Talk:Lew Hoad/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Untitled

This article and the article on Pancho Gonzales contradict each other on who said ""He was the only guy who, if I was playing my best tennis, could still beat me." In this article, Gonzales says this of Hoad. In the Gonzales article, Hoad says it of Gonzales. They both reference a 1995 New York Times article, so I figure one of the wikipedia articles got it wrong. 69.136.86.237 22:20, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

You didn't read the Gonzales article correctly: the Header says: Gonzales's views of other players as of 1995 -- it is Gonzales saying Hoad could beat him. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hayford Peirce (talk • contribs) 23:17, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Hoad and Gonzales.jpg

Image:Hoad and Gonzales.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 22:48, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Too much from Kramer

While his opinions aren't of no value at all, surely there's too much quoting of Jack Kramer. It's almost like someone wrote this page by only reading Kramer's autobiography. An encyclopedia article should surely be much more concerned with facts than opinions in one man's book? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hairy-backed Mary (talk • contribs) 00:32, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Agree, there's too much weight on Kramer's opinions and statements. Needs some work to make it more balanced.--Wolbo (talk) 16:32, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

The link to the Rod Laver article

doesn't work.... Hayford Peirce (talk) 04:01, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Pro slams

For consistency Hoads win at the 1959 Tournament of champions shouldn't be included in Hoad's pro slam wins. The pro slams have consistently in wikipedia been defined as wembley, us pro & crench pro. Having said that, in 1959 forest hills tounament of champions was regarded as the premiier event of that year . It was in feature articles in Sports Illustrated and Time magazine, and had coverage by Allison Danzig in the N.Y. Times.

My feeling is that a new definition of pro slam needs tobe developed, which is the wembley, us pro & crench pro plus whatever event was the most rprestigous event of the year outside of those events.

So at the moment the tournament of champions entry should go for consistency, but a review o what events make up the pro slam should happen. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tmartin prof (talk • contribs) 20:51, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

TennisFan] [ You are absolutely right, there should be a major revision of the rather sloppy standard definition of Pro GS, which has bedeviled the standard histories of pro tennis. This is particularly true with respect to a number of super-tournaments which outclassed Wembley, Stad Coubertin, and Cleveland (assuming that anyone still regards Cleveland as a pro major). In particular the Tournament of Champions series of the late 1950's, six events, plus the 1967 Wimbledon Pro, which was not only huge in prestige but in terms of prize money for the players. The TOC series was dominated by the top two players of the late fifties, Gonzales (who won three TOC events) and Hoad (who won two TOC events), with only Segura among other players with a TOC win (the inaugural TOC at White City in 1957, Segura's greatest tournament win). The 1967 Wimbledon Pro featured the top two pros of that era, Laver and Rosewall, in the final. Television contracts provided a large pot of money for the pros in these events, the three Forest Hills TOC events were broadcast nationally on CBS, which probably provided payments of about $100,000 per broadcast, and there were three broadcasts per tournament. The 1967 Wimbledon Pro was broadcast on BBC in colour. The 1958 Kooyong TOC was the richest event of its time, surpassed only by Wimbledon Pro in 1967. In terms of prestige and money, these events dwarfed the Wembley, Stad Coubertin, or Cleveland tournaments. Perhaps there should be a special category for these seven super-tournaments, above the three normally proposed as pro majors.64.229.32.48 (talk) 09:52, 23 June 2019 (UTC)TennisFan

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Lew Hoad/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

Where is the section dealing with Hoad's place amongst the all time greats? Gonzales says if he (Gonzales) was playing at his best Hoad could beat him! Come on keep up with the GOAT debate. Gonzales is not alone in his views!

Last edited at 17:04, 7 July 2008 (UTC). Substituted at 21:57, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

REFERENCE FOR KRAMER'S RATING FOR 1959 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.229.32.48 (talk) 23:20, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

In the Lew Hoad article, there is a reference to Jack Kramer rating Hoad at #5 among the pros for 1959, and that l'Equipe had also rated Hoad #5 for 1959.

However, the reference for these statements is given as "Around the World" in World Tennis for December, 1959.

I strongly suspect that these two ratings were not final season ratings, but rather interim ratings from about October of 1959, when Hoad finished about fourth or fifth on the Grand Prix de Europe series.

"Around the World" appears to be a recycled appearance of older articles about two months old, as I see from other references to "Around the World" in this same article, where it is about two months lagged. Reference (189), referring to the May results, appears in "Around the World" two months later in July. Reference (186) referring to September events, appears in the November "Around the World", again a two-month lag.

The 1959 season did not end until early January, 1960, and at that time there was an official ranking by Kramer of all the pros from the results of the Ampol world tournament series of 15 events. Hoad was number one on that official list. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.229.32.48 (talk) 23:19, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

Amateur player rankings 1953

There is a lack of precision in the reference to Hoad's rankings for 1953, there is no indication of who made Hoad's ranking of number 5 for that year, and on what basis the ranking was made.

The Collins book was published in 2010, so it certainly was not Collins, so Collins must be quoting someone else from 1953. Who is it?

The other controversy here is whether or not Davis Cup results for 1953 were included in the ranking considerations. That information should be available from the person who made the rankings, and is obviously of great interest for the value of the ranking.

It should not be difficult to find out this information.

Ok, see what you mean. The statement is in itself sufficiently sourced to Collins. Collins used the most commonly known rankings of Wallis Myers, Olliff and Tingay. Have clarified that in this case the rankings of Tingay were used.--Wolbo (talk) 10:16, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

1957 and $ signs

This sentence doesn't make sense: "In addition Hoad received 20% of the gate receipt with a 5% bonus if he won the match." Is he receiving 25% of the total gate receiptS from the forthcoming tour AND a 5% bonus if he wins the TOUR? Or what?

Also, throughout the article the $ sign is used. But now the new contributor (who STILL refuses to put any information in the Subject/headline space in spite of being asked to) is using USD throughout. Sometimes in the same paragraph as references to $. It should be one or the other, not both. If the amounts are AUSTRALIA dollars, then make this clear instead. Hayford Peirce (talk) 18:31, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

[Contributor's response] Thanks for the points. Yes, USD was intended, not Australian dollars (I believe that Australian POUNDS were used at that date, not Australian dollars). I presume that "in addition" (not my words, incidentally) means "in addition to the guarantee of $125,000" (again, this must mean USD as the Australian currency was pounds at that time, I believe, and Kramer's terms were reported in the U.S. press in dollars).

So what this all means is that Hoad received 20% of each evening's gate, plus an additional 5% of each night's gate in which he won the match (against Gonzales, of course). In other words, Hoad received 20% of the gate on evenings when he lost, and 25% of the gate on evenings when he won. If at the end of the OF THE TWO-YEAR TERM, Hoad had earned less than $125,000, Kramer would reach into his own pocket to make up the difference. However, there was a nullity clause which released Kramer from the guarantee if Hoad should miss more than five straight matches due to injury. In fact, this did occur, so technically Kramer was not bound by the guarantee.

As it turned out, Hoad made about $280,000 in that two-year period, more than twice the guarantee amount, so the guarantee was irrelevant.

Thanks for the explanation and the rewrite in the article -- it now makes perfect sense. And is interesting into the bargain: details that I had never known before.Hayford Peirce (talk) 18:20, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

Winning % for Hoad and Gonzales on the 1959 Ampol Tour

Before I re-edit some changes that have been made to the Hoad/Gonzales winning percentages in the article, I have re-checked the original percentages which were posted and have verified that in the 15 Ampol tournaments, using McCauley as a source of results on the Ampol tour,

Hoad won 36 matches, lost 14 which equals exactly 72%.

Gonzales won 25 matches, lost 10 which equals 71.4%.

I have included all 15 tournaments listed in Kramer's fall tour program (issued to accompany the final five tournaments in Australia of the Ampol tour).

Two of the final group of five tournaments, namely Perth and Adelaide, did not have Ampol bonus points assigned to them, because they were split field events. However, they were listed in the program as Ampol tournaments, and their results should still be included in calculating overall tour statistics.

Before I change the percentage in the Hoad article back to 72% for Hoad and 71% for Gonzales, perhaps some discussion should precede any further action.

Your numbers are almost correct, but McCauley was missing a QF win for Gonzalez in the first Brisbane tournament (6-2, 6-1 over Segura) and Hoad's loss in Toronto for third place (10-8 to Trabert). With those, it's 26-10 for Gonzales (72.2%) and 36-15 for Hoad (70.6%). Krosero (talk) 15:10, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

[response to Krosero] Thanks for the explanation, Krosero. Good to see you still involved.

In "Playing Style and Assessment," I changed 1958 because your source (McCauley) does not have anything indicating that Hoad's had greater "consistency numbers" than Rosewall and does not use that term himself. His documentation does show Hoad having lower win/loss rates than either Gonzalez or Rosewall. Ken's rate was actually the highest of all three men that year; I've put in the fully documented numbers from Tennis Base, with a link. But I have no problem with what you wrote for '59.

64.229.32.48 (talk)TennisFan] Krosero, Rosewall did not play the 1958 world championship tour, so those numbers are outside the scope of the discussion of this paragraph, which is to compare consistency on world championship tours and other direct comparisons of consistency. I appreciate your trying to change what you see as errors in my work, but your change here has changed the meaning of the paragraph. I have made the comparison between world championship winning percentages "in the same period", but not "in the same year". The 1957/1958 world championship tours were within about six months of each other, and the 1959/1960 4 man tours were also within a year of each other, so they can be compared for performance. I have reintroduced the original subject into the paragraph, but kept your addition of 41% for Hoad in 1958, and 71% in 1959. For the 1959 season, direct comparisons can be made because Hoad, Gonzales, and Rosewall all played on the Ampol world tournament series. 64.229.32.48 (talk)TennisFan — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.229.32.48 (talk) 05:46, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

Assessment section of Hoad, winning percentages comparison with Rosewall and Gonzales

I have reintroduced the original subject on the assessment section comparing winning percentages of Hoad, Rosewall, and

Gonzales on the major world championship tours of the 1957-1960 period.

There was no apparent reason to change the subject to some other type of comparison.

Rosewall did not play the world championship tour in 1958, so the comparison would be the 1957 and 1958 world series

tours, and Rosewall did not play the 1959 4 man tour, but he did play the 1960 4 man tour, for which the comparison is

made. These world tours comparisons were played within a year of each other, so it is reasonable to compare results.

Hoad and Rosewall both played on the 1959 Ampol world tournament series, so an immediate comparison can be made.

64.229.32.48 (talk) 05:15, 12 June 2019 (UTC)TennisFan

Actually I introduced the 1958 full-season numbers because you introduced the full-season numbers for 1956. I’ve put the ’58 numbers back in, and they should not be deleted: they are the same statistic as the ’56 numbers. If ’58 is taken out then so should ’56, but I don’t think that should be done, because this statistic measures how a player does against all opponents and across an entire season. It measures consistency (and Hoad did very well in ’56).

This section of the article is supposed to be about consistency but right now it’s filled with Hoad’s H2H stats against top opponents (and some are further restricted by surface!), which stats do not measure consistency, only strength against top opponents. And no one to my knowledge has ever argued that Hoad could not, in his prime, do well against top opponents. The argument has always been that he was not the most consistent player against lesser opponents, and across a full season (except ’56 and ‘59). To measure that, you need the win/loss record in all matches for a full year.

The H2H against top rivals measures only strength against top rivals. It would be like saying that Chris Evert was a consistent claycourt player, and illustrating it with her 1976 H2H against Martina Navratilova, but refusing to use Evert’s year-long record on clay for ‘76. Arguing in that way for Hoad only underscores the classic understanding of Hoad, namely that he could be great against top opponents but was not the most consistent against the field -- though I think that that understanding is essentially correct, which is why these other stats are essential for this section of the article. I’ve also added other H2H stats, including Rosewall’s winning grasscourt edge over Hoad, a stat more directly relevant to Hoad than the Gonzalez/Rosewall H2H.

But in truth I think this entire section right now is self-contradictory and bloated, particularly with the H2H stats. Talking about consistency but putting every kind of restriction on it (he was great -- against certain opponents, on certain tours, on certain surfaces, etc.) robs the term “consistency” of its true strength. Krosero (talk) 10:58, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

64.229.32.48 (talk)TennisFan] Krosero, consistency simply means winning with regularity, that is, not just winning the odd or unusual time, but winning on a regular basis. That is why hth statistics are significant with respect to consistency, showing that wins are not just isolated incidents.

  The Rosewall winning percentage number for 1958 is not comparable to the Hoad or Gonzales winning percentages for

that year because Rosewall did not participate in the world championship tour and did not play nearly as many matches as Hoad or Gonzales on the season. Please cite the total number of matches played in 1958 for these three players, if you want compare winning percentages. It is easier to maintain a high winning percentage against lower ranked players and in a much shorter time frame. Gonzales and Hoad gave their best efforts on the world tour and against each other, no easy matches against lower ranked players, which is what Rosewall had that year. For Rosewall, the 1957 world tour gives a percentage which can be compared with Hoad's 1958 world tour percentage, both tours coming in close proximity and against the same opponent.

  I have left your number for Rosewall for 1958 pending your citing the number of matches involved, while noting that Rosewall did not play the world tour that year, which makes his number not comparable to those of Hoad and Gonzales for 1958. 64.229.32.48 (talk)TennisFan — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.229.32.48 (talk) 23:06, 13 June 2019 (UTC) 

64.229.32.48 (talk)TennisFan-----Krosero, you have not given the season long winning % stats for 1958 for Hoad or Gonzales, you have simply used their world championship numbers, where Hoad was 41%, although Gonzales should be 59% on that tour. What is Hoad's season long number? You must give it if you want to make your suggested comparison. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.229.32.48 (talk) 23:44, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

Controversial Ranking

The television ranking showing Hoad at #19, Kramer at #21, and Gonzales at #22 is extremely confusing and fails to consider professional achievements. If posters insist on including such a biased ranking, then the ranking itself should be explained as a controversial one. To fail to so is an attempt to confuse readers. It constitutes bias and cherry-picking to quote rankings out of context and without perspective. We should have a discussion about this strange ranking.64.229.32.48 (talk)TennisFan —Preceding undated comment added 19:48, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

Tennis Channel fails in not just excluding professional achievements, but in all sorts of manners. The ladies rarely had professional issues to consider yet those rankings are also skewed badly. There is nothing special about that tv show's rankings as compared to any other rankings there are in historical publications. It's water cooler stuff. Everyone was talking about the Tennis Channel rankings for a year. Now no one remembers it. However, on the flipside, we have this in the article: "In The Encyclopedia of Tennis (1973) sportswriters Allison Danzig and Lance Tingay as well as tennis coach and former player Harry Hopman listed their ten greatest players. Only Tingay included Hoad in his list, ranking him in fifth position." That is the same thing as a ranking by Tennis Channel. You can't just list the great rankings. It's ok to list all those types of things in a clump, but cherry picking seems out of place. Fyunck(click) (talk) 21:01, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

      Perhaps if enough references are made to that Tennis Channel list, there will be so much embarrassment created that Tennis Channel will see fit to revisit the process, and use a more transparent group of experts and show us what exactly their methodology is.  As it stands, the list is shrouded in secrecy as to how it was concocted, with Emerson ranked well ahead of Hoad, Rosewall, Gonzales, Kramer, and Vines.....a joke, to be sure.64.229.32.48 (talk) 18:19, 29 June 2019 (UTC)TennisFan

Currency conversion

In the late fifties and early sixties, the accepted exchange rate was 2.8 or 2.85 U.S. dollars per British pound.

This was a standard rate, well understood at the time, and not controversial. Rough currency conversions do not constitute original research.64.229.32.48 (talk) 23:48, 28 June 2019 (UTC)TennisFan

Yes, I grew up in those years and 2.80 dollars per pounds was absolutely standard, at least informally. Everyone knew it. Hayford Peirce (talk) 00:58, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

The late fifties and early sixties, no problem, but the British Pathe film made its report in February 1970. And how did it come to its figure of 350,000 pounds? This is a real question because Laver was widely reported in late '71 to be the first tennis pro to reach $1 million. So how did British Pathe come by its information? Did Hoad give them a figure in dollars, which they converted to pounds per the current rate? The exchange rate in early 1970 is reported by Pittsburgh Press as 2.4, per Pittsburgh National Bank, here: https://www.newspapers.com/image/141388414/?terms=sterling%2Bdollars%2B%22exchange%2Brate%22

Had the exchange rate been going down for some time by then? Genuine question -- I don't know.

But we really don't know how British Pathe came to its figure of 350,000 pounds. And even at 2.8 or 2.85 exchange rates, 350,000 falls just short of $1 million.

And it's those reports about Laver that really underscore these questions. How exactly is it that Hoad really reached $1 million and either he didn't know, or didn't care to say anything, or that no one around him cared to know it or mention it; and that the pro organizations knew what Laver made - to the dollar, so to speak -- and yet didn't know what Hoad had made? Krosero (talk) 01:12, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

[TennisFan[ If it is reported on a widely distributed British Pathe filme clip, then it is NOT obscure, it is widely known. But Hoad practically disappeared from tennis view in 1967, his career was obscured by time and the fog of professional separatism in the early sixties. Most of Hoad's money was made from about 1958 to 1963, especially that 1963 Australian tour, of which he was proprietor and probably got a share of the gate. By 1971, Hoad's achievements were largely forgotten, no suprise that Laver's agents made the claim. Just exactly how the figure of GBS 350,000 was calculated is beyond our concerns. The reference remains.64.229.32.48 (talk)TennisFan

Prize money vs. Percentage of gate

There appears to be a misunderstanding regarding lifetime earnings for Hoad compared to Laver. There is no conflict in the reports, despite what may seem to be one. Hoad received most of his money through a percentage of the gates, while Laver was reported to reach his $1 million mark in earnings through prize money.

