Wimbledon 1974 - Rosewall's draw from hell

[Dan Lobb]

Let quote Dan Lobb to expose the lies of Dan Lobb


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.




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.

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

Wembley was $2,800 first prize, Forest Hills Tournament of Champions and LA Masters were $3,000 first prize.

Kooyong 1960 was part of a world series and decided the outcome of the world series.

The UPI 1962 poll by sports editors is a very serious exercise, those who choose which tennis stories get into print.

 

[Dan Lobb]

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.


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.



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.



we both know the truth, even if you don't want to admit it.

Time for you to read up before speaking, motormouth. Kramer was attempting to claim that Rosewall was equal to Gonzales and Hoad in the late fifties. Just promo patter.

So, you were there and saw Sedgman play in 1953? You are a time-traveler in addition to your other gifts?

Mulloy had no hesitation in ranking Hoad No. 1 in 1961 after the World Series was over. Check out that currently active editor on Wiki tennis articles, good work.

 

[abmk]

Wembley was $2,800 first prize, Forest Hills Tournament of Champions and LA Masters were $3,000 first prize.

talking about total prize money for tournament.

Kooyong 1960 was part of a world series and decided the outcome of the world series.

which world series? 59 world series, right?
it was Kooyong 59, not Kooyong 60.

The UPI 1962 poll by sports editors is a very serious exercise, those who choose which tennis stories get into print.

very serious

 

[abmk]

Time for you to read up before speaking, motormouth. Kramer was attempting to claim that Rosewall was equal to Gonzales and Hoad in the late fifties. Just promo patter.

Kramer said Rosewall didn't get credit for some of the things he did in 57-60.
Hoad wasn't exactly the equal of Gonzales either in 57-60.
Rosewall was 3rd, but not a distant 3rd. that was the point.

So, you were there and saw Sedgman play in 1953? You are a time-traveler in addition to your other gifts?

pathetic try after getting hammered and not addressing actual points made. I read the articles and anyone with common sense knows almost the good players improved the pros. includes Sedgman.

Mulloy had no hesitation in ranking Hoad No. 1 in 1961 after the World Series was over. Check out that currently active editor on Wiki tennis articles, good work.

does not include French Pro, Wembley pro
not year ending ranking, liar, liar, pants on fire.

 

[Dan Lobb]

talking about total prize money for tournament.



which world series? 59 world series, right?
it was Kooyong 59, not Kooyong 60.


very serious

Yeah, I get a laugh from your stuff. Kooyong for the 1959/60 world series ended on Jan. 2, 1960. I gave you the link for the Wiki article. Some good editor did a great job on that article.

 

[abmk]

Yeah, I get a laugh from your stuff. Kooyong for the 1959/60 world series ended on Jan. 2, 1960. I gave you the link for the Wiki article. Some good editor did a great job on that article.

Kooyong started in 59 end. Yes, I know it finished on Jan 2nd, 1960. was part of 59 tour, not 60.
you don't even admit basic truths. seriously get well.

lets go this way. If you want to take it as important event of 60, its not for 59 and Hoad loses his #1 ranking for 59.

 

[Dan Lobb]

Kramer said Rosewall didn't get credit for some of the things he did in 57-60.
Hoad wasn't exactly the equal of Gonzales either in 57-60.
Rosewall was 3rd, but not a distant 3rd. that was the point.


pathetic try after getting hammered and not addressing actual points made. I read the articles and anyone with common sense knows almost the good players improved the pros. includes Sedgman.



does not include French Pro, Wembley pro
not year ending ranking, liar, liar, pants on fire.

Did not include the 1961 Gonzales-Hoad hth series in Britain, either.
For the 1959/60 world series of tournaments, Gonzales won 72% of his matches and finished No. 2, Hoad won 71% of his matches and finished No. 1, Rosewall won 62% of his matches and finished No. 3.

 

[Dan Lobb]

Kooyong started in 59 end. Yes, I know it finished on Jan 2nd, 1960. was part of 59 tour, not 60.
you don't even admit basic truths. seriously get well.

lets go this way. If you want to take it as important event of 60, its not for 59 and Hoad loses his #1 ranking for 59.

1959 is 1959, 1960 is 1960. The Kramer tournament world series for 1960 was essentially scrubbed in November when Hoad and Gonzales were both withdrawn from the series.

