Originally Posted by pc1
Some excellent valid points Dan.
Remember also that while Gonzalez won big matches from Kramer he also lost the tour by a resounding score of 26 to 97 on their head to head tour. Trabert while a fantastic player lost his tour to Gonzalez by 27 to 74 and Trabert was virtually unbeatable in his last year as an amateur. I think (this is from memory so don't hold me to this) that Trabert won the last 15 tournaments he played in and the last three majors of the year in his last year as an amateur.
Frank Sedgman was a dominant amateur but he still lost on tour to Kramer by 41 to 54. Sedgman may have lost by a slightly larger margin to Gonzalez at that point. Still a great showing by Sedgman considering everything.
The amateurs like Kramer, Gonzalez, Hoad (of course), Rosewall and Laver were extremely gifted players yet even they had to have so adjustment and improvement in their game. Kramer himself stated that Riggs improved his game. Now that may be to be nice to his friend Riggs but I got the impression from reading Kramer's book that he meant it.
Anyway the bottom line I was trying to convey was that there clearly was a difference in level of play between the pros and the amateurs.
You make a good point, that it was the great amateurs who had little adjustment to make.
Players such as Trabert or Sedgman, who were nearly as good as Kramer and Gonzales, would lose a 100-match series by a considerable margin, even though their talent was almost equivalent to the top players, and in Sedgman's case sometimes superior.
It helped Kramer that Gonzales had a knee injury on the 1950 tour, and Sedgman pulled his serving-arm shoulder muscle, which changed the final outcomes.