How good was Pancho Gonzales?

Discussion in 'Former Pro Player Talk' started by hoodjem, Mar 1, 2008.

  1. hoodjem

    hoodjem G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2007
    Messages:
    12,672
    Location:
    Bierlandt
    I just read an article that seemed fairly convincing the Gonzales was the greatest player of all time.

    Hard to believe? Take a look: http://www.neta.com/~1stbooks/PG_.htm

    One point it makes is that Pancho was the world's no. 1 player for 14 years! "No one, including the likes of Tilden, Budge, Kramer, Laver, et al., had won more than nine No.1 rankings – except for Gonzalez, who won 14!! This is not for occasional amateur or pro slam titles. That is for an unbroken string of No. 1 world rankings!"

    "Still remembered as perhaps the most astounding match of all time is the contest between Gonzalez (age 41) and Pasarell (age 25 with a 1967 No. 1 U. S. ranking) at the 1969 Wimbledon Open, in which the two played their historic 112-game, two-day marathon, in which Gonzalez finally prevailed when his much younger opponent crumbled under the overwhelming pressure. Despite his incredible heroics in this match, however, Pancho, still without benefit of the tie-breaker, lost to his protégé, Arthur Ashe, in the fourth round."

    "In 1971, when Gonzales was 43 and Jimmy Connors was 19, he beat the great young baseliner by playing him from the baseline at the Pacific Southwest Open."


    Really? Have we totally overlooked the true GOAT?
     
    Last edited: Mar 1, 2008
    #1
  2. urban

    urban Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Apr 22, 2005
    Messages:
    4,358
    Pancho was an alltime great, without question. But some of the "facts" in the article ar quite crap -like the 15 years at Nr.1. He was the best pro player from 1954 to 1960, and has maybe a right for the Nr.1 place in 1952, too, when Kramer the pro world champion didn't play much, and Sedgman played the amateur circuit. Gonzales succeeded the retiring Kramer in 1954, until Rosewall took over his mantle of the king of the pro hill in 1961, when he won the most prominent pro tournaments. That Gonzales didn't lose to Emerson after 1968, is a myth; in fact recent investigation showed, that Emerson actually had a positive head-to-head in the years 1969-70 over Gonzales. Gonzales lost big to Kramer on his fisrt pro tour in 1950.Gonzales has positive records over Hoad, although this is close, and Rosewall, due to his wins in head-to-head tours. Against the younger Laver, whom he played frequently in the 60s, he was 19-36
     
    #2
  3. SgtJohn

    SgtJohn Rookie

    Joined:
    Dec 5, 2006
    Messages:
    230
    14 years? Sure, and don't you know about Rosewall's 34 years at the top or his 986 matches winning streak? :-D :-D

    No, seriously, this article overstates everything far too much. Gonzales clearly belongs to any short-list for the GOAT title, but that's not a reason to write such nonsense.

    Here is a more reasonable account of his career:

