament series were the most lucrative and important events by far. Simple numbers of dollars prove that.

Today, I think that most players would prefer to have won 2 slams in a year than a good H-H vs one player. Rosewall should been the #1 ranked amateur player in 53.

 

[Dan Lobb]

Today, I think that most players would prefer to have won 2 slams in a year than a good H-H vs one player. Rosewall should been the #1 ranked amateur player in 53.

Rosewall was ranked world #1 for 1953 by Noel Brown (a member of the U.S. Davis Cup team) in World Tennis magazine published in November 1953. However, after the end of December when the Davis Cup results were completed, Noel Brown revised his 1953 rankings and ranked Hoad #1. As a result, none of the 1953 ranking authorities had Rosewall at #1, partly because of the weak fields in the Australian and French championships that season.

Tingay ranked Rosewall at #2 behind Trabert at #1 in September after the U.S. Championships were over. However, Tingay later stated that Hoad had "played so well during the Australian season that his status as best in the world [for 1953] was axiomatic."

Art Larsen ranked Hoad at #1 in the world for 1953 for both amateur and professional combined, ahead of Sedgman and Gonzales.
Larsen played against all three players, so his opinion carries some weight.

 

[abmk]

Your post is riddled with errors, you obviously like incomplete reports.

Kramer was trying to promote the pro tour in early sixties, so his memory conveniently failed him on those numbers. Rosewall was 6-5 against Gonzales in 1959. Rosewall was 3-1 against Gonzales in the world championship series, but Gonzales still finished No. 2 ahead of Rosewall at No. 3.

Kramer talked about tournament play between Rosewall & Gonzales in 59. not overall h2h or world series specifically.
Rosewall also lead Gonzales in the h2h in 61.

The contemporary ranking authorities placed Hoad at #1 for 1953 for good reasons, Hoad was 6-0 over Rosewal for that year.

Rosewall won 2 amateur slams to zero for Hoad in 53. The ranking of Hoad over Rosewall by some in 53 is mainly based on Davis Cup.
In any case Hoad was not #1 for the year. Best players were in the pros

Here again is the list of rankings for 1953, compiled by the best observers of the day.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Top_ten_ranked_male_tennis_players_(1912%E2%80%931972)

Only for amateurs in 53. Not including the pros.

Check the Hoad bio on Wiki for the sources of other years rankings, Hoad was ranked #1 in 1953 (Phillipe Chatrier, Noel Brown), 1956 (Tingay, Potter, 1959 (official ranking on Kramer's points system), 1961 (Mulloy), 1962 (UPI poll).

You seem to lack any support for your claims, so I cannot give you much credit for those.

53 - addressed above
56 - #1 for amateurs only
59 - yes, obviously

61 - These are facts. Rosewall won French Pro, Wembley Pro in 61. Gonzales won world series. The 3 most important in 61.
They were #1 and #2. Hoad was #3.
LEquipe has Rosewall as #1 in 61, Gonzales as #2, Hoad as #3, rightfully so.

Mullloy's statement was in July 61 when he regarded Hoad as better than Gonzales and Rosewall. Not a year end ranking.
Rosewall won French Pro and Wembley Pro in Sept. 61 including beating Gonzales and Hoad in those so stop with lies and twisting.

62 - calling Hoad as even close to Rosewall is a joke.
Rosewall won French Pro and Wembley Pro
and many other tournaments
Hoad nothing in comparision.
some hacky sack UPI poll based on clueless people (general sports editors who didn't have a proper idea of pro tennis in 62) doesn't mean much.

And, no, the world championship tours and tournament series were the most lucrative and important events by far. Simple numbers of dollars prove that.

ah, yes, the Lobb fantasy land with math of 5*3 = 779
Just because your boy Hoad was bad in winning pro majors in comparision to Rosewall and Gonzales doesn't mean reality changes.

 

[abmk]

For some more hammering of Dan Lobb's lies about about 60, 61.

Kooyong was last event of 1959.
Last event of 1959 Ampol Tour.
So 1960 season starts after that.

Ken won the biggest three matches (where peak play is required) plus San Francisco.
Hoad won Santa Barbara (small tournament) and Tokyo. Geneva was not a tournament, just a two stands stop in the European Tour.
Ken won 6-1 his Japan series vs Hoad in November 1960.

In 1961 Hoad won the GB series 6-4 but before retiring in the WS was down 2-6 vs Pancho.
He won the SF in Wembley but lost the final to Ken. Peak play is required in final too, not just in the SF.

You are right, Pancho has some rights to number one, Ken too.
Hoad zero.

