Gonzalez and Laver

[johnyandell]

Let's hear your thoughts on Doreen Gonzales' article on "Gonzalez and Laver."

[captnemo]

I keep being shocked. Why the hell wasn't this on Entertainment Tonight at the time? Right because in many ways the world was a better place...but not without Richard Gonzalez.

[jfd001]

And Jack Too!

Doreen,

Well said, and the same could be said for Jack Kramer, how many slams could he have won if he had remained an amateur of better if the slams would have been open to the best players in the world.

Both Pancho and Jack were vastly superior players to Roy Emerson, who stayed an amateur and collected 12 slams. Laver won his first GS as amateur but he was not yet the great player he would become in the late 60's and not then as good as Rosewall and Pancho.

thanks, Joe

[gzhpcu]

Firstly, thanks to Doreen for the series of articles on Pancho.

As I have mentioned elsewhere, I used to see the two Panchos (Gonzalez and Segura) training as a kid.

I have no doubt Pancho would have collected an enormous amount of Grand slam titles and multiple Grand slams, hadn't he been banned as a professional.

What his game lacked IMHO, were the groundstrokes needed to compete with the transformed game of tennis today, at the levels of a Federer, Djokovic, Nadal. But back then, he didn't need them, his exceptional serve and volley were enough to dominate.

In those days, equipment/courts/balls were geared to the serve and volley game.

Today it is just the opposite: everything is geared for long baseline rallies with occasional excursions to the net. I don't doubt that had he competed in this era, he simply would have worked on his baseline game, and again dominated. Allen Fox would have approved of his level of Self Belief.

[GeoffWilliams]

We will never know. Look at the videos and you will see just how slowly they hit the ball. Gut and heavy wooden frames were capable of speedy shots. They played at 400g. Technique was not as good or as original. The truth is, the top women are averaging higher speeds on groundies now than the men did in that era. (72-77mph for Kvitova, same for Berdych and Nadal.)

[stotty]

Let's hear your thoughts on Doreen Gonzales' article on "Gonzalez and Laver."

Fascinating how Gonzales managed to maintain his form even in his 40's.

I have read many things about Gonzales and he's in danger of becoming fairy tale if we don't watch it. One grounding statistic I'd like answering is this:

When Lew Hoad turned pro he quickly built up a lead against Pancho in their head to head tour. This is unusual in itself because most newcomers on turning pro would quickly go into deficit in a tour against the great man Pancho.

Now, Lew Hoad suffered a back injury during that 100 match head to head tour, apparently during a match in Kentucky. What I would like to know is at what point in the tour did Hoad get injured...was it when Hoad was leading 18-9 ...or was it later? Hoad was never the same after that injury, and it eventually put him out of the game altogether.

This has a massive bearing in history for me. It shows Hoad may have been a better player if he became injured while in a commanding lead. They completed the tour but there were matches when Hoad could hardly stand up straight for pain. The pro tour was about money and the show had to go ahead no matter what physical condition the players were in - and so it did. Many people don't realise this....we're in an era where players are pampered to death.

If anyone can answer this Hoad v Gonzales question, please let me know.

[johnyandell]

But there are those that have said that for pure attacking tennis Lew was the best of that era when at his best. However Allen Fox once told me that Lew didn't have the head to do that when it mattered most--like a sky rocket but no sustained brilliance. Not sure how this all related to the injuries timing wise or other...

[GeoffWilliams]

hoad back hand

One thing he does wrong is lift his hitting heel off the ground before contact. Another is look at the frame as it heads towards the ball. It's all the way over, and he has to flip it 90 degrees to make consistent contact, like a sideways overhead! That would be very difficult under match pressure to do consistently well, esp. with a 64 sq. in. frame and gut strings. A lot of inconsistent power, as he was known for, occasional brilliance, followed by a lot of ues. He coils well. His follow through stops up top, with no wrap around like the top one handers do today. HIs weight transfers well, from all on the rear to all on the front foot. Pretty boy shot. He arm bars the shot very well, with a straight arm at contact, so the ball has less chance to move the arm back. The wrist is cocked well. Contact is a full shoulder width out front, all in all, a weaponized 1h bh prone to mistakes under pressure or while nailing it. Fine if just warming up or hitting for lull mode.

[stotty]

hoad back hand

One thing he does wrong is lift his hitting heel off the ground before contact. Another is look at the frame as it heads towards the ball. It's all the way over, and he has to flip it 90 degrees to make consistent contact, like a sideways overhead! That would be very difficult under match pressure to do consistently well, esp. with a 64 sq. in. frame and gut strings. A lot of inconsistent power, as he was known for, occasional brilliance, followed by a lot of ues. He coils well. His follow through stops up top, with no wrap around like the top one handers do today. HIs weight transfers well, from all on the rear to all on the front foot. Pretty boy shot. He arm bars the shot very well, with a straight arm at contact, so the ball has less chance to move the arm back. The wrist is cocked well. Contact is a full shoulder width out front, all in all, a weaponized 1h bh prone to mistakes under pressure or while nailing it. Fine if just warming up or hitting for lull mode.

I imagine it's a staged sequence of stills for a tennis book or something....looks like it.

Interesting about the open-faced racket just prior to contact. Actually Rosewall did exactly the same thing on his backhand. Leads me to wonder if Lew is hitting a sliced backhand or topspin in that sequence ...or a flat drive maybe. What he's doing would be a weakness for a topspin backhand, under pressure at least.

In the archive there is lovely clip of Don Budge hitting a backhand with an open-faced racket...exactly the same...open right to the last split second...seemed to work back then...nowadays probably not.

