Gonzales VS Rosewall: The Ultimate Battle Fight 2 - More Impressive Career?

[Dan Lobb]

Originally Posted by BobbyOne

Dan Lobb,

I also must contradict you when you say that Hoad was dominating Rosewall on clay. I just cannot trust your 16:7 balance of Hoad on clay for 1957.

As far as I know Hoad and Rosewall stood 14:14 in their pro matches on December 3 (according to Joe McCauley).

In the 1958 Perrier Cup on clay Rosewall beat Hoad 4:1 matches. In the 1960s
Muscles dominated Hoadie clearly.

I have counted an overall 83:59 head to head of Rosewall against Hoad (amateur plus pro). In big events Rosewall leads 11:3...

But I concede that Hoad without his several injuries would have matched both Laver and Rosewall in the 1960s

McCauley's list is grossly incomplete, and he does not include many results, such as the most important clay tourney of 1957 at the Hague, where Hoad won over both Rosewall and Segura on red shale, or Cairo where the same result occurred. These were both five-set marathons.
Kramer recalls that Hoad won two-thirds of the 1957 tour matches against Rosewall, which McCauley cannot locate. (I don't mean to denigrate McCauley's useful work.)
In big events, Hoad had the dominance over Rosewall in 1959, winning against him at Forest Hills, Roland Garros, Kooyong. Wembley was a less important event than these.

[Mustard]

Originally Posted by Dan Lobb

Wembley was a less important event than these.

The Wembley Pro was a very big tournament.

[BobbyOne]

Dan Lobb,

You are rather stubborn with some of your opinions. As Mustard rightly said, Wembley was an important event, most probably the most important of the pros' calendar. Frank Sedgman once confirmed this when I asked him about the matter.

I think the Hague and Cairo tournaments were part of the 4 man tour.

I once have found also a 10:8 pro balance of Rosewall against Hoad (probably October 1957).

Joe McCauley did not count those matches he listed up but brought an official 14:14 record on December 3rd!

I don't trust Jack Kramer too much because Kramer always belittled Rosewall. For instance he wrote that Segura owned Rosewall till summer 1958
which is most doubtful.

Kramer only once praised Rosewall when he wrote that Muscles would have won four Wimbledons if open era had come earlier.

I appreciate your Hoad admiration. Hoad was extremely strong when "on" but please try to stay objective.

[pc1]

Originally Posted by Dan Lobb

McCauley's list is grossly incomplete, and he does not include many results, such as the most important clay tourney of 1957 at the Hague, where Hoad won over both Rosewall and Segura on red shale, or Cairo where the same result occurred. These were both five-set marathons.
Kramer recalls that Hoad won two-thirds of the 1957 tour matches against Rosewall, which McCauley cannot locate. (I don't mean to denigrate McCauley's useful work.)
In big events, Hoad had the dominance over Rosewall in 1959, winning against him at Forest Hills, Roland Garros, Kooyong. Wembley was a less important event than these.

Originally Posted by Mustard

The Wembley Pro was a very big tournament.

Originally Posted by BobbyOne

Dan Lobb,

You are rather stubborn with some of your opinions. As Mustard rightly said, Wembley was an important event, most probably the most important of the pros' calendar. Frank Sedgman once confirmed this when I asked him about the matter.

I think the Hague and Cairo tournaments were part of the 4 man tour.

I once have found also a 10:8 pro balance of Rosewall against Hoad (probably October 1957).

Joe McCauley did not count those matches he listed up but brought an official 14:14 record on December 3rd!

I don't trust Jack Kramer too much because Kramer always belittled Rosewall. For instance he wrote that Segura owned Rosewall till summer 1958
which is most doubtful.

Kramer only once praised Rosewall when he wrote that Muscles would have won four Wimbledons if open era had come earlier.

I appreciate your Hoad admiration. Hoad was extremely strong when "on" but please try to stay objective.

From what I understand and from what I've read Wembley was clearly the most important Pro Tournament.

[Dan Lobb]

Originally Posted by BobbyOne

Dan Lobb,

You are rather stubborn with some of your opinions. As Mustard rightly said, Wembley was an important event, most probably the most important of the pros' calendar. Frank Sedgman once confirmed this when I asked him about the matter.

I think the Hague and Cairo tournaments were part of the 4 man tour.

I once have found also a 10:8 pro balance of Rosewall against Hoad (probably October 1957).

Joe McCauley did not count those matches he listed up but brought an official 14:14 record on December 3rd!