These are two different things, and there is no conflict between these claims. Laver the first to win $1 million in prize money, and Hoad the first to win $1 million in earnings, most of which was through a percentage of gate, not through prize money.64.229.32.48 (talk) 02:22, 1 July 2019 (UTC)TennisFan

This distinction really needs to be sourced. We need a source stating or explaining that Laver's career earnings as reported in November 1971 only included the upfront prize money awarded at the events he played and did not include percentage of gates. He did receive a percentage of gates. Why would that money not be considered part of career earnings? Why would Laver and those who publicized his career earnings, leave that money excluded? The general understanding of career-earning reports is that all oncourt winnings are included, but external contracts for things like endorsements are not. Unless a source says so, this page should not say that Laver's $1 million had such a restriction as you're implying, excluding gate percentages. Krosero (talk) 00:41, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

It's probably okay to refer to Laver's "prize money" generally as the article does now, because it does not say that his $1 million figure was restricted (ie, that it excluded percentage of gates). "Prize money" should be understood readily as all oncourt winnings, naturally excluding offcourt endorsement deals and the like.

But the issue of whether Hoad or Laver reached $1 million first is an open question and somehow needs to be revisited.

And the source for the 2.85 exchange rate has no link now, which may be fine but would be nice to have a clickable link.

Also, as a supporting source for Hoad making much of his winnings in percentage of gates, you've referred to a "footnote" (194? 195?) What does that refer to? The Kramer memoir? Or the Sydney Herald article? Krosero (talk) 00:42, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

          [TennisFan....I think that Laver probably did not make money as a percentage of the gate. In 1963, Laver does not appear to get a percentage, if he did that would be written into his contract, and no account of Laver's contract mentions anything like a percentage of gate.  The only condition of Laver's contract that we know is the amount guaranteed, over three years. Hoad's percentage deal with Kramer was standard for that period, and Gonzales received 20% on that 1958 tour, and also a gate percentage deal for the 1957 tour.   There is no mention of Laver getting a percentage of the gate.

It appears that all of Laver's winnings were in the form of prize money. The proprietors who succeeded Kramer (Hoad and Rosewall) may have divided the gate percentages between them, they were guaranteeing the pro contracts and assuming the risk for the tour. The hot Australian tour in 1963 with sold-out major stadiums must have returned good money to Hoad and Rosewall.

The footnote refers to Kramer, but there are many other possible sources. I have added footnote 192 as well, which mentions percentage of gate.64.229.32.48 (talk)TennisFan

Rod Laver comments in 2019, Gonzales' comments from 1995

These comments have been deleted for reasons of concision, but they are not superfluous, they introduce new material which is central to understanding Hoad's game. Laver expanded his assessment to an "all time" rating, not just players of the past, and added "he could overpower anyone", new information and perspective, and Gonzales added new information about Hoad hitting harder than anyone, and "you just couldn't beat him" when he was trying to play well,....this information is new and provides a new perspective beyond the previous statements of these two players. Perhaps this info could be rearranged to make it less extended in one place. 64.229.32.48 (talk) 20:54, 1 July 2019 (UTC)TennisFan

If concision is needed, some of the very extended discussion of Hoad's amateur years could be trimmed substantially, as in the Rosewall page.64.229.32.48 (talk) 21:00, 1 July 2019 (UTC)TennisFan64.229.32.48 (talk)TennisFan —Preceding undated comment added 20:59, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

On the contrary, the content on Rosewall's amateur years is too short in comparison with the info on his professional years. It is unbalanced, a clear case of undue weight. The Hoad article, although certainly on the lengthy side in terms of prose, is much better balanced in this regard. Nevertheless it may always be possible to phrase things more concisely. --Wolbo (talk) 22:22, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

[TennisFan] I see that this material is still in the Assessment section, which is fine, that is probably a better location. But we should do a slimming operation on the overblown amateur sections for Hoad.64.229.32.48 (talk) 21:34, 1 July 2019 (UTC)TennisFan

Shaving?

Interesting information, and new to me, about Hoadie turning his racket into a ping-pong paddle. I saw him play a couple of times (he was beaten), and I can certainly believe it. However, I think you are using the wrong word to describe what he did the tip END of his racket. I think he would have to have used a SAW to CUT it off. I suppose it would be POSSIBLE to shave half an inch of LENGTH from a handle, but for a busy professional player, I can't believe that he would have done so. He MIGHT, however, removed the grip from the handle and SHAVED the handle in order to make it a tiny bit thinner -- other pros were known to do this. In a wonderful tennis article by some famous writer, I forget who, about the Wimbledon in which my old doubles partner Bob Lutz beat Kenny Rosewall, Rod Laver is described as sitting in his hotel room shaving his handles while his future opponent, Roger Taylor, is home sleeping or eating or whatnot. The next day, in a great shocker, Taylor BEAT Laver -- with Laver double-faulting on match point, hitting the second serve all the way to the back screen on the fly! Hayford Peirce (talk) 01:30, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

[TennisFan....Yes, Hayford, I am sure that Hoad SAWED the ends off his racquets, I was merely quoting Gonzales' comment. Perhaps I should replace that word with "sawed off". I will change.64.229.32.48 (talk) 19:08, 5 July 2019 (UTC)TennisFan

Expansion is good

Aside from the give-and-take of what to include here, one thing I do like is that this article has expanded by almost 50% this year. Players like Hoad, Laver, Rosewall, Gonzales, Wills, Mallory, Court, Borg, Tilden, etc... should have just as detailed of articles as Williams, Federer, Nadal, and Djokovic. Just because they played in the last century is no excuse, and it's a disservice to our readers. I understand that finding the material is much harder, but when you have an article on Bill Tilden that's of similar size to 319th ranked Cori Gauff, something is wrong! Goodness, Maureen Connolly's article is smaller than Gauff's. Fyunck(click) (talk) 22:39, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

Although the expansion of Hoad's professional career section is good your comment is largely misguided. This was already a substantial and well-sourced class B article, one of the best among the group of pre-open era players. It is nice of you to comment from the sidelines, but perhaps your interest can be converted into a more active role, to assist in the very elaborate effort required to prevent this article from going down the drain.--Wolbo (talk) 23:21, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

I don't know as much about Hoad as some other players. I'm not saying it wasn't well-sourced but I 100% disagree that it was substantial. Perhaps you feel that an article like Andy Murray is way overkill? It's 250k as compared to Hoad's 150k. If so then I can see your point of view. However if you feel that Andy Murray's article size and sub-articles are about right then Hoad's article should actually be larger. And remember, Andy Murray also has a career statistics article. Andy Murray has a career achievement article, and SIX separate seasonal articles. It may be among the best of the pre-open players, but per articles about current players it is inadequate and should be much longer (or current player articles should chopped). I fully admit I am guilty along with many others and I find it admirable that some of you are working on it. My post was mostly just a thank you to everyone who has expanded it (as long as it's sourced properly). Sorry you didn't like the post. Fyunck(click) (talk) 04:34, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

Many years ago, when WP was new, and I was naif, I wrote a LONG article about Tilden. Much of it has gotten truncated over the years by editors trying to shoehorn it into the prevailing WP standards. After a while I couldn't be bothered trying to argue with them line by line so I (and Larry Sanger) moved over to Citizendium. CZ is now, obviously, a failed project, so I have mostly moved back here. But how much time I want to put into individual projects I don't know. I was the original Gonzales author and put in thousands and thousands of words with sources and references -- and I sure don't know how much of the article still remains the way it SHOULD be. But I DO agree with you in theory -- if Federer has a year by year article with thousands of words about each year, then Gorgo (and all the others) should have the same.... Hayford Peirce (talk) 03:49, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

[TennisFan]....My thanks to those who appreciate the time and energy spent in researching Hoad, Rosewall, Gonzales, Sedgman (which I have also expanded considerably), Segura (which I have also expanded considerably). I started some eight years ago to locate material showing a hitherto completely unknown world championship tour, which I suspected was existent, and which was, to put it mildly, under-reported in the press and completely ignored in the standard tennis histories. With the help of others, some of whom have also contributed to this article, I think that we have now researched the components sufficiently and referred to them in this article.

Does this change our understanding of tennis history? It does, and also of the manner of tennis management of the 1950's, which is deserving of a book in itself.

Several great players had the major years of their play swallowed up by the relative obscurity of the old pro tours and their collection of "world champion" titles. Making sense out of it is a continuing task.64.229.32.48 (talk) 04:59, 8 July 2019 (UTC)TennisFan

Corrections of H2H Numbers

I have been citing some H2H numbers derived from the 2017 TennisBase, and while it is fine for someone to object that these numbers have changed in the meantime due to updates, if someone looks and sees the new number, I would appreciate it if that update could be added to the page.

It really does not help to simply REMOVE the data without updating it, that just leaves a gap where we should get some information. If the new data is not given, then how do we know that the removal was well warranted?

In general, simply removing older data should be accompanied by the new updated material, that is helpful, but simply removing old data and NOT giving the new data is the opposite of helpful.

I understand that statements should not be removed and replaced with blank content. That should not happen here.

I think that the Hoad/Rosewall lifetime H2H on clay should be returned to the text, until someone has a new number from a more recent TennisBase update.64.229.32.48 (talk) 03:57, 8 July 2019 (UTC)TennisFan

We have a more fundamental problem here, which is that you present numbers which are not correct, and attribute them to Tennis Base, sometimes dating the citation as 2017, sometimes not dating it at all -- and then you ask someone else to provide the correct numbers. And that is a lot of work, because Tennis Base, while very accurate, does not give the total H2H numbers by surface; it provides the surface for each match, and then the matches have to be counted individually, if you want a H2h breakdown by surface. That is work that you should be doing, by drawing directly from Tennis Base as a source, and citing it. On the Rosewall and Hoad pages, you've written that Ken and Lew were tied 16-16 lifetime in grasscourt tournaments. That did not look right to me so I went to Tennis Base tonight and found that Rosewall actually led 18-14. So how did you get 16-16? Is that your own estimate, based on what you presumably saw at Tennis Base in 2017 and other data you've picked up on your own in the time since? I even gave the correct 18-14 figure on the Rosewall page (in my edit summary), yet you've now returned the incorrect 16-16 figure to the Hoad page, even knowing that it's incorrect. That is a problem in itself, quite apart from the larger issue that the H2H stats you're throwing into all these articles appear to be patched together from what you once saw at Tennis Base combined with your own research/guesses.

I don't know exactly what is happening here but I do know that if you don't have the current Tennis Base numbers, I am not willing to provide them for you, when you should be doing the work to provide them -- along with correctly cited links to TB so that someone else can at least verify your numbers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Krosero (talk • contribs) 05:23, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

TennisFan...I am using references I copied from TennisBase in 2017, in the case of Hoad/Rosewall tournaments on grass I have recounted and get 15 wins for Hoad, including one possibly uncertain (Adelaide 1962, which I counted as grass), and I wrote out a list of tournaments. Also the H2H matches and total wins over Top 20 players is all from TennisBase 2017. But if you doubt the data I quote, and think it needs updating, by all means replace it with your own data and we can discuss the differences on Talk. But please do not replace data with a blank space, that does nothing to advance our knowledge. Do you have reason to believe that Adelaide 1962 was not on grass?64.229.32.48 (talk) 05:55, 8 July 2019 (UTC)TennisFan

So in fact you are putting together your H2H numbers by using numbers you copied in 2017 and modifying them with your own guesses/research. And this is why, in the Open Era section of the Hoad article, you've written that Hoad leads Gonzales in lifetime meetings on grass "about 20 matches to 14." You say "about" because you're estimating; you've combined the 2017 Tennis Base numbers with your own research/guesses. I know that because back in 2017 the number at Tennis Base was not 20-14. And that is not Tennis Base's count today, though 20-14 is close. I don't know how you cobbled it together but the citation you gave for the 20-14 tally lists both "TennisBase, lifetime hth statistics" and references to four British newspaper reports from the 1961 tour of Britain/Ireland.

Why is the 1961 tour mentioned in that citation at all? It should be just a straight reference to the numbers at Tennis Base. But your Tennis Base numbers are from 2017, as you've told us; and the surfaces of the 1961 tour were not discovered until more recently, in fact over the course of the past year (2018-19); that surface breakdown of the '61 tour was posted to the Talk Tennis message board very recently. So you've taken your old Tennis Base numbers and tried to guess at what the current numbers are, by adding new information that you've taken from other places.

However you are coming up with your numbers, I see no better option than to introduce H2H numbers only with a full, verifiable citation, with a working link to the page from which the data is taken. When you put in a number and simply say, in the citation, "Tennis Base H2H from 2017," with no link, that is not a verifiable claim, just a claim, based on unclear sources/methods. That is in fact what I have done every time that I've put H2H numbers into these articles: I've put in the link to the relevant page at Tennis Base. Anyone who puts in a H2H stat should do the same. The onus should be on the person making the claim; it should not be the onus of the persons intending to verify it, to go to the source (especially if there's a pay wall) and search for the relevant page and then construct a properly formatted citation that the original writer should have done himself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Krosero (talk • contribs) 06:57, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

I've now checked the Hoad/Trabert rivalry at Tennis Base. You've written in the article that Hoad led 11-9 lifetime on clay, but the actual tally per Tennis Base is an 11-11 tie. But I am not going to continue to do this work for you. This pattern has repeated itself too often, where you put in some number, with a plain (no-link) reference to Tennis Base, and I've replaced your numbers (and produced a good link) by counting up the matches by surface. I checked this one now simply to show again that your numbers are off, and that they need to meet Wiki's verifiability standard by having a link that readers can follow, to check the data. Krosero (talk) 16:51, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

[TennisFan] The links have been provided for some of the TennisBase citations,so that can be rectified. I asked you if you have any objection to classifying 1962 Adelaide as a grasscourt tournament....no answer? I guess it must be grass, so that makes it 15-18 Hoad/Rosewall in grass tournament meetings. There is nothing wrong with supplementing TennisBase results with other newspaper reports. I think that I have followed the standard citation form for newspaper reports.64.229.32.48 (talk) 17:27, 8 July 2019 (UTC)TennisFan

And I see now that you've gone back into the article and given Hoad a 15th grasscourt win against Rosewall, in Adelaide '62, and based on what? The source is Tennis Base and they have Adelaide as hard court! Look, firstly, you're trying to guess at what your source says, rather than consulting with the source directly. Secondly, if you disagree with TB about Adelaide and you're changing TB's number, that's original research. And thirdly, this was not even "research": you merely used a conversation on this talk page, specifically what you deemed to be my "silence," as a way to determine the surface of a tournament! I can't even begin to express what I think of that. Krosero (talk) 17:41, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

[TennisFan....No, that is not it at all....there is nothing wrong with counting a number of tournaments, it is just a simple observation. So for TB to classify Adelaide as "hardcourt", that adds another clay win to Hoad's wins on clay over Rosewall.(For Australian tournaments, "hardcourt" means "clay".) Not a problem, I will change accordingly.64.229.32.48 (talk) 18:25, 8 July 2019 (UTC)TennisFan

Once again you're attempting to use this talk page, rather than Tennis Base itself, to tell you what Tennis Base says. (No wonder you keep misrepresenting the source.) And once again you're wrong. Tennis Base uses modern terminology, and has classified Adelaide '62 as "hard," meaning anything that we would understand as hard today, ie, cement, concrete, asphalt, wood, canvas, carpet, and the like. Anything that we would consider clay today, like what the old Aussies used to call "hardcourt", or what Europeans called "hardcourt" before the Open Era, is already classified as clay at Tennis Base. So there is no need to add Adelaide to the clay H2H of Hoad and Rosewall, a H2H count which you are just making worse. This makes it clear that there are questions about whether you are even reading Tennis Base's data correctly -- and whether even the data you took directly from there in 2017 was interpreted correctly. Krosero (talk) 20:35, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

You said above that there is nothing wrong with supplementing TennisBase results with other newspaper reports, but that is wrong. First of all if you combine sources to come up with your own number, that's arguably original research. More importantly, you don't know, you can't know all the changes possibly made at Tennis Base since 2017, without going to the source directly. It would not be enough simply to "supplement" old information with a newly discovered tour from '61; in this case TB has also corrected some of its early information about surfaces, since 2017, as new information about the venues used at certain events, has been discovered. That may be one reason that your grasscourt H2H between Gonzales and Hoad does not quite line up with what Tennis Base has.

Incidentally today you removed the word "about" from your statement that Hoad leads Gonzales in lifetime meetings on grass "about 20 matches to 14." So now it's an exact statement rather than an estimate, but that makes it definitively wrong. At least with "about", the statement could pass off as generally correct (though it's still inappropriate to use the word "about", because Tennis Base does not give estimates, it gives specific data). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Krosero (talk • contribs) 21:25, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

One thing to add. People are throwing around Tennis Base stats like they are god-like in stature. Tennis Base gives extremely subjective rankings to pre-Open tournaments. Some of their stats are wrong and have to later be corrected, or are still wrong. I have let them know when something looks wonky. It is run by one man who I have talked to by email numerous times. We should also differentiate the number of actual tournament matches (pro and amateur) as compared to head-to-head tour matches. They are very different things. It's been awhile since I looked at Tennis Base (since they started charging some ridiculous amount of cash to fulfill their gambling association) but I can't recall if they separate those total matches/wins. The guy works hard to be accurate but it's just another source like magazines and newspapers or even Tennisforum (which is back-checked and administrated by Rollo). The data is awesome, but not perfect. Fyunck(click) (talk) 22:59, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

That's a healthy reminder, Fyunck, and I agree. All stats are provisional; I mean, in a sense any historical knowledge is provisional, but that may be especially true of stats.

