Well it's nice to talk about the players winning many titles in the past but I don't think you can take them seriously when compare to the ATP titles. Pancho was competing against the amateur and then the pro, which was divided into 2 circuits. That alone doesn't have as much weight as the atp events which comprise all all the players. Factor in the number of draws and number of matches needed to win per event. Didn't Pancho won many events which only required to win 1 or 2 matches? I don't care if Pancho won 50 mini events like Los Angeles Metropolitan, it's not worth equal to Roger's one grand slam title.
Link from PC1
If you look at January in 1954
, Pancho won 9 titles, winning some titles only 2 days apart. It's ridiculous...he must only have to win one match
. Today's player can only managed to compete 2 events per month, and winning atleast 4 matches quadruple his chance to win the event. In fact, Nadal/Nole/Fed each only participated in 19 or 20 events per year.
Anyway, comparing players like Pancho's total titles to the players competing from the atp standard is flaw. You can list all of their single titles, but the experts will always have Connors as the record holder(109). You can fool some of the posters in here, but not me.