View Single Post
Old 11-10-2012, 05:15 PM   #37
Mustard
Talk Tennis Guru
 
Mustard's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Bristol, England
Posts: 22,414
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by NGM View Post
Ok in this page Hoodjem said Gonzales has "only" 6 years ending number 1 (1952, 1954-1957 and 1958 co-number 1 with Sedgman). It does not sound better than Sampras, right?
Well, that's hoodjem's list, not mine. Gonzales kept winning the world pro tours right up until his initial retirement at the end of 1961, and he was never toppled, even if he was seriously challenged.

1954: Gonzales becomes best player in the world, wins US Pro for the second year in a row. Wins a 4-man world pro tour against Sedgman, Segura and Budge.

1955: Gonzales clearly the world's best player, wins US Pro title for the third year in a row.

1956: Probably Gonzales' most dominant year ever, wins 74-27 in the world pro tour against Trabert, wins the Wembley Pro for the fourth time, the US Pro for the fourth time and the inaugural Tournament of Champions, as well as finishing runner-up of the French Pro.

1957: Gonzales again clearly the world's best player, wins 50-26 against Rosewall in the world pro tour, wins the US Pro for the fifth year in a row and the Tournament of Champions for the second year in a row.

1958: Gonzales has a hardfought 51-36 win over Hoad on their world pro tour, gets a serious challenge from Sedgman on the tournament scene, but Gonzales still wins his sixth US Pro title in a row and his third Tournament of Champions in a row.

1959: A very close year between Gonzales and Hoad. Gonzales wins the 4-man world pro tour against Hoad, Cooper and Anderson. Although Hoad won more direct matches against Gonzales on that tour (15-13), Gonzales was unbeaten against Cooper and Anderson (going 34-0). Gonzales thrashes Hoad to win his seventh US Pro title in a row, but Hoad avenges this by beating Gonzales in the final of the Tournament of Champions, in what was Hoad's finest hour. Gonzales wasn't toppled as the world's best, though.

1960: Gonzales is finally free of his pro contract with Kramer, which had lasted for 7 years, and hardly plays any tournaments this year. However, Gonzales dominates the 4-man world pro tour against Rosewall, Segura and Olmedo.

1961: Gonzales wins the US Pro title for the eighth time, and wins the world pro tour against Gimeno, Hoad, MacKay, Olmedo, Buchholz and Sedgman. Rosewall was clearly doing increasingly well on the tournament scene, however. Gonzales retires from tennis at the end of 1961, and doesn't return until 18 months later, for a terrible loss at the 1963 US Pro against Olmedo. Gonzales then returned to the pro tour for a full-time schedule in 1964.

Quote:
Originally Posted by NGM View Post
So, he had 6 or 8 years ending number 1? I want to ask. Because it seems even old times can not decide what really happen in the pre-open era.
I have Gonzales as the best player in 8 calendar years.

Quote:
Originally Posted by NGM View Post
Here is the fact: In 1960, Gonzales was called co-number 1, equally to Ken Rosewall. But that year Gonzales did not win anything important and he played only few months. He retired in May 1960 (of course he came back for money). A player retired in May called co-number 1 is a really embarrassment for pre-open era.
The world pro tours were even bigger than the pro majors back then, and Gonzales only lost the 1950 version against Kramer.

Quote:
Originally Posted by NGM View Post
In the professional tour he had something like that: he played 100 matches with Tony Trabert in 1956 alone, 87 matches with Lew Hoad in 1958 alone, 80 matches with Rosewall in 1957,... What conclusion we can get from such information?
That Gonzales utterly dominated the newly turned professionals who had been the best amateur players. Have a look at how great Trabert's 1955 was on the amateur tour, yet he was crushed by Gonzales. Better still, look at Cooper's 1958 on the amateur tour, for an even bigger crushing by Gonzales in the pros.

Quote:
Originally Posted by NGM View Post
He played his entire tour life with a so small bunch of tennis players. Yes he beat them. Yes he was better than them all. But number of his opponent was so small that it does not mean anything.
That "small number" were the best players in the world. Let's take 1954, for example, the best players in the world were Gonzales, Sedgman and Segura, not Drobny, Trabert and Rose. The professional game was where the big boys played.

