View Single Post
Old 11-10-2012, 06:52 PM   #47
Mustard
Talk Tennis Guru
 
Mustard's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Bristol, England
Posts: 22,212
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by NGM View Post
I give the "world best player" title to Gonzales in 1956, 1957, 1958. But 1960 and 1961? No way! In 1960 Rosewall won Wembley Pro and French Pro which were 2 important events, while Gonzales retired in May and came back in December.
It was semi retirement. But Gonzales dominated the 1960 world pro tour before that sabbatical:

1. Pancho Gonzales 49-8
2. Ken Rosewall 32-25
3. Pancho Segura 22-28
4. Alex Olmedo 11-44

Using today's ranking criteria for the old pro tour of 1960 is an incorrect method. The big world pro tour was even bigger than the big pro tournaments.

Quote:
Originally Posted by NGM View Post
In 1961 once again Rosewall won the same 2 events while Gonzales won only Us Pro. Yes Gonzales had a good 4 man pro-tour head-to-head, but that was pro-tour.
In 1961, it was a multiple round robin tour, with a final 4-man round robin at the end.

Quote:
Originally Posted by NGM View Post
Nadal beat Federer more than vice versa, but it does not mean much in a large picture.
Comparing it to today's era is silly and obviously the wrong thing to do. The criteria today is very different, because the big major tournaments are all important today, not head-to-head big pro tours.

Quote:
Originally Posted by NGM View Post
I have 6, sorry, my bad. So his resume is not better than a guy named Sampras.
Sampras is a different era altogether. But Gonzales was the best player in the world for a longer period of time than Sampras.

Quote:
Originally Posted by NGM View Post
You said something interesting and I want to dig deeper on this topic. Maybe you are right, pro tour was bigger than pro slam back then. BUT, why that happened and what does it mean?
That's where the biggest money was in professional tennis back then. Tony Trabert, for example, got a guaranteed $80,000 to turn professional in late 1955 and have a big pro tour against the best professional player in Pancho Gonzales. Gonzales, despite being the best player in the world, was guaranteed far less, something around $15,000. This really angered Gonzales.

Gonzales' biggest achievement in 1956 was this thrashing of Trabert on the world pro tour. Gonzales dominated the big tournaments as well, winning the Wembley Pro, US Pro and Tournament of Champions, even though Trabert got some revenge by beating Gonzales in 5 sets in the 1956 French Pro final. But the biggest Gonzales achievement was the world pro tour win.

Quote:
Originally Posted by NGM View Post
It means that there were so few players made livings by playing tennis, so 4 certain guys played against each other to death. It was so pathetic and funny at the same time. Imagine you are forced to see Federer and Nadal matches everyday in a long 365 days of a year, and the circle starts again in the next year and so on. My God I would find a gun and kill them both.
There were more than 4. Come on, stop exaggerating. And then the best amateurs would turn professional and make it more interesting. Trabert in late 1955, Rosewall in late 1956, Hoad in July 1957, Cooper and Anderson in late 1958, Olmedo in late 1959, Gimeno and MacKay in 1960, Laver in late 1962, Stolle and Ralston in late 1966 etc.

Quote:
Originally Posted by NGM View Post
First: you just said Laver' 1962 was meaningless. So Laver won only ONE Grand Slam, nothing more.
You said I said it was "meaningless", not me. Laver was the dominant amateur player of 1962, but struggled a lot against Hoad and Rosewall when he first turned professional, to the point where Laver would have to learn how to play tennis all over again. This shows how far ahead the top professionals were by 1963, where even the dominant amateur champion gets battered at the start of his professional career by the top professional players.

Quote:
Originally Posted by NGM View Post
Second: Like I said before, it is great to see Federer and Nadal match one in a while, but it will be disaster to see 100 matches of them day in day out. When you played against one or two players all the time, you do not have enough encouragement to up your game or your skill.
Oh, you did then, because your livelihoods depended on it. If you lost enough, the money started evaporating. Gonzales, Segura and Sedgman weren't multi-millionaires like today's top players. The professional game before the open era was a dog-eat-dog survival of the fittest. When Gonzales was the best player in the world, he needed to find a way to stay there, while all the other top pros desperately tried to topple Gonzales and take his place. Ashley Cooper didn't do too well as a professional, and he was off the pro tour by the end of 1962. Cooper had been the dominant amateur player of 1958, so it shows you how tough it was.

When Gonzales turned professional in late 1949 to challenge the best professional player, Jack Kramer, he got destroyed 96-27 by Kramer on their world pro tour. Bobby Riggs, the promoter, told Gonzales that he was now "dead meat" as a pro tennis attraction, and was off future tours. Gonzales got bitter as hell after this, having previously been a happy-go-lucky character, and he was determined never to fail again once he got another chance to hit the big time.

Last edited by Mustard : 11-10-2012 at 06:55 PM.
Mustard is offline   Reply With Quote