Talk:Lew Hoad

For the 1959 Jack Kramer fall tour brochure entitled "World Championship Tennis" from November 1959 held in The National Library of Australia, the corrected link is:

The link has now been corrected, thank you to whomever corrected it.Tennisedu (talk) 21:56, 22 September 2025 (UTC)

I do not edit this page, so I would recommend that this correction be made by some other editor. Tennisedu (talk) 22:31, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

Similarly, there is a citation available for the Hoad record for youngest world No. 1 in 1953, as follows, and the tag should be removed because a citation is available. Guinness World Records. https://www.guinnessworldrecords.com/world-records/648301-youngest-tennis-player-to-be-ranked-world-no-1

This correction has still not been made. I would appreciate it if some editor could make the necessary correction.Tennisedu (talk) 21:56, 22 September 2025 (UTC)

A conversation is ongoing between several editors about the lengthy legacy sections and content on these two great players. It is located here. Please continue the posting here rather than a personal talk page so that everyone can input. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:14, 16 July 2025 (UTC)

On the user talk page there was a conversation initially between two people with my remarks directed to one person regarding specific edits they were making. It was a thread I started and I shall summarise the points here. Regarding the legacy sections, I think Hoad, Gonzales and Laver would all benefit from having their legacy sections trimmed down. My suggestions about how to achieve this. Firstly, there are a lot of lengthy descriptions of players that ranked the player concerned number one. I have no problem with any of the people saying they thought any of the players were number one, but I do have an issue with the length. The whole thing could be cut down by simply listing the players that thought the player in question was number one with each citation listed (also any contradictions listed ie Laver ranking Federer number 1). Maybe one citation with a particularly well worded anecdote about why they considered the player to be number one could be selected for a highlighted quotation (I don't have strong views on which particularly). This would cut down the bloated size of these sections considerably. Secondly regarding surface stats, there never has been an accurate source of surface stats on the pro tour and TennisBase is also defunct. I propose removing these stats entirely from any pre-open era pro that has them listed. Tennishistory1877 (talk) 21:50, 16 July 2025 (UTC)

Some of the pre-Open stats are reliable, though I agree that precise numbers for lifetime hth between the players may be off due to unreported matches, but that could be partially remedied by attaching a qualifying "approximately" to the number. The breakdown in hth stats by surface is sometimes interesting, as the surface could sometimes be a factor. Would we really want to eject, for example, the lifetime hth on clay between Laver and Rosewall? These are significant indicators of expertise, and should probably stay. It may be possible to reduce the size of these sections by merging some comments into a single sentence, for example in the Hoad article, the comments from Frew McMillan and Gordon Forbes could be shortened and merged into a couple of sentences in one paragraph. But we really do not want to eject the evaluations of major figures in the game, whose judgment probably exceeds our own. Some of those evaluations are rather complex, so we do not need to sacrifice the picture, but get a rounded evaluation. Gene Scott's imaginary tournament is not helpful, we need analysis of what actually happened and there were plenty of real tournaments. In both the Hoad and Gonzales pages, there are references to recent books and broadcasts with rankings of the current day from experts who were remote from the pre-Open era. The amount of space devoted to these books and broadcasts should probably be trimmed.Tennisedu (talk) 00:37, 17 July 2025 (UTC)

I don't think you understand the scope of bloat with those legacy sections. Look at the legacy sections of Pete Sampras and Andre Agassi. They were also great tennis players. Look at Ivan Lendl and Stefan Edberg or Martina Navratilova. Then look at Pancho Gonzales and Lew Hoad. They are so over the top long it's gross. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia not a book on their careers. I'm not saying that a player like Sampras could be a bit longer, but Hoad and Gonzales legacy/summary sections should be cut by 2/3rds!!! They are ridiculously long... way too long for the average reader here to traverse. Like they have been written by someone in the travel brochure business. It's more fancruft than encyclopedia style. Roger Federer is also too long but these are double his length. Rafael Nadal is much much better but I'd trim a paragraph from his article also. Fyunck(click) (talk) 03:08, 17 July 2025 (UTC)

With Gonzales, Hoad, and Laver and Rosewall, it is necessary to add some historical explanations as to how and why the various rankings derived, it is not a simple "ATP" number, but a discussion about different types of points systems and individuals and editorial boards. The tournament system and pro championship systems were very different in the old pro days, with one-time rules for who wins and what events were important. Evaluating the old players requires discussion of which events were paramount and why. There were only a few years with point systems, 1946, 1959, 1960, 1964-1968. Also, you can actually look at a huge amount of material online showing how Sampras and Agassi and Federer played, but there is little or no footage of Gonzales and Hoad and early Rosewall and Laver, it requires more verbiage to explain what that looks like. You cannot use the same rule book for historical players, like Tilden or Johnston. You have to explain with words. Hoad's "Assessment" section is not noticeably longer than Vines or Kramer. Where is the problem?Tennisedu (talk) 04:59, 17 July 2025 (UTC)