Quote:
Originally Posted by NGM View Post
You spent one whole year just to play with one, two, three guys. Why this thing could happen? Because no one played tennis back then. That is it. Pancho Gonzales was the undisputed king of handicap tennis world that should not be mentioned in the same league with today's kings.
The same thing happens with every professional player. They won every thing because...no one else played tennis beside them. "No one" is a strong word but you got what I mean.
Imagine if Federer played Nadal, Djokovic, Murray and Tsonga all year, and never a player outside of the current top 15-20. Would that make him a weak player? In the 1950s, the best amateur players turned professional and would be pitted against the ultimate competition. You had to improve considerably to survive on the pro tour. Laver said in early 1963, "I thought Hoad was good, but Rosewall is even better. I am going to have to learn how to play tennis all over again if I am going to compete with them". And this came from the man who had won the Grand Slam in the amateurs in 1962.

Quote:
Originally Posted by NGM View Post
Laver is a interesting case. No, the reason why Laver won so much because there were so much small tournaments in his era, tournament with 4- 8 participants. In wiki I saw this article:
Rod Laver won: 1968, NTL 4 man event Sao Paulo, Brazil; 1968, Sao Paulo, Brazil (4-man round robin), 1971, CBS Classic (4-man), Hilton Head, South Carolina, U.S...
Federer is unlucky guy, born at the wrong time. How lucky Laver was, he won a bunch of ridiculously small tournaments that he could be so proud of.
Laver won all sorts of tournaments, from small ones to the biggest ones. He played relentlessly, year after year after year. Like I said in my previous post, Federer can't hope to match this activity due to the number of hardcourt tournaments he's played over the years. Hardcourts shorten careers. That is the single biggest reason as to why players can't play on the tour into their 40s, anymore. Heck, some struggle to even make it into their 30s.

Quote:
Originally Posted by NGM View Post
Yes, there were many holes in tennis world until 90s like I said before. Computer ranking was not available till 1973 and we do not have reliable ranking until recent time. That's why I said tennis has evolved from immature stage to mature stage as now. In 70s and 80s tennis world was still finding the way to measure greatness.
That doesn't prove how good or bad players of past eras were. Players like Wilding, Tilden, Vines, Kramer, Gonzales and Laver were dominant players for many years. This doesn't become "myth" just because there were no official world rankings until 1973.

Quote:
Originally Posted by NGM View Post
I do not say anything like that. What I said is Laver won a bunch of small tournaments which make him looking greater than he actually was. You can not cite his number of tournaments won or slam won to promote him as greatest player of all time. You just can not.
Like I said before, Laver won tournaments of all sizes, as an amateur, as a pre-open era professional, and as an open era professional. You highlighting and focusing on the smaller tournaments doesn't change this fact.

Quote:
Originally Posted by NGM View Post
You feel annoying, do I NOT feel annoying as well? You guys devalue Federer greatness for ridiculous reasons like Gonzales was world best player in 8 years, Laver won 2 grand slam and 200 tournaments, Rosewall won 23 majors...
Gonzales was the best player in the world for 8 years
Laver did win 200 tournaments
Rosewall did win 23 majors (4 amateur, 15 professional, 4 open)

I realise that these facts are inconvenient to those with a "Federer is GOAT" agenda, but facts are facts.

Quote:
Originally Posted by NGM View Post
What is that? They are all myths. Gonzales was NOT world best palyer in 8 years, so was Laver. Laver won 200 small tournament and many "majors" playing just 3 matches. And Rosewall, well, he seem not be top candidate so I will let him alone.
No, they are not myths, but the facts, as I've repeatedly pointed out. Try researching tennis history, sometime, and get rid of the clear pro-Federer biases. And LOL at the suggestion that Laver won 200 small tournaments. Laver was the best player in the world for 7 years, by the way. Are you going to call this a "myth" too?

Last edited by Mustard : 11-10-2012 at 05:46 PM.
Mustard is offline   Reply With Quote