These are no brainers

Kooyong was part of 1959.
Played 26 Dec 1959 - 2 Jan 1960.

But I’m generous.
So from 3 Jan 1960, Hoad has no claim against Rosewall in 1960, being down at least (maybe more) 3-10 vs Ken in H2H.
0-3 in big matches (two of them played outdoor, Hoad is an outdoor player, as per Dan Lobb).

In 1961 Hoad is down vs Gonzales and vs Rosewall. Lost big final in Wembley.

But no worries.
My daughter believes in Santa, so you can believe what you prefer

Just some corrections on your many mistakes.
1) Tokyo was played indoors.
2) Wembley has a bigger prize money than Kooyong, Hoad lost.
3) Los Angeles, Paris and Melbourne indoor had te same prize money as Kooyong. Hoad lost.
4) WS had a lot more money than GB tour.
Before injury Hoad was 2-6 vs Pancho and they were paid night by night, like in GB.

Dan Lobb: Kooyong 59 was important. (Hoad won that)
Dan Lobb: money is important

reality: Wembley 60 had higher prize than Kooyong.
Dan Lobb: But Rosewall won Wembley 60, not Hoad. so not important.

reality: French Pro 60 had same prize money as Kooyong.
Dan Lobb: But Rosewall won French Pro 60, not Hoad, so not important

 

[Dan Lobb]

Kramer talked about tournament play between Rosewall & Gonzales in 59. not overall h2h or world series specifically.
Rosewall also lead Gonzales in the h2h in 61.


Rosewall won 2 amateur slams to zero for Hoad in 53. The ranking of Hoad over Rosewall by some in 53 is mainly based on Davis Cup.
In any case Hoad was not #1 for the year. Best players were in the pros



Only for amateurs in 53. Not including the pros.



53 - addressed above
56 - #1 for amateurs only
59 - yes, obviously

61 - These are facts. Rosewall won French Pro, Wembley Pro in 61. Gonzales won world series. The 3 most important in 61.
They were #1 and #2. Hoad was #3.
LEquipe has Rosewall as #1 in 61, Gonzales as #2, Hoad as #3, rightfully so.

Mullloy's statement was in July 61 when he regarded Hoad as better than Gonzales and Rosewall. Not a year end ranking.
Rosewall won French Pro and Wembley Pro in Sept. 61 including beating Gonzales and Hoad in those so stop with lies and twisting.

62 - calling Hoad as even close to Rosewall is a joke.
Rosewall won French Pro and Wembley Pro
and many other tournaments
Hoad nothing in comparision.
some hacky sack UPI poll based on clueless people (general sports editors who didn't have a proper idea of pro tennis in 62) doesn't mean much.




ah, yes, the Lobb fantasy land with math of 5*3 = 779
Just because your boy Hoad was bad in winning pro majors in comparision to Rosewall and Gonzales doesn't mean reality changes.

You really are confused, not sure how you could be after previous discussion of these events, but I guess if you try you can do it.

Kramer himself ranked Rosewall No. 3 for 1959 behind Gonzales and Sedgman, so that later promotional talk has to be taken in its context as a promo blurb.

Rosewall and Gonzales played each other in 7 tournaments in 1959? I doubt that, they played four times in the tournaments plus 7 exhibition matches in small Australian towns. Kramer may have forgotten the results here. Rosewall was 3 to 1 against Gonzales in the tournaments, all of which were part of the world championship series, and Gonzales was 4 to 3 against Rosewall in the exhibitions. Final result was 6 to 5 for Rosewall on the year hth. In the world championship series for 1959 Hoad was 6 to 2 against Rosewall.

Gonzales–Rosewall rivalry - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

It looks like Kramer was trying to boost Rosewall's 1959 year where Muscles was actually the official No. 3 in the pro ranks on points behind Hoad and Gonzales.

How could you still be confused about that? We've been over this before.

Hoad had four experts rank him as No. 1 for 1953, Rosewall initially had Noel Brown rank him as No. 1 but after the end of December Brown revised his ranking and Muscles got 0 rankings at No. 1. The contemporary experts are the only ones who actually watched these guys play, so they have the advantage over armchair dreamers of today. Sorry.
Art Larsen ranked Hoad combined No. 1 for both amateurs and pros, and Larsen had played all the top players.

 

[Dan Lobb]

For some more hammering of Dan Lobb's lies about about 60, 61.