 

[abmk]

Did not include the Gonzales-Hoad hth series in Britain, either.

so you are admitting crazy ranking from Mulloy especially since Gonzales beat Hoad 6-2 in the world series in 61 when they played.

For the 1959/60 world series, Gonzales won 72% of his matches and finished No. 2, Hoad won 71% of his matches and finished No. 1, Rosewall won 62% of his matches and finished No. 3.

yes, I know the rankings of that 59. No disagreement there.
Only it was 1959 world series. Period.
not 1959/60.

 

[Dan Lobb]

so you are admitting crazy ranking from Mulloy especially since Gonzales beat Hoad 6-2 in the world series in 61 when they played.

yes, I know the rankings of that 59. No disagreement there.
Only it was 1959 world series. Period.
not 1959/60.

Mulloy was ranking from an overall perspective of the players.
Jan 2, 1960 is in 1960.
You really are a bear for punishment.

 

[abmk]

1959 is 1959, 1960 is 1960. The Kramer tournament world series for 1960 was essentially scrubbed in November when Hoad and Gonzales were both withdrawn from the series.

The World Series in 60 was played with Gonzales, Rosewall, Segura and Olmedo.

 

[abmk]

Mulloy was ranking from an overall perspective of the players.

LMAO.

Jan 2 is in 1960.
You really are a bear for punishment.

So Kooyong is for 1960 only, not 59.
Confirmed Hoad never ended a yar as #1, not even 1959.

Good to know.

You really must be given bitter taste of your own medicine over and over looks like.

 

[Dan Lobb]

The World Series in 60 was played with Gonzales, Rosewall, Segura and Olmedo.

The world series of tournaments from 1959/60 ended in 1960.

 

[abmk]

The world series of tournaments from 1959/60 ended in 1960.

It was world series 59. just couple of days into next year doesn't mean its for 1960 also.

The World Series in 60 was played with Gonzales, Rosewall, Segura and Olmedo.

 

[Dan Lobb]

LMAO.


So Kooyong is for 1960 only, not 59.
Confirmed Hoad never ended a yar as #1, not even 1959.

Good to know.

You really must be given bitter taste of your own medicine over and over looks like.

Hoad was Kramer's official No. 1 for 1959/60.
There was to be a new No. 1 decided by the 1960 world tournament series but that series was cancelled in November when Hoad withdrew.
The 1960 4-man tour did not produce a ranking list.
Nice to see that you are insensitive to deep pain..

 

[abmk]

Hoad was Kramer's official No. 1 for 1959/60.

Hoad was Kramer's series #1 for 59 only. its 59 series only.

But going by you:

Kooyong is for 1960 only, not 59.
Confirmed Hoad never ended a yar as #1, not even 1959.

Like I said, taste of your own medicine.

There was to be a new No. 1 decided by the 1960 world tournament series but that series was cancelled in November when Hoad withdrew.
Nice to see that you are insensitive to deep pain..

The World Series in 60 was played with Gonzales, Rosewall, Segura and Olmedo.. Gonzales was No.1 for 60.

 

[Dan Lobb]

The four-man tours could not produce an official ranking for the full field of pros, that was done by the tournament series in 1946, 1959, 1960, 1964 and later.
Of course, those rankings applied until succeeded by a new ranking, so the 1959/60 Ampol series ranking continued to be extant until succeeded by a later official ranking in 1961.
If you would like to continue this discussion, I suggest that you take it to a more appropriate thread.

 

[abmk]

The four-man tours could not produce an official ranking for the full field of pros, that was done by the tournament series in 1946, 1959, 1960, 1964 and later.
Of course, those rankings applied until succeeded by a new ranking, so the 1959/60 Ampol series ranking continued to be extant until succeeded by a later official ranking in 1961.
If you would like to continue this discussion, I suggest that you take it to a more appropriate thread.

it was a world series in 60.
the ones you mentioned weren't the only world series played.
its not necessary that a world series produce official ranking for the full field of pros.

 

[Dan Lobb]

it was a world series in 60.
the ones you mentioned weren't the only world series played.

Now, I warned you to take this to another thread. Do it if you are serious about discussing these events further. There are other threads which relate to this issue.

 

[abmk]

Now, I warned you to take this to another thread. Do it if you are serious about discussing these events further. There are other threads which relate to this issue.