I think I pretty much explained what the problem is. And I don't buy for one second your explanation on why this needs to be the size of hogzilla. That's what references are for. If someone wants to know the intricate trivial details or many quotes they can find it in the refs. We are required to summarize and that has not been done here. It's a terrible job of editing the legacy section and needs to be fixed. If administrators noticed this they would do the chopping with no tennis experience, so it's better that those who know the situation do it. Simple reasons on why they are among the best players ever. Heck Hoad's article has a career summary on top of that. Do other modern players have that as well? I don't want players from yesteryear shortchanged when compared to players of the last 30 years, but this is way too much. 1959 needs some trimming as well. Again this is not a book and not a magazine article nor data journal. It's an encyclopedia that super summarizes a players career. Fyunck(click) (talk) 07:31, 17 July 2025 (UTC)

1959 had two seasons in one, with two major tours or series, one which included all 12 professionals and another with just four. It was about 200 matches for Hoad alone. Today's players would wilt just thinking about playing 200 matches in a year. If you want to eliminate something for 1959, we should remove the minor events which were not related to either major series, but there was a huge pushback whenever I tried to do that. Try convincing the other editors who insisted on including the 1959 European tour, the 1959 Slazenger tournament, the 1959 Cleveland tournament, and others which were not a part of either major series. That was one year which stood out for the Hoad article, and its length was justified by the amount of tennis played. For the assessment section, most of the old pros have extended discussions, we rely on the descriptions and judgments of the old masters themselves. There is no reason to complain now that we should cut back drastically on the assessments sections of Tilden, Vines, Budge, Riggs, Kramer, Gonzales, Rosewall, Hoad, Laver. Readers are interested in understanding what characteristics made these players special in tennis history. Just glancing at the Federer and Djokovic articles, there is way more material there on annual events and about the same in the legacy areas compared to the old pros. Tennisedu (talk) 08:05, 17 July 2025 (UTC)

Yes I agree Fyunck. I don't care for legacy sections anyway, but like you say, they are way too long. And the only thing I am proposing to remove entirely from the legacy sections is surface stats, because there never has been an accurate source for pre-open era pro surface stats. I came across an old post on a forum recently in which a poster attacked the 21-14 (20-14 then I think it was) grass Gonzales Hoad number saying it was completely unsourced and they did not trust the reliability of the figures. One respected historian once asked me why I don't include surface stats and I told him. There are surfaces that have no comparability to modern surfaces: antbed, shells, canvas on ice, they even played on a baseball diamond! When people see indoor and outdoor listed they have a distinct image in their mind and in the open era that is pretty standardised. And TennisBase only listed some surfaces accurately because it requires the original match report from the host town to determine this. So I propose getting rid of all this nonsense from any pro player pages that have it. And it would be a simple task to reduce legacy section sizes by merely shortening the text (a lot of statements currently give a full all time top five ranking list that the ranker made, this is completely unnecessary). And I also agree with Fyunck when he says that modern greats do not have these bloated legacy sections to the same degree. I have heard of recency bias, but this is pre-open era bias. The reason I started the original thread was because I noticed Wolbo had tagged Gonzales legacy section as too long. I also mentioned Hoad and Laver were too long also. The original comments are in the tagged thread. All three pages (and possibly some other pre-open era greats too) have legacy/assessment sections that are all too long and can be easily reduced. 1959 is too long, though Wolbo has reduced it slightly with recent edits. I propose removing the entire paragraph justifying the Ampol series winner being world champion. Hoad was not world champion, this is a work of fiction based on one newspaper source contradicted by many many others and is in no history book. Hoad was world tournament champion. That makes an otherwise good page a laughing stock, along with fictional surface stats. Apart from these things and one or two other issues this page is looking pretty good now. The way 1959 was written (slightly less so since Wolbo's recent edits) you would think the Ampol series was the greatest thing in tennis history. It wasn't. It was a good series of tournaments, but the world series tournament circuits of 1964 to 1967 were better, yet have less coverage on wikipedia. Tennishistory1877 (talk) 08:17, 17 July 2025 (UTC)

The surface stats are a central feature of most tennis articles, and for good reason, it shows the relative skills of the players. That is why we include a discussion of surfaces, such as the indoor portable surface for the world tours. You would have to rewrite almost every tennis article in Wikipedia to eliminate that aspect. You seem to ignore the various 1959 designations for the Ampol series as a world championship for which there are several sources, not just one. The Ampol series had 15 events at the most prestigious locations, including Forest Hills, Roland Garros, Kooyong stadium, White City with at least 8 players with a chance to win. That is more depth than the later tournament series of the mid-1960s and the paychecks were larger in 1959. The legacy sections for Gonzales and Hoad and Laver are not too excessive when you look at Sampras and Federer and Djokovic and Murray with their abundant material for assessment and annual play. They also have large sections on rivalries, more than the old pros articles by far. Assessments by the players themselves are worth more than those of armchair readers many decades removed from the events. We have had this conversation many times in the past, it is time to move on. Tennisedu (talk) 09:06, 17 July 2025 (UTC)

