Frank Sedgman

[stotty]

I don't usually bother to post old clips because they are often so short they cannot tell us much. But this one is longer and clearer than most, so we see a lot.

A very knowledgeable of mine has for 30 thirty years been telling me Frank Sedgman is the greatest volleyer who ever lived, better than McEnroe and Edberg. My friend is 79 and has visited Wimbledon every year since he was fourteen...so he's seen a lot. He has the most knowledgeable tennis mind than anyone I have known.

Frank's match is the second on the clip. He is the pigeon-toed player. So judge for yourself. I am impressed, extremely impressed, and my friend may have a strong case. Sedgman volleys very well and his coverage is excellent.

The first match I think is Budge Patty and someone, Patty looks a superb volleyer too. The last two winning volleys he hits are stunningly good: a beautiful, low forehand volley hit crosscourt at pace; and a crisp backhand volley struck behind his opponent.

It's great to watch this stuff because these kind of skills no longer exist.

http://www.t3licensing.com/video/clip/48050258_9800.do?assetId=clip_8903884&keywords=sedgman

Three great Sedgman backhand volleys in the first two rallies in this clip...as good as Edberg in my view.

http://www.t3licensing.com/video/clip/48050259_3900.do?assetId=clip_8903915&keywords=segura

[don_budge]

1951 Davis Cup Final...Frank Sedgman the toast of Australia

An accompanying news article...

http://trove.nla.gov.au/ndp/del/article/49007630

[don_budge]

1951 Davis Cup Draw and Results...

Interesting side note...at least to me. Sweden loses in the semifinals to USA 5-0. Lennart Bergelin, Björn Borg's old coach, the star of the Swedish team along with Sven Davidson.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1951_Davis_Cup

[don_budge]

Very cool Stotty...

Ultra cool Stotty. Look at the modest attire. White T-shirts from Sears Roebuck. No overnight bags...just three or four wooden frames each. No towels. No munchies. Nothing. Just some really tough hombres squaring off for some Davis Cup tennis down in the Australian heat. The legendary Harry Hopman tending to his players.

Plenty of power going on. Subtler and the video underscores the speed of play. These boy were definitely covering the whole court. The intricate tactics that blended control and power. A completely different dimension from the modern game of tennis. A much better one at that.

[don_budge]

Sedgman vs. Edberg volleys

Three great Sedgman backhand volleys in the first two rallies in this clip...as good as Edberg in my view.
[/url]

Apples and oranges...because of the equipment. The game that Edberg was playing was by definition a different game from the original game that Sedgman was playing. I give the edge to Sedgman in honor of classic tennis. But you cannot overlook Stefan Edberg as being a great gentleman and ambassador for the game. A real Swedish character out of the Borg and Stenmark mold.

I was watching Sampras vs. Agassi 1999 Wimbledon final the other day for a bit. The speed was so suped up by the equipment. Agassi...the little cheat...was playing with 108 square inches to Sampras 85 square inches. It looked as if he was playing with a snow shoe. He keeps the racquet tucked close to him so as not to advertise the monstrosity of his racquet of choice.

Image sure was everything then if you could gloss over that little fun fact.

[stotty]

Apples and oranges...because of the equipment. The game that Edberg was playing was by definition a different game from the original game that Sedgman was playing. I give the edge to Sedgman in honor of classic tennis. But you cannot overlook Stefan Edberg as being a great gentleman and ambassador for the game. A real Swedish character out of the Borg and Stenmark mold.

I am not trying to take anything away from Edberg...just that I think Sedgman is at least as good and deserves consideration. My 79 year old friend would tell you that the best volleyers belong to the 1950s. He is probably right. He usually is.

The beauty of those volleys in the clips is something to behold. No other player in the world today even comes close to that kind of level of skill or intricacy. It's the intricacy I miss the most. Sedgman has tremendous fluency about his volleying. He has it on both wings too. He also has an athleticism at the net which isn't seen today....you know, the lungeing to the left and right...and upwards to high balls type stuff. Sedgman was a better athlete at the net than any player today.

This type of tennis ended with McEnroe...and was fading away well before then. It will never return. The clips I have posted are precious. Soon these players and the tennis they played will be completely forgotten. It will die with the likes of me and you with no one left to tell their story and fight their cause.

