Talk:Lew Hoad

Total Grand Slam tournament wins
Hold had a significant total number of GS tournament wins - this should be reflected in the introductory paragraph after the statement about his singles GS wins. Antipodenz (talk) 08:44, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I presume that you are referring to the eight GS Doubles wins and the one GS mixed doubles wins. Yes, we include those on the other tennis bio headers such as Sedgman and Rosewall, and summaries, there is no reason not to include these doubles wins. If no one objects, I will include them here.Tennisedu (talk) 12:52, 30 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Tennishistory1877, how many men's major doubles wins do you have for Rosewall?Tennisedu (talk) 17:19, 12 October 2021 (UTC)


 * McCauley pages 256-257 states Rosewall won 5 French Pro, 7 Wembley Pro and 3 US Pro doubles titles. Rosewall's wikipedia profile states he won 9 Grand Slam mens doubles titles.  Total 24. Tennishistory1877 (talk) 20:07, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
 * It looks like Hoad shares with Rosewall the pre-Open era record for most major men's doubles titles with 21.Tennisedu (talk) 02:34, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

Zenith
McCauley opines that Hoad's win at Forest Hills TOC in 1959 was the "zenith" of his career. It was probably the greatest tournament win in his career, but McCauley was not aware of the Ampol world series of that year. McCauley believed that the Ampol series was a five-tournament event near the end of 1959 and including the first event of 1960. The Ampol series win was probably the real zenith of Hoad's career, so this judgment call by McCauley is not being made with a full set of facts. I recommend that this statement be removed. If no one objects, I will remove it.Tennisedu (talk) 12:56, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

Doubles Results
We need to discuss this here. Doubles results are included in the leads to articles on Rosewall, Sedgman, Newcombe, McEnroe. There should be some brief reference here to Hoad's doubles, as an earlier editor pointed out above, which initiated this addition. If anyone has some objection to this, please state it here in discussion before removing the material.Tennisedu (talk) 23:28, 17 October 2021 (UTC)


 * I have already corrected your many errors in your doubles citations over the past few days. Now an editor (not me originally) has removed doubles from the lead because the lead is already bloated.  Hoad's doubles results are still listed in the article.  Not everything has to be in the lead as well.  You have been warned about your editing on this page many times. We have long since past the point of having reasonable discussions on this page. Tennishistory1877 (talk) 23:56, 17 October 2021 (UTC)


 * You are wrong again. This particular sentence was not removed by another editor, only by you. The material has been reduced to less than one line, which is not a bloat by anyone's standard. So your reason for complaint is clearly not valid. You need to explain why we should leave doubles references much longer than this in the article leads for Rosewall, Newcombe, Sedgman, and McEnroe, but not here. You are not engaging the issues here at all, but attempting to create a chaotic atmosphere. I again urge you to try and exercise some self control.Tennisedu (talk) 00:59, 18 October 2021 (UTC)


 * Your grip on reality is as tenuous as it has ever been. Edit by Wolbo on 16 October 23:36. "Lead should be summary of KEY information.  Reverted to non-bloated version." Tennishistory1877 (talk) 09:39, 18 October 2021(UTC)


 * Read what happened, the passage was reduced in line with other tennis leads for Rosewall, Newcombe, Sedgman, McEnroe. Wolbo did not remove the passage in the final edit. The final edit was only key information, which is what Wolbo was asking for. Your task is to explain why the normal procedure is not followed here. Otherwise you are simply attempting to create chaos.Tennisedu (talk) 13:19, 18 October 2021 (UTC)


 * The truth is shown in the edit history of the Lew Hoad page. You can not change the edit history of a page, it is written there for all to see who wish to see it. Tennishistory1877 (talk) 13:31, 18 October 2021 (UTC)


 * Wolbo did not remove the final version of this statement, that is clear from the record, it was you who did that without reason. Now, you have to explain why the normal pattern of some reference to doubles results should not be followed in this lead. Otherwise you are simply attempting to create chaos here.Tennisedu (talk) 14:04, 18 October 2021 (UTC)