Of course it should be the goal of any wikipedia editor to remove untruthful statements (and it is not that many articles that contain these pre-open era surface stats). I have no problem with the information about rivalries and haven't proposed cutting these down other than surface stats. This whole issue began with Wolbo tagging the legacy section on Gonzales as too long (and he agreed with me that Hoad's was also too long). I am glad he did raise it because Wolbo's recent edits have improved this page and Gonzales', but there is more to be done. Tennishistory1877 (talk) 09:28, 17 July 2025 (UTC)

The major inaccuracies are involved in the rivalries numbers just as much as in the surface numbers, your distinction is inaccurate. If there are some doubts as to the totals for lifetime hth numbers, that can be addressed with the designation "approximately" where there may be doubts. Surfaces are a basic part of any tennis article, and in most articles we have sources for the surfaces given in the citations. It might make sense to remove the minor tennis events for some years such as the 1959 European tour, the 1959 Slazenger tournament, the 1959 Cleveland event.Tennisedu (talk) 09:37, 17 July 2025 (UTC)

You haven't listened to what I have said on surface stats. Whilst I have issues with the overall pre-open era head to heads, I have many more issues with surface stats, which are not sourced. TennisBase only listed some surfaces of matches and the Hoad Gonzales grass stats on this page do not reflect what TennisBase said anyway. Others have questioned these stats too, I can link to forum threads if required. Tennishistory1877 (talk) 09:47, 17 July 2025 (UTC)

Tennisbase was not the only source for the grass numbers, so I do not understand your complaint. "Forum threads" are of no relevance, we want sources. Krosero did not challenge that number, as you may recall.Tennisedu (talk) 09:51, 17 July 2025 (UTC)

There are a small number of individual match reports plus the TennisBase figures which you cited. I am far from convinced you have seen all of these sources you cited anyway, and I am very dubious about whether you checked the TennisBase source to see whether the individual match reports were already entered on the database (your earlier comments on the other thread indicate to me that you did not). The forum comments from the poster also tally with my feelings on this. No one was suggesting a forum post should be listed as a source, don't be absurd. It is just yet another example of someone not being satisfied with the accuracy of your figures. Tennishistory1877 (talk) 09:59, 17 July 2025 (UTC)

Krosero and I both did not challenge the number at the time because we were busy dealing with removing all the other lies you were putting onto this page! Tennishistory1877 (talk) 10:06, 17 July 2025 (UTC)

Krosero was around for a long time and certainly had time to challenge this grass number, if he had felt that it was inaccurate. It is now time to bring this conversation to a close.Tennisedu (talk) 10:07, 17 July 2025 (UTC)

Please stop speculating on what an editor did or did not think. Unless you have a statement saying he believes your figures, your pointless speculation has no relevance to the discussion. There are a large number of statements on wikipedia that krosero has written about you over the years, about your deception and the wrong statements you have put onto wikipedia, but there is no need to rehash that here. Stick to the issues in hand. Tennishistory1877 (talk) 10:21, 17 July 2025 (UTC)

Time to end this discussion.Tennisedu (talk) 13:39, 17 July 2025 (UTC)

However as long as the legacy sections are as long as they are the reasons behind this discussion will not end. Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:31, 17 July 2025 (UTC)

Exactly. And I knew there would be no agreement on anything regarding Hoad in this conversation from Tennisedu, because the same has been the case in every discussion I have ever had with him on Hoad. However, he is just one editor. If he is not prepared to have a sensible conversation about how to reduce the length of the legacy sections, then there is nothing stopping other editors from having one. Regarding the surface figures, Tennisedu said in this thread regarding head to heads "that can be addressed with the designation "approximately" where there may be doubts." Wikipedia does not operate in this way. It is based on sources, and it is blatantly clear that he did not check these additional matches that he added to his tally for Hoad Gonzales surface matches against the TennisBase total (all his "approximations" always have added matches in Hoad's favour, the exact point the forum poster made, though rather more stridently than I have done). I would never assume Tennisedu had found anything in addition to TennisBase anyway, as they are far superior researchers than he is.

Regarding the other issue of reducing the length by just reducing each G. O. A. T nomination down to lists, keeping the citations but reducing the waffle, with just a highlighted quote. For instance the Gonzales quote about Hoad seems the most interesting to me. Person 1, person 2, person 3 rated Hoad number 1. Person 4 thought Hoad was "possibly" number one of all time. Person 5, person 6 thought Hoad was the second best of all time, etc. etc. There is so much excess baggage in these statements on Hoad's Gonzales' and Laver's pages at the moment. I am open to other's suggestions too. Tennishistory1877 (talk) 18:51, 17 July 2025 (UTC)

No, I read Tennisbase and then added a citation for other matches in the 1961 Hoad-Gonzales tour and the third place match at Sydney in 1958, which I discovered. Krosero asked about these matches and did not challenge them. So again you missed on your assumptions.