I don't view modern tennis with the same contempt as yourself. I find the Nadal, Djokovic and Federer quite riveting to watch at times. But it is one dimensional stuff and the tennis going on beneath them is terribly dull. I just wonder where the game is going in five years time after the top four are over the hill.

The game in the UK is less popular than it was. Murray was the first Brit to reach the Wimbledon final for 77 years and drew a TV audience of 15 million. But the 1980 Borg/McEnroe final attracted a much bigger audience...to watch two foreigners! Half the nation tuned in to watch Borg v McEnroe play their final. The game is clearly less appealing than it was, and evidence is that the game has shrunk considerably in the UK compared to the seventies.

[stotty]

don_budge

Contempt seemed like the right word when I wrote the post. It was the conclusion I arrived at after considering your posts on the modern game as a whole. But I meant it as your contempt for the way the game has gone as oppose to the game itself. No one could ever doubt your love of tennis, at least not me anyway. And as they say in Italian, “hope is the last thing to die”. We can always hope something more exciting might befall the game.

I knew when I posted this thread with its 1950s clips it would attract little interest. Sedgman's era is old and out of date. No one is much interested anymore. But I’m interested. The volleys in the clip are stunningly good, so smooth and fluent, so graceful as to be poetic. It’s tennis at it’s most beautiful.

I posted the clips - which are gold dust - to see if anyone else shares my admiration, to see if anyone else can see how wonderful those volleys are...not to mention some of the other shots in the clips. I doubt many have bothered to watch the clips because the 1950s seem so out of date.

You were right in one the posts you deleted. Where you say people who couldn’t formally play the game that well suddenly became more competitive when modern rackets came in. My 79 year old friend and I noticed that at the time as well. We lived that experience with you. It was a swizz. Suddenly players who formally couldn’t volley then could....overnight.

[stotty]

Exquisite Frank

I love the first three backhand volleys in the short clip with Segura. The backhand volley in the second point of the clip is my favourite. It's beautifully struck. My friend who watched Sedgman many times said Sedgman didn't lay the wrist back on his volleys as many players do. This, claims my friend, is what the made his volleys so secure. We can see this in the clips. Watching the clips over and over gives you a better and better sense of what Sedgman's volleys were like...the feel...the guile...the exquisiteness.

His forehand volley was especially devastating. I guess this is why we see mostly backhand volleys in the clips. The backhand volley of Sedgman is about the best you will see...so not much of a weakness to go on, but at least it didn't rocket by quite so quick I guess.

If I were given just one wish to go back in time to watch a certain tennis player, that wish would be to see Sedgman in his prime.

[EdWeiss]

Incredible clips

Tremendous finds Stotty! In the first clip, the first match is Mervyn Rose the lefty from Australia against Vic Seixas of the United States. Rose went on to become an excellent coach helping among others Billie Jean King. Second match is Sedgeman against Ted Schroeder. Sedgeman's volleys are nothing short of remarkable. In addition to great natural athletic ability, he was one if the first players to do weight training off the court. I once read that as a kid he developed his volleys bangling them against a wall. The doubles is Sedgeman and MacGregor against Trabert and Schroeder. Sedgeman and MacGregor won all four majors in doubles in 1951 (plus the Davis Cup you see here) - this is the record the Bryan Brothers fell just short of this year. The second clip with Sedgeman and Segura is also fantastic. Jack Kramer said the best single shot he ever played against was Segura's two handed forehand and the clip gives you at least some sense of the amazing placement he had on the shot. Both Segura's and Sedgeman's volleys are great in the clip. Let's see if we can get Don Brosseau to post about a great story he has when Segura was well past his prime and played an amazing finals in the Huggy Bear tournament.

[don_budge]

Frank Sedgman...1952 Wimbledon Champion

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=04ZSJc9_Qz0

No chairs for the changeover respite. No suitcases, no overnight bags. Just a couple of racquets...maybe a towel. Ball boys chased down the balls...no serving as cabana boys with the towels. Players never wiping off in between points. No hot dogging.

At the end of the match no falling to the ground with the fake tears and the whole crummy show. No curtain calls for the adoring fans. Just a leap over the net after casting the racquet to the side to shake the opponents hands with deep and genuine respect.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JlEQDhUNZ1c

Sixty years later you can feel the memories of the classic player. He remembers how his opponent broke a string in his racquet at 2-2 in the second and how he used this to catapult to the victory. Beautiful stuff. Just a little nostalgia.