[bottle]

Fascinating discussion. I probably could use one more sentence along with Stotty's "nowadays probably not." Left to my own devices, I think the reason has to do with less topspin on the opponent's ball?

As far as Geoff's criticisms of this photo-sequence of Hoad as model-- "hitting heel off the ground before contact," 90-degree flip to make consistent contact "like a sideways overhead," the artiness of Hoad's "pretty boy" finish here, Geoff convinces me not to do any of this stuff.

But of course it's Geoff who's bringing us the photo sequence in the first place, a positive act. And Geoff who has positive things to say about Hoad as well. I would add to them one particular item in the small type text: "The backhand is one smooth stroke-- ready position, grip change and pivot, backswing, step, hit and follow-through. There is no hesitation or pause between any of the steps. All is one unified movement."

That statement should be far more helpful than most of the advice one gets from anybody for any one hander. Even for a player who starts with a slightly open racket like Federer and then closes it early-- the opposite of Hoad--there could be immediate response to this language resulting in change.

If I'm raising rear shoulder at end of the backswing, e.g., then I'm moving the racket head, too, and there may be a way to blend this racket momentum going up and backward with racket butt rolling and pronging forward. I just tried it two hours ago. The strings don't drop down where Hoad's or Budge's do but they do drop down-- just a bit later or more forward into the swing combining with body swing forward and a simultaneous swing of the arm independent from the body.

Hope that isn't too complicated. I'm simply riffing on the idea of one piece cycle. Don't want the racket head ever to stop.

What I'm really looking for is clarity in my head about when and when not to roll arm in a one hand topspin backhand. In a 1HTSBH for the ages of course.

[GeoffWilliams]

Fascinating discussion.

As far as Geoff's criticisms of this photo-sequence of Hoad as model-- "hitting heel off the ground before contact," 90-degree flip to make consistent contact "like a sideways overhead," the artiness of Hoad's "pretty boy" finish here, Geoff convinces me not to do any of this stuff. (HA, HA. I finally convinced Bottle not to do something.)

But of course it's Geoff who's bringing us the photo sequence in the first place, a positive act. (Thanks.) And Geoff who has positive things to say about Hoad as well. (Classic player Aussie.) I would add to them one particular item in the small type text: "The backhand is one smooth stroke-- ready position, grip change and pivot, backswing, step, hit and follow-through. There is no hesitation or pause between any of the steps. All is one unified movement."





What I'm really looking for is clarity in my head about when and when not to roll arm in a one hand topspin backhand. .

The arm does a quick C loop U turn but the wrist rolls, while staying locked back. It does a figure 8, high, low, high, low full finish.

[privas]

Thanks!

Doreen. Thanks for your articles on Pancho.

As a 45 year-old Mexican-American tennis fan, I know what little I know about Pancho only from your articles. I echo the sentiments of "captnemo," in reference to E.T.

Actually, perhaps you should send your articles to someone like Mr. Marshall Fisher who wrote "A Terrible Splendor" which I believe is the finest work of tennis literature. Perhaps there is a book that needs to be written here. It's not so much the argument of "who's the greatest" which is of interest to me (we are all Fed up with these comparisons..., Thanks Fed!) but the unique life of the man, the adversities he faced, what made the man different from all others. The perfect title: "Pancho."

Regards, Pedro

[bottle]

Pedro and Quick C-loop U-Turn

Love Pedro's letter but aren't Doreen's articles already part of a book? And isn't it true that tennis books don't do well nowadays, that the time of Gallwey and Braden's TENNIS FOR THE FUTURE is long gone? Nevertheless, I will make an effort to read A TERRIBLE SPLENDOR on Pedro's recommendation. I remember watching the selection of tennis books in the sports section of Borders in Winston-Salem steadily dwindle. And then Borders itself disappeared into nothingness.

Buy A NEW YEAR'S SERVE. See the interview. http://goo.gl/VX6Xs

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6ABvVJnG2F0

It could be that tennis writing only survives in talk boards such as this one, which is the best.

Re # 11, I wrote out the post I planned to put here after I make a trip to Pier Park on Lake St. Clair, Michigan later in the day. Here it is:

Yup. Tried it. Better than the combination roll and wrist straightening I was doing just at this time. And the body can rip everything through the quick C loop U-turn and still leave racket butt pointing in a good direction if you went way around backward in the first place. Mercy, Geoff, I mean merci.

I don't have to go to the court yet because I know this will work.

[gzhpcu]

Doreen. Thanks for your articles on Pancho.

As a 45 year-old Mexican-American tennis fan, I know what little I know about Pancho only from your articles. I echo the sentiments of "captnemo," in reference to E.T.

Actually, perhaps you should send your articles to someone like Mr. Marshall Fisher who wrote "A Terrible Splendor" which I believe is the finest work of tennis literature. Perhaps there is a book that needs to be written here. It's not so much the argument of "who's the greatest" which is of interest to me (we are all Fed up with these comparisons..., Thanks Fed!) but the unique life of the man, the adversities he faced, what made the man different from all others. The perfect title: "Pancho."

Regards, Pedro

I agree with you Pedro. Read "A Terrible Splendor" while recovering from hip replacement surgery two weeks ago, and the book stands out among the many tennis books written of the past gone champions. It is vivid and you are really there, not just the tennis but the general mood of the era.
If Fischer were to write a book on Pancho, I'd immediately buy it..
Another book which stands out IMHO, is "Little Pancho" on Segura by Caroline Seebohm. Also highly recommendable.

[GeoffWilliams]

Most book stores went under due to internet reasons. Change/evolve or die, and they died. Glad to help a Bottle out. Pedro/Privas should write one.