TB does differentiate between tour matches and tournament meetings, in their H2H pages (as in all their pages). They do not give a total for the tournament meetings, or a separate total for non-tournament meetings. They do provide a total of all H2H meetings. From there you just have to do any breakdown yourself, if you want a surface breakdown, or a breakdown separating tournaments from tours. Every match is categorized (as a tournament match, as a tour match, as a Grand Slam match, etc.), so it is fairly easy to designate what is what; but you do have to do a manual count, if you want such breakdowns. It's not a ton of work but it is work. Krosero (talk) 01:12, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

When lumping the head-to-head stats, that's probably ok to lump. But, when we start looking at the historical stats page of most matches played or won, I'm not so sure that it's fair to compare a non-tournament match in the same breath as one from a head-to-head Kramer tour. Fyunck(click) (talk) 04:46, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

Yes and the latter have their own designation (WCS) at TB, so they can be picked out as well. Krosero (talk) 11:14, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

First to million dollar mark

For many reasons, it's time to remove the claim that Hoad was the first to make $1 million. For one thing, I have found an April 1977 interview of Hoad in the International Herald Tribune (European edition) stating: "Throughout his career, Hoad earned a total of £250,000, less than many pros collect in a year now.... It doesn't bother Hoad. 'No,' Hoad said with a shrug, 'it's just a changing world.'" In April 1977 the exchange rate was 1.75, which would be only $437,500. That seems about right, considering the new sources I put in a few days ago, stating that he had made about $200,000 through 1959.

For Hoad to reach $1 million by February 1970 (the date of the British Pathe film given as a source for this claim), he would need to make $800,000 in the 1960s. This was never plausible; and you can see why, just by looking at Laver's earnings. I have a report stating that through 1969, Laver had made $512,777. That's what Laver made in 7 full seasons (1963-69), as the world's top player and biggest money-earner. For Hoad to make $800,000 in this same decade, as an injured, post-peak, semi-retired player, is impossible.

The British Pathe film states that Hoad "made about GBP350,000 as a professional," and if this figure is not simply mistaken, it must refer to Hoad's income from all sources related to his tennis career, ie, including endorsements and the like. The exchange rate at the time of the Pathe film was 2.4, so 350,000 sterling would be $840,000. Back in June 1960, when Hoad's career prize money was reported as $200K (or $224K), he had made $560,000 "from all sources in his three years as a professional", per a Daily Mail article that reported the figure as 200,000 sterling (I convert that to dollars using the then-current exchange of 2.80). So in 1960 he had more than doubled his oncourt winnings, with offcourt endorsements and the like -- and that seems about right. The same 2:1 ratio roughly applies to his entire career, if the British Pathe film is pointing to $860,000 grossed by Feb. 1970; his oncourt winnings by that time would have been somewhere around $400,000, if we go by the April 1977 career figure of $437,500.

In any case, sometime in the next few days I'll be removing the claim about Hoad reaching a million, barring any strong objection.

Any suggestions as to the best ways to include, or not include, all this very interesting information without bloating the article, would be appreciated.

It's worth noting that when Laver did reach $1 million in November 1971, the British press specifically converted this to 416,666 sterling, using the then-current exchange rate of 2.4. The British Pathe film had reported 350,000 sterling for Hoad, so even a straightforward sterling-to-sterling comparison shows that Laver was the first. There's just no way to make Hoad's 350,000 into $1 million -- and even the 350,000 is far too high to represent only his oncourt winnings, while Laver's 416,666 sterling indisputably represents only oncourt winnings. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Krosero (talk • contribs) 21:52, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

Tennisedu Tennisedu (talk) 17:48, 8 January 2020 (UTC)It seems to me that we have too much financial information to simply ignore the subject.

On the other hand, we have too little information to simply dismiss the claim of $1 million, which is a conversion of the 350,000 GBP number from Feb. 1970 using contemporary exchange rates from the time when those funds were supposedly earned. I find that it strains credulity that someone would have bothered to make conversions into 1970 GBP from earlier GBP figures. The 350,000 is probably a simple addition of the amounts earned per year.

It would not necessarily "bloat" the article to keep this calculation, a simple one, in the article, and also add some further material as well.

I notice that Hoad's official biography (with cooperation from the source) by Hodgson and Jones includes the following statement, on P. 174 it states that Hoad had earned "nearly $200,000 from his winnings" at the end of the 1958 campaign. I believe that I have seen that figure elsewhere from Hoad, as well.

For the period beginning in January 1963, Hoad and Rosewall were tour proprietors and it is possible that they owned most of, if not all, the gate from the 1963 Australian tour, a very lucrative tour. And Gonzales himself pointed out that the prize money which Hoad and Rosewall earned did not include their shares of the gate. It is quite possible that owning a proprietor's share of the gate provided the majority of earnings from tennis play for Hoad from 1963 to 1966. In short, we have no solid basis to reject out of hand the reported 1970 total.

Further there is some discrepancy between the report of Hoad earning by June 1960 200,000 sterling from all sources over the three year period from July/57 to June/60, and the earlier reports of Hoad's off-court earnings of about $25,000 per year, that is a huge gap. If we accept the January report of off-court earnings, then Hoad's on-court earnings become substantially larger, something close to $500,000. The Daily Mail usually got it right. That Daily Mail reference from 1960 should be added as a source reference.

Perhaps the best solution is to add some further information, by which I mean reference to material, rather than personal opinion. The reader can draw their own personal opinion.

No, these are not strong objections and I'll go through them point by point. Firstly, the issue about how the 350,000 sterling was calculated. You have been trying to multiply it by 2.8, which was the exchange rate into dollars during most of Hoad's top-earning years, rather than by 2.4, which was the exchange rate at the time of the Pathe film. This is why I noted that when Laver was reported to reach $1 million, the British press converted it to sterling using an exchange rate of 2.4: this was done even though Laver won a very large portion of his million during years when the exchange had been 2.8. You see, Hoad and Laver are in the same situation. The exchange rate was at its historic high of 2.8 all the way through 1967. Laver made his huge sum from his initial contract, in 1963-64, when the pound/dollar exchange rate was high. Yet the British press simply used the 2.4 rate that was current, when they reported for British readers how much Laver's $1 million amounted to in sterling. That's only natural. There's a similar situation with Jack Nicklaus, who became the alltime money-earner in golf in March 1972, with $1,477,200.86; the British press reported this as an even £580,000, which means they used a conversion rate of around 2.55. And no surprise, that's the conversion rate from March 1972. Note again, Nicklaus made tons of money (you can easily find the numbers online) in the pre-1967 years, when the exchange rate had been 2.8; and all British sportwriters of the time period would have been familiar with all these facts. Yet they took Nicklaus' career earnings, reported in dollars, and converted to sterling using the current rate -- as would be perfectly expected.

You state as a fact that the 350,000 sterling figure in the British Pathe film was "a simple addition of the amounts earned per year," but that is not a known fact, because the Pathe film tells us nothing about calculations; it says only that Hoad "made about GBP350,000." You think Hoad, or Pathe, got Hoad's career earnings broken down by year, into sterling each year, and that we should then multiply each yearly sum by the exchange rate prevailing in each year. (Actually, in order to reach $1 million, you're saying the entire sum of 350,000 should be multiplied by 2.8: and even then it falls short of a million, at $980,000). But why do you think Hoad's sterling total was arrived at in this manner, when that clearly was not done for Laver, or for Nicklaus? It appears that both Laver and Nicklaus had career earnings reported in dollars, and these earnings were converted into sterling at current exchange rates, not at 2.8. Why would it be different for Hoad?

In deciding how Hoad's 350,000 sterling was calculated in the British Pathe film, the best guides here are the Laver and Nicklaus reports in the same UK media -- well, those and, of course, the countless existing reports from November 1971 that Laver was the first to reach $1 million.

And though you argued at Talk Tennis that Laver was acclaimed as the first only because "no one" knew or calculated what Hoad's career earnings had been, your own British Pathe report, and the April 1977 report I just put in, show that Hoad's career earnings were indeed calculated and publicized.

But 350,000 sterling is far too much to be Hoad's oncourt winnings, and the comparison with Laver's earnings in the 1960s is definitive. This is just common sense -- and the contrast is overwhelming. There is simply no way to have Hoad win that much in the 1960s -- except to bring in offcourt winnings. Your idea that Hoad MAY have had proprietary income which brought him a large share of the gate on some tours in the 60s could fit in there: but those are offcourt winnings, similar to what Kramer made as manager of other tours.

The $200,000 figure from Hoad's bio is something you brought up at Talk Tennis and I saw that knowledgeable posters there showed you why it was unreliable and how you were misusing not only that figure but all the figures regarding Hoad's income, so I won't get further into those specifics here.

And your new idea here that Hoad's oncourt winnings by 1960 can be calculated as "something close to $500,000": I assume you're getting that by starting with the all-sources gross, reported at $560,000, and subtracting the $25,000-a-year that Hoad was earning in endorsements per an earlier interview. So, you're trying to arrive at oncourt winnings by using rough-gross estimates of offcourt activities -- which have no precise definition and are notoriously difficult to track. All this, rather than go with the multiple specific reports of what Hoad's oncourt winnings actually were. Enough said.

If someone can come up with a logical reason to keep the $1 million claim, fine, but all this is grasping at straws; and questionable accounting, at best. All the more so, now that we have the April 1977 career earnings report for Hoad, and a whole group of reports, in various currencies, confirming that Hoad's oncourt earnings through 1959 were around $200,000. And we know in detail, for comparison, how much Laver made in the 60s; and how his $1 million was reported.

My strongest objection to all this is that we have reported figures in sterling for both Laver in November 1971 and Hoad in February 1970. Laver's figure is 416,000, Hoad's is 350,000. Laver's figure was calculated with an exchange rate of 2.4, clearly. And yet we're insisting on multiplying Hoad's figure by 2.8 -- just so he can reach $1 million before Laver. That is objectionable on all grounds, but particularly so in an article that, as this Hoad article currently does, is attempting to name Hoad over Laver as the first to reach $1 million.

And to reiterate, no exchange rate, not even 2.8, makes 350,000 sterling into $1 million. The claim has no legs and should not stay in this article.Krosero (talk) 03:48, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

TenniseduTennisedu (talk) 04:39, 9 January 2020 (UTC) No, I am simply saying that this is not an opinion piece, but a bio page which quotes sources. You and I obviously disagree about how that 350,000 number was arrived at, but unless you can get access to the Pathe documents showing the sources and how the calculations were made, you are just guessing and giving your own personal opinion. The proper way to give a sterling figure for Hoad's big earning years of 1957-1966 is to convert each year according to the exchange rates prevailing at the time, and that should have been done for Laver and Nicklaus, too. We cannot simply assume that British Pathe made a mistake similar to the calculation errors of others. And technically, there should have been inflation adjustment as well. We just do not know if the proper procedures were followed, but we should not assume that the calculations were in error. Jones and Hodgson had access to Hoad's personal records and papers, so we should not simply dismiss their calculations because they do not fit our preconceptions. And their figure of almost $200,000 to the end of 1958 is more consistent with the reported figure by Kramer of Hoad earning $140,000 in his first 11 months as a pro (to the end of May, 1958, with more money to come for 1958). And also closer to the Daily Mail number of perhaps $500,000 to June of 1960, which would include some 1960 money.

    And we have a solid source for the $25,000 per year endorsement income from January 1960 which is referenced in the current article here. So the Daily Mail figure of $560,000 - $50,000 = about $500,000 is a reasonable estimation.

And that amount is certainly on track to give the final figure of 350,000 in contemporary sterling.

    Sure, Kramer was player/proprietor on that 1953 tour, and Kramer, as I recall, included his total percentage of the gate in his calculations of income.  It is not "off-court" if the proprietor has to play to get his percentage, it is related to actual play. That was the case also with Hoad and Rosewall as proprietors, they had to show up to get paid, it was pay for play.
  Again, this is not an opinion piece, so if you feel that there are sources which challenge the 350,000 sterling figure, simply add them to the article. Trust the readers to draw their own opinions. They do not need ours.

100% agreed on your last statement -- the article should not stand on opinions and preconceptions, such as your assumption that all figures given in "pounds", in Australian newspapers, needed to be multiplied by 2.8, as if in line with the British pound; you did not know that Aussie pounds converted at a rate of 2.24; and that error took some time for me to clean up, throughout the article.

Your new claim that Hoad was on half-a-million by 1960 is just as incredible as the claim of 1 million. And that's so on both ends, ie, both before and after 1960. You cannot come up with half-a-million for Hoad in oncourt earnings in the 1960s (to say nothing of $800,000, which is what he actually would need to make). Laver made half-a-million in 1963-69, as the world's top player, and with the kind of big debut-pro guarantee (in 1963-64) that Hoad did not have, in the 60s. What's more, Hoad was largely retired by 1967, and he spent large parts of previous years in injury or sabbatical. Where exactly are you going to come up with half-a-million in oncourt winnings?

You think because he was a proprietor of Laver's debut tours, that he made a ton of money on those tours, as a participating player, with possibly a hefty percentage of the gate? Well, you know -- the top money-earner in 1963-64 was none other than Rod Laver, not Hoad or any other player or proprietor. (Laver was top earner in 1964 with $57,000. How much do you think Hoad made?) So even in those two years where you are hoping to get Hoad some cash as a proprietor -- 1963 and 1964 -- we know that Laver out-stripped him, easily in earnings. Yet you say that Hoad and Laver both made half-a-million in the 60s. So in some years in the 1960s Hoad must have made more than Laver did? Which years were those? Laver was top money-earner every remaining year in the 60s, as everyone knows; Hoad was not even on the board in the late 60s. So what's left? He's going to make up all of this in 1960-62? In 1960 Rosewall was top earner with $45,000. In 1961 the top earner was Gonzalez (I don't have a final figure), not Hoad. In 1962 it was again Rosewall, not Hoad.

It's flatly impossible for Hoad to make half-a-million in oncourt winnings in the 60s.

On the other end -- you claim Hoad to be at $200,000 by mid-1958, and at $500,000 by mid-1960 (again, only by using rough numbers about offcourt activity, and rejecting direct reports of oncourt winnings!) So you have him making $300,000 in the interim? How? Where? He was out of commission in the latter half of 1958, and on sabbatical the first half of 1960. That leaves essentially calendar year 1959 (with maybe a little help from '58 and '60). Did he make anything approaching $300,000 in 1959? No, per a source which you provided yourself, he made $70,000 in 1959.

We go around in circles, as we always do, and I am not going to continue this merry-go-round indefinitely.Krosero (talk) 06:02, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

TenniseduTennisedu (talk) 06:56, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

Again, you are speculating, throwing out questions which no one has an answer to. That is not our methodology here, we are not here to give our personal opinions or vent our discomfort. What we have is a series of financial reports made by respectable sources. Let's just post them and allow the readers to choose what they believe makes sense for themselves...it is not our job to post our suspicions and guesses. The $140,000 number for May 1958 (with lagged payments to follow) was a source you located yourself. Also the $25,000 off-court annual money, and the $560,000 figure through June 1960....you found these, not me. I am just reminding you of them. Now let's post them and allow our intelligent readers to make what they will of them. The truth is, we have no idea of how much gate money Hoad and Rosewall made, a point which Gonzales made himself. However, we do have a figure which someone, presumably Hoad himself, prepared for the period 1957-1966, with a little more earned after that, and there is no good reason to challenge it or exclude it. You have not produced any evidence that the calculations were faulty, merely a suspicion and an opinion that it seems high. If we could see the actual gate divisions, perhaps it would not seem high.

These are always silly arguments when you have obtuse sourcing. The statement "Hoad's tennis earnings from the nine seasons of his contract from 1957 to 1966 amounted to about £350,000 or about $1 million in the currency of the time" is incorrect as we also have Laver listed as first. That would also make "Laver would surpass the $1 million mark in career tennis earnings in 1971 to become the second player to reach that level" as incorrect when stated as fact. In these situations we simply state the facts. In the Hoad article we say that "Some sources have Hoad as the first player to reach a million in career earnings, while other sources claim it was Rod Laver." And give those sources. In the Laver article it should be reversed to "Some sources have Laver as the first player to reach a million in career earnings, while other sources claim it was Lew Hoad." We don't know the calculations these writers used so we simply tell the vagueness of what we do know. Fyunck(click) (talk) 09:43, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

Except that there are no sources, anywhere, claiming that Hoad was the first, or that Laver was the second. Those are claims exclusively made by one Wikipedia user. All non-Wikipedia sources state that Laver was the first.

I agree with you completely that the statements currently in the Hoad article have sources that actually contradict the claims made. The article states that Laver was second to $1 million, and then gives sources which actually state (as all sources do) that Laver was first.Krosero (talk) 11:32, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

TenniseduTennisedu (talk) 16:00, 9 January 2020 (UTC)What we do have is a reputable source, British Pathe, giving a summary figure for Hoad of 350,000 sterling as a career number, which, if we correctly convert to U.S. dollars at contemporary levels of 2.8 or 2.85, results in a figure of about $980,000 or $997,000, or "about $1 million". And we know that nearly all of Hoad's earnings were under the terms of his contracts from 1957 to 1966. Also, Hoad and Rosewall apparently received gate money as player/proprietors, making these sums conceivable. It is possible that Laver also reached the $1 million mark before 1971, but we do not have definitive information on that. TenniseduTennisedu (talk) 17:26, 9 January 2020 (UTC)I will change the statement, pointing out that some sources claim that Laver was the first to reach $1 million. I hope that this is agreeable.