I don't trust Jack Kramer too much because Kramer always belittled Rosewall. For instance he wrote that Segura owned Rosewall till summer 1958
which is most doubtful.

Kramer only once praised Rosewall when he wrote that Muscles would have won four Wimbledons if open era had come earlier.

I appreciate your Hoad admiration. Hoad was extremely strong when "on" but please try to stay objective.

Bobby, I will never accuse you of being stubborn, regardless of the evidence, so don't worry about that.
If Wembley had been the most important tournament in the late 1950's (in the early 1950's it was just about the only significant tournament on the pro calendar, at a time when the pro calendar was virtually non-existent) the most important players would have shown up in the Wembley finals. In 1957, 1958, 1959 the top guys contested the Forest Hills and Kooyong deciders, not the Wembley.
Sedge won the Wembley event in 1953 (when it was the most important event) and 1958 (when it was not the most important event).
If I won a tourney twice, I would rate it highly.
The 14:4 result is undocumented.

[BobbyOne]

Dan Lobb,

I don't want to annoy you. I would like to not calling you stubborn but you don't make it easy for me to not calling you so.

You seem to have a trauma with Wembley and a visionary view on Kooyong as a major event.

Wembley had always a strong field even in the end-1950s. 1957: Gonzalez, Rosewall, Segura and Hoad. 1958: Gonzalez, Segura, Rosewall, Trabert, Sedgman; Hoad was in the draw but was defaulted due to injury. A weak field???
1959: Hoad, Segura, Trabert, Rosewall, Sedgman, Anderson, Cooper. A weak field??? I concede that Forest Hills had a slightly better participation.

I also concede that Kooyong had mostly a very strong field. But it did not have the prestige of Wembley.

Sedgman is not the only source for calling Wembley the top pro event or at least one of the tree top events. I have also read this in other sources including the big Collins encyclopedia.

The 14:14 balance of Rosewall and Hoad is not undocumented. Why should McCauley make a fake? But a few of your claims are undocumented (16:7 for Hoad; 13 wins of Hoad against Laver).

[BobbyOne]

Dan Lobb,

I wonder that you doubt Joe McCauley's record. Joe did not simply count the matches he had researched: He must have got the hth from an official source. I believe him.

[Dan Lobb]

Originally Posted by BobbyOne

Dan Lobb,

I don't want to annoy you. I would like to not calling you stubborn but you don't make it easy for me to not calling you so.

You seem to have a trauma with Wembley and a visionary view on Kooyong as a major event.

Wembley had always a strong field even in the end-1950s. 1957: Gonzalez, Rosewall, Segura and Hoad. 1958: Gonzalez, Segura, Rosewall, Trabert, Sedgman; Hoad was in the draw but was defaulted due to injury. A weak field???
1959: Hoad, Segura, Trabert, Rosewall, Sedgman, Anderson, Cooper. A weak field??? I concede that Forest Hills had a slightly better participation.

I also concede that Kooyong had mostly a very strong field. But it did not have the prestige of Wembley.

Sedgman is not the only source for calling Wembley the top pro event or at least one of the tree top events. I have also read this in other sources including the big Collins encyclopedia.

The 14:14 balance of Rosewall and Hoad is not undocumented. Why should McCauley make a fake? But a few of your claims are undocumented (16:7 for Hoad; 13 wins of Hoad against Laver).

Where was Gonzales in the 1959 Wembley?
The point is that the big guys do not show up in the Wembley finals.
Kooyong showed the big guys playing their best.
McCauley gives no details? Why not?
Hoad against Laver in 1963 is strongly documented, even by Laver himself in a 1997 audio recording, "In 1963 when I turned pro, Hoad beat me in 14 straight matches, and this was at a time when he was supposedly no longer interested in tennis"
Had enough? If not, I can give you more.

[Mustard]

Gonzales may have been absent, but the 1959 Wembley Pro had Hoad, Segura, Trabert, Rose, Rosewall, Cooper, Kramer, Anderson and Sedgman. Basically, all the big pros except Gonzales took part.

[BobbyOne]

Dan Lobb,

Even though our discussions could be boring to some readers, I gladly give an answer.

Gonzalez sometimes missed majors, partly because of his several semi-retirements. Pancho was not the typical player for majors. In tours he was better than in pro majors (see his several losses at Wembley, Roland Garros).

The big guys did not show in Wembley finals? You can't be serious...

Kooyong did not alwas have all big guys. F.i. in 1966 Pancho was absent.

Joe McCauley did not give details to the Hoad/Rosewall head to head in December 1957 because- as I suppose- he did not imagine that there could be readers like you who doubt even the most clear statements...