    1948: Wins Forest Hills, is in the top 3 amateur, top 10 on the whole.
    1949: Dominant amateur year (at least on US soil), top 5 on the whole.
    1950: Crushed by Kramer in the tour but good wins in tournaments (Philadelphia, (depleted) Wembley). #3 after Kramer and Segura
    1951: The same. #3 again.
    1952: Dominant pro #1, but there was hardly a pro circuit that year. Still, wins a big match against Kramer at Wembley. Sedgman dominates the amateurs and they're really hard to compare. Gonzales is co-#1
    1953: #4 after Sedgman, Kramer and Segura...Is it "his fault"? Kramer doesn't contract him for the big events he plays and Pancho plays against old Riggs and Budge for 6 months. When he comes back, with little 'true' match play, he's crushed by Sedgman at Wembley. Whatever the circumstances, he's far from the top spot.
    1954: Dominant year: loses only twice in tournaments and clearly wins every tour played (US 'World Series', Far East, Australia).
    1955: Dominant year again: he's 17-1 in tournaments and wins the short tour he played. This dominance is a little tarnished by the small number of pro events that year and the decreasing quality of competition (Sedgman has physical problems, Kramer is retired, aging Segura is the only true rival for Gonzales)
    1956:Another dominant year: he wins the first Wembley tournament to be held since 1953, the US Pro, the main tour, etc.
    1957: Pancho is still a clear #1 but is not dominant anymore: for the first time since 1954, he doesn't win the main events and loses at Wembley and the Australian Pro.
    1958: Gonzales has a serious rival: Sedgman who beats him twice in best-of-5 matches in Wembley and the Australian, and has a 4-4 win-loss record against him. There is a serious case to be made about a #1 Sedgman.
    1959: This time his main foe is Hoad: he beats Gonzales in their tour (even if he loses the tour overall), wins at Forest Hills, and has a good year. Again, Gonzales is for me at best a co-#1.
    1960: He plays a world tour including Rosewall and wins clearly...but he doesn't play for the rest of the year, and lets Rosewall dominate the tournament circuit, winning Wembley and the French. In 1960 criteria, Gonzales is the champion, in 2008 criteria, it is Rosewall. I'd say they're co-#1.
    1961: Gonzales wins a world tour and is then hailed as the champion by his fellow pro, but the tour doesn't include Rosewall so it's a minor event. Gonzales loses in both majors (Wembley and the French). In spite of impressive tournament wins in Copenhagen, Vienna, Geneva, etc., he's only #2.
    1962-3: "Retirement"
    1964-1971: Gonzales comes back to the tour in 1964 and wins the US Pro indoors. In the following year he will always be a threat to any player, even though he wouldn't get near the top 2 again. Among his memorable wins: Wembley BBC2 event 1966, Los Angeles 1969, Las Vegas 1970, Los Angeles 1970, Las Vegas 1971

    As you can see, Gonzales's record is extremely impressive, but it has nothing superhuman and he's not above some of his fellow GOAT-candidates.

    Here are some comparison elements (very subjective of course, especially the 'dominance' label)

    Gonzales: 3 dominant year, 1 'ordinary' #1 year, 4 "co-#1", 12 years in the top 3 overall

    HL Doherty: 4 dominant, 1 #1, 7 top3
    Tilden:3 dominant, 3 #1, 1 co-#1, 12 top3
    Rosewall: 2 dominant, 1 #1, 2 co-#1, 15 top3
    Laver: 2 dominant, 3 #1, 2 co-#1, 8 top3
    Federer: 4 dominant, 1 co-#1, 5 top3 (so far)

    Jonathan
     
    #3
  4. tzinc

    tzinc Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    Oct 12, 2007
    Messages:
    631
    Location:
    On Red Clay
    In my opinion he was the GOAT.
     
    #4
  5. hoodjem

    hoodjem G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2007
    Messages:
    12,672
    Location:
    Bierlandt
    Good points all from Urban and Sgt. John.

    The article did seem rather hyperbolic and rhetorical.
     
    #5
  6. Goat

    Be sure next time to watch the show on him on the Tennis Channel, (If you haven't already) and, let everyone know here too if they ever play it again. I saw it and would like to tape it and have it for future reference.

    At one part of the special he knocks out Connors, Ashe and a couple of other great players in a tournament and I he think he is 40 years old at the time.

    He was amazing. I can see why people think HE is the GOAT.
     
    #6
  7. jeffreyneave

    jeffreyneave Rookie

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2008
    Messages:
    230
    pancho gonzales

    I agrre that Gonzales was a great player. He has great longevity. Even in 1964-5 at the age of 36-37 he was probably the 3rd best player in the world behind Laver and Rosewall.