Frank Sedgman is my father's age.

[stotty]

Thanks, Ed and don_budge

Tremendous finds Stotty! In the first clip, the first match is Mervyn Rose the lefty from Australia against Vic Seixas of the United States. Rose went on to become an excellent coach helping among others Billie Jean King. Second match is Sedgeman against Ted Schroeder. Sedgeman's volleys are nothing short of remarkable. In addition to great natural athletic ability, he was one if the first players to do weight training off the court. I once read that as a kid he developed his volleys bangling them against a wall. The doubles is Sedgeman and MacGregor against Trabert and Schroeder. Sedgeman and MacGregor won all four majors in doubles in 1951 (plus the Davis Cup you see here) - this is the record the Bryan Brothers fell just short of this year. The second clip with Sedgeman and Segura is also fantastic. Jack Kramer said the best single shot he ever played against was Segura's two handed forehand and the clip gives you at least some sense of the amazing placement he had on the shot. Both Segura's and Sedgeman's volleys are great in the clip. Let's see if we can get Don Brosseau to post about a great story he has when Segura was well past his prime and played an amazing finals in the Huggy Bear tournament.

Thanks for the low down on the players, Ed. I heard from various sources that Segura's forehand was an exceptional shot...and that he had amazing ball control. His ball control does come across in the clip. I just love digging this kind of stuff up. It fascinates me. Segura looks a most unlikely tennis player in a physical sense. Yet despite his odd physical appearance, he must have been good because he got the better of Lew Hoad most of the time and he beat Sedgman in the clip you viewed.

Much of this era is lost in terms of film footage, which saddens me. Most available footage is poor quality and doesn't do justice to the pace and skill of the game back then. Thank goodness I have found a few telling clips here and there that reveal a more truthful side.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=04ZSJc9_Qz0

No chairs for the changeover respite. No suitcases, no overnight bags. Just a couple of racquets...maybe a towel. Ball boys chased down the balls...no serving as cabana boys with the towels. Players never wiping off in between points. No hot dogging.

At the end of the match no falling to the ground with the fake tears and the whole crummy show. No curtain calls for the adoring fans. Just a leap over the net after casting the racquet to the side to shake the opponents hands with deep and genuine respect.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JlEQDhUNZ1c

Yes, all these shinanigans have crept up on us over time. It's the ball boys having to act as towel racks which I dislike the most...players' constant towelling down between points, that's annoying.

Let's clamp down....overnight...no massive tennis holdalls, no chairs, no girlfriends, just water at the changeover...let's go retro. I wonder what they would make of it? Pat Cash has a lot to answer for. Look what he started with his Wimbledon victory lap in 1987!

I would love to hear tennis_chiro's story about Segura at the Huggy Bears final. Let's hope he checks in to tell us all about it.

[tennis_chiro]

Segura Winning HB in 1988

I would love to hear tennis_chiro's story about Segura at the Huggy Bears final. Let's hope he checks in to tell us all about it.

Born in June of 1921, Pancho Segura was 67 in 1988 when he and Paul Annacone won The Fourth Annual Huggy Bear Invitational Tennis & Jetski Extravaganza. That's what the program says and that's what it was! (The jetskis is a whole other story! Originally, the tennis players had to participate in the jetski race, usually right before their match. Johan Kriek loved that. One year, the prize for the winning team of three including at least one girl was three Jeeps! Definitely out of control.) In the final, they beat Anand Amritraj, playing as an ex-pro, and Wally Masur. Pancho and Paul beat some very good teams to win the pro-am side of the draw and reach the final without any handicap. They did get a 10 bisque handicap in the final against the winner of the "ex-pro" side of the draw. (A "bisque" is a point that can be taken at any time when the ball is not in play.) To understand the significance of that win, you have to understand a little more about the severity of the competition. So I hope you will bear with me here. It has gotten a little longer than I intended; actually, a lot longer. If you are interested, I'm sure you will enjoy the story. For the shortened version, here is the description of the 10 bisque final from the inside back cover of the 1991 HB program, a page titled "The Bisques", all about the use of the bisques; also, realize the match was played for a prize difference of nearly $200,000:

1988 - Segura/Annacone def. Amritraj/Masur 5-7, 6-4, 7-5. Segura and Annacone used 4 in the first set for two breaks and two holds to get to a 2-5 lead (maximum in one set was 6 and they never had a chance to take the set with just 2 bisques); they lost the set 7-5 after Paul's serve was broken at 5-4. It didn't look good for the ams. In the second set they used 3 for 2 breaks and a 6-4 set. In the third, Amritraj and Masur played flawless tennis, dropping only 1 point in their first 5 service games and that one at 40-0, so they could not be "bisqued" to a break. But the difference was that Pancho at 67 lost only one point in his 3 service games. When Segura and Annacone got the first point of the 12th game, that was the match. 10 bisques for 4 breaks and 2 holds.