That looks like an excellent compromise to me.Hayford Peirce (talk) 17:48, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

That does not work, because all sources state that Laver was the first to $1 million. "Some sources" implies that there are some sources stating that Hoad made a million (or that Laver was second to $1 million), when in fact no sources say this. Your claim about Hoad making $1 million is original research. What would be standard is to follow other sources, in using the current exchange rate (not 2.8), when trying to convert British Pathe's sterling amount to dollars. That's done routinely on Wikipedia and it was done in the press of the time period, both for Nicklaus (when he reached $2 million this was done again, I have just found: the British press used a current rate of 2.5) and for Laver. That's not original research; it's merely following the sources. What you're doing is going much further and saying, "Look, we shouldn't multiply Hoad's 350,000 sterling by 2.4, we should multiply it by 2.8; we need to research exactly how much money he made in previous years, and identify what the exchange rate was in those years, and then we have a proper number." So then you take your originally researched number and contradict what all the existing sources say about Laver. And yes, the hedging statement, "some sources", does contradict the existing sources, because it implies falsely that some sources do not have Laver as first.

This does not work. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Krosero (talk • contribs) 17:56, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

In the article, I've converted 350,000 sterling to $840,000 because that is simple, and not original research, and it follows the especially relevant example of what was done with Laver (not to mention Nicklaus). Any argument that part, most or all of the 350,000 needs to be multiplied by another number (directly contradicting what was done with Laver/Nicklaus), because he made such-and-such in so-and-so years; well I don't know what to call that except original research, and author opinion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Krosero (talk • contribs) 18:52, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

Tennisedu (talk) 05:52, 10 January 2020 (UTC)Tennisedu By applying an incorrect exchange rate for the 350,000 figure, Krosero, you have contradicted your own maxim, and done original research. It is no excuse to simply point to an incorrect calculation method for currency conversion, and then apply the same mistaken method to Hoad's number. Your decision to give status to the Laver/Nicklaus calculation is original research, and does not conform to standard practice for currency conversions. No one cares what the 1970 currency exchange values were for money earned in 1960, that is an irrelevant calculation.Tennisedu (talk) 05:52, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

Tennisedu (talk) 06:43, 10 January 2020 (UTC)Tennisedu: Thanks, Hayford, for suggesting that we approach this discussion in a spirit of compromise. Hopefully, that will still happen.

Tennisedu (talk) 07:38, 10 January 2020 (UTC)Tennisedu: It seems to me that the opening introduction paragraph on Hoad's career earnings should be slimmed, that is not the place to enter into detailed arguments about relative currency values, that should be done at the end of the 1966 paragraph where the discussion is more detailed. What needs to be stated in the intro is simply the statement that one measurement of total earnings for 1957-1966 in a British Pathe film done in 1970 was 350,000, which translated into about $1 million in the currency exchange values of Hoad's contract years 1957-1966. The validity or arguments against that claim can be made in the body of the article.

I agree that the introduction is getting bloated, but the context is absolutely necessary because of all the issues raised by claiming that Hoad made $1 million and that he, not Laver, was first to that mark. Wherever that claim is made in the article, I would have a strong objection to removing, for example, Laver's sterling conversion, so it can be compared directly to Hoad's. If anything I'd say the financial discussion should be removed from the introduction and left in the other section; but wherever it appears, context is needed, because you are directly contradicting Laver's well-known milestone and explanation/context is essential.

You say that Laver's conversion, and Nicklaus', were all incorrectly calculated at the time; you say above that Laver actually made his $1 million earlier than November 1971 -- and presumably also Nicklaus, according to your logic of going back to the 2.8 exchange rate, reached his $2 million mark earlier than December 1973. These are extraordinary claims (and the very definition of original research), which I'm highlighting here because your entire argument about Hoad, Laver and Nicklaus is based on some questionable assumptions. You think that British sources reporting, for example, Laver's $1 million as 416,000 sterling (2.4 exchange), were making a mistake, because much of the 416,000 sterling was earned years before at a higher exchange rate. But why would they have gotten the original figure in sterling? It seems far more likely from all the sources we've seen here that the British sources took career earnings ALREADY calculated (correctly) in dollars, and then just translated that into 1970s sterling. To say otherwise is to return again to the contention that Laver and Nicklaus' well-known milestones were incorrectly calculated. Yes, if British sources took a 1960 income of 50,000 sterling and converted it themselves at a 1970 exchange rate, that would be an error. But there is no reason to suppose that was done -- except by supposing, again, that these well-known calculations were incorrectly done at the time, and that these historical milestones by Laver and Nicklaus should be revised. Much better to presume that British writers knew what they were doing here; they knew first-hand, of course, that their currency had dropped from 2.8 to 2.4, so why do you say so easily that they were given Hoad's 1957-67 figures in sterling pounds and decided anyway to convert those per 1970s exchange rates? They would know better than anyone not to do that.

I just see no reason to believe that the British sources received career incomes originally calculated, year by year, in sterling. No reason to think that Hoad, Laver or Nicklaus originally calculated their earnings that way. Far easier to believe that they calculated everything in dollars, correctly; and that British sources then translated to sterling, per current exchange rates, for their readers.

Of course none of this can be proved, without having the precise original calculations of all these players and writers. But I'm highlighting it, at the very least, because I think your push to convert Hoad's 350,000 at a high exchange rate that reaches a million dollars, is based on some very questionable assumptions and involves, necessarily, the idea that the well-known milestones by Laver and Nicklaus were incorrectly calculated. For these reasons and others, I would object to any passages in the article leaving the Hoad $1 million claim as it is, without mentioning Laver (and his sterling figure, at the very least) for context.Krosero (talk) 09:08, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

Tennisedu (talk) 12:23, 10 January 2020 (UTC)Tennisedu: This problem began when you suggested that the 350,000 sterling figure was calculated in 1970, and that therefore 1970 exchange rates should be used to convert that amount into dollars. You suggested, as I understood it, that this approach was used to obtain Laver's 1971 $1 million threshold figure. And I am pointing out that the only possible conversion rate to use is the contemporary rate applying to when the money was actually earned, and using an anachronistic exchange rate from a later date is a clear error. And I also suggested that the 350,000 sterling amount was obtained using a conversion of Australian currency into U.S. dollars and Australian pounds from the 1957-1966 era, the Australian currency changed to Australian dollars in 1967. So an obvious currency change at that time. The relevant exchange rates are pre-1967 of necessity, when the money was earned. Using a 1970's exchange rate is not relevant to any calculation, and if that was done for Laver's pre-1970 earnings, that was a clear error. Hoad himself was probably the source for the data, and I doubt that any adjustment for inflation would have been used, Hoad's records were likely derived from tax records, where most people calculate their incomes, although that is a guess. There is no reason to think that Hoad adjusted the raw data, and he, like anyone accustomed to international sources of income, would have an idea how to convert currencies pre-1967. So no apparent reason to question this figure.

No, what you're doing here is similar to the following hypothetical example: let's say a British Pathe film was made about Laver in November 1971. Just like the real Hoad film, this hypothetical one gives Laver's earnings only in sterling. Just like the Hoad one, it says nothing about Laver being first or second or third to any milestone. And let's say that this film was the only information we had about Laver's career earnings at that time. It would say that Rod Laver made about GBP 416,000. That's what the British press actually reported for him, in sterling, in November 1971, using a 2.4 exchange rate for $1 million. So this film states: 416,000 sterling. You would then take that and say, "To get a dollar figure for Laver, we should not use the 1971 rate of 2.4; that would be an error. Laver made much of his money back when the exchange rate was 2.8. Let's multiply by 2.8." You would then claim that Laver's career earnings in November 1971 were $1,164,800, a clear error. You would do the same with Nicklaus' mark of $2 million. It was reported in some British sources just in sterling -- no conversion to dollars provided; the British press sometimes did that, as you can see from your own British Pathe example, and by the 1977 report. You would then multiply Nicklaus' reported sterling figure by 2.8 and come up with $2,253,440 made by Nicklaus as of December 1973 -- another gross error and clear inflation of figures.

That is what you are doing with Hoad -- and at the very least everyone can see that this is what you risk doing, when you insist that we must go with 2.8 for Hoad and ignore all these other evidence in the British press concerning Laver and Nicklaus that I've provided to you. Of course we don't know with 100% certainty how figures were calculated without having them on hand, but the very least that must be said about your interpretation is that it is your argument and not at all a necessary one, to put it mildly. To speak about needing to leave the $1 million claim in the article as if it was neutral or self-evident, and all other interpretations clearly wrong (and the Laver/Nicklaus milestones clearly wrong), is classic POV. Putting it mildly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Krosero (talk • contribs) 13:43, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

To avoid any possible misunderstanding about my position, I am not advocating that the British Pathe source be removed from the article entirely. The pro-years section is a good place for it, and for any involved financial discussion. I don't think that any financial information should be included in the intro, but if we keep only one figure it should be the career figure from 1977. There is no reason to prefer any single figure over that one.

Even Laver's bio intro does not contain a reference to his being first to $1 million (it's later in the article). And that's fine, I'm not suggesting we put it into his intro. I will only note that even in his case it's not in his intro, and that's with his claim to $1 million being rock-solid. It is supported by all sources, which state that he was first, and state it in both dollars and sterling, so you can see exactly what's going on. It's also right in line with all his winnings from the pre-Open Era. It's also clearly oncourt winnings, and stated to be such, in some sources (Laver himself talks about approaching $1 million and is careful to say that this applies only to oncourt winnings and not to endorsements and the like). Hoad's $1 million, on the other hand, appears front-and-center in his intro, as if it were rock-solid fact -- and it is has none of the advantages of Laver's claim. It is riddled with problems through-and-through. It is contradicted, wildly, by all the known figures for Hoad's career -- and that point cannot be stressed enough. Just look at the 1963 figure I just put in yesterday: $20,000 grossed by Hoad that year, only good for fifth place among the pros. Just look at Laver's earnings in the 60s for further perspective.

That, and the claim is dependent on one particular and strict interpretation of the source: the British Pathe income must be entirely oncourt winnings (which is nowhere stated); and every penny of it must be multiplied by 2.85 even to get close to $1 million (this against the Laver/Nicklause evidence concerning exchange rates).

Does a piece of evidence as ambiguous as this one belong in the introduction of any bio? Krosero (talk) 14:03, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

Tennisedu (talk) 20:02, 10 January 2020 (UTC)Tennisedu: Krosero, the 1977 figure, as I recall (correct me if I am wrong) from your description, appears to be an amount not derived from Hoad at all, but suggested by a European interviewer without source (unless you can show us his source). Hoad did not bother to contradict him. That is hardly the same thing as the British Pathe record, which was a stand-alone British project calculated in sterling alone, and therefore not a contemporary currency conversion derived from 1970 U.S. dollar figures, but an independent calculation in sterling. So I place much more credibility on the British Pathe than an off-the-cuff suggestion by a reporter. Without a source for the 1977 figure, it might have been merely a misunderstood reference by the reporter. The British Pathe report was connected to an in-depth documentary of Hoad's tennis ranch, and was attached to it. Right at the source.

    You gave us a figure for Hoad of $560,000 in June of 1960 minus about $25,000 per year endorsements, so that is about $500,000 after about three months into his new contract of 1960....that is on track for $500,000, certainly in the ball park.  Gonzales himself pointed out that "winnings" reported in the press did not represent the full earnings of Hoad and Rosewall, which is why that 1963 report is only a partial accounting of Hoad's earnings. I believe that we have already been over that issue above, so what further new information do you have on it?
  As for Laver, so it may be that Laver's $1 million total might be the only official number released by Laver's management, an American firm, I assume, and that the British press then assumed a currency exchange rate of 2.4, which would be a clear error, because until 1967 the rate was 2.8. Presumably 2.8 was used by Laver's management to calculate pre-1967 earnings for the $1 million figure. So actually that would mean more dollars per sterling in the official Laver figure, and the recalculation by the British press using 2.4 dollars per pound for all of Laver's $1 million earnings would be an overestimation in terms of 1966 pounds.

So that is a problem for the 1971 sterling figure for Laver, assuming that the sterling figure reported in the British press was not calculated by Laver's own people, but by the British press on their own using an inaccurate exchange rate.

  But there is no such problem for Hoad, nearly all of his earnings were pre-1967, there were no exchange rate shifts during the flow of his earnings.
  I will check the Laver bio to see how they handled the $1 million reference there. Perhaps we should discuss Laver's number more thoroughly as to currency exchange rates. I had not noticed that Laver's $1 million figure was not in the intro, perhaps we should move the Hoad discussion into the 1966 end-of-contract section, if that is the case.Tennisedu (talk) 20:02, 10 January 2020 (UTC)Tennisedu

Just a quick answer for now -- we're agreed on moving the discussion to the later section, so I'll do that. I won't take out any sources, I'll just combine it all. Much better than editing in 2 places. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Krosero (talk • contribs) 20:19, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

There is a larger issue, which I hope to get some guidance on, from those who know more about Wikipedia, and that's whether we should even be putting conversions into articles, if the conversion itself does not appear in the source. If a source states only dollars but not sterling, but we provide our own conversion, how valid is that?

The reason I thought to ask of this, is that I can imagine what would happen on Wiki if the earnings of modern players like Federer and Nadal were not well-documented, or documented at times only in one currency -- and I think you can imagine how the disputes would go, with users feeling free to do their own research and interject about how Nadal won three of his French Opens in years when the franc was strong, or Federer won certain Wimbledon when the pound was weak. I do not think that Wikipedia would want to be the arbiter of those kinds of disputes. Of course this doesn't happen because everything that Federer and Nadal earn, in whatever country, is immediately documented right away in dollars and put into the career till, where it simply adds up into a career figure in dollars. No questions, no problems. But you can imagine the dispute that would come up if certain of Roger's or Rafa's earnings were only known in one currency and Wiki users felt they had to provide their own conversion.

This Hoad article contains a heck of a lot of financial figures, not just career figures but yearly figures and individual tournament prizes. But we would not necessarily lose much of that (if any), because the prize money for a single tournament like a Wembley Pro for example, can usually be found both in sterling and dollars. The Aussie tournaments, we can find easily in Aussie pounds and in dollars.

But leaving this Hoad article aside, what to do with this larger question? Is Wikipedia really the right place to provide conversions when no conversion is provided in the sources? Krosero (talk) 20:13, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

Tennisedu (talk) 20:28, 10 January 2020 (UTC)Tennisedu: I have just looked at the Laver article, and, indeed, the discussion of $1 million, which is now more complex than before, is referred to only in the year-by-year accounts, so it would be sensible to move the Hoad $1 million discussion to 1966, where material on it already exists. I see that you are moving it now, I will examine your phraseology.

   I also notice that a claim is made for Laver to be the first player to earn over $100,000 as a pro in a year. That is clearly contradicted by Hoad winning $140,000 in his first 11 months as a pro, and Rosewall winning $125,000 (if memory serves) during his first year as a pro. Mention should be made of the older pros.Tennisedu (talk) 20:28, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
  As to your question on currency exchanges, it is a routine process and not difficult, although we can make it difficult if we suggest that some people may have made incorrect currency exchange calculations in the past, and what do we do if they made a mistake, and other irrelevant considerations.
 Currency exchanges are really quite simple and are not original research. If records are claimed in sterling terms, that would be tantamount to claiming the same record in dollars. Tennisedu

Tennisedu (talk) 20:39, 10 January 2020 (UTC)Tennisedu: Krosero, the term "all" is a universal claim which cannot be substantiated nor does it have a refernce to a source. We cannot claim that "ALL known sources" agree on an issue, because there is no one who has seen "all known sources". The most we can say is that "known sources" agree on something. I will change that again, unless you have some strong idea about how to get around the language difficulty.Tennisedu (talk) 20:39, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

"All known sources" does not imply that we are pretending to know all sources in existence; but if "all" is a problem, the word "some" is even worse, in this situation. "Some" is a vague, hedging word and in this case it implies that other sources state that Laver was not the first to $1 million. A vague term like that introduces vagueness or fuzziness, and the idea that Laver's milestone is not widely accepted when in fact it is -- or the idea that Laver's milestone is disputed outside of Wikipedia original research, which it is not. Krosero (talk) 20:45, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

Tennisedu (talk) 21:02, 10 January 2020 (UTC)Tennisedu: Krosero, "All" is, indeed, a universal claim, which you have not supported with any source or citation, it is merely your own personal opinion and has no place in a Wiki article. Let me suggest the term "known sources" as an alternative, which is not fuzzy or iffy, and is exact as to range.

 You cannot assume that Laver's record claim of $1 million is consistent with all other information, because it may well be in contradiction with the claim of Hoad for 350,000 GBP, in fact, it certainly is unless someone can show that a calculation error was made by Hoad in that documentary.  So far , no one hs.

Reply to earlier post: so 1970 Pathe film is "right at the source," with Hoad himself at his ranch, and the 1977 source is not? The 1977 article is a very long interview with Hoad, conducted at his ranch in Spain. "Right at the source."

This is where we are getting back on the merry-go-round, and in countless debates I have with you at Talk Tennis you've constantly asked for more confirming information about even straightforward sources like this (even when it's from the horse's mouth you find a way to call it illegitimate); and it becomes endless. Wikipedia actually has an article about "getting bogged down in discussion" and that's what's happening here. I already took the trouble to quote passages from that 1977 interview above, and yet you want more. No more.

We've got to start clearing all these objections away if they've already been addressed. 1963, quickly: the information came from Rosewall, the treasurer and he specified that it was gross; his numbers included everything. If you think Hoad and Rosewall, as proprietors, pulled in fantastic sums of money that were left out of what Rosewall described as "grosses", well again I don't know how further to respond to this (but please note that if you think all this phantom money was real, then it will push Rosewall's income above Laver's 1963, contradicting the clear claim in the article that Laver was the biggest money earner of the pros that year). Enough.