    Howver, I also agree that gonzales was only a definite no1 in 1954-7. I would also probably give him 1952 as he beat Kramer 3 times out of three and won 5 out of 6 tournaments. Comparing him with the top amateur Sedgman is difficult. In early '53 Sedgman played Kramer even except when he was injured which resulted in him losing 54-41. On that basis Gonzales might well be regarded as possibly better than Sedg in '52 given gonzales clear edge over kramer that year . However later in '53 sedg clearly beat Gonzales 3 times out of 3, including the biggest tournament at Wembly. Therfore a compromise of joint ranking is probably right.

    In 1958 I clearly think Sedgman was no1. He had 4-2 edge over Gonzales (I discount one set matches played to 8 which gonzales won.), including 2 all important 5 set matches at Wembly (the most important event) and the Aussie pro. Gonzales won one important event the Forest hills pro which was a round robin with all the best players but only best of vthree sets. The Aussie pro was also played at grand slam venue (kooyang), had the top 5, and was played as best of 5 ,which gives it a slight edge over forest hills.

    In 1959, I would give the edge to Gonzales over Hoad. Gonzales won the main tour over hoad by a small margin, even though hoad had a head to head advqantage over him (15-130. Gonzales never lost to the 2 rookie pros Anderson or copper, while Hoad did lose a small number of matches to them. Ther were also 14 eight man events that year; gonzales won 5 and Hoad only 3. Gonzales' wins included the prestigious US pro beating Hoad in the final. Hoad played more than Gonzales but this lead to extra poor results. He only came 3rd behind Rosewall and Sedgman in a 27 match round-robin tour. He also entered (which Gonzales did not play) the 2 most prestigious tournaments at Wembley and the french pro but failed to reach the final of either. Gonzales's greater consistency give him the edge for the year.

    I agree that gonzales was co1 with Rosewall in 1960. In 1961 he would be no2 behind rosewall.
    That gives Gonzales 5 world no1 rankings and 2 shared with Sedgman and gonzales.

    In comparing him with rod laver, I would give Laver the world no1 spot for 7 seven years: 1964-70. Laver's no1 is undisputed 65-69.

    In 1964, comparing with his rival Rosewall:

    Laver won 11 tournaments to 10
    Laver had a 12-3 head to head advantage
    Laver won the 2 most prestigious events Wemblely And US pro (beating Rosewall at both events)
    Rosewall won one prestige title the French pro
    These stats show a clear edge to Laver

    In 1970 again his rival was Rosewall.
    Rosewall had big year in the 2 important touraments winning Forest hills and being runner -up. He also won 5 other events which would fall in the category of the 35 to 50 point category in the present ATP points system.

    Laver failed at wimbledon and forest hills only reaching the L16. However, he won 13 tournaments and one 4 man round-robin.

    Laver's wins were all against strong fields reflected in the fact that he scored at least 2 wins against every player in the top 12. 5 of his wins were super 9 equivalents at Philadelhia, Syndey, PSW, Wembley and the South african open ( a prestige event in late 1960s like the Italian and german opens).
    Rosewall failed to win any of these super 9. his best being a runner-upto Laver at Sydney. Laver also won the big money event of 1970 the Champions
    Tennis classic. He beat Rosewall in the final. Laver earned 70,000 and Rosewall 45,000 from this event. Overall he eanerd 200,000 and rosewall was 2nd with 140,000

    Laver had a 5-0 edge over Rosewall; 3-0 edge over Necombe the other contender, who won Wimbledon.

    Based on the ATP points race of today system he was clear winner about 1100 points to 750 for Rosewall.

    Newvcombe is not nearly in the race. He only won 3 other events. None of them super 9 status. 2 of wins were against weak fields at hoylak and casablanca. He won the Victorian open as well which was fairly strong and would be worth 50 points. nBesides losing all his matches to Laver, he was beaten 5-1 by rosewall.



    jeffrey neave
     
    #7
  8. CyBorg

    CyBorg Legend

    Joined:
    Mar 8, 2007
    Messages:
    5,544
    Location:
    Atlanta, GA
    The stuff about Gonzales winning 10 Wimbledons is ridiculous. But so is much of the article, which is a shame as this is a welcome topic.
     