The legacy sections are not disproportionately long, and the full quotation of the players making them provides a context for the evaluation. That is standard. Giving equal weight to all rankings is not even possible, given the variety of contexts and the different relationships between the ranking person and the subject. The Hoad article contains many references to minor events, but trying to remove them is like taking on the universe, all the minor events seem to have their proponents.Tennisedu (talk) 19:57, 17 July 2025 (UTC)

Fyunck, why don't we start by removing the excess length in the articles on Federer, Murray, Nadal, Sampras, Djokovic, Alcarez, which are already bloated beyond belief, and include large sections on rivalries. That is a much more serious problem than a few lines in the old pro articles which explain the context of the pro game in the pre-Open era. Those explanations serve an important purpose, as readers today are unaware of how the pro tour functioned in the older era. If you are serious about bloat, then try to remove the huge number of references to minor events in the Hoad article, those take a lot of space. I tried to do that myself, but those minor events all have supporters. The 1959 season, which you expressed concern about, has a number of minor events which could easily be removed (1959 European Tour, 1959 Slazenger tournament, 1959 Cleveland).Tennisedu (talk) 20:54, 17 July 2025 (UTC)

You may be misconstruing what I'm saying. I'm not saying Hoad's whole article is too long. Most of the sections are fine, though I might have written them differently and more in the style of Helen Wills. I said 1959 is too long and the Career Summary/Assessment sections are ridiculously long. I shortened the Career Summary/Assessment in an edit but did nothing with 1959. Fyunck(click) (talk) 21:38, 17 July 2025 (UTC)

Fyunck, I see what you are trying to do here, but the Laver and Rosewall evaluations have been shortened out of existence. Laver gave an overall ranking, and his verbiage is worth saving. Rosewall's first two rankings put Hoad as the top player, so that is worth noting. Tennisedu (talk) 23:34, 17 July 2025 (UTC)

• Ok, here's what I might do for Hoad. This combines the assessment and career summary sections and tightens the wording to give readers a reasonable view of Hoad's place in tennis history without the overbloat. It's still a lot of words but it's within reason. The legacy is a summary of the rest of prose combined with accolades from "some" players and writers. Fyunck(click) (talk) 21:06, 17 July 2025 (UTC)

  Right, I will get on to to your edit in a minute but I want to clear up this issue of surface numbers. Here is the link to a Tennis Base screenshot in October 2018 of the Sydney result between Gonzales and Hoad. You will see the tournament has a surface assigned: grass. You will see the result is there: Hoad beat Gonzales. On 13 January 2021 Tennisedu added the newspaper source for this result which had been on TennisBase for years. He also amended the grass surface Hoad Gonzales figures on the Hoad page from 20 to 21 wins for Hoad. He also changed the overall win-loss figures to one extra for Hoad. https://imgur.com/a/tennis-base-screenshot-october-2018-wBsx7s0 Tennishistory1877 (talk) 21:51, 17 July 2025 (UTC)

  My citation for TennisBase was from results which I saved from 2017, and I was the editor who discovered the third-place match from Sydney. Krosero asked me about the numbers and I explained them. Krosero did not complain about the numbers. So where is your hth for the 2018 Tennisbase? To continue this discussion, I suggest starting a new section, as this one is getting bloated beyond belief.Tennisedu (talk) 22:07, 17 July 2025 (UTC)

  The edit looks good, although it says "On the head-to-head tours of the era (1958, 1959, 1961), Hoad 57–68 against Gonzales" this is missing a word or two. Also this is a cherry-picked head to head tour figure. The 1961 Gonzales Hoad UK tour is included but that year's world series is not (Gonzales and Hoad played a few matches, Gonzales coming out on top in most). The 1959 world tour was a 4 man world tour.

  I just think all rankers could be included on all these player pages whilst still cutting down the length substantially. Also, I am not saying Hoad's article is too long now, just certain sections and not many at all if this legacy section is reduced. In fact the article looks better and better and I am pleased with recent edits by Wolbo. And although I have one or two issues with Fyunck's legacy reduction proposal these are very minor really and I do quite like Fyunck's text. Just a few issues I have now with the article but not many. Tennishistory1877 (talk) 22:38, 17 July 2025 (UTC)

  This is a summary. I would never include each and every ranker. And remember, this is a Hoad article talking about Hoad accolades and why he was a great player. In the Gonzales article you can include years that show him a bit more favorably... Wikipedia is not a competition. It's a brief summary of a player's career, and the legacy section shows why a player is considered great. I did not take into account any inaccuracies.... that's not what this topic is about. That should be in a different talk page section entirely. Sometimes I think peoples book writing and data collecting personas get in the way of editing an encyclopedia. Short and sweet if possible, hitting the highlights and not the trivial. Fyunck(click) (talk) 23:26, 17 July 2025 (UTC)

  I said positive remarks about your proposed changes and I did not expect insults in return. There is a lot I could say about your editing style but why bother? I am tired and it is late and I am not in the mood for any more arguments, I have had enough from Tennisedu today without being provoked into an argument with you when we mostly agree on this issue anyway. Tennishistory1877 (talk) 00:01, 18 July 2025 (UTC)

  I did not mean to insult, just to say that an encyclopedia is not a book. It needs to be edited down exhaustively. To say that every single ranker must be mentioned, no matter their standing with the public, is trivial. Fyunck(click) (talk) 00:11, 18 July 2025 (UTC)