Hoad making half-a-million by 1960: this one I have already addressed, so this is getting to the point where you are simply ignoring my points, and ignoring all the sources which state oncourt winnings as amounting to $200,000, not half-a-million. That is phantom money you are proposing, and it's been explained to you many times not just here but at Talk Tennis, why such sums are impossible.

I am not going to continue to address this but let me just liken it to Federer saying, "I'm worth, I don't know, $100 million net worth," then adding, "In product endorsements I make about $20 million," and then you doing a subtraction and stating: "This means that Federer's oncourt winnings are $80 million." Absolutely invalid method here. I'm happy to put in the source for the mid-1960 figure, but not if it's going to be grossly misused like this and bog down the article with "questions" and "issues" that do no more than advance original research and POV. Krosero (talk) 21:17, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

I would still be happy to hear, from those who know Wikipedia well, what they think of the issue I raised above, namely, providing conversions when the source provides none. Now or later, whatever works, but anything would be appreciated. Krosero (talk) 21:26, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

Tennisedu (talk) 22:22, 10 January 2020 (UTC)Tennisedu: Krosero, "when the sources provide none"? Why would the sources include currency conversions, which are a routine daily matter with well known parameters? That is not necessary. That is not a serious objection to the British Pathe article, when currency conversions are a routine matter.

 In that 1977 interview, Hoad himself does not suggest the 250,000 figure, it comes in an introductory remark from the interviewer, not a detailed accounting. Hoad's only comment quoted is "It's a different world", no details there.

More impressive is the official bio by Hodgson and Jones, which had access to Hoad's personal records, and reports "nearly $200,000" for the end of 1958. That figure is very compatible with Kramer's figure of $140,000 through May, 1958, with further lagged cheques to follow for the year. And, of course, that $140,000 for Hoad's first 11 months appears to break the $100,000 barrier long before Laver's year in 1969, which would be another record.

So you should give us the full June 1960 source reference, which also indicates a high earning level, if you want us to get the full picture of earnings. That would be very helpful.Tennisedu (talk) 22:22, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

Tennisedu:Tennisedu (talk) 22:45, 10 January 2020 (UTC)The various reports of Laver's breaking the $1 million mark all appear to be reports of the same event, the release of this figure by Laver's management. In other words, these are not multiple, independent sources of information, but rather multiple reports of one single source of information. Even the British papers which reported the number in sterling were reliant on this one single source of information. So, to claim that "all" other sources are consistent is a trivial observation.Tennisedu (talk) 22:45, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

To the admins/mods: as far as I'm concerned this is at an impasse, and getting worse. All the same problems are repeating themselves which occurred back when Tennisedu was an anonymous user: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:64.229.32.48

One pattern then was that he tried to make claims about sources that he did not possess: and here we have him doing it again, telling us what is in the 1977 source that I put in, saying that Hoad's career earnings was an "introductory remark" (which it is not). And he's put into the article his own personal idea that Laver's sources are all from November 1971, when in fact, as anyone might expect, Laver's earnings were reported at least twice well before he made a million: and those prior reports all fit together with the final earnings adding up to $1 million in November 1971, with no discrepancy; it all "adds up" correctly, so to speak. So his new argument that Laver's $1 million claim is nothing more than many sources from one moment in time (Nov. 1971) repeating the same thing, is false; already we have him making assumptions of this kind and editing the article accordingly, as he did before.

But the biggest pattern repeating itself is the push for 2.8. This already did damage to the article, several months ago, when Tennisedu insisted (or assumed) that Australian pounds converted at the same rate as sterling (2.8), when in fact the true rate was 2.24. He put in several prize money figures for individual tournaments and tours won by Hoad, with inflated dollar amounts, which I cleaned up earlier this week. This error -- a very basic error, for all of his protestations about knowing economics -- was discovered on Talk Tennis, and he was told about it. Yet he never returned to this page to correct the many inflated figures; he left those numbers in place. We here had given him a lot of leeway with those numbers, but our trust (minimal as it was) in his economic knowledge proved to be misplaced.

Now the pattern repeats itself: he again insists that we must use high exchange rates, particularly 2.8 again, and assures us that this is all very basic and self-evident. He couldn't even identify the correct exchange rate for Aussie pounds in a single year (and littered the article with misinformation despite his ignorance), but now he's telling us what to do with the more complex question of career earnings earned over many years.

Meanwhile he's simply going into absurd territory with assertions like Hoad making half-a-million in prize money by 1960 -- assertions that are clearly pie in the sky for those of us who have looked over all the documentation of this period in careful detail.

I'd be happy to discuss with someone who has no agenda to push, but as far as I'm concerned this is at an impasse now and needs some stronger solution than me merely repeating myself. My participation here seems only to have fueled his speculation and original research and POV arguments. Krosero (talk) 00:22, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

TenniseduTennisedu (talk) 04:40, 11 January 2020 (UTC) The half million mark is derived from two articles which Krosero has cited, $560,000 through to June 1960 (Daily Mail, June, 1960), $25,000 endorsement income per year ("Hoad takes Stock", Jan. 1960)...so you get about $500,000. A simple observation, but no need to be upset about it. It is what it is, I did not invent it.

The two references to Laver's $1 million are from the same date, information released to the press. So, not two separate sources of information. Again, no need to be upset.Tennisedu (talk) 04:40, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

If we are going to exclude any reference to the career earnings of 350,000 using the contemporary exchange rates of 2.8 or 2.85, which were actually used in the terms of Hoad's contracts, then we should at least acknowledge that 1970 exchange rates are being substituted for the actual rates. i will note that 1970 exchange rates are being used, rather than the exchange rate which were actually used in Hoad's contracts. The rationale for using anachronistic exchange rates continues to elude me. The figure of 840,000 GBP is not in the source, but is an insertion from a private calculation assumed to be appropriate. I would suggest excluding the reference to 840,000 if the contemporary exchange rates are to be ignored. Any ideas on this?Tennisedu (talk) 19:47, 14 January 2020 (UTC)Tennisedu

By removing any mention of Hoad's 350,000 GBP career total as representing $1 million in the exchange rates of his 1957-1966 contract period, there is no longer any reason to make any reference to Laver's $1 million claim from 1971, because now there is no longer any mention of $1 million in the Hoad statement...so the entire purpose for comparing to the Laver claim is now being removed. Therefore, the Laver statement no longer has any purpose in this context and should be removed as well.Tennisedu (talk) 19:56, 14 January 2020 (UTC)Tennisedu

I've put in a source from 1963 showing that Hoad actually took a cut in his percentage of the gate, when Laver was onboarded. This is in contradiction to the statement made above by Tennisedu as an argument for how Hoad could possibly have made half a million dollars in the 1960s: "For the period beginning in January 1963, Hoad and Rosewall were tour proprietors and it is possible that they owned most of, if not all, the gate from the 1963 Australian tour, a very lucrative tour." The exact opposite turns out to be the case. Krosero (talk) 03:23, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

The pound and the dollar

I was born in 1942 and by the time I was old enough to understand such stuff, around age 10 in 1952, my mother, who had English friends and did some travelling, told me that that the dollar to pound exchange rate was $2.80 for a pound. And that it was stable. I just found a long article about the pound/dollar at:

https://www.exchangerates.org.uk/articles/1325/the-200-year-pound-to-dollar-exchange-rate-history-from-5-in-1800s-to-todays.html

and found THIS:

"In September of 1949, speculation became fact when at the time Chancellor of the Exchequer, Sir Stafford Cripps, announced a 30% devaluation for the Pound, reducing the Pound-to-Dollar rate from $4.03 to $2.80.

"The following two decades were characterised by persistent balance of payment problems for the UK, leading to the Sterling crisis of 1964/65 when the UK was compelled to seek financial assistance from the Bank of International Settlement and International Monetary Fund (IMF)."

The article goes on to say:

"By 1966/67, the Bank of England was covering persistent Sterling weakness by lines of credit extended from other central banks (i.e., swaps with the New York Federal Reserve) and the IMF. It wasn’t enough however and in 1967, Prime Minister Harold Wilson announced a 14.3% devaluation, reducing the Pound-to-Dollar rate from $2.80 to $2.40."

That was just in time for me, aged 26 to spend six months in London, with a cheaper pound, which I THOUGHT (wrongly) would be stabilized at $2.40.

Anyway, the point of all this is that for MOST of Hoad's playing career, there were precisely $2.80 to a pound, neither more nor less, and, towards the end of his career, a couple of years at $2.40. In any case, for all of those years, the exchange rate was NOT varying on a day-by-day basis, the way it did later -- and continues to do so today.

Hope this might bring a little more clarity to the discussion. Hayford Peirce (talk) 23:43, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Tennisedu (talk) 01:15, 15 January 2020 (UTC)Tennisedu: Thanks, Hayford, for the enlightenment as to the exchange rate history of the years we are looking at. You have nailed it good. And for our discussion here, I think that we should consider the possibility, indeed, the high probability, that nearly all of Hoad's earnings in his career were under the 2.80 exchange rate. (In some places, I have seen the rate posted as 2.85). That is the rate which was actually used in Hoad's contracts for those years.

 Now, the 350,000 GBP figure is almost certainly Hoad's own compilation number of accumulated tennis earnings over that period, and therefore the 2.8 exchange rate should be applied to the 350,000 GBP to arrive at a corresponding U.S. dollar amount.  Simply assuming that the 1970 rate of 2.40 must be the rate is not apparent from the information we currently have. It is much more likely that 2.8 is the appropriate rate.
  As far as our article is concerned, I would suggest that both calculations, using 2.4 and 2.8, be included in the text to indicate the range of possibilities, given that we do not know exactly how the 350,000 GBP figure was arrived at. That is a better solution than simply writing over each other's postings.
 And, incidentally, this is supposed to be right up my alley, as I have a bachelor's degree in Economics, completed two graduate courses in international trade and finance at U of T, and was an invited neutral commentator on radio broadcasts of issues related to international trade during the 1988 federal election campaign on the Canada/U.S.Free Trade Agreement in our country. These are still hot-button issues today, as we see in the headlines.Tennisedu (talk) 01:15, 15 January 2020 (UTC)Tennisedu

Well, you certainly have the credentials! Can't argue with any of that! As for the rate, my own memories of those years (some of which I was also in the import business in Tahiti bringing in stuff from UK), the rate was absolutely FIXED -- it was 2.80 and NEVER 2.85. If you come across that figure somewhere, it must be a bad transposition from somewhere. Someone doing some calculations based on who knows what that ends up with the wrong number. Hayford Peirce (talk) 03:25, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

No, Hayford, it was actually just from one of the standard lists that pop up when you punch the rate into the browser, I didn't bother to save it, but I could probably get it back,Tennisedu (talk) 03:39, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

Hayford, what you wrote in your post starting this section is all true and we've been working with the exchange rates just as you've described them: a stable rate of 2.8 all the way through 1967, falling to 2.4 by 1970, and even further in years after. I noted above that Laver made much of his fortune during those stable pre-1967 years. But none of this is disputed in our debate here. Tennisedu made an assumption that Hoad calculated his own earnings as 350,000 sterling and gave it to Pathe in that form, as 350,000 sterling. This is an assumption, and not a fact, as you can see from the Laver and Nicklaus examples, but leave that aside for the moment. Let's assume for the sake of argument that Hoad calculated his fortune in sterling and reported it that way to Pathe. Yes, that could present a problem. To put it very simply, if I make 10 sterling in 1960 -- which converts very neatly to $28 -- and I report that income to Pathe in 1970, but Pathe then converts it per 1970 exchange rates, to $24: that would be an undercount of the dollars I actually earned. But this all presumes that I calculated and reported my income in sterling to begin with. What if I calculated it back in 1960 in dollars, as $28? I keep that in my personal financial records, as dollars. And then I report to the Pathe film, that I made $28. There is no problem there: I have not lost anything -- not if we're asking here on Wikipedia for what I made in dollars. Of course Pathe, in 1970, might take that $28 and, for their audience, convert it to sterling, at the current 1970 rate (2.4); so Pathe would report those $28 as about £12. That would actually be an over-count of the 10 sterling as I originally earned it. But it would not matter for our purposes, because we're looking for the dollar amount, to compare to Laver's $1 million. In that case, the $28 I earned back in 1960 have been reported correctly in 1970. No problem whatsoever.

So basically, Hoad could have reported his income in sterling, or in dollars. We don't know. But we're not stuck merely guessing. Laver is the closest possible analogy here, and we have every indication that his growing fortune was calculated and reported in dollars. His career earnings were reported at intervals, as he approached a million: I have reports of his career earnings at $714,230, then $838,000; and finally he reached $1 million in November 1971. The British press, given this milestone figure in dollars, converted it for their readers to 416,000 sterling -- a rate of 2.4, which was current at the time. They did not attempt to account for those years in Laver's career when the pound had been stronger. There was no need to do so. Laver's career earnings had been calculated in dollars, and directly reported to the British press in dollars.

I conceded above, and I'll do it again, that of course we don't know with absolute certainty how these athletes originally calculated their earnings and reported them. But it cannot be assumed that Hoad made his calculations in sterling rather than dollars. As far as I can see, Laver's earnings were being tabulated by Americans, millionaires like Lamar Hunt, counting up Laver's earnings at a time when Laver was making most of his money in big American events (WCT, TCC). Why would it be different for Hoad? He made his hugest bucks under Jack Kramer's management, and I seriously doubt that Kramer was calculating his players' earnings -- and certainly not his own earnings, which he often spoke about to the press and compared to the earnings of his players -- in sterling. Hoad made the vast majority of his early fortune in the big World Series events, which mostly took place in America. In all those years, Hoad's management was Jack Kramer, who calculated his players' earnings in dollars and frequently gave out the dollar amounts to the press all over the world. Why would Hoad have kept his earnings calculated under sterling, when he didn't even live in Britain?

Nor did Hoad make very much of his fortune in Britain; only a small fraction of his fortune was handed to him originally in sterling; most of it arrived in his bank account already in dollars. (And what he did get in sterling, from his winnings at Wembley or other British matches, he would convert to dollars, at whatever exchange rate was current when he made the money.) So that is yet one more contradiction in all this. Yes, Hoad made most of his money back when the pound was stronger. But most of his money didn't come to him in pounds. The vast majority of his winnings were elsewhere, not at Wembley, not in Britain. So he did not, originally, earn most of his fortune in pounds. And yet we're pushing here to make an adjustment based on the strength of the British pound???

In any case, whether Hoad reported his income to Pathe in dollars or sterling, I think it's original research to try to determine the currency exchange rates during the individual years of an athlete's career, and then calculating what you might think is a more fair conversion rate for him. Leave Hoad aside for the moment, because during most of his career the pound/dollar exchange rate was stable at 2.8. But that is not going to be the case with other athletes, and I think here we should be arguing what's a good general principle to follow for all athletes bio on Wiki. It's easy to imagine other cases where calculations of career earnings involve currencies that exchanged at fluctuating rates. You can see then the amount of original research that would have to go into such calculations: "Okay, in these three years, Djokovic made X amount, under Y rates; in these other years, he made ....." That is clearly original research. Someone could undertake such a project and get it published, and then it could serve as a source on Wikipedia; but until then it's original research. Krosero (talk) 03:45, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

Tennisedu (talk) 05:12, 15 January 2020 (UTC)Tennisedu: Some good points, as usual, Krosero. There is no doubt that the majority of Hoad's big winnings in his prime years were in U.S. dollars, although Gonzales claimed that substantial amounts were paid in Australian pounds. For conversions, would Hoad take his British pound winnings and convert them into U.S. dollars? I think probably not, he spent most of his free time in Australia and Europe, he and his wife loved Europe and soon settled there. His wife was an avid art collector and they spend much of Hoad's earnings (according to Hoad's nephew) in Europe, both on art and housing development. In any event, Hoad would have an excellent awareness of converting exchange into and out of dollars and pounds. He would have no difficulty, if he actually did so, of getting that 350,000 figure from his personal records.

  Now, right, we simply do not know exactly how that 350,000 number was arrived at, but the source does not help us to get a clear way to choose an exchange rate appropriate for that result, we have no clear indication of how much represents conversions under exchange rates from Hoad's contract years, or how much might be under the 1970 rates, we could only hazard a guess. That is of no value for this article. 
 However, to give the reader an idea of the possible range of possibilities for that amount, we could mention both rate regimes as providing boundaries for values.  That would give the reader an opportunity to see the possible range of outcomes, not as final answers, but as limits. That would make sense methodologically from the standpoint of historical research.Tennisedu (talk) 05:12, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

World Tennis citations

Tennisedu:I notice that some notices have been placed asking for "page number" references for some important quotations from World Tennis magazine from 1959 and 1963, no longer extant.

I have provided the month and the year for these references, but not the exact page.

However, the references have been standing for quite some time without anyone being bothered by the lack of page numbers for a publication which is not available.

Why is this now becoming an issue?Tennisedu (talk) 22:01, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

Tennisedu (talk) 02:05, 17 January 2020 (UTC)I have just now strengthened the reference for the World Tennis article of July 1963, which is crucially important in understanding the financial arrangements and distribution of profits on the pro tour in the mid-1960's.

The title is, appropriately, "The Wild World of the Pros", showing how Hoad and possibly Rosewall were guaranteed a level of earnings from their seven year 1960 contracts. The tour profits above the prize money was applied to meet the guarantees of the Kramer era contracts, and Hoad and Rosewall appear to be the only players with long-term contracts in a position to benefit from these guarantees. Gonzales voiced some objection.

This clarifies our discussion above, that Hoad was not restricted to getting income from prize money, but also had rights in the distribution of the tour profits.