    #8
  9. SgtJohn

    SgtJohn Rookie

    Joined:
    Dec 5, 2006
    Messages:
    230
    I agree with you, Jeffrey , about 1964, I forgot the facts were so much in Laver's favour...

    1970 was a bit like 1989 with one player doing well at the most significant Slams and the other one piling up tournaments and an impressive win/loss record...

    About 1959, don't forget that the US Pro was very depleted, with no Sedgman, Rosewall or Trabert taking part. The big american events were Forest Hills, where Hoad beat Gonzales, and the Masters Round Robin, where he was beaten, but finished with the same score (5-1) in the round robin.
     
    #9
  10. the green god

    the green god Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2004
    Messages:
    448
    Some are trying to put Pancho's career in a context of how pro tennis is today. You can't compare the era's. If the 50s and 60's were scheduled like they are today, you can guaratee that Pancho wouldn't have been taking a year off here and six months there. Just because he wasn't playing did not mean he wasn't the best in the world. Trust me, even though he wasn't playing, Rosewall, Hoad, Trabert, Segura, and all the others knew who was the BOSS. From an ancient Tilden, to Budge, Riggs, Kramer, Rosewall, Hoad, and Laver, he played them all and beat them all. Somehow, if he was still competitive with Laver when he was 36-40, I don't think it is to far of a stretch to think if he was 26 he would have been dominant in this matchup also. Surely you guys don't think he was better at 38 than 26?
     
    Last edited: Mar 2, 2008
    #10
  11. Nickognito

    Nickognito Rookie

    Joined:
    Nov 17, 2007
    Messages:
    146
    Location:
    Florence, Italy
    With Tilden, he has been the player who dominated tennis for the longest time.

    In my opinion, he's the Goat, but obviously i'm not certain.

    He's one of the best ever, I think only Tilden, Budge, Kramer, Laver, Sampras, Federer and maybe Borg's career can compete with Pancho's. Hoad, Vines, McEnroe had too short careers at the highest level, Lacoste, Perry, Cochet, Agassi, Becker, Edberg did not dominated, and Connors, Lendl and even Rosewall were not so good in my opinion.

    I think he was the true numberi 1 for 8 years, in 1952 and from 1954 to 1960.

    He was not so good on clay courts, and he was not technically complete as Laver or Federer (perhaps) or Hoad, so i think we can think of him as a Sampras who had more domination.

    c.
     
    #11
  12. BeHappy

    BeHappy Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Aug 24, 2007
    Messages:
    4,789
    Any Video footage of him playing exist online?
     
    #12
  13. noeledmonds

    noeledmonds Professional

    Joined:
    Nov 20, 2006
    Messages:
    920
    Gonzales is undoubtably one of the greatest players of all time but not (in my opnion) the greatest. Gonzales was very dominant in the USA on the faster surfaces. However, he failed to win the French Pro. This is effectively the equvilant of failing to win the Career Grand Slam today (if anything it would be easier then due to the amatuer/pro divide). This seems too large a point to overlook when we have Laver; who won The Amateur Grand Slam, The Pro Grand Slam and The Open-Era Grand Slam.
     
    #13
  14. hoodjem

    hoodjem G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2007
    Messages:
    12,672
    Location:
    Bierlandt
    Excellent point. Three grand slams! WOW!
     
    Last edited: Apr 9, 2008
    #14
  15. jeffreyneave

    jeffreyneave Rookie

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2008
    Messages:
    230
    Gonzales

    In my post yesterday,which I did from memory, I made a couple of factual errors.
    The aussie pro in 1958 was played at the other main grand slam site of White city In Sydney.

    In the 1970 atp points race I underestimated Rosewall's total . He has 865 points compared to Laver's 1095: stiil a big win for laver.