  Again, the important evaluations of Laver and Gonzales and Rosewall should be restored in context. If we remove too much context, the ranking becomes anonymous. Previous editors did a great deal of work to find and give citations for these rankings and taking away the context is a very drastic revamp which could be challenged as removing important content. The exact details of each ranking varies, and just making a statement like "made similar remarks" or "a similar ranking" does not give us the exact meaning of the ranking and becomes excessively vague. Rankings are not all the same, and in every other tennis article on Wikipedia, the context of the ranking is included.Tennisedu (talk) 23:36, 17 July 2025 (UTC)

  I think what was there already was far more likely to be challenged as bloated trivia. Exavt quotes and means are what refernces are for. That way readers who want to know that excessive detail can find it if they want. I could have completely not mentioned them but chose otherwise. I think if you open up this legacy section to full wikipedia scrutiny, which I can do if people like, that editors from all walks of life might just homogenize it down to a paragraph. I didn't want that. Fyunck(click) (talk) 00:11, 18 July 2025 (UTC)

  The title of this section is not "Rankings" but "Assessment", it is not really a ranking section but a description of Hoad's style of play. That cannot be reduced to a simple number without sacrificing the desription of how and why Hoad was impressive to his peers. It may make some people uncomfortable to see Hoad's style of play described in details, which are not excessive but to the point, but it helps to understand how he succeeded when he was playing well. That is why we need the details provided by Gonzales, Rosewall and Laver to flesh out a picture of how Hoad played. Perhaps some of the details in the Assessment section could be transferred to the "Playing Style" section, which is probably where they belong. Such as this statement from Gonzales: "He was capable of making more shots than anybody. His two volleys were great. His overhead was enormous. He had the most natural tennis mind with the most natural tennis physique." Or this from Laver:"He had every shot in the book and he could overpower anyone. He was so strong." This type of statement is more at home in the style section.Tennisedu (talk) 00:21, 18 July 2025 (UTC)

  There is no need for that. We always knew Tennisedu would disagree, but he is only one editor and if all other editors agree then there is no need for much more debate on this. I would like to leave this open for a while before acting though, it is possible additional editors may wish to comment. Although I think you could alter your text slightly (stubbornly writing exactly what you want without taking into account the minor changes of someone that basically supports you is not the best way to get what you want). But at the end of the day, this is a legacy section we are talking about and I am not going to keep arguing for days about it, I really do not like them very much. Tennishistory1877 (talk) 00:34, 18 July 2025 (UTC)

  No trouble altering the text at all. But I already left it kind of long so it would seem if some is added some should be taken away as well. I already see things I would change. Readers today want a quick synopsis of the major record so I should have lead with that and then explained why that's not enough for old pros. My main thing is simply cannot stay as it is.... that needs to be sheared down from its present bloat, and pronto. If someone wants to do it fine, and you have my framework. But it can't stay the way it is. Fyunck(click) (talk) 06:49, 18 July 2025 (UTC)

You are preaching to the converted on this. As I said, I really do not like legacy sections. Even though I wrote a fair chunk of Gonzales' legacy section, this was partly to ensure he was given his just desserts after Hoad's had so much praise in it (Gonzales and Laver had far superior records to Hoad and this should be reflected in their legacy sections). But the same principles apply to Gonzales and Laver. The legacy sections are bloated and need reducing. You won't encounter much opposition from me on this, although I think it would be very easy to accomodate every reference. Just one sentence listing all the excluded number one citations would suffice. As I said, I like your wording of your proposed changes generally speaking. Tennishistory1877 (talk) 08:12, 18 July 2025 (UTC)

There is no "Legacy" section in the Hoad article, but rather an "Assessment" which is not primarily concerned with ranking, but rather with a description of his style of play, such as Gonzales and Laver indicating Hoad's wide range of shots. This material can and should be relocated to the "Style of Play" section in the article, which is currently too short.Tennisedu (talk) 16:53, 18 July 2025 (UTC)

The style of play section is about right for size and the assessment section is a legacy section with a different title. No material needs relocating. Tennishistory1877 (talk) 17:04, 18 July 2025 (UTC)

The things that are included in the "assessment" section are exactly what we include in all other players legacy sections. I don't care what you want to call it. There may be a couple items about his preferred shot making that could go in playing style. Also, if it isn't already said in the year by year sections, the end of those is where records such as "in 1956 in all matches was 114/129", although it should be standard 114–15. Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:26, 18 July 2025 (UTC)

Agreed, annual stats should be in year sections. I was looking at 1954, which was not a particularly good year for Hoad. Still seems too long with sentences like "After returning to Australia, Hoad scheduled extra practice to work on his serve and volley". Stuff like that could easily be removed. A bit more tightening of sentences also. I think 1953 is a bit long too. 1956 is long too, but that was Hoad's best amateur year so more understandable than 1953 and 1954. Tennishistory1877 (talk) 18:33, 18 July 2025 (UTC)

We attempted to shorten the amateur years, but they were staunchly defended. It is tough to change anything in this article without getting pushback. But certainly there is much in the Assessment section which belongs in the Playing Style area, such as Hoad's variety of shots, mentioned by both Gonzales and Laver. That is about style, not legacy. Tennisedu (talk) 19:12, 18 July 2025 (UTC)

It is interesting to see the changes Wolbo made to the page, because a number of the statements he removed I never liked the phrasing of, but tolerated at the time and didn't remove. I am actually very tolerant of most editing styles (even those I dislike) and it doesn't bother me if someone puts a statement on a page that I would not choose to (providing it is sourced and the page is not too full). It is possible I am too tolerant in many areas. But I will not tolerate wrong or misleading information, I have no tolerance for that at all. Regarding 1954, the statement I highlighted is a completely irrelevant statement, whether it is in a pro or amateur paragraph.