Crucial article.Tennisedu (talk) 02:05, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

Source needed for this statement

"In his victorious pro tours, Hoad had won against 11 Grand Slam or Pro Grand Slam singles champions (Gonzales, Rosewall, Sedgman, Trabert, McGregor, Rose, Cooper, Anderson, Olmedo, Buchholz, Laver)." is an interesting statement, of course, but it certainly seems like original research to me, and I'm a guy who has been very guilty of that offense myself over the years. If there were ANY sort of REPUTABLE source for it, then it should go in. For instance, Jack Kramer certainly made a number of mistakes in his book. He said, to paraphrase without actually looking it up, "Segoo probably played more matches against great players than anyone else in history. He must have played 200 matches against me, and the same number against Gonzales...." Three statements, the first of which is most probably true. The two others are simply NOT true -- he did play a lot of matches against both Kramer and Gonzales, but nowhere near 200 in either case. The point, however, is this: If we could write, "Jack Kramer asserted, whether rightly or wrongly, that Hoad had won against 11 Grand Slam etc etc." THAT, I think, could be put in the article. Hayford Peirce (talk) 00:07, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

Yes, Hayford, the number of wild statements made about the old pros is amazing. Just recently I have read somewhere that Bud Collins, when interviewing or talking with Kramer on television, would always remark on how Kramer went undefeated in 1949.

Tennisedu (talk) 04:54, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

Performance Timeline

Tennisedu (talk) 05:04, 21 January 2020 (UTC)I notice that the Performance Timeline for Hoad does not include the TOC events or the Wimbledon Pro. However, those events are included in the Performance Timelines for other players. There should be some consistent policy for this, so that whatever is decided holds for all players.

If not, I may eliminate those events from the Performance Timelines of other players. Sound good?

Personally, I think that these events, the most prominent of their time, should be included.Tennisedu (talk) 05:04, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

They are not on Laver page or Gonzales. They cannot be listed under slams but could be listed under something like "other tournaments" just like Indian Wells Masters is included on full performance timelines. Fyunck(click) (talk) 06:10, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

Tennisedu (talk) 17:57, 21 January 2020 (UTC)Yes, Fyunck, I noticed that they were not on the Laver or Gonzales pages, but they are on the Rosewall. We should be consistent.

Photo of Hoadie for this article

SURELY there must be ONE public domain photo of Hoadie that we could find and use as the lede photo in this article. It's ridiculous having an article of umpteen thousand words about one of the greatest players of all time that has this EXTREMELY blurry photo of him as the lede.... Hayford Peirce (talk) 19:10, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

 Done @Hayford Peirce:I added a new one that is surely better than what we had. Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:33, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

Only about ten THOUSAND times better, I would say! I dunno WHO put in the other one, or why it has stayed there for so long! Many, many thanks! Hayford Peirce (talk) 20:49, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the major upgrade in the photo, much better now. By the way, the date given to that photo (1954) is off by a bit. Hoad wears a wedding ring here, he didn't get married until June 1955. Also, the photo is taken from a double appearance with Rosewall, and in 1954 Dec. they had just turned 20, they look somewhat older here. Perhaps this is from 1956?Tennisedu (talk) 16:09, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

Yes, I have been thinking that the picture of Hoad definitely does NOT show a young, young man -- it must date from at least '56 or even later. Hayford Peirce (talk) 16:15, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

Probably best to stick to the date mentioned in the source unless you want to wait until 2088 to re-add the image to the article.--Wolbo (talk) 17:19, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

True. The Australian govt has given this as a public domain image only because it is pre-1955. If it's later, it's not public domain and can't be used till 2088. I went with what the National Library of Australia said. They bought it from the actual photographer and the photographer said this is from the 1954 Davis Cup final in White City, Sydney... and that was only in 1954 if those two were playing. So even the location and tournament were labeled wrong by the photographer if this is another year. Fyunck(click) (talk) 21:34, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

Hoad turning pro in 1956?

Tennisedu (talk) 17:29, 24 January 2020 (UTC) Hayford, it is true that the press was playing up the potential Hoad Grand Slam in 1956, but the speculation about Hoad turning pro IF he won the Grand Slam was more about hype than reality. Hoad and his wife had special arrangements in 1956 by the Australian tennis authorities to travel together, and they enjoyed the year. Hoad had no plan to turn pro at the end of 1956. It is often forgotten that Hoad rejected a pro offer from Kramer in late December 1953. presumably for a world HTH tour against Kramer. Hoad stated then that he wanted to win Wimbledon "a couple of times" before turning pro. And that is exactly what happened. Hoad still wanted two Wimbledon wins before turning pro. As soon as he got his second Wimbledon win, he did turn pro without hesitation. Before that, he always rejected suggestions by the press that he might turn pro. But it is fair to refer to the press reports of speculation that he might turn pro, keeping in mind that Hoad himself had no plans to turn pro before winning a second Wimbledon. Hoad reportedly told Kramer in 1956 that he was not ready for Gonzales yet.Tennisedu (talk) 17:29, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

That's a lot of interesting information but it's obvious that had Hoad turned pro after WINNING THE GRAND SLAM, which was a major speculation at the time, he would have been more valuable as a gate draw than as a guy who, a year later, had won two Wimbledons (and nothing else that year). I think that the text ought to be left the way it is. Hayford Peirce (talk) 18:14, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

Hoad's lack of concentration and consistency

Tennisedu (talk) 17:47, 24 January 2020 (UTC) Wolbo, I have difficulty accepting the idea that Hoad experienced lack of concentration or consistency as a mature player, which began in 1956 when he was 21, with a fully matured game. He won 88% of his matches that year, which was 114 wins. In 1959, he won at least 105 matches and won 71% of his matches on the world tournament series, which compares well with Gonzales at 72% (over 15 fewer matches). Gonzales himself also had two seasons with over 100 wins. Getting 100+ wins in a season was a huge achievement in those decades. And no one achieved it with an inconsistent record or mental lapses, that would not be possible. The quotations of Hoad's lack of concentration date from 1954, five of them, only one reference from early 1956. If lack of concentration leading to inconsistency was endemic to Hoad's career, we should see something along those lines from his post-1956 era, but all we have to support that is a comment from Kramer, which could refer to 1954 again, for all we know. I would remove that evaluation of "lack of concentration" if all we have for support is a bunch of comments from 1954 when Hoad was 19 years old, and before his game matured. Most players lack consistency before they reach their twenties and their game matures.Tennisedu (talk) 17:47, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

I certainly have no argument about removing this. *I* didn't put it in and don't know who did. As far as I know, you DID remove it. Hayford Peirce (talk) 18:10, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

Tennisedu (talk) 18:39, 24 January 2020 (UTC) Hi, Hayford. Yes, I did remove them, but it appears that Wolbo reinserted them, claiming that the removal was a "whitewash". It certainly was not intended as a whitewash, but an attempt to correct an overemphasis on one year, 1954. We should not extrapolate from one single teenage year, and extend that to cover a whole career. Makes no sense to me.Tennisedu (talk) 18:39, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

Ampol series terminology

The question of what exact terminology to use for the 1959 Ampol tournament series is a problematic one, as the sources are not always clear on which titles should be used.

1) There was never the use of the term "Ampol tour" in the sources or in any secondary books or histories. I do not see how we can simply use "Ampol tour" because it has no background in the literature.

2) Terms which were actually used for the 1959 Ampol series. i) Cumberland Argus, 23 Sept. 1959 "The world's open tennis championship", and later in the same article, "The world series" ii) Kramer's Ampol series brochure "In each tournament conducted in the world series, the players are seeded according to their standings on points scored for the Ampol Trophy." iii) Cumberland Argus, 14 Jan. 1959, statement by Walkley, managing director of Ampol oil company, "Our objective in introducing this Ampol Open Trophy is to help tennis generally be it amateur or professional." iv) Cumberland Argus, 28 Jan. 1959, "Sedgman is leading by one point in the 2,500 AUS pound Ampol open trophy, now being contested by Kramer's pro troupe." v) L.A. Times, 31 May 1959 "the players will be out to earn points toward the Ampol Open Trophy." vi) The Age, 4 Jan. 1959 "with the Ampol cheque went the company's open tennis trophy."

So what seems to designate this series is mostly the Ampol Open Trophy, and the term "world series" in the Kramer brochure and newspaper report, and most of all, the term "Open".

The term "open" distinguished the Ampol series from the 4-man pro championship series in the U.S. in 1959. It referred not only to the greater field of 12 pros in the tournament series, but to a wish for eventual open tennis.

I would suggest not using the term "Ampol tour", which is not found in any tennis history book, or in the sources. Perhaps using the term "Ampol Open Trophy world series" would combine the most common references to this tour.Tennisedu (talk) 21:53, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

I can't be sure what to do here. There is however a big difference between "Ampol Tour" and "Ampol tour." A capitalized "Tour" makes it part of the formal name, where the lower case "tour" means the tour sponsored by Ampol. You could write the "Ampol Open Trophy tour" if it was a tour whose winner receives the Ampol Open Trophy. Fyunck(click) (talk) 23:09, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

Absolutely agree about capitalization, there was certainly never an "Ampol Tour" in press reports or tennis histories. What we see in the press reports is emphasis on the "Ampol Open Trophy", with the "O" and the "T" capitalized, plus two references to the "world series" uncapitalized. I would suggest following Kramer's brochure and using "Ampol Open Trophy world series". If that is agreeable (?) I will try that in the text. Could we have a show of hands?Tennisedu (talk) 01:20, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

I'm with whatever anyone else wants on this one. Fyunck(click) (talk) 01:47, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

"Ampol tour" without a capital T makes sense to me. Other than that, I'll go with the consensus. Hayford Peirce (talk) 05:22, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

 The term "world series" is used in the Kramer brochure...is that agreeable as a designation? It is also found in a newspaper source.Tennisedu (talk) 15:54, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

1963 hth numbers

Tennishistory has raised the issue of which quotes should be included. I think that we should include all quotes, because this is not a question of Laver having a memory problem, clearly he is in agreement with Buchholz,

both remembering 13 to 0. Do we want to claim that both Laver AND Buchholz had the exact same type of memory lapse which brought up the 13 to 0 score? That seems beyond credulity, so there seems to be some basis for that 13 number, perhaps it includes the practice matches which preceded the Australian tour, although that is just a guess. But the fact that both Laver and Buchholz have this exact same memory gives strong support to the idea of a more extended series of matches. Laver mentioned a more extensive series in the 1990's, so this is not some recent development.However, we should not include a discussion of why we would like to include some quotes but not others, that discussion belongs here in the talk section, not in the body of the article. I suggest that when there is some diversity in the sources, both perspectives in the sources should remain in the article, and our intelligent readers can make what they will of the information. That is the approach which we have used for other issues in this article, and it seems to have worked well.Tennisedu (talk) 16:26, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

Surely that can depend on the number of quotes and sources. If we have 20 sources that say one number and one quote that says otherwise, I'm not sure we should use that one quote. So it does depend. Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:23, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

Well, here we have two quotes, both of them from players who were actually on that tour. And no dissent from the other two players. Usually, two independent sources is sufficient to establish a point of controversy. And we have earlier statements from Laver in the 1990's and 1980's to the same effect. There is no real discrepancy with the newspapers if Laver and Buchholz were including practice matches in the total.Tennisedu (talk) 18:50, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

We now have another source for Laver's remarks, which is consistent with the other sources, tennishead, November 19, 2019, Stephen Towers.

tennishead.net/a-light-shone-down-on-me-the-remarkable-story-of-the-1969-rod-laver-grand-slam/

There are more sources also from 1997. For the newspaper reports, some of those are probably network retreads, distributed by the news services, rather than independent reports. News service feeds should be lumped together as one source. Or the newspaper feeds could be referred to in a note or citation reference, if the concern is to reduce the article size.Tennisedu (talk) 18:55, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

As of now, we have two citations for the newspaper feeds, and three independent citations for the remarks by Laver and Buchholz. There is no clear edge in source strength there.Tennisedu (talk) 19:30, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

I do not doubt that years later Laver said the total was 13-0 to Hoad. In 1963 Laver's remarks aligned with the published totals in the newspapers and the match reports (all say 8-0 to Hoad). But reputable tennis researchers do not list a result in their archive solely because a player says a result took place (there may be instances where a player may make a remark about a match that leads the researcher to find a match report, but it is the match reports themselves that are proof). Tennis researchers find match reports. Myself and two fellow researchers (who I have a great deal of respect for) all state the head-to-head total for this series was 8-0 in Hoad's favour. This is because this is what contemporary newspapers say. Tennisedu, if you find the five match reports of the additional five Hoad victories that you claim took place, then (and only then) will I believe that those matches took place. Practice matches have no relevance at all. That's all I have to say on this. Keep discussing the issue if you want to Tennisedu, but if you want to make any progress with your case, I suggest you find those additional five match reports. Tennishistory1877 (talk) 20:27, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

Assuming I'm reading the right section, I would never write it the way it is now written. Far far too much be written on the 8-0 record... it needs to be said once without so much detail. I would write more like:

• "In a January series of head-to-head matches played in Australia, Hoad dominated Laver. The series was 8–0 or 13–0 in favor of Hoad depending on the source.<list sources> Hoad was then inactive for five months due to a shoulder injury."

That's it. The rest is article bloat about who said what and when. No one cares about that. List the sources and let readers go to the sources if they want details about time period and who said what. Fyunck(click) (talk) 21:10, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

Fyunck, all sources published in contemporary newspapers state 8-0. The match reports all confirm 8-0 because this is what actually happened. What a player says years later is irrelevant. Sources do not have equal validity. I will give a hypothetical scenario based on your line of reasoning: you watch the Wimbledon final live on TV and see Joe Bloggs beats Fred Smith, all the reports say so, then years later Smith says he won the match. You would write on wikipedia "Bloggs beat Smith, or Smith beat Bloggs" and list the sources. One source is fiction and the others fact. If wikipedia was run on your system, Fyunck, the whole thing would be a joke. All it would take is one person to make a remark and it would be listed on the page. You could have six different claims for the result of a Wimbledon final, that player A won in 3 sets, he won in 4, or 5, or that Player B won in 3 sets, 4 or 5, all would be listed. Tennishistory1877 (talk) 21:49, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

Not quite. Not every persons opinion would matter. BUT, the person who was personally in the matches would matter a great deal. I have found many contemporary sources turned out to be dead wrong so we use a mixture of contemporary sources and current sources. And Laver isn't the only one who is claiming 13-0 in matches, so is the undercard. I see no reason why we wouldn't include both sets of results with the sources. Fyunck(click) (talk) 21:59, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

I agree with Fyunck, there are two independent witnesses to support the 13 to 0 claim, both of whom are still with us. Further, we have an interview with Laver from 1997 to support the claim. I agree that the heavy detail should be removed and the passage simplified along the lines suggested by Fyunck. I will proceed to do so.Tennisedu (talk) 22:17, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

Give me an example of a match report for a match on the old pro tour that has later been proved to be wrong because of what a player said years later. Tennishistory1877 (talk) 22:27, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

It could also be written:

• "In a January series of head-to-head matches played in Australia, Hoad dominated Laver 8–0.<sources> Laver and Buchholz later claimed it was actually 13–0.<source> Hoad was then inactive for five months due to a shoulder injury."