    Newcombe would end with about 640 points.

    jeffrey
     
    #15
  16. Moose Malloy

    Moose Malloy Legend

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2005
    Messages:
    7,866
    Jeffrey, do you have any other yearly rankings (under todays system) for the years prior to the computer ranking? also how would some of the controversial years('75, '77, '82, '89) look under todays points system?
     
    #16
  17. SgtJohn

    SgtJohn Rookie

    Joined:
    Dec 5, 2006
    Messages:
    230
    Hi Moose,

    I computed such points total for the years after 1973 (data isn't really sufficient before). The points awarded are the same as today, with the "Masters Series" being chosen according to a list I copied in a post a while ago I think. But the system is a little different: I used several of them, including a 'Total points' which added points whatever the number of tournaments played, and a 'Best 14' system. The best 14 are litteraly the best 14 results with no mandatory events as today.

    Here are the results for the controversial years:

    1977:
    Total
    Vilas 7840
    Connors 4930
    Borg 4630

    Best 14
    Vilas 5550
    Connors 4745
    Borg 4435

    1982:
    Total
    Lendl 7020
    Connors 5230
    McEnroe 4786

    Best 14
    Lendl 5400
    Connors 4850
    McEnroe 4725

    1989:
    Total
    Lendl 6360
    Becker 5185

    Best 14
    Lendl 5990
    Becker 5185

    I also have results per surface and win-loss, if you're interested...
    As far as I'm concerned these 'adjusted' points are as wrong as those of the time, for me the true #1 would be respectively Borg, Connors and Becker...

    Jonathan
     
    #17
  18. jeffreyneave

    jeffreyneave Rookie

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2008
    Messages:
    230
    I have done it for 1971,which I regard as the toughest year in open tennis with about 5 players having claim to the no1.

    This comes out as about:

    Laver 1030
    Rosewall 920
    Smith 890
    Ashe 870
    Newcombe 850
    Nastase 830

    Laver does well here because all his performances are in strong fields. A fact reflected in the fact that he has many more wins over top players than any of the others.

    I would be interested to see what your list of super 9s is for 1977. My rankings are based on mandatary super nines plus best 5 to make best of eighteen, although in 1971 I could only identiy 6 super nines, so another best 8 were chosen.

    jeffrey
     
    #18
  19. rasajadad

    rasajadad Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2006
    Messages:
    1,993
    Location:
    Western MA
    Plus, I recall that Pancho smoked!
     
    #19
  20. christo

    christo Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Feb 20, 2004
    Messages:
    1,812
    This is some good stuff, shows how difficult it is to name a GOAT. My feeling is that as the money and the worldwide player pool is exponentially better now than ever before, that either Pete or Rog are the best. Just my opinion
     
    #20
  21. CyBorg

    CyBorg Legend

    Joined:
    Mar 8, 2007
    Messages:
    5,544
    Location:
    Atlanta, GA
    That's not an opinion. That's a statement you've heard somewhere and liked enough to parrot.
     
    #21
  22. jeffreyneave

    jeffreyneave Rookie

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2008
    Messages:
    230
    For my 1971 rankings I got the order right but, gave everybody 100 too many points. So the list is :

    Laver 930
    Rosewall 820
    smith 790
    Ashe 770
    Necombe 750
    Natase 730

    With less than 100 points covering 2 to 6, these rankings are really close and are subject to invidual interpretation on the points system.

    Jonathan do you have list of super 9s for 1977 ? I looked at the year and really there were far too may events for players to play with a new year round Grand prix plus WCT plus wtt in the summer. Looking at the fields, I would probably judge that only Philadelphia and US indoor qualified. Outside of the 2 slams and the Masters, Borg, connors and vilas were never in the same field. On that basis I would abondon the system and judge all non-majors tournaments as having the same points and award explicitly points for wins over top players. Then we would find out how much Borg's 3-0 advantage over vilas is really worth.