Regarding this Guinness world record citation. I do not personally rank Hoad number 1 amateur for 1953 and neither do the majority of rankers listed on wikipedia, but the sources that do are perfectly legitimate sources. Some of us may be puzzled by the choice of Hoad, but this ranking highlights the importance of the Davis Cup, which was at its zenith in 1953. If the ranking is acceptable then so is the age record for Hoad being number 1. There should not be a citation needed tag when there is a citation available. Tennishistory1877 (talk) 21:59, 18 July 2025 (UTC)

Completely agree on this, I never expected that anyone would put a notice for citation on that. The Guinness does have a possible citation, which I pointed out above. Tennisedu (talk) 02:13, 19 July 2025 (UTC)

Actually I think I will change my mind slightly on what I said on Fyunck's proposed edit to the legacy section. I would be happy to accept both his Hoad and Gonzales legacy proposed versions. They are both good reductions. Tennishistory1877 (talk) 22:40, 18 July 2025 (UTC)

Thanks. And neither are etched in stone. I just assume that other editors will make small sentence steaks, or remove a sentence and replace it. But order and overall length I think is what we need. I like the overall record first and foremost to show their greatness in tangible terms. What did they do that readers will quickly understand and be able to grasp. Then add in a few quotes and accolades from players and press that show they agree with their greatness level over their entire career. Any yearly records should go in the yearly sections, not a career assessment section. Any hypothetical matchups are a bit too trivial for an encyclopedia. But Wolbo is a good editor and he may want to change a few things on Gonzales or Hoad tennis legacies. Would I like to make them even shorter... sure, but it is difficult with the pro/amateur status, and making sure a reader gets a minimal feel for the difference from today. These players were the Djokovics/Nadals/Federers of their day against equally very good peers. Fyunck(click) (talk) 23:12, 18 July 2025 (UTC)

Wolbo has done a good job with editing this page the past few days. There are still a few things that need to be altered but Wolbo has not done anything on the page I disagree with. I think seeing him remove those sentences that I have long disliked but never thought of removing has made me reflect and I think perhaps I should be a bit tougher about removing certain material in future (for example, I have tended to avoid removing stylistic flourishes of other editors, maybe I should have removed them). Tennishistory1877 (talk) 23:28, 18 July 2025 (UTC)

Overall I also trust Wolbo's judgement. We sometimes disagree but we've always been able to work it out or compromise. Fyunck(click) (talk) 00:04, 19 July 2025 (UTC)

Wolbo is an unbiased editor. The only thing I disagree with him on is self-published sources. You will find that I don't fundamentally disagree with you on much. We may disagree on certain editing decisions from time to time, but editors do disagree on things like this and this is completely natural. Probably over 90% of the main disagreements I have had on wikipedia are to do with a certain editor's unfactual or misleading statements and these disagreements have been fierce. During several lengthy periods I have calmly gone about editing, not encountering any problems, one or two thanks and a barnstar were given to me but I don't even recall having a talk page discussion. This is what wikipedia should be about.

Having said that I don't see why even Tennisedu and I shouldn't reach agreement where it is possible. I note in this thread we have reached agreement on the addition of the Guinness citation in 1953. This is not controversial. I have heard no one speak against this proposed change yet so at present there are 2-0 in favour of this change and wikipedia works on consensus. Tennishistory1877 (talk) 08:45, 19 July 2025 (UTC)

Off topic a bit. On self-published sources, Wikipedia has changed a bit over the years. It pretty much used to be that self-published meant don't use if possible. That has changed a lot! Wikipedia self-publishing guidelines tell us "self-publication is not, and should not be, a bit of jargon used by Wikipedians to automatically dismiss a source as "bad" or "unreliable" or "unusable". Self-published sources can be reliable, and they can be used (but not for third-party claims about living people). Sometimes, a self-published source is even the best possible source or among the best sources." While it isn't mandatory at all, it helps if the words of the self-published author have been used by other reliable sources, or the book itself has been mentioned by prominent people or tennis sources. This helps establish the self-published words as likely reliable. The biggest no-no about self-published works is "Never use self-published works as third-party sources about any living people." Tennis Project may need to set a list of self-published works it deems is reliable, at least for players that are no longer with us. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:30, 19 July 2025 (UTC)