Dan Lobb: Kooyong 59 was important. (Hoad won that)
Dan Lobb: money is important

reality: Wembley 60 had higher prize than Kooyong.
Dan Lobb: But Rosewall won Wembley 60, not Hoad. so not important.

reality: French Pro 60 had same prize money as Kooyong.
Dan Lobb: But Rosewall won French Pro 60, not Hoad, so not important

Again, what counts is the world championship tours and tournament series where the big money was.
Rosewall's performance in these major tours was well below Hoad's for the 1957-62 period, Hoad getting the UPI ranking as No. 1 for 1962.
In the only world championship series in which they played against each other in this time frame, Hoad was 6 to 2 over Muscles.
Hoad was ranked world No. 2 behind Gonzales for 1960, according to the Valley News in 15 January 1961 – via Newspapers.com. "Lew Hoad, world's second ranking tennis player behind Pancho Gonzales."
Mulloy ranked Hoad No. 1 for 1961. UPI poll ranked Hoad No. 1 for 1962.

Rosewall ranked himself No. 1 for 1962, which is usually discounted for bias.

Hoad never ranked himself, although in 1957 he stated that he was aiming for a world No. 1 ranking, which he achieved in 1959.

 

[abmk]

You really are confused, not sure how you could be after previous discussion of these events, but I guess if you try you can do it.

Kramer himself ranked Rosewall No. 3 for 1959 behind Gonzales and Sedgman, so that later promotional talk has to be taken in its context as a promo blurb.

Rosewall and Gonzales played each other in 7 tournaments in 1959? I doubt that, they played four times in the tournaments plus 7 exhibition matches in small Australian towns. Kramer may have forgotten the results here. Rosewall was 3 to 1 against Gonzales in the tournaments, all of which were part of the world championship series, and Gonzales was 4 to 2 against Rosewall in the exhibitions. Final result was 6 to 5 for Rosewall on the year hth. In the world championship series for 1959 Hoad was 6 to 2 against Rosewall.

Gonzales–Rosewall rivalry - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

It looks like Kramer was trying to boost Rosewall's 1959 year where Muscles was actually the official No. 3 in the pro ranks on points behind Hoad and Gonzales.

How could you still be confused about that? We've been over this before.

Hoad had four experts rank him as No. 1 for 1953, Rosewall initially had Noel Brown rank him as No. 1 but after the end of December Brown revised his ranking and Muscles got 0 rankings at No. 1. The contemporary experts are the only ones who actually watched these guys play, so they have the advantage over armchair dreamers of today. Sorry.
Art Larsen ranked Hoad combined No. 1 for both amateurs and pros, and Larsen had played all the top players.

1. Kramer never claimed Rosewall to be #1 in 59. Just that he had a leading h2h vs Gonzales that year is a credit to him, Selectively Blind Lobb.
As per wiki, tournament play was 3-1 Rosewall. that's still a clear edge to Rosewall. or is that too tough to get?

2. 53 again almost every ranking, if not every ranking was for amateurs only. (every ranking mentioned in that wiki is for amateurs only in 53). Sedgman and Gonzales in the pros were obviously better than Hoad in 53.
Larsen obviously didn't play the pros in 53 as he was in the amateurs.
Care to actually back up what you are saying about Larsen ranking in 53 with a link?

 

[Dan Lobb]

1. Kramer never claimed Rosewall to be #1 in 59. Just that he had a leading h2h vs Gonzales that year is a credit to him, Selectively Blind Lobb.
As per wiki, tournament play was 3-1 Rosewall. that's still a clear edge to Rosewall. or is that too tough to get?

2. 53 again almost every ranking, if not every ranking was for amateurs only. (every ranking mentioned in that wiki is for amateurs only in 53). Sedgman and Gonzales in the pros were obviously better than Hoad in 53.
Larsen obviously didn't play the pros in 53 as he was in the amateurs.
Care to actually back up what you are saying about Larsen ranking in 53 with a link?

You were quoting Kramer's incorrect numbers in an attempt to boost Rosewall? Shameless but not surprising.
Larsen played Sedgman many times in 1950-1952. Had a good idea of what Sedgman looked like.
Sedgman was No. 1 ranked pro for the full year of 1953, so Larsen commented that Hoad's game was better than Sedge at that time. Larsen played Gonzales several times, including at Forest Hills.

Larsen was writing in World Tennis. We discussed this elsewhere on this forum. Look for it yourself, do not be too lazy.

 

[abmk]

Again, what counts is the world championship tours and tournament series where the big money was.
Rosewall's performance in these major tours was well below Hoad's for the 1957-62 period, Hoad getting the UPI ranking as No. 1 for 1962.
In the only world championship series in which they played against each other in this time frame, Hoad was 6 to 2 over Muscles.