    My split would : 30% majors
    45% 14 best others
    25% wins over top players

    3:2 ratio of regular eenents to slams more or less matches the 1150:800 system of today's points system.

    jeffrey
     
    #22
  23. Tennis old man

    Tennis old man New User

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2008
    Messages:
    96
    Location:
    CA, USA
    Gonzalez was one of the best players of all times, i've played with him (one time, he kill me). Sometimes he seems to not look the ball, impressive!!!
     
    #23
  24. Tennis old man

    Tennis old man New User

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2008
    Messages:
    96
    Location:
    CA, USA
    Cyborg has no respect and knoledge of history, like always...
     
    #24
  25. hoodjem

    hoodjem G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2007
    Messages:
    12,672
    Location:
    Bierlandt
    More money means more players means better players.!?

    Interesting logic.

    I'll have to ponder this.
     
    #25
  26. Tennis old man

    Tennis old man New User

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2008
    Messages:
    96
    Location:
    CA, USA
    i'm joking CyBorg!!! Why i have always errors of typing???? Jackas.... meeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee:twisted:
     
    #26
  27. urban

    urban Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Apr 22, 2005
    Messages:
    4,358
    The ranking situations on the old pro tour and the early open era, were, as shown by Jeffrey and Sgt John, often very complex. The old Kramer pros handeled it like in the old boxer circles: You cannot outpoint the old champ, you have to knock him out. So Gorgo was called Nr.1 by his peers, even when the sheer numbers spoke against it. But it also shows, that the late 50s and the time around 1970 had an extremly high standard in mens tennis, with more than 6 real greats battling it out: Richard (Ricardo), Alonzo, "Pancho" (Gorgo) Gonzales (or: z), Hoad, Sedg, Rosewall, Trabert and Segura, or Laver, Rosewall again, Newk, Ashe, Roche, Smith, Nastase (and Emmo, Gimeno or Okker) for that matter.
     
    #27
  28. llgc8080

    llgc8080 Rookie

    Joined:
    Nov 29, 2007
    Messages:
    134
    Location:
    Paris.
    I Totally Agree With Urban.
     
    #28
  29. Frank Silbermann

    Frank Silbermann Professional

    Joined:
    Feb 24, 2004
    Messages:
    1,063
    I think you have to distinguish tennis skills from ability to win. Pancho had an extreme ability to win. His tennis skills, however, were on a lower level.

    For example, his overhead smash might have been ordinary. However, because he was both tall, long-armed, and fast about the court, he was virtually impossible to lob over -- much harder to lob over than many players whose overhead smash was better.

    Also, because it was so difficult to lob over, he could stand very close to the net to volley. Even though his volley technique was not so great, he could make winners off of almost anything just by being so close to the net. It was also hard to pass him because he had such long reach, fast reflexes, and again, because he stood close to the net to volley.

    His groundstrokes were not so great, either. But because of his fierce determination, he made very few unforced errors. Also, because of his reach, his speed, and his continental grip, he could run down almost anything. And because he was tall, he could take high balls more comfortably than most of his opponents, thereby allowing him to hit pretty hard even without much topspin to bring the ball down.

    Pancho did have a great first serve, for his era. They used to say that a player was only as good as his second serve; Pancho didn't have such a great spin second server. But because his powerful first serve was so accurate, he could essentially get away with hitting his first serve twice, making very few double-faults nonetheless.
     
    #29
  30. hoodjem

    hoodjem G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2007
    Messages:
    12,672
    Location:
    Bierlandt
    With these guys around in 1970. I'm wondering if this wasn't the toughest field in the history of tennis? Highest quality tennis of all time? (Including today.)






    (Were Segura, Trabert, Sedgman still playing in 1970?)
     
    #30
  31. jeffreyneave

    jeffreyneave Rookie

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2008
    Messages:
    230
    1975 world rankings



    Here are the 1975 rankings.