This isn't rocket science guys. Give our readers what you have and let them sort out what they think is correct. Fyunck(click) (talk) 22:34, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

Will do. That is a reasonable construction.Tennisedu (talk) 23:08, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

Both myself and Tennisedu are interested in this matter, but you aren't Fyunck. You just want it resolved and don't care how. Facts are important. These facts are broadcast on a wikipedia page, so must be stated correctly. I know most of the major tennis researchers of old pro tour research who have published research in recent years and we all operate the same way. We look for match reports. Player's remarks are only useful to us in our research if they help us find a match report. Tennishistory1877 (talk) 23:26, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

The way the old pro tour operated, sometimes matches did not get reported in the press. Just look at the gaps in the standard tennis histories, which sometimes are unaware of how the matches were organized into tours. Newspapers are important in our research of tennis history, but sometimes the reporters could be confused about the tour formats and overall scores. I think that if we get conflicting reports, such as here, we should report both claims with relevant sources, and just admit that we do not have all the information. For sure, the pros were open to playing spontaneous exhibition matches if there was decent money available. Just give what we have.Tennisedu (talk) 23:32, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

There are no conflicting reports on this tour, the only thing conflicting with the reports is player testimony (said many years later). Find me a reputable researcher of the old pro tour who will take player testimony over match reports. I change my mind only when facts are presented to me, so try and at least attempt to prove me wrong and find those five match reports. Tennishistory1877 (talk) 23:59, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

Actually I do care. I love the stats for the old-time stars. I think they are not represented properly here on Wikipedia. That said, as it now stands, that section on h2h is awful and needs to be fixed. Something that should be done in one or two sentences has turned into a paragraph. We use sources here on wikipedia, and like it or not, two players who played on that tour have said something that is different than the number usually reported. That can certainly be mentioned here with the source. We don't just expurgate it. Even the "Australian" wording is actually incorrect since they played that January tour in places other than Australia, so there's room for improvement even there. I didn't say it has to worded exactly as i wrote it either. The Laver claim could be more specific by saying the year as in "In 1992, Laver and Buchhholz both claimed it was actually 13–0.<source>" I've seen many of the same sources as you. When the h2h is mentioned it is usually in the form of 2–14 against Rosewall and Hoad, with 2 wins against Rosewall. But I also know there are often missing events. I know how bad the tournament info was on Arthur Ashe in going through "expert" research and information compiled by Rollo over at Tennis Forums. I know because I did a newspaper by newspaper search to correct all the expert published information. You are probably correct in that it was 8–0 and not 13–0, but unless Laver and Buchholtz retract their statements they are good enough to at least mention. Have you thought of contacting Rod Laver to see what he meant? I once had to contact Margaret Court to see if she could help with a discrepancy. She got back to me and couldn't help but gave me information and someone who did help. Fyunck(click) (talk) 01:40, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

One thing I am fairly certain about, the old touring pros would play spontaneous exhibition matches when the opportunities presented themselves, our former premier in this province witnessed a Hoad/Rosewall exhibition match near here in Toronto when he was a teen, but that match is nowhere to be found in the records or the newspapers. That does not mean that it didn't happen, because people remember seeing that match, but it was not covered in the newspaper. I believe that many of the old pro touring matches in smaller locales did not get covered by newspapers. So we cannot restrict ourselves to what is in the press, the actual pro tour operated beyond the jurisdiction of the press. Personal testimonies by players such as Laver and Buchholz help to fill the void. In 1960, Hoad and Rosewall played an exhibition tour of Japan, there was some mention of about ten matches, but...where were these matches? No information was reported in the press. All we have is reference of a number, but no details. The old pro tour was loosely structured, to allow spontaneous events.Tennisedu (talk) 02:49, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

Fyunck, I have an archive of over 7,000 jpegs and screenshots of match reports collected by me over the years. I also have an additional number of jpegs and screenshots sent to me by other researchers. Player testimony never overrules match reports. There is a big difference between speculative data and confirmed data. Tennis base publish stats (Hoad v Laver 13-0 is not included, what is included is 8-0). Rollo at Tennis forums is unknown to me. I know several reputable tennis researchers (they are people who back up their published research with match reports). One of the people I know is the chief contributor to tennis base, another is a major contributor to tennis base (I myself have contributed data to tennis base and have published my substantial results archive elsewhere too). I do not doubt your interest in tennis history, but your intervention on this thread is extremely concerning. I see the second suggestion you made has now been accepted by myself and Tennisedu. The published totals given, then the later claim made. That is very different from two conflicting totals given. Because if that is the case, no overall stats for the player can be listed. The long section which includes total head to heads for Hoad that Tennisedu has listed (which needs to be checked for accuracy anyway) including all the surface breakdowns can not be listed if there are two conflicting totals given. Two conflicting totals has a knock-on effect on everything, which is why there is a big difference between the accepted version (with sources listed) and the remarks later made. Tennishistory1877 (talk) 07:54, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

That's great you have so many jpegs and screenshots. I have nowhere near as many. I also know tennis base, a good site as far as it goes. I had a big beef with his abcdef tournament ratings which are way too subjective (and imho wrong) to be worth anything. But the owner knows how I feel. And then when he started charging a ridiculous amount I dropped out of the website. You being worried about my intervention in this thread really worries me, because it means you don't understand how wikipedia works. It is for everyone not for so-called historians. Leave that stuff to another website that you have to pay for. Wikipedia works by consensus and sourcing. If you can source something and more editors than not think its worthwhile and not trivial, we include it. We don't include Serena Williams show size even if we know it because it's trivial. But if two players dispute published numbers, and they are two players who were there, then you bet we include it somewhere, as long as we can properly source it. It's not overruling one set of numbers, it's including both. Now for a table, you have to include something so we'd go by the far and away better sourced numbers. But we might include an asterisk with a note below that mentions Lavers claim. We do that with totals for Borg or Ashe because the ATP website has a lot of fuzzy math on late 60s early 70s matches. Fyunck(click) (talk) 09:48, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

I will reply to your points in turn. Firstly I am not the owner of tennis base, I have never communicated with the owner (I know the chief contributor of tennis base who puts data on the site and he does know the owner). I do not comment here on whether it is right or wrong for them to charge for access to their data (I have my private views on that but choose not to share them in here). I work independently of tennis base, but allowed some of my data to be used on there. Next, you say wikipedia is for everyone, not so-called historians. I am fully aware that everyone can edit, but they should supply reputable sources. If we are discussing speculative data, this 1963 tour total is a lot more clear cut than many other examples I could list. All contemporary published newspapers listing overall numbers for the tour state 8-0. All match reports align with 8-0. Hoad stated 8-0 in 1964. Laver in 1963 stated numbers that are the same as the overall contemporary published numbers for the tour. Only in the 1990s did he and Buchholz say otherwise. Actually I would prefer no overall stats given at all for the old pro tour unless clearly stated that the stats are based on confirmed matches. There are still matches that have yet to be found and I can tell you a few examples of matches that were played that weren't reported and the results were unknown. These matches can not be included in any stats. Confirmed results are different to speculative results. If I wanted to I could add many asterixes to tables for stats on the old pro tour of the type you mentioned. You say in a table you go with stats that contain by far the best sourced numbers. If we use a source for the pre-open era pro tour that is permissible to use under wikipedia rules that contains the far and away better sourced numbers, the source used must be tennis base. Like any website with large amounts of data, it contains errors, but fewer than other websites. Serena Williams show size (shoe size I think you meant) is not listed you say. I suggest you take a read down this Lew Hoad article and see the amounts of trivial information listed. Tennishistory1877 (talk) 10:49, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

Tennishistory1877 is right about sources, and about the 8-0 tally. Players' remarks, especially from decades later (no earlier than 1993 in this case), cannot be used as a foundation for tennis history if they can't be confirmed in contemporary match reports and are actually contradicted by those sources from the time period. Players' remarks can provide useful hints or clues for finding reports, but claims are not reports.

One thing we can drop is the idea that this is an issue about newspaper accounts versus player accounts. The players spoke back in 1963. It wasn't newspaper reporters, coming up with an 8-0 number. Hoad said it was 8-0 in an article he wrote for World Tennis in '64. Laver said himself shortly after the tour that it was 8 matches against Hoad (all losses) and 13 against Rosewall. The Boston Globe reported those same numbers in an interview with Rosewall in '63 -- so we have Ken confirming the numbers as well, because the interviewer pointedly asked Rosewall to speak about Laver's astonishingly poor win/loss record.

Laver's debut against the pros was closely watched by the whole tennis world, and it was not some obscure tour in which we could take refuge in the idea that maybe some matches were "missed." The interest was too high to miss anything. Hoad, Laver, Rosewall all said it was 8-0; countless news reports from the time period have the same number, no doubt given to them by the pro organization as official numbers.

No sources from the time period have the 13-0 tally. The earliest I can trace it is a Laver interview from 1993, by which time you can guess yourself what a problem it is to rely on memory about an exact number of matches from a 1963 tour. The 1993 interviewer wrote that Laver took a few months and "more than a dozen matches" to beat Hoad. Laver and Buchholz in later years say 13 or 14. This is not exact memory working here -- but it may be based on the fact that there were 13 Laver/Rosewall matches on that Aussie/NZ tour; years later it could easily be assumed that there must have been 13 Laver/Hoad matches as well.

Cas Fish once wrote in Tennis Today (I don't know the year of publication) that Laver lost his first 13 matches against Hoad, that all were best-of-five, and that Hoad won them all in straight sets. 39 straight sets. So you can get an idea of the mythologizing around this event. All the matches and scores for this tour are now known. Only 4 of the 8 meetings between Laver and Hoad were best-of-five. And Lew won only two of the 8 in straights.

Tennisedu proposed a long time ago on Talk Tennis that the 13-0 tally must include practice matches. But none of the sources for the 13-0 state that any of these were practice matches. The players did have a few practice knock-ups before the tour began, and this was reported in the press, because practices among top players often drew interest. But Cas Fish said it was 13 official, "contracted" matches. Buchholz, too, talks about the streak beginning after the early practice knock-ups. All of the sources for the 13-0 tally give the impression that it was 13 official matches.

And if they really are talking about practice matches, then it should not be promoted here as if Hoad beat Laver in 13 real matches.

Moreover, if we say in the article that some of the matches might have been practices (or worse, some kind of "private" matches for personal wagering), we're going beyond what the 13-0 sources say; none of them talk about practice matches and indeed they seem to indicate only official matches.

As already stated, what worth do practice matches have anyway? Especially in what should be a simple report of a final tally in a closely-watched and documented tour.

I know Wiki works with sources but it obviously does not accept factually wrong sources, and the 13-0 claim can't be salvaged, either as official or as practice matches. Keeping it in the bio just perpetuates a wrong claim.

Wikipedia pages used to list 1936 Wembley as a tournament that really took place, with Ellsworth Vines as the purported winner. It was listed as taking place in many later sources, including McCauley and in Vines' own books and articles, from the 1970s and 80s. But these later claims could not be confirmed by match reports of the time period, and in fact the claims, we found, were contradicted by reports from 1936 (which is all very similar to the Hoad-Laver issue). When the 1936 documentation was researched and sourced, Wikipedia removed the 1936 tournament from Wembley's tournament roll.

The group here will decide what to do with the claims about the '63 tour, but Laver and Buchholz being participants does not by itself mean that their claims need to be included, anymore than McCauley and Vines with regard to Wembley in the 1930s. Players routinely misremember facts about their own careers, and many other examples could be listed, among older greats and modern players.

I've beaten this topic to death with Tennisedu over at Talk Tennis and I have no interest in doing so again. His ideas about practice matches, "spontaneous" matches, and the tennis press of the time period, are all problematic and superficial, and they have all been answered long ago, for example at https://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/index.php?threads/head-to-heads-hoad-laver-newcombe-laver-newcombe-emerson.244375/page-3#post-6649641 Krosero (talk) 11:03, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

An excellent summary, Krosero. Fyunck, I have spent some considerable time today trying to convince you through reasoned logical argument why the 13-0 did not occur and that it was 8-0. I am prepared to accept your ruling stating the 8-0 total is listed and then the later claim by Laver and Buchholz (I would much prefer this claim in brackets), but I am not happy about the 13-0 being on the page at all. A fair minded person who read the statements by Krosero and I (who are both experienced researchers) would be prepared to change his mind based on the evidence we presented to you. I will take note of your response, Fyunck. Tennishistory1877 (talk) 16:02, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

I've been following this whole thread with interest and I think we should give to the final word to Krosero and use the 8-0 figure for all the reasons he gives. I know from personal experience that memory is fallible -- in 1963, when Laver first joined the pros, I was a student at Harvard. I took the MTA one night in to the Boston Gardens where the Kramer tour had come for an evening. I have vivid memories of Laver running from side to side on the baseline, making incredible returns at incredible angles from far off the court. I also have a memory of Laver playing Rosewall that evening. For years I tried to track down that score -- which was impossible, because he did NOT play Ken that night. Maybe Buchholz or Gimeno or McKay, who were also present. A false memory at its best. PS -- if any of you could give me a direct link to one of the Boston papers that covered the evening, I would greatly appreciate it! Hayford Peirce (talk) 16:28, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

I agree Hayford Peirce and we should give the final word to Krosero. Memory is fallible. If I listed all the incorrect statements I have heard by former players said during TV commentaries or interviews when recalling past matches, it would be a very long list indeed. Tennishistory1877 (talk) 16:46, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

I'll email it to you, Hayford — Preceding unsigned comment added by Krosero (talk • contribs) 16:55, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

In this case we do not have an example where one player misremembers a match, that is an inaccurate analogy. What we have is TWO players who were not spectators, but actual participants in the series, both of whom have memories which support one another from independent sources. That qualifies under rules of evidence as supportive testimony. We are not here to write a journalistic history of tennis, where facts must be sourced in contemporary press reports, what we are doing for this article is more along the lines of historical research, where the rules of evidence follow a different form. There is no historical methodology which requires events to be reported in the press before they obtain status in historical reports, that is a fallacious suggestion. Further, this is not a throwaway memory of Laver, a one-time interview, it is a memory of his which he has repeated for several decades on several occasions. That suggests that the memory has a strong basis in his experience, and it being consistent with Buchholz' memory gives the necessary basis for historical reportage. I am not sure why someone believes that Tennisbase is the standard source of rules for tennis history, did the authors at Tennisbase have credentials in the historical field, some academic background in historical research? I have not heard anyone put that forward. This Hoad article is not intended to be a journalistic history of tennis, but a historical account of Hoad's career. Under that rubric, these testimonies of Laver and Buchholz certainly have a place. I am not sure what Tennisbase has to do with this article, the Tennisbase site is not a history of individual players, but a stats collection. Why do you believe that Wikipedia should be converted into Tennisbase? This is not the same thing at all. I am wondering if you guys have history degrees or have worked in historical research?

Doesn't sound like it. What does Cas Fish have to do with any of this? Not related at all. Laver and Buchholz did not rely on Cas Fish, as I pointed out to Krosero at another location.Tennisedu (talk) 17:23, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

Tennisedu, you have just criticised tennisbase, yet you cite their data as a source for your stats in the assessment section on this Lew Hoad page. In your activity on tennis warehouse, you often ask the person who is chief source of information on tennis base for information he has uncovered, eagerly listening to what he has to say, yet you question the credentials of the same person in your last statement here. Practice what you preach and remove all your edits that rely on tennis base as a primary source if that is what you believe. Tennishistory1877 (talk) 18:08, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

I did not criticize tennis base, I just pointed out that it is NOT intended to be a history of tennis site, it is a stats collection. It has its own purpose, which is useful, but do not pretend that tennis base is a history of tennis using the standard methodological rules of historical research, that is clearly not the case. The point I made above is that what we are doing HERE is a history of Hoad, NOT a stats collection of Hoad. The rules of research are not the same, which I think I pointed out to you in the post above. By the standard methodological practices of historical research, the Laver and Buchholz statements are clearly within the purview of this article. The tennis base procedures are not relevant here. Sure, if you guys possessed degrees in history and had a background in historical research, you would already be aware of what I pointed out.Tennisedu (talk) 18:30, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

You know nothing of my background. You have just contradicted your earlier statement on tennis base in your last statement. I will not begin a lengthy character assassination on you. Your online activity, both here and on tennis warehouse, speaks for itself and your bias towards Lew Hoad is well known. Tennishistory1877 (talk) 18:51, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

Your background is not the issue here. The rules of standard historical research employed for the purposes of composing a history of a subject are the issue, and by those standards the recollections of Laver and Buchholz are within the scope of the article. Your attempt to change the subject speaks volumes.Tennisedu (talk) 19:03, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

I have explained my views. Krosero has explained his views. You may continue to debate with yourself if you wish. Tennishistory1877 (talk) 19:11, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

• This is not a research paper or almanac, this is Wikipedia, and Wikipedia preaches sources not truth. There is no reason at all not to include the Laver and Buchholz statement of the 13-0 stat. It doesn't mean the 8-0 is wrong, it means two people involved in the event said the total is wrong. It can be handled the way it is right now... short simple and sourced. Nothing more. However it could also be done as a footnote after the statement "In January, Hoad beat Laver 8–0 in a series of matches in Australia, some of which were best-of-five and televised from sold-out stadiums."^(a) and a note below the section saying "Laver and Buchholz, the latter having played the undercard on the tour, later claimed that the series was 13 to 0 for Hoad over Laver. No confirmed matches have been found to support these statements." There are lots of ways to do this, I've just given examples as I'm the only one that seems to be throwing out compromise solutions. This is what Wikipedia does in these types of situations. We give the readers what is out there in some form. Now, Wikipedia also works by consensus which can overrule statements and facts and sources. If a substantial majority of editors don't want something in an article, then it won't be in the article. Wikipedia says it does not censor, but it does by heavy majority consensus. That doesn't make it right, it just means that most editors don't want a particular item in the article. You will not see me on the censor side of things but when it happens I move on and work on other articles. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:19, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

The note idea sounds good to me, I will try to do that.Tennisedu (talk) 19:32, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

I have made my case on the 8-0, you have responsed, so nothing more to be said on that particular point. You did not respond to my response to your point about you not mentioning Serena Wiliams' shoe size because its trivial. This article on Hoad is unduly long and longer than players of the same era that have won more and contains too much trivial information. Also, you have not responded to some of the points made by Krosero. Tennishistory1877 (talk) 19:33, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

Once again, I support Fyunck 100% on this. I don't see why a compromise statement, or format, more or less as he has written above, can't be agreed upon and then implemented. As a minor side note, I don't understand why both Tennisedu and Tennishistory, BOTH of whom are very accomplished writers and expert dialecticians, can't use the standard Wikipedia format of INDENTING their replies to the comments above by simply using COLONS before their reply, the way most other people do. It would sure make it EASIER for the rest of us to follow the thread of whatever discussion is going on. Thanks in advance! (I could go back and put in the colons myself, of course, but after a while it becomes tedious doing that.) Hayford Peirce (talk) 19:35, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

I just enter my reply in the reply box, Hayford! I do not usually inhabit the wikipedia talk pages and am not accustomed to using them. I do not intend to do so much in the future, so you may be relieved to know you will soon be free of my lack of indentation! Tennishistory1877 (talk) 19:47, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the colons idea, Hayford. I have put brackets around the statements from Laver and Buchholz, I was unable to arrange the note, but if someone feels they have time to do it, that's okay with me. My thanks to Tennishistory for correcting the 1964 score at Brighton, that makes more sense for that month. McCauley had the score reversed, and I relied on him. Hoad's peers rated him extremely high, which is part of the reason why his career is of interest. Rather than shorten the Hoad entry, it might be better to lengthen some other articles of his peers, such as Gonzales or Sedgman or Segura or Trabert.Tennisedu (talk) 19:57, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

Converted to note. In my view this setup (article sentence mentions 8–0, note mentions the 13–0 claims) does justice to the number and weight of the available sources.--Wolbo (talk) 20:16, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

The article's changes look pretty good to me. So I imagine we can put this LONG discussion to bed! And I agree 100% that the OTHER tennis articles should be LONGER, rather than making this one shorter. I seem to recall that when I first wrote the Tilden and Gonzales articles there was criticism that they were too LONG. Grrrrrrrrrrr! Hayford Peirce (talk) 20:42, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

