Originally Posted by hoodjem
I have something very similar, and think it is his most impressive statistic--only Laver comes close.
Gonzales is the one player who best demonstrates the short-sightedness of just counting majors, and the foolishness of that Tennis Channel ranking. (Pancho got just two slams before he turned pro, and not even in the years when he was dominant.)
I know. That tennis channel ranking got right up my nose, because they clearly didn't understand tennis history, and the tennis criteria of that era. I'm sure that Jack Kramer would have laughed out loud had somebody seriously suggested to him around 1968 that Roy Emerson was a greater all-time player than Pancho Gonzales, and he would have called for the men in white coats. Yet to those guys on the tennis channel, they just see 12 majors for Emerson and 2 majors for Gonzales, using modern criteria to an old era. And as you say, Gonzales' 2 mainstream majors, won when he was an amateur player in the late 1940s, were way before Gonzales' dominant years as a tennis player.