1. You got bashed big time with facts
These events had big money - Wembley, Paris, Kooyong, Melbourne, Los Angeles.

2. Rosewall won the championship tour in 63. So stop trying to restrict it till 62.
I already agreed Hoad was better than Rosewall in 58/59 - of which big part was the world championship tours.
h2h between Rosewall/Hoad in 59 overall was 8-8 as per what I had seen on Tennis Base. Care to post with proof where you got 6-2 in the championship series?
But Rosewall was better in 57 and 60. (better level attained in pros in 57 than Hoad, and obviously won 3 big events in 60 including Wembley and French Pro)

3. UPI - rankings by noob sports editors who had no clue about pro tennis in 62. not half decent knowledge, let alone experts.
I think I should start saying Rosewall > Hoad in 56 in response to this sort of BS.
Rosewall > Hoad in 2nd part of 56. I chose this and hence Rosewall > Hoad in 56.
Hey atleast, this has something behind it, unlike 62 where Hoad has 0 case vs Rosewall.

 

[abmk]

You were quoting Kramer's incorrect numbers in an attempt to boost Rosewall? Shameless but not surprising.
Larsen played Sedgman many times in 1950-1952. Had a good idea of what Sedgman looked like.
Sedgman was No. 1 ranked pro for the full year of 1953, so Larsen commented that Hoad's game was better than Sedge at that time. Larsen played Gonzales several times, including at Forest Hills.

Larsen was writing in World Tennis. We discussed this elsewhere on this forum. Look for it yourself, do not be too lazy.

1. I posted the exact article of Kramer, nothing more, nothing less.

2. yeah, Sedgman didn't improve in 53 in the pros at all. Just eating popcorn while thrashing Gonzales in Wembley 53 final 1,2 and 2.

3. Larsen played Gonzales years before Gonzales improved a lot in the pros, genius.

4. As far as link goes, so you don't have it or you made it up. When you say something, its on you to back it up, Dan Noob.
Again, like I said every ranking in the wiki page (from which you were thrown out of because of lies & shameless twisting) rates only amateurs.

Your lie about Mulloy statement in 61 - which was mid year statement in July (well before French Pro and Wembley Pro), not year end ranking, being just another exhibit.

 

[Dan Lobb]

1. You got bashed big time with facts
These events had big money - Wembley, Paris, Kooyong, Melbourne, Los Angeles.

2. Rosewall won the championship tour in 63. So stop trying to restrict it till 62.
I already agreed Hoad was better than Rosewall in 58/59 - of which big part was the world championship tours.
h2h between Rosewall/Hoad in 59 overall was 8-8 as per what I had seen on Tennis Base. Care to post with proof where you got 6-2 in the championship series?
But Rosewall was better in 57 and 60. (better level attained in pros in 57 than Hoad, and obviously won 3 big events in 60 including Wembley and French Pro)

3. UPI - rankings by noob sports editors who had no clue about pro tennis in 62. not half decent knowledge, let alone experts.
I think I should start saying Rosewall > Hoad in 56 in response to this sort of BS.
Rosewall > Hoad in 2nd part of 56. I chose this and hence Rosewall > Hoad in 56.
Hey atleast, this has something behind it, unlike 62 where Hoad has 0 case vs Rosewall.

No, the big money was in the world championships which payed out large amounts of cash.

The tournaments had first prizes of about two to three thousand, chicken feed compared to the world tours.

Hoad was ranked No. 1 by every expert in 1956, no one ranked Rosewall at No. 1.
The 1963 world tour was between Rosewall and Laver, so Hoad was not involved. Guess you missed that.

Sports editors cover tennis, they choose which tennis articles will appear in their newspapers. That 1962 poll by UPI included the 1963 Australian tour in January as a season ending event, Rosewall made a less impressive showing there than Laver, who got the second most No. 1 votes.

 

[Dan Lobb]

1. I posted the exact article of Kramer, nothing more, nothing less.

2. yeah, Sedgman didn't improve in 53 in the pros at all. Just eating popcorn while thrashing Gonzales in Wembley 53 final 1,2 and 2.

3. Larsen played Gonzales years before Gonzales improved a lot in the pros, genius.

4. As far as link goes, so you don't have it or you made it up. When you say something, its on you to back it up, Dan Noob.
Again, like I said every ranking in the wiki page (from which you were thrown out of because of lies & shameless twisting) rates only amateurs.

Your lie about Mulloy statement in 61 - which was mid year statement in July (well before French Pro and Wembley Pro), not year end ranking, being just another exhibit.

You quoted Kramer as an authority and I demolished your authority, Enough said.

Larsen observed the scene and drew his conclusions. Sedgman coached Rosewall and Hoad during that 1953 Davis Cup final, Kramer coached the U.S. team including Trabert.

