Talk:Lew Hoad

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)

Guinness World Records

Here is the proper source for the claim in the year 1953 for Hoad being the youngest ever world No. 1. It is now accepted as the official record by the Guinness World Records, according to this link.

https://www.guinnessworldrecords.com/world-records/648301-youngest-tennis-player-to-be-ranked-world-no-1

As I do not engage in editing this article, I would ask that someone include this information into the "citation needed" space for 1953, and also into the records section of this article. Tennisedu (talk) 10:34, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

Correction of Link and Updated Link

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:

https://catalogue.nla.gov.au/catalog/795653.

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)