There was basically a current world class pro on every team paired with an "ex-pro" or an "amateur". In our unique Huggy Bears format, we invited the "ams" and "ex-pros" to play in the tournament and they could play with anyone they could get to play with them. As TD, it was part of my job to try to arrange those partnerships. The prize money came from the Calcutta with the players getting part of what the "owners" were wagering. The sponsor, Tony Forstmann, greased the process with the infusion of a few hundred thousand dollars in letter stock. The Calcutta had grown exponentially over the first four years of the event.

1985: 9 teams and no pros - Calcutta $25,000. The Jetski Calcutta actually had slightly more cash in it.

1986: 17 teams and 4 tour pros (Annacone, whom I was coaching, Christo van Rensburg, Sammy Giammalva and Scott Davis) - over $200,000 in cash and over$200,000 in letter stock. At this point we had broken the draw into a strong and weak half, but there was no handicap in the final which Segura and Annacone lost to Army Neely and Sammy Giammalva 4 & 4. I did a lot of talking that summer convincing people it was a good bet to bid in the Calcutta because you not only got your money coming back to you, but also the letter stock. And there was nothing deducted from the pot for expenses. In other words, if you bought all the teams, you would get your money back plus the letter stock, but you gave up 1/3 of the pot to the players. Imagine the casinos in Vegas paying out 150% of what was wagered.

1987: 34 teams and a current tour pro on almost every team except for a couple of teams which had two very strong ex-pros or a couple of weak ex-pros dropped down together into the amateur section of the draw. The prohibitive favorites were the sponsor's future son-in-law, Tony Giammalva, and his brother Sammy. They lost in the final to Davis Cup doctor George Fareed who had played at Cal and Tomas Smid and their 10 bisques in a very interesting final. The Calcutta … it had grown to $1,200,000! First prize was over $300,000 and $50,000 each to Fareed and Smid. Segura had played with Kevin Curren and lost in the semis to Fareed and Smid.

1988: 48 teams: 24 in the "ex-pro" division and 24 in "am" division. $960,000 was awarded to teams winning their round of 32 and round of 16 matches. How did we raise the money? Remember this is a private party. No press. No commercial sponsors. No TV. It was all in the Calcutta. The previous year, the Suffolk county DA had got wind of us and we had to modify the protocols slightly. In NY, it is legal to have a bet on a golf game or a softball game, if you are a participant. So the owners became "player-coaches". They were required to actually play one point each set for their teams. This proved very entertaining. Later, we would put bisques in all the matches and the "coach's" participation was helping to decide when to take the bisques. And you have to remember this was the "Decade of Greed" and we were in the Hamptons.

So a little more about the $1.4 MM prize pool. We guaranteed the prizes to players and owners for the round of 32 and 16 and the rest was dependent on the size of the Calcutta. $1.4MM was actually a little disappointing. The prize for winning the round of 32 and round of 16 was $45,000; $37,500 to the owner, excuse me, "player/coach" and $7,500 to the players. So the players were guaranteed splitting $15,000 if they could reach the quarterfinals. That was $112,500 to the player/coaches and $22,500 to the players for each eighth of the draw; that's $1,080,000 (the remaining $320,000 went to the teams in the semifinals, in addition to the money those teams had already won in those early rounds; I think another $16,000 went to the pros for winning the 16 round of 64 matches; separately, there were guarantees and appearance fees of a couple thousand dollars so the pros didn't go away empty handed; all the expenses for the event were borne by Tony Forstmann at this point; later, it would be Nick and Teddy Forstmann and then just Teddy). If the total bids for the teams in any eighth of the draw did not total $120,000, the auction of those individual teams was cancelled and we auctioned the whole group as a unit with a minimum starting bid of $120,000. That $120,000 bid would actually only entail a risk of $7,500. I don't remember how much letter stock, if any was involved, but there were a few teams that sold in groups. There definitely were syndicates formed to buy teams and bidders would try to buy up the competition to protect their primary bids. Most of the "eighth's" of the draw brought in a little over $120,000, but there were some teams that really drove the auction. Gonzales and a partner his brother-in-law (AA) had arranged for him at Davis Cup, John McEnroe, sold for $92,500. They won their first round match 7-5 in the third against a 30-something local amateur, Charlie Krusen, who had played at Harvard and Jorge Lozano, but lost their second round match to Fareed/Smid 2-6, 7-5, 6-3. In fairness, Gonzales, although 7 years younger than Segura, was suffering from a bad case of bursitis in his shoulder and was probably serving about 50 MPH, literally. But Mac was really trying. It was quite a show. And for that kind of money, guys like Lozano and Smid were not fooling around.