Probably wikipedia changed its view a lot because publishing has changed a lot. In the past more tennis books were published with publishing houses. A writer would send a script to a publisher, it wasn't always published but often it was if it was good enough. A few (very few) like McCauley's were self-published, the author had to pay up front to have them printed and tried to sell them. Bud Collins was around then, not a massive archive researcher but a great journalist, writer and commentator. He took a keen interest in those that did pro tour research and mentioned them (and their books) in interviews. By the time I published Collins was dead, self-publishing had changed and had grown. I rarely buy tennis books from publishing houses now (in the past I bought loads). Because reading has generally diminished over the past 20 years, profit margins have become squeezed and publishing houses get narrower and narrower in what they are prepared to publish. One I contacted told me they were reluctant to publish a tennis book at all, as their last didn't sell well. Despite there being no Bud Collins around to champion my books, my first book was reviewed in a magazine, is in libraries, was linked on Wertheim's mailbag page, was linked to from various websites including tennis abstract and my second book was listed as a primary source in a magazine article written by someone a couple of months ago. The current 2025 edition of my first book has yet more results. Tennishistory1877 (talk) 21:09, 19 July 2025 (UTC)

In the Wikipedia "Overall tennis records" the 1953 "Youngest ever" record held by Hoad is already listed, so there is no controversy about it. I cannot understand the delay here. Tennisedu (talk) 18:15, 19 July 2025 (UTC)

There is quite of bit of information about Hoad's playing style in the Assessment section, and it should not be lost, but transferred to the Playing Style section, where it should have been in the first place.Tennisedu (talk) 23:22, 18 July 2025 (UTC)

There needs to be a correction to this article for the final tournament Hoad won.

Hoad's final tournament win was the Geneva International Championships on red clay at the Tennis Club Drizia-Miremont (f.1930) in Geneva on 9 September 1972. Hoad defeated Daniel Contet in the final 6-4, 6-4, having earlier in the tournament defeated Beppi Merlo. The name of the tournament was the Coupe Certina from the French watchmaker sponsoring the tournament. Tennisedu (talk) 04:41, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

Neither the 1971 Playmon Fiesta nor the 1972 event you mention are listed on the ATP website, so they are classified as minor events and neither should be listed. Tennishistory1877 (talk) 10:33, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

The ATP does not control this biography or its boundaries. Tennisedu (talk) 19:43, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

On wikipedia open era ATP designated titles are listed in the infobox. That is why Connors has 109 titles listed and not the significantly higher number of total titles that he won (with the additional exhibition events, etc.) Hoad has 0 open era titles listed by the ATP. He won 3 minor events in the open era, two are listed on this page, so his total should be reduced by two to 50. The narrative sections on wikipedia profiles are a bit more flexible, so these could be noted in the narrative if it is mentioned that they were minor titles. Tennishistory1877 (talk) 21:20, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

Yes, the narrative section is where you would mention this title. The Geneva International Championships already appears in Wikipedia, it has its own page already. It makes sense to mention tournaments which have their own Wikipedia page, that should be common sense. The tournament wins numbers for each player do not correspond to the ATP listing, and there is no reason why they should, that would be an arbitrary consideration. The ATP era was not a clear distinction. The ATP had no authority to designate tournaments outside its own existence which began about September 1972, the ATP was not even operational when this tournament won by Hoad was played.Tennisedu (talk) 23:39, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

But the ATP website is certainly not absolute, especially for early Open Era titles. We also use other sources but they have to be well sourced. Fyunck(click) (talk) 00:27, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

Exactly. Tennisedu (talk) 02:58, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

But the ATP website is absolute on wikipedia when listing open era titles in infoboxes, which is why Connors has 109 titles and Lendl 94. Although ATP began in 1972, the ATP lists from 1968 those titles it considers to be of sufficient level to be listed. An example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jan_Kode%C5%A1 mentions 25 titles not listed in the infobox. I have no objection to the final title of Hoad's being mentioned in the narrative, along with a source (I think tennisarchives have it). Important to have consistency across all player profiles. "Early Open Era titles" does not state a specific year range. Either a title is within the range of listing it in the infobox or it isn't and the same standard should be applied to all players. According to wikipedia, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jimmy_Connors_career_statistics Connors' first non-ATP title with a larger than 8 man draw was in 1972 at Ocean City. If Hoad's 1972 Geneva title is listed, so should Connors' 1972 Ocean City title, making Jimmy's total 110. Tennishistory1877 (talk) 09:48, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

The ATP is not some master plan for evaluating titles, and never was. I would prefer to make our own criteria for choosing which titles are acceptable. In the early open era, there was a transition phase when many of the older amateur tournaments gradually disappeared or transitioned into professional events, it was not an easy and neat transition. For example, titles which had distinguished winner histories such as the Eastern Clay Court gradually disappeared in the 1970s, the Eastern Clay in 1971. It is impossible to draw a line in the sand as to when it ceased to be a significant event. The Geneva International Championships was founded in 1899 and abolished in 1976. There was no clear line as to when it should no longer be considered. Tennisedu (talk) 13:31, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