The Mulloy quote was after the World Series. A certain editor is very active on the tennis articles in Wiki. You sleep well, buddy.

This article contains sources for that 1959 world championship tournament series.

Tennis pro tours and tournament ranking series - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[sandy mayer]

Such a GREAT article. Rosewall is not only ridiculously underrated by the casual and newer tennis fans of the last 15-20 yrs...he was also underrated during his prime years as well

Absolutely. Rosewall was lightning fast, super fit, great at the net, with superb groundstrokes which he could put on a dime. One of the most accurate hitters ever. He would hit the lines with penetrating shots, while being consistent. He had one of the greatest returns in history, and one of the greatest backhands of all time. His only weakness was that his serve was mediocre, but it was accurate and consistent, and good enough to give him the advantage in his service games. And Rosewall also had a great temperament and often made big comebacks.
He probably betters anyone else in longevity. Just think he reached a Wimbledon final and a US Open final at 39. Amazing.
Rosewall was also like Laver great on all surfaces, and had a very close rivalry with Laver. There wasn't much between Laver and Rosewall at all. I don't think Rosewall is the GOAT but I think he should be mentioned in those conversations.
It puzzles me why Rosewall is so underrated. I think he is a victim of turning pro and not winning Wimbledon, but if he he had played his whole career in the open era he would have won Wimbledon several times as well as more slams than he did.
I also think there's a perception that Rosewall had no power because he was destroyed by Connors so badly, but Rosewall shouldn't be judged on 2 matches he played at 39 against a young great having his best ever season. Rosewall beat alot of bigger hitters in his career, Laver and Hoad being examples.

 

[abmk]

No, the big money was in the world championships which payed out large amounts of cash.

The tournaments had first prizes of about two to three thousand, chicken feed compared to the world tours.

Let quote Dan Lobb to expose the lies of Dan Lobb

Kooyong was part of 1959, but also part of 1960.
Kooyong was the most important event of 1960, and the best match on grass ever between Hoad and Rosewall.
Hoad and Rosewall were 4 and 4 in tournament finals that year.

You know what they say...when the money is down, the top guys show up...

Kooyong was for 59. You cannot include for 2 years just because your boy Hoad won.
and as @NoMercy demolished your lie, Wembley had higher prize.
Also now Kooyong becomes most important for 1960 (LMAO) over world series? LOL

world tour was most important, but I am talking about important tournaments after that. which you want to ignore.

The 1963 world tour was between Rosewall and Laver, so Hoad was not involved. Guess you missed that.

obviously, I didn't miss it. But it is a world tour, no?
Hoad wasn't involved in 57 world tour between Gonzales/Rosewall or the 60 one.

Sports editors cover tennis, they choose which tennis articles will appear in their newspapers. That 1962 poll by UPI included the 1963 Australian tour in January as a season ending event, Rosewall made a less impressive showing there than Laver, who got the second most No. 1 votes.

they are noobs about pro tour in 62, absolute noobs.

 

[abmk]

You quoted Kramer as an authority and I demolished your authority, Enough said.

Kramer's point remains. Rosewall had a clear edge in tournament play vs Gonzales in 59. wasn't given due credit for that.
Considering the amount of lies/distortions you spread, its hilarious coming from you.
I was making a point by quoting Kramer, not taking him as gospel. Unlike you who will take anything that boosts up Hoad as an authority.

Larsen observed the scene and drew his conclusions. Sedgman coached Rosewall and Hoad during that 1953 Davis Cup final, Kramer coached the U.S. team including Trabert.

wtf does coaching have to do with actual level of play. nothing.
only a MORON can say Sedgman didn't improve in pros in 53 while demolishing Gonzales like that in Wembley 53.
only a bigger MORON can equate Gonzales of 48-50 (in amateurs) vs Gonzales who had improved a lot in the pros by 53.

and again, still not link. I am taking it as you made it up or twisted something.

The Mulloy quote was after the World Series.

yeah? and?
a depleted World Series in 61. Rosewall didn't play. Hoad played some and stopped due to injury.
does not include French Pro, Wembley Pro.
not a year end ranking.
Stop with the lies.

oh and while you prop up Hoad's win over Gonzales in Wembley pro semi, you ignore his loss to Rosewall in the final. You have some of the highest blinded selectivity I've seen..
Again Hoad won 0 of the 3 biggest events in 61 - world series, Wembley Pro, French Pro.

A certain editor is very active on the tennis articles in Wiki. You sleep well, buddy.

Tennis pro tours and tournament ranking series - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

we both know the truth, even if you don't want to admit it. Even if you are active, your nonsense has been removed from several pages.