Article length

Actually I think the length of the Hoad article is not beneficial in highlighting Hoad's achievements (too much padding makes the viewer switch off and some people who read the page may not be on the page for long, so may wish to obtain the key facts about Hoad's career as quickly as possible). However, I don't feel so strongly about this to actually reduce the article length myself, I leave that to others to do if they wish. I like Hoad just as I like all the great players of Hoad's era. That era was a great era (on that view, Tennisedu and I agree). Tennishistory1877 (talk) 20:50, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

I agree on Gonzales and Tilden, Hayford. Those articles are not too long, the Gonzales one is about right I'd say. Length of career is an important factor in determining article length. Tennishistory1877 (talk) 20:56, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

As far as article length, as long as great player articles are relatively close I'm fine. The trouble is they are not close. It's skewed so badly to current players and that's sad. Articles such as Tilden, Cochet, Laver, Rosewall, Gonzales, etc should be in some sort of symmetry with S. Williams, Federer, Nadal, and Djokovic. Those current player articles are not only much longer, they have heaps of sub-pages to cover additional material. Fyunck(click) (talk) 22:41, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

Agree, although the Henri Cochet article is an exception as it has Good Article status. That was a fine effort by editor Lajbi. Shame he is not around anymore.--Wolbo (talk) 23:01, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

It is quite good... in actuality the current player articles are too long. But the Cochet article could have a separate statistics article and even some yearly articles during the time he was winning majors. Fyunck(click) (talk) 23:29, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

Years ago I had some great old photographs from various French sources (including cigarette ads as I recall) for the Four Frenchmen and others of that era. Eventually the fuddy-duddy WP editors removed most of them. Hard to be a pioneer! Thankless, too. Hayford Peirce (talk) 23:59, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

I suppose I could take a look at the Citizendium article about Tilden, which had all the ORIGINAL WP material in it. Larry Sanger, for what it's worth, LOVED the article. Maybe there is some stuff in the CZ article that I could try to bring back in to the WP one. Hayford Peirce (talk) 23:59, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

If they were not public domain photos they were taken down for good reason. Fyunck(click) (talk) 00:29, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

I s'pose. At the time, they SEEMED like public domain. But that in itself is a tricky business. Hayford Peirce (talk) 00:30, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

Just looked at the Cochet article for the first time in, oh, 15 years. Wow, what a terrific job! Maybe a couple of nits to pick with the English diction, but that's all. And the photos are terrific. Far better than the ones I put in 16 or 17 years ago! WP DOES make progress from time to time! Hayford Peirce (talk) 04:02, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

This current version of the Hoad article has also improved, with a great deal of new material added over the past couple of years from various contributors, all of whom should feel satisfied with the changes. I have certainly learned a lot of new facts about his career, and particularly about the high all-time rating Hoad received from his peer players, and the number of injuries he sustained. Similar expansion would certainly help the Segura, Sedgman, Trabert, Kramer, and Gonzales articles.Tennisedu (talk) 05:08, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

I edited the Cochet article recently myself adding yearly summaries and material to the pro section. I agree the amateur section for Cochet should also have yearly summaries. I have been looking through a lot of the great players from the 30s-60s and one of the pages I think could and should be enlarged is Rod Laver's. He won many events during the 1960s. The 1963-68 section should be expanded into yearly summaries and the amateur section likewise. Tennishistory1877 (talk) 09:18, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

I agree with Tennisedu particularly on Sedgman, but also Segura, Trabert and Kramer. Expansion would help these articles. Laver's article should be expanded also, in the way I mentioned above. Tennishistory1877 (talk) 10:09, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

This is drifting away from the discussion on the Lew Hoad article but there are indeed enough player articles which could use some tender love from editors so anyone who wants to contribute feel free to do so. Just remember to always edit with a neutral point of view (this cannot be emphasized enough!) and always use reliable sources.--Wolbo (talk) 10:40, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

Yes indeed Wolbo, I agree completely about the articles being neutral and using reliable sources. Personally I prefer mentioning the key results of players, citing the original newspapers themselves as sources for the results if possible. I dislike long analysis where lots of opinions are discussed. Regarding Hoad, I knew Tennisedu would not agree with me on reducing the article length, but I felt I should make the point anyway. It is not something I feel so strongly about to actually reduce the length myself and get into a battle about reduction and expansion. Tennishistory1877 (talk) 11:04, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

Tennishistory, we expanded the article recently to include your discovery of the Federer comparisons. That was fair, it was relevant material, but it shows how difficult it is to exclude important references. The better the player, the more material arises. I presume that we added those three sentences about Federer to provide better balance in the assessment section. However, it does not follow that other statements should be automatically excluded, especially if they derive from first hand observation and direct play. The statements about Federer do not make any direct mention of Hoad, even though this is an article about Hoad. They were also "heat of the moment" statements, and not after a longer perspective of judgment. However, you could extrapolate that they may have some significance to Hoad, indirectly. Laver tended to draw a line between the old pro era and the open era, so it is not clear whether his remarks about Federer are intended as a universal comparison. In that 2018 statement at the Australian Open where Federer won his 20th major, Laver refers to "the best ever" as a "category" rather than as one individual. That suggests that he does not see Federer as a stand-alone number one all-time. Also, that Federer was the greatest player "who has COME ALONG"..."come along" since when? Since Laver retired? That is a little vague. It really doesn't change the 2012 evaluation by Laver. In the Rosewall statement in reply to the Italian publication, the terms of the question are very vague, what exactly was the question posed to Rosewall? We can only guess now. The question appears strange, instead of suggestiing Federer as the greatest [whatever], the reporter should have asked Rosewall WITHOUT PROMPTING whom he believed was the greatest [whatever]. A prompted answer is of little value.Tennisedu (talk) 15:47, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

I don't understand what the problem is with the Italian reporter asking Rosewall the question of "who is the greatest?" He is talking to Kenny Rosewall, the great TENNIS player, NOT Sophia Loren or Enzo Ferrari or Alfredo the restaurateur. So I think we can safely assume that when Rosewall replies "Federer", he is NOT referring to the greatest movie actress, or the greatest race-car constructor, or the greatest pasta maker, but to the greatest TENNIS player. To me, this is an absolute non-issue. Hayford Peirce (talk) 17:52, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

Hayford, that is exactly my point...there is nothing wrong with asking Rosewall "Who is the greatest tennis player?",and you should include "tennis player", because "the greatest" means precisely nothing, it could mean "the greatest grass player" or any number of things. We need to know exactly what the question was, the question is not given here. And the question "Who is the greatest tennis player of all time?" is not what the question was. It was a LOADED question, asking "Is FEDERER the greatest whatever?". That is a prompted answer, and has little value. I hope that the difference is clear.Tennisedu (talk) 18:05, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

Yes I did put the quotes from Rosewall and Laver on there to provide balance. Because, as usual, Tennisedu, you have chosen those quotes because they favour Hoad. I did not remove your quotes, I merely provided other quotes. Laver says one thing in one source and he says another in another. Rosewall made the comments you quoted in 2010. The comments I quoted were from 2017 and Federer had won additional Grand Slam events between 2010 and 2017. Any attempt to edit my statements containing the quotes will only demean yourself and show your bias. Tennishistory1877 (talk) 18:09, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

Tennishistory, you should never add something to an article simply to pursue an avowed agenda or to "provide balance". In this case, you provided statements about Federer which do not even mention Hoad, the subject of this article. There is nothing wrong with quoting something from Rosewall or Laver comparing or listing Federer AND Hoad, but Hoad is not even mentioned in your quotes. Laver, as you know, divided tennis history into old pro and open eras, and his remarks do not clearly apply universally to every old pro player. Laver talks about the greatest tennis player as "a category", not just one individual. And the question Rosewall responded to had nothing to do with Hoad or any old pro player, it was a loaded question. (Do you know what a loaded question is? It is a question with embedded assumptions which prompt a response. Rosewall was led by the question to Federer as the answer.) None of your additions even mention Hoad or provide assessment of his play. Not relevant.Tennisedu (talk) 18:22, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

If Player A is quoted as saying Player B is the greatest of all time and Player A is also quoted as saying Player C is the greatest of all time, then both quotes should be included. Tennishistory1877 (talk) 18:31, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

Sure, but that is not clearly the case here. First of all, you did not give us the exact question posed to Rosewall. That is crucial in understanding Rosewall's response. Could you give us more specifics about the question, such as an exact translated quote of the question? That would provide the appropriate context to understand Rosewall's answer. But it appears that the reporter loaded the question with a reference to Federer, focusing on Federer, and that reduces the value of Rosewall's response. And Laver does not clearly identify Federer as the greatest, he calls the greatest player a "category", not an individual. Laver thought in terms of two eras, with Hoad from the old pro era and Federer from the open era as the "greatest". In 2019 Laver identified Hoad as the "best player who ever held a racquet", however the "best" player in terms of talent may not be the "greatest" player in terms of career achievement, so there is no clear response from Laver, as I see it, just a narrowing down to two players.Tennisedu (talk) 18:39, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

Laver has said various things at various times. The quote I listed is clear "For me, I think Roger Federer is certainly the greatest player that has come along". Rosewall's quote is also clear. Talking of quotations, that quote from the Australian Sport Oral History project that is listed about Hoad playing hard in a major. I listened to a small portion of that interview and found remarks that Rosewall said, but they were not as quoted on the Hoad wikipedia page. The remarks I found about Hoad said "He liked to do as well as he could in major events and Davis Cup matches that he played and national championships, but a lot of other events he had a very carefree attitude". Tennishistory1877 (talk) 19:22, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

I will re-listen, although what you quote sounds similar in meaning. No, that Rosewall remark you quoted failed to identify the question at all. We have no context for the response Rosewall gave, and it was clearly a loaded question, of no value. Laver said "category" for the "greatest", not an individual. And "has come along"? Come on, that is very vague, "come along" since what date? Since Laver's retirement?No value.Tennisedu (talk) 19:39, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

So according to you, as long as a quote is similar in meaning, that is OK for it to be listed incorrectly. Either you find the exact quote that is listed or change it to the quote I found. And you can continue arguing and arguing about these Rosewall and Laver quotes until next year for all I care, the quotes are clear. Live with them. Tennishistory1877 (talk) 19:58, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

You are the one who will have to live with those meaningless quotes, they are so poorly constructed that they have no value. You like loaded questions? That is not worthwhile journalism. Puff journalism uses loaded questions. Using loaded questions does not provide any meaningful content. If you want to change the Rosewall quote from the Oral History Project, that is fine. When I have time I will re-listen, and change your changes if necessary.Tennisedu (talk) 20:43, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

Number One ranking

Hayford, it should be all right to refer to Hoad as a world number one, he was ranked number one by Tingay in 1956, and was the Kramer designated ranked number one for 1959, the only year between 1946 and 1964 when the pros had a comprehensive ranking system for the season. Also, he was ranked number one for part of 1960 in the Tennisbase ranking according to a moving ranking system which Tennisbase devised. And in 1962 he was ranked number one in a poll of 85 sports editors.

So that gives at least FOUR world number one rankings for Hoad....it is surely not a stretch to make that reference in the introduction, where I think that is the standard practice for the other articles on players, is it not?Tennisedu (talk) 22:18, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

Hayford, if those four rankings are still not enough, why not simply mention a qualifier, such as "world number one ranked player", if you feel that a bald statement about "world number one" is too simplistic.Tennisedu (talk) 22:23, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

I notice that Roy Emerson is referred to as a World Number One with no qualifications....and Emerson was never a number one professional in a ranking poll or ranking system, unlike Hoad. So what are the rules here? We cannot have one set of rules for Hoad, and a different set of rules for every other player.Tennisedu (talk) 22:34, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

Sure, you can call him #1 in the world in the lede if you qualify it by saying "some sources" or "some authorities" or such like. But we can't link it to the Wikipedia #1 article, because it doesn't call him #1. But if you want to do this, then in all intellectual honesty, then we should go to the Gonzales article, say, and write that SOME authorities called HIM #1 for another year or so in addition to the 8 that are already listed. Probably, for half a dozen top players over the years, you can ALWAYS find SOME authority, even very respected ones, who would have called these players #1. Fine. But we simply can't use the WP #1 article as a link. Emerson is a perfect example of this. You can CALL him this, but it was never actually TRUE. Hayford Peirce (talk) 22:39, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

I rewrote the Emmo article as follows: Roy Stanley Emerson AC (born 3 November 1936) is an Australian former tennis player who won 12 Grand Slam singles titles and 16 Grand Slam men's doubles titles, for a total of 28 Grand Slam tournament titles. He is the only male player to have completed a Career Grand Slam (winning titles at all four Grand Slam events) in both singles and doubles, and the only man to have completed a double Career Grand Slam in singles. His 28 major titles are the all-time record for a male player. Some sources called him the number one player at one time or another, but he was never officially ranked as the best player in the world. -- Probably your edit about "some ranking systems etc." is preferable, but maybe not. Hayford Peirce (talk) 22:44, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

Yes, Hayford, I understand your points, but I have always thought that 1959 should be a joint #1, with Hoad actually getting the official number one from the Kramer ranking tour. That seems only reasonable to me, but we have listed the ranking systems in the lead for the Hoad article already as giving him the number one for 1959 and 1962. And the Tennisbase rates Hoad number one on a moving ranking for early 1960, which confirms Kramer's official ranking. I do not see a problem here.Tennisedu (talk) 22:52, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

Simply link the number one ranking to the Tennis Hall of Fame. They rank him No. 1 in 1956. Fyunck(click) (talk) 06:43, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

It appears that the Emerson article has reverted to calling him world No. 1. I will change the Hoad lead to reflect the change in the Emerson article. If Emerson was world No. 1, so was Hoad.Tennisedu (talk) 01:11, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

Jack Kramer

Hayford, sure Jack Kramer was an entrepreneur and salesman for the pro game, but he was also the president of Tennis

Inc., the organization which owned the contracts of all 12 touring pros, and he was therefore regarded as the official

spokesman for the touring pros. Kramer set the formats and arranged the pro tours.

That was close to being the "tennis czar" he was described as in the media, and he was the closest thing to

officialdom in the pro game, the pros had to work through Kramer, they could not go it alone as lone wolves.

Gonzales demonstrated that himself, he always came back and signed with Kramer. The man wielded the power in the pro

game. He also made his players wealthy compared to other sports athletes, and made himself wealthy in the process.

Overall, he was good for the game.Tennisedu (talk) 03:06, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

I agree about Kramer being WONDERFUL for tennis. (My old tennis coach Ray Casey, who knew Kramer for years, thought that he was a stupid guy. But he could easily have been mistaken.) But you are forgetting what's his name Hunt and the Handsome Eight, about whom I wrote extensively years ago. They had signed up, well, EIGHT of the leading players. Just because Jack Kramer called himself "official", doesn't mean that he was. *I* could call myself "the official historian of Lew Hoad on Wikipedia, because I was editing the Hoad article many many years before YOU or any of the other people involved were." But does that actually MAKE me an "official" source? I'll leave it up to you to decide. Hayford Peirce (talk) 03:39, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

You get my vote, Hayford.Tennisedu (talk) 05:33, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

Subjective rankings in leads

What is the current policy on subjective ratings/rankings/statements/puff-statements in leads. The Laver rankings and Kramer rankings have been removed from the lead in the Hoad article because they are subjective in nature. However, I notice that many pro tennis bio articles have subjective statements/ratings/rankings in their leads. Should these also be removed, or at least moved into the body of the articles?Tennisedu (talk) 18:17, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

There is no policy but most players don't. They aren't in Federer, Nadal, Djokovic, Williams, etc... All-time stuff is for water cooler discussions. Fun but extremely subjective. There have been many discussions back and forth, on where to put the trivial subjective stuff and a legacy type section was usually the best place, not the lead. Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:27, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

Well, I think that we should try to be consistent. If we are removing or relocating puff statements and subjective rankings from the lead for one player, that same approach should be applied consistently across the board. I don't know why we would have different sets of rules for different players. No objection if I take a look through some of the more overburdened puff statements and subjective rankings, and do some relocating?Tennisedu (talk) 18:34, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

Consistency is fine but do not make edits just for the sake of making a point, see WP:POINT, as that is considered disruptive editing.--Wolbo (talk) 18:39, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

Well, every edit should be according to a consensus guideline. And a general review of articles for unnecessary statements should not be classified as "making a point" if the edits are reasonable and justifiable. Some recent edits to the Hoad article admitted to pursuing an agenda and making a point (see "Article Length" above), which I think is probably not justifiable. Trying to add material simply to change the general impression of a section, even if the additions make no direct reference to the subject of the article, is questionable, I should think.Tennisedu (talk) 19:23, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

There is a ton of flexibility in all our articles, and there is no chance that every edit has to face some special guideline. Yeah, performance timelines have some pretty tight rules, and we don't use scores in prose, but style and wording changes for every article. The whole article is a brief summary of a player's career. The lead is a super small highlight summary of the article. I've usually found that leads don't require much in the way of sourcing because the material is already covered and sourced in detail in the main body. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:57, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

But I have noticed that the leads for some players do contain subjective rankings and puff statements, which I should think are a little out of date with the current consensus. So I hope that if I do some reviewing of articles along those lines, and move that sort of material into the body of articles and out of the leads, no one here pushes the panic button and gets upset. It sounds like we are in general agreement on the guidelines.Tennisedu (talk) 20:16, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

Examples? What we are usually talking about is greatest of all-time lists. Laver says John Doe is the fifth greatest female player of all-time. McEnroe wrote that Djokovic is in his top 5 players of all-time. Those greatest of all-time placements are extremely subjective and usually vary from those same peoples mouths depending on the year or month they say it. Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:27, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

Agreed. Those subjective rankings/ratings should not be in the leads.Tennisedu (talk) 21:14, 27 April 2020 (UTC)