Wikipedia editors should not be in the business of cherry-picking events to list (wikipedia is not a talk forum) and I would certainly not be taking any advice of which events to cherry-pick from an editor with such a long and well-documented history of bias towards Lew Hoad. Tennishistory1877 (talk) 16:14, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

The ATP list is no answer, it is not well founded. There has been no bias from this editor. There was a bias by some editors who declined to include the most important tennis events for the Hoad article, as well as for the other major players of the era. The changes made for a better article. Tennisedu (talk) 17:15, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

The edit history of this page and the history of these talk threads clearly show the repeated bias of one editor towards Lew Hoad. The ATP is an unbiased official arbitre of which open era tournaments to list. Other editors rely on the ATP source when listing open era events in infoboxes rather than the opinions of an editor with a long history of bias. Other editors don't appoint themselves arbitres of which open era tournaments to list, they go with the official source. Seems like common sense to me. Tennishistory1877 (talk) 18:40, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

The way we have always worked is infoboxes contain the totals we also have listed in prose. We use ATP totals throughout an article unless we have substantial sourcing that says otherwise. You will see occasional notes that say something like "the ATP only lists 10 of these titles" in an article. But those extra titles or consecutives wins or whatever, come with sources that are pretty easily found. We have had Hall of Fames contradict the ATP, we have had magazines and newspapers contradict the ATP. The ATP has adjusted their totals year after year for the 20 years I've been here at Wikipedia, almost always in favor of the sources we have always shown here. And I'm not saying we find a source that a title exists and we always add it. I'm saying we find sources that say a title exists and they have added it to a published total. Then we can use that published total as a source. I don't see that here with Hoad right now in the sources. If all we have is an event that no one else counts, all you can do is send the info to the ATP and let them know. I know I have sent them them stuff and at least in one case within a year the info was corrected. Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:47, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

"If all we have is an event that no one else counts, all you can do is send the info to the ATP and let them know." I completely agree. The Hall of Fame is another official source. A newspaper reports their local club tournament, that doesn't mean it is listed on the ATP website. Sure, the ATP has changed their database many times. There is a respected researcher that worked for them and found additional rounds of events Connors played in and the total match wins for Connors was amended by the ATP. Some additional tournaments were listed and some were not. The ATP decides whether to list an event or not. That is what an arbitre does. They don't always get it right, but an independent official arbitre is a world away from an unofficial biased wikipedia editor. It shouldn't even be down to an unbiased wikipedia editor to start arbitrating which events to list. The 1971 Playmon Fiesta is unlikely to be selected as a premier event by the ATP. But if Tennisedu wants to send all the information he has about it to the ATP recommending they list it on their website and they then choose to list it, then there would be no objection from me to listing it on wikipedia. Tennishistory1877 (talk) 19:11, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

Heck, right now this article shows 52 titles. If places like the Hall of Fame, Tennis.com, NY Times, etc start showing 53 titles, then of course we take that into consideration. We've done that with things like Laver's titles, Borg's streaks, and several others players. The ATP has some of those wrong. But we have to have solid sources that contradict the ATPs totals to override it. Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:16, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

It is a well known fact that Connors won a lot more than 109 titles, but 109 is the overwhelmingly most quoted total because 109 are listed by the ATP. No one is disputing these extra titles for Connors exist. 109 is the number Djokovic has to break the record to win most open era men's singles titles. None of the sources you mention has listed 53 titles for Hoad to my knowledge. Tennishistory1877 (talk) 20:32, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

I have only edited tournament totals for pre-Open articles, the Hoad article being an exception with the one 1971 tournament added. No one has objected to including it until today, even though that number has been obvious for several years. What are the rules for counting pre-Open totals? I notice that different editors use different approaches. For most pre-Open articles I simply count the number of tournaments won and list that. This is just a big blank for the ATP. For the Hoad article, someone, not this editor, used a total provided by Tennisbase, not the ATP, and I doubt that the ATP even has a number. What do you think that the ATP gives us?Tennisedu (talk) 21:13, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

There are a few things I would change about this article, but it doesn't mean that I harp on endlessly about them. Open era Hoad has 0 titles listed by ATP. Pre-open era there was no classification of tournaments (a source is still needed for each tournament obviously). TennisBase is an issue because it no longer exists. Judging a player by total number of tournaments is a pointless exercise anyway. Laver was fortunate that he played in a pro era where one-night stands were beginning to be phased out and there were lots of tournaments (sometimes two day four man events) in the mid 1960s and his main opposition came from Rosewall aged in his 30s. Rod had already won lots of amateur tournaments devoid of any depth of talent before 1963 and then arrived in the pro ranks as the number of tournaments was growing. Gonzales, Rosewall (for a good chunk of his peak years), Sedgman, Hoad, Trabert, Segura etc. not only were in or were close to their prime years in a much stronger era in the late 1950s (one of the best ever eras), but there were only a small number of tournaments (around 1954-55 very few indeed). I think it's a good thing the ATP attempts to separate the wheat from the chaff for open era events. Doesn't mean they always get it right and, as Fyunck rightly points out, they can change their mind. Tennishistory1877 (talk) 22:00, 17 March 2026 (UTC)