    This system is based 4 majors plus 14 regular events plus the bonus of the Masters

    There is for total points share a ratio of 2 (majors) to 3 (14 others)

    In 1975 the majors would be Wimbledon (200 points), Us open (200) , French open (150) WCT finals (120)

    At wimbledon 16 of the top 20 attended: at the Us open 17. The usual giving there are always 1 or 2 injuries. The French only had 12 of the top 20: hence the lower total points . at the time the WCt tour and its final were a prestige event. 13 of the top 20 attempted to qualify for Dallas. 120 is derived from approx 13/17 or13/16 * 150 (Masters total) = approx 120.


    This means less points overall and a lower points total for the other 14. Fortunately it neatly fits with the fact that there were fewer super 9s in 1975.

    Only 5 were obvious candidates based on partcipation of the top 6 and number of top 20 players.

    These were Philadelphia, Louisville, nottingam , US pro and Stockholm. To make the sytem balance out, a 6th was required. This was betwen rome and Tuscon. Tuscon was chosen because it was on cement ( none of the others were); it had 12 of the top 20 (8 in rome); and it was also the highest prize money event on tour. With 6 super nines , this leads to 8 best others.


    Here are the points :

    Ashe 920
    borg 857
    vilas 785
    connors 750
    Nastase 638
    Orantes 622
    Alexander 522
    Tanner
    ramirez all aprox 445
    Laver

    jeffrey
     
    #31
  32. urban

    urban Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Apr 22, 2005
    Messages:
    4,358
    Hoodjem, i made a chronological difference (maybe i should have made it clearer) between the late 50s and the time around 1970. In the late 50s, virtually all great players of the 50s had turned pro. The pro fields, which played at Forest Hills in 1957 to 59 for example, were among the best in history with Gonzales, Hoad, Sedg, Trabert and Segura all at or near their peak and Rosewall on the move. The field since 1968 until 72 consisted of the still strong old Kramer pros (not Hoad, Trabert or Sedgman any more), and the new crop of younger contenders like Newk, Roche, Ashe, Smith, Okker. Sadly for the ITF/WCT struggles, these years were overshadowed by new divisions of different circuits and weak fields at several majors (with the exception of 1969). But for the strenght of the top 6-8players, i rank those periods, along with the middle 30s and the late 80s and early 90s, among the best in history.
     
    Last edited: Mar 7, 2008
    #32
  33. hoodjem

    hoodjem G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2007
    Messages:
    12,672
    Location:
    Bierlandt
    I see now. My misunderstanding. Thanks. I agree with you about for the strength of the top 6-8 players from either of those periods being among the best in history.

    Can you please give us some names from the the middle 30s?

    This would be a great comparison: quality of the top eight players from
    1) middle 1930s
    2) late 1950s
    3) late 1960s
    4) early 1990s.
     
    #33
  34. urban

    urban Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Apr 22, 2005
    Messages:
    4,358
    Mid 30s: Perry, Vines, Crawford, v. Cramm, the young Budge, still Tilden and Cochet, Nuesslein (then there were Allison, McGrath, Austin and others, too). It was a shame, that they seldom played on the same circuit, due to the pro-amateur split. The Perry-Vines-Budge match-ups from 34-37 would have been fantastic, with v. Cramm probably the best clay courter of the time.
    Late 50s on the pro tour: Gonzales, Hoad, Sedgman, Trabert, Rosewall, Segura (with people like Cooper and Anderson behind them).
    Late 60s, around 70: Laver, Rosewall, Newcombe, Roche, Ashe, Okker, Smith, climbing Nastase, with Emerson, Gimeno, Kodes, Drysdale, Stolle, Graebner and Ralston in the wings.
    Late 80s, around 90: Still Lendl, peak Becker, Wilander, Edberg, Cash, Mecir, Leconte (both very talented), an older Mac, clay monster Muster, then new faces like Courier, Stich, Agassi , Sampras, Bruguera.
     
    Last edited: Mar 7, 2008
    #34
  35. Gundam

    Gundam Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    Mar 27, 2006
    Messages:
    408
    Wow, it must have been great! How was he?
     