I only wrote to expose your lies in this thread and show the truth/reality.
Who are f*** are you to warn me about taking this to another thread? You are not a moderator, nor did you create this thread.

 

[Dan Lobb]

I only wrote to expose your lies in this thread and show the truth/reality.
Who are f*** are you to warn me about taking this to another thread? You are not a moderator, nor did you create this thread.

You have shown yourself to be gullible to a lot of false ideas, which I have corrected you on above... and your garbage mouth is not an intelligent response.
Take this to another thread, old man, if you are really interested in learning something.

 

[abmk]

You have shown yourself to be gullible to a lot of false ideas, which I have corrected you on above... and your garbage mouth is not an intelligent response.
Take this to another thread, old man, if you are really interested in learning something.

Get well soon and stop with the lies , Dan.

 

[Dan Lobb]

Get well soon and stop with the lies , Dan.

You need to stop believing false information, especially when your sources are exposed and discounted. But if you wish I can place you on my distinguished list of invisible posters. Okay? You seem to qualify for inclusion in that group of (ahem) special people.

Congratulations, you have made the list. It is not easy to qualify, but you made it. You can return from oblivion if you acquire a sense of humour.

 

[abmk]

You need to stop believing false information, especially when your sources are exposed and discounted. But if you wish I can place you on my distinguished list of invisible posters. Okay? You seem to qualify for inclusion in that group of (ahem) special people.

Congratulations, you have made the list. It is not easy to qualify, but you made it. You can return from oblivion if you acquire a sense of humour.

Yes, i don't believe the false information and propaganda that someone like you spreads. For example, you trying to pass off Mulloy statement in mid-61 as year end ranking. Or trying to count Kooyong 59 for both 59 and 60.

I do laugh at your absolute jokes of trying to put Hoad at overall #1 in 53, 61,62.

But rest assured, i will expose more of your lies and deliberate misrepresentations on this forum. Even if you put me on ignore, others will see your lies being exposed. Just because you close your eyes, doesn't mean you won't be exposed.

your level of shamelessness is rarely seen, but one can only hope you get well one day.

 

[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.

Even today players prefer to win the most money and get ranked No. 1. Some majors are not majors.

In 1953 Rosewall won two weak majors, whose fields were inferior to Hoad's wins in the Australian series. Thus, Tingay's comment on Hoad's form during the Australian season.

Rosewall received zero #1 rankings for 1953, Hoad received five (including the Tingay comment). Trabert received several, including those of of his Davis Cup teammates and his own ranking.

Seixas ranked himself No. 1 for 1953, which is not a legitimate ranking.

 

[sandy mayer]

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.

I think

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.

I'd say Rosewall's achievement in beating such tough players to get to the final at 39 is a bigger achievement than winning Wimbledon in your 20s. Interestingly Connors says the best tournament of his career was one he didn't win, the US Open semi final run of 91 aged 39.

 

[InsuranceMan]

Rosewall > Pancho or is Pancho greater than Rosewall?

 

[sandy mayer]

Rosewall > Pancho or is Pancho greater than Rosewall?

I guess most experts would put Pancho ahead because he was considered world number 1 for so long but I think there's a case for both.

 

[Dan Lobb]

Rosewall > Pancho or is Pancho greater than Rosewall?

Depends on whether you are a Rosewall fan or a Gonzales fan.

Gonzales–Rosewall rivalry - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

List of tennis rivalries - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[NedStark]

I think

I'd say Rosewall's achievement in beating such tough players to get to the final at 39 is a bigger achievement than winning Wimbledon in your 20s. Interestingly Connors says the best tournament of his career was one he didn't win, the US Open semi final run of 91 aged 39.

Plus Rosewall’s run was much tougher than Connors’.

 

[NedStark]

Now, I also notice that a similar thing also happened in Ladies’ Singles. Morozova upsetted No.1 King and No.5 Wade to reach final, only to go down against No.2 Evert.

What a coincidence.

 

[thrust]

I guess most experts would put Pancho ahead because he was considered world number 1 for so long but I think there's a case for both.

I recall Bud Collins saying, in the early seventies, that although Laver dominated Ken in their matches, Ken held his own in the really big matches. As for Gonzalez, he was the better fast court player vs Ken, whereas, Ken had the advantage on clay. Laver was lucky in that the first time he ever played Gonzalez, Pancho was already 35 or 36. Pancho was still a great player, but not as consistent as he was at 25-32, or so.