A couple of quick stories about the auction of those teams. The first four years of the HB, the draw was not out of a hat, except that it came out of Tony Forstmann's hat however he wanted it. And he wanted it so that, in most cases, as much as possible, the draw was set up so players could all look at the draw and think they could win two matches. That meant that very good teams often met in early rounds. The Giammalvas were a favorite and no one wanted to buy their first round opponents, Sashi Menon and Peter Lundgren. So Vince Van Patten picked them up for a cool $1000, but he sold off 70% of his stake before the night was out. Menon and Lundgren pulled two upsets and garnered $75,000 for their "player/coach". Too bad, Vince. But he still made out.

Bernie Mitton, who had beaten Connors at Wimbledon a little over a decade earlier was a teaching pro in Newport Beach and he was paired with Danie Visser. They sold for $120,000 as a hot commodity and played Anand and Masur in the first round and Anand was able to buy his own team as a result. So Anand really had a lot at stake in the final. Anand didn't get enough respect; he was a very good "ex-pro". It was his third year in the event and he hadn't won a match the first two years. He was only 36 and prepared that summer by playing some events and actually reached the semis of the Schenectady ATP Tour doubles the following summer and was still playing Davis Cup and Olympic doubles for India; he won a match at the Seoul Olympics just a few weeks after the '88 HB final.

continued in next post

[tennis_chiro]

Segura Winning HB in 1988 (continued)

I'm 65 and I probably look a lot better than Pancho did when he walked out on that court, but I can't play at all anymore. He managed to put his little popgun serve where he and Paul could control the court. Annacone was all over the court and it had to be one of his best doubles matches ever, but I can't fathom how Segura could have managed his returns with those rickets-ravaged legs against two tour level doubles players and control his 30 to 35% of the court, but he did. They couldn't just take Annacone's serve and attack him at the net either. I saw Segura play in the mid-sixties at the LA Sports Arena and I was impressed at the time, with him in his mid-40's, at how crisp his volleys were relative to the the other pros. I was a mindless teenager and a novice tennis player, but the impression stayed with me. He could really "stick" a volley. And at 67, he was able to give Annacone enough help that they could win that match. Amritraj and Masur played almost flawless tennis in the third set, but Annacone was poaching like a maniac and they dropped just one point on serve they couldn't afford to lose in the last game of the match and Pancho and Paul were able to use their three remaining bisques for the victory. To be able to do that, Pancho had held serve through the whole set without taking a bisque. To me, that was one of the greatest performances ever by any senior athlete.

don
Huggy Bears TD, 1985 - 2004

[stotty]

Segura and draw fixing

Segura must have been quite a player. To play to at any kind of level at 67 is an achievement in itself, let alone to play in the company he was in at Huggy Bears. It must have been a real cat and mouse game. Segura would have to had to hold his end up while Annacone gambled on bold play and frequent intercepts. That's not easy. A few missed opportunities from Annacone would have been all it would have taken to tip the balance, one would expect. But for Segura to hold serve without using any bisques...hmm...that must have involved some crafty serving. Yes, it must have been a remarkable victory.

One imagines Segura is the type of human that could live to be a 100 or beyond. He's got longevity written all over him. What was he like as a man?

I like Tony Forstmann's idea of tampering with the draw. We could do with some of that on the pro tour. I do it when I run junior tournaments. I make sure everyone gets a good game and that all the best match ups come to fruition. Does that make me corrupt? I guess it does.