    #35
  36. Leublu tennis

    Leublu tennis Legend

    Joined:
    Sep 30, 2007
    Messages:
    6,429
    Location:
    Moldova
    All I remember about Gonzales is that he was reputed to have a booming serve. Dominant serve.
     
    #36
  37. chiru

    chiru Professional

    Joined:
    Jun 9, 2004
    Messages:
    1,455
    I don't even bother with pre-open era GOAT rankings. I know stuff as far back as laver and after that I'm lost!
    -aamir
     
    #37
  38. wyutani

    wyutani Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2006
    Messages:
    4,760
    Location:
    hong kong
    pancho uses a double-handed forehand no?
     
    #38
  39. Benhur

    Benhur Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2007
    Messages:
    2,562
    You played Gonzales? I see you are in California, and you say you are an old man.
    About 4 or 5 years ago I was playing at the courts in Golden Gate park in San Francisco. After we finished, these two old guys asked if we wanted to play doubles. So we did. One of them, must have been in his late 70s or 80s, told me how in his youth he had played Gonzales once, had managed to reach 4-4 in the first set, and then didn't win another game, or something like that. On the other hand his English sounded native to me, whereas your grammar seems quite exuberant.
     
    #39
  40. JW10S

    JW10S Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Sep 27, 2006
    Messages:
    1,891
    No, Pancho Segura, who was a contemporary of Gonzales' and for a time coached Jimmy Connors, used a two-handed forehand. Pancho Gonzales had one handed forehands and backhands.
     
    Last edited: Mar 9, 2008
    #40
  41. llgc8080

    llgc8080 Rookie

    Joined:
    Nov 29, 2007
    Messages:
    134
    Location:
    Paris.
    Pancho Segura and Pancho Gonzalez... great tennis, but words cant' say all about those two magicians.
     
    #41
  42. Tennis old man

    Tennis old man New User

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2008
    Messages:
    96
    Location:
    CA, USA
    To gundman and benhur: i only played one time with Pancho, a gentleman in all terms, in LA. He had a great accuracy and too much power in his strokes, he serves very tough, he hide the sound of the raquet in every hit, you never know if a top spin or slice will come (nobody says that, but i know!). I was born in '35, and when i faced him he was "oldy", but mister Gonzalez just don't let me hit the ball not even once!!!
     
    #42
  43. Tennis old man

    Tennis old man New User

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2008
    Messages:
    96
    Location:
    CA, USA
    Great comment, french man!
     
    #43
  44. TennisExpert

    TennisExpert New User

    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2008
    Messages:
    67
    #44
  45. TennisExpert

    TennisExpert New User

    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2008
    Messages:
    67
    Gonzalez oldy? Did you play before his retirement? You are not too young... Come on! Details! :)
     
    #45
  46. TennisExpert

    TennisExpert New User

    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2008
    Messages:
    67
    Come on man! You can't confuse between Panchos!!!! :cry:
     
    #46
  47. Edberg&Becker

    Edberg&Becker New User

    Joined:
    May 25, 2008
    Messages:
    71
    Location:
    Sweden
    Winning record against Rosewall??? Wow!!!
     
    #47
  48. halalula1234

    halalula1234 Professional

    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2008
    Messages:
    1,390
    Location:
    U.S
    i thought the best was pacho segura
     
    #48
  49. Jim Courier fan

    Jim Courier fan New User

    Joined:
    May 19, 2008
    Messages:
    61
    no waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaayyyyyyyyyyyyyy:evil:
     
    #49
  50. swedechris

    swedechris Banned

    Joined:
    Dec 3, 2004
    Messages:
    1,072
    he was truly awesome.. my dad had tapes of him palying that i saw as a kid .. still remember the slick and flowing shotmaking and fierce serving .. a thunderbolt. underrated more often than not totally unmentioned when talking of the all time greatest players.
     
    #50

Share This Page