Originally Posted by Mustard
Gimeno turned professional in 1960, so early on in his career before he had won a major, whereas Cooper and Anderson had won majors as amateurs (especially Cooper being the dominant amateur player of 1958, in winning 3 majors that year).
But how do you come to the conclusion that Cooper or Anderson did better in the pros than Gimeno, when this clearly isn't the case? Gimeno was a top 3-4 professional player from 1962-1967, behind 2-3 of Laver, Rosewall, Hoad and Gonzales. Anderson had an amazing tournament win at the Wembley Pro in 1959 and managed to stay around on the pro tour until the open era arrived, even reaching the 1972 Australian Open final, but Anderson wasn't as high ranked as Gimeno was in the pro ranks for 6 straight years.
As for Cooper, of all the great amateur players from the 1940s to 1960s, Cooper probably suffered the most of all as a professional, as his professional results were largely a disappointment. He had burned out within a few years and was off the pro tour after 1962, after 4 years on the pro tour.
Nonsense. Gimeno became a much better player by playing in the professional ranks. Are you also of the opinion that Gonzales "jumped prematurely to the pro ranks" in late 1949? One can only make that conclusion if they just value the mainstream majors won on a balance sheet.
Santana was the first tennis player to coin the phrase "grass is for cows". He hated the surface. I know Santana eventually won Wimbledon in 1966, but Gimeno was banned from playing at the tournament due to his professional status.
Hoad in 1963 was still very good, just look at how he beat a recently turned pro in Laver. Even after 1965, he was still occasionally very dangerous, despite the reduced mobility. Look at how he beat Gonzales at the Wimbledon Pro tournament in 1967, by 3-6, 11-9, 8-6.
Okay, but what does this prove? Cliff Drysdale thinks that Santana was by far the toughest opponent he ever had in his career. Drysdale thinks that Laver was a lot easier to play against than Santana, but nobody would say that Santana was a better player than Laver.
Why did Gimeno turn pro in 1960? Before he won a major?
Why should we assume that he would have won a major if he had stayed amateur? I think that it's debatable, you can never ASSUME that someone will win a major, and perhaps he turned pro early because he didn't think that he would win a major.
He certainly did not win a pro major.
Cooper was born only 11 months before Gimeno, who turned pro at age 23 after winning 0 majors (Cooper turned pro at age 22, after winning 4 majors). Of course, in the talent-rich era of the late 50's, a rank of 7 or 8 was probably superior to a rank of 3 or 4 in the lesser era of the 60's pro ranks. Just look at the lineups of talent.
The fact that Gimeno was 3 or 4 shows how depleted the pro ranks were in the 60's.
Cooper won a tough Slazenger title in 1959 (beating Hoad in 5, also Trabert) and won at least two other significant events.
Anderson won at least two other pro tourneys besides Wembley in the early sixties.
Both Cooper and Anderson played well above Gimeno on grass.
And Hoad was stunned by Santana's talent on grass (Santana won both Wimbledon and Forest Hills). Santana made shots that Gimeno never dreamed of.
The point of winning a major before turning pro is that IT MAKES YOU A DRAW and results in a much better contract.
Gimeno simply gave up on his amateur career, and took what he could get.