Talk:Lew Hoad

Correction of Links and Updated Links for 1959 and 1953

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)

Hoad overall wins v Gonzales

I was just looking through some screenshots of old Tennis Base data (dated October 2018). In 2019 krosero put the figures for total documented matches between Hoad and Gonzales onto wikipedia (Tennis Base was the source). Then on 13 January 2021 Tennisedu edited the page, correcting the figure, upgrading the number of Hoad wins from 77 to 78 and he cited a source of the Sydney Morning Herald 5 February 1958. But the Hoad-Gonzales match reported on 5 February 1958 was already listed on Tennis Base in 2018, so from 13 January 2021 onwards it has been entered twice. Whilst I am not ruling out the possibility of Hoad beating Gonzales in additional unreported or yet to be found matches (just as I am not ruling out the possibility of Gonzales beating Hoad in additional unreported or yet to be found matches), wikipedia lists known matches. Also what is written on wikipedia is based on sources. The sources do not match the data. The 77 figure should be reinstated. Tennishistory1877 (talk) 09:25, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

Tennisbase is a paywalled source, and there was no detailed listing of the Hoad-Gonzales matches provided on Wikipedia by Krosero. Did you believe that such a detailed list was provided? If so it should be the basis of a special article on the Hoad-Gonzales rivalry, which would be standard for such an extended rivalry. Tennisedu (talk) 19:55, 15 July 2025 (UTC)

TennisBase listed a figure. I have a detailed list of Hoad v Gonzales documented pre-open era matches from my own research which corresponds to the TennisBase list (unusually I found no new matches in this particular rivalry and the figure has been static for many years. Because Hoad and Gonzales were often playing important matches many have been documented for a long time). They also played as late as 1971 when Gonzales beat Hoad in South Africa, this was on TennisBase. Sadly TennisBase no longer exists, but I have a large jpeg screenshot personal archive of their pages. Pro tour head to heads are always problematic because they are based on documented matches (anyone that says they have the results of every pro tour match that ever existed is lying, as some were not reported anywhere and there are still some that are yet to be found, though this list grows shorter all the time). For instance, Hoad has a narrow losing head to head against Kramer, this could be a narrow head to head lead for Hoad if a few matches were to be found containing Hoad wins. Also, regarding surfaces, I do not list surfaces in my book, as the pro tour surfaces do not correspond to modern surfaces and in some cases are vastly different. Grass is grass of course, but how about antbed, shells, canvas on ice etc? A fast wooden floor is nothing like a modern indoor hard court, neither is canvas on ice. Also, finding surfaces is more difficult than the match result, as it requires a detailed match report. TennisBase only listed surfaces for some matches. So the surface records on this page should have a citation needed tag, as every single match would need to be verified for surface (every match report) which is not the case as present. Tennishistory1877 (talk) 22:01, 15 July 2025 (UTC)

You cannot use a non-existent source for a citation on Wikipedia. And also was a paywalled source. Why does the author of that Gonzales-Hoad rivalry not just create a new Wikipedia article and use his list as the basis, there is a definite need for such an article, the second-longest rivalry ever.Tennisedu (talk) 22:29, 15 July 2025 (UTC)

TennisBase now being used as a source is problematic, but that still doesn't excuse you changing the number to a number that the source did not say when TennisBase did exist. Tennishistory1877 (talk) 22:38, 15 July 2025 (UTC)

I provided a source for the extra match, and that Tennisbase list was not even available without a membership. If you think that the TB list is important, let the author create a new article on the huge rivalry for Hoad-Gonzales and make it available. There is a definite need for such an article.Tennisedu (talk) 22:43, 15 July 2025 (UTC)

That match was already on TennisBase, I even have the screenshot to prove it. TennisBase was available free on a trial basis at that time. Your comments clearly demonstrate you never checked TennisBase before adding that match. Tennishistory1877 (talk) 23:20, 15 July 2025 (UTC)

You can easily make the results of the TB list available by creating a new article on the Hoad-Gonzales rivalry, for which there is a desperate need. That is better than just complaining about the disappearnce of Tennisbase.Tennisedu (talk) 23:31, 15 July 2025 (UTC)

I have spent many hours of my life improving wikipedia tennis pages. I take no lectures on what wikipedia pages to create from you. And I wasn't complaining about TennisBase, I was complaining about the editor that changed a head to head number to a wrong figure without checking the source. Tennishistory1877 (talk) 23:39, 15 July 2025 (UTC)

Your source is non-existent as an accessible support, which you yourself have admitted. Any statement which relies on TennisBase now has no citable source. If you want to establish some credibility for your statements about Tennisbase, you should start a new Wikipage on the Hoad-Gonzales rivalry and then post your data somewhere where it can can be readily accessed. Otherwise, there is no basis to access it.Tennisedu (talk) 01:41, 16 July 2025 (UTC)

I have the screenshot of the page for the result that you double entered, that could be uploaded if necessary. But I agree that TennisBase is problematic as a source on wikipedia now, I said so recently in another discussion. I would support its removal as a source and citation needed as a replacement. As well as being no longer accessible, TennisBase is becoming out of date as a source anyway. It is frozen in time in 2021 and pro tennis research has moved on. Tennishistory1877 (talk) 08:29, 16 July 2025 (UTC)

Legacy of Gonzales and Hoad

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)