I have already given some credit to Lew Hoad (pobably as good as Laver and Rosewall in the 1960s if being healthy) and I respect Panch Gonzalez as one of the four greatest players all-time, but you don't seem to give credit to players like Laver and Rosewall and to tournaments like Wembley and French Pro.
That's a pity.

[BobbyOne]

Dan Lobb,

You have written that the Wembley tournament was the only significant event of the pro calendar.

I also must contradict here. There of course was the traditional US Pro. You are wrong that the official records of US Pro for 1952 to 1961 were wrong. I have gotten the official list of the winners of every year from USPLTA. I know there is another list with "giants" like Bartzen and Giammalva but that's not the proper US Pro.

[Dan Lobb]

Originally Posted by Mustard

Gonzales may have been absent, but the 1959 Wembley Pro had Hoad, Segura, Trabert, Rose, Rosewall, Cooper, Kramer, Anderson and Sedgman. Basically, all the big pros except Gonzales took part.

And the mighty Anderson beat Segura in the final! Numbers eight and seven in the rankings! Wow!

[BobbyOne]

Dan Lobb,

Wembley 1959 was a tournament where the top pros had a weaker day. That happens from time to time. No reason for your zynism.

You underrate both Anderson and Segura. In my rankings Anderson was No 7 and Segura was No 5, tied with Trabert in 1959.

Remember that Little Pancho at 41 had match point against world champion Rosewall at Wembley in 1962 and that Anderson, also a first class player, had two matchpoints against Jimmy Connors in Jimbo's best year, 1974 when being 39...

You find the 1959 Wembley had a rather weak field. Then why did your darling not win but lose to old Segura who later lost to Anderson??

[Mustard]

Originally Posted by Dan Lobb

And the mighty Anderson beat Segura in the final! Numbers eight and seven in the rankings! Wow!

So what? Agassi beat Ivanisevic at 1992 Wimbledon, when Agassi was the number 12 seed and Ivanisevic was the number 8 seed. Mal Anderson had the tournament of his life when he won the 1959 Wembley Pro.

[BobbyOne]

Mustard,

Excellent argument. Yes, from time to time even top players fail.

[BobbyOne]

Dan Lobb,

Mal Anderson is severely underrated because of his second career in the small pro group where he had to play against giants like Gonzalez, yes Hoad, Rosewall and Laver.

He won the US Championships, he reached final at the US Champ., he reached final in the Australian Open after a win against John Newcombe, he beat Rosewall at least 13 times, he beat Laver a few times...

Lew Hoad, as great as he is, never won a pro major, not even in his peak years 1958 to 1960...

[Dan Lobb]

Originally Posted by BobbyOne

Dan Lobb,

You have written that the Wembley tournament was the only significant event of the pro calendar.

I also must contradict here. There of course was the traditional US Pro. You are wrong that the official records of US Pro for 1952 to 1961 were wrong. I have gotten the official list of the winners of every year from USPLTA. I know there is another list with "giants" like Bartzen and Giammalva but that's not the proper US Pro.

Bobby, what are you wearing for eyeglasses these days?
I have just consulted the official USPTA historical site, and it still says that the US Pro was not held between 1952 and 1961. I recommend that you read it. That is the official record.
The 1962 final between Tut Bartzen and Sammy Giammalva was indeed the offical US Pro tournament, and the Cleveland event was never sanctioned by the USPTA. It was merely a commercial title invented by the promoter Jack March. The official title had been awarded to Jack Kramer in 1959 following his application (referred to by Allison Danzig in the New York Times in his account of the Forest Hills Pro), but not implemented until 1963 by the touring pros.
The split occurred in 1952 when March, who had lost a ton of money from the 1951 event at Forest Hills, attempted to change the venue to Cleveland where costs were lower. The USPLTA refused to sanction the move, and stripped March of his title. March ignored the reality and continued to use the "US Pro" billing for the Cleveland event. Kramer corrected the situation by gaining the official title for his group in 1959.
Are we clear on this? Does the English language still work in our time?

[Mustard]

Segura never the Wembley Pro, despite being runner-up 4 times, losing to Gonzales in 1951, Rosewall in 1957 and 1960, and Anderson in 1959.

[Mustard]

Originally Posted by Dan Lobb

I have just consulted the official USPTA historical site, and it still says that the US Pro was not held between 1952 and 1961.

The US Pro was held at Cleveland from 1952 to 1962. The draw started to weaken around 1958 with Sedgman and Rosewall staying away, got weaker and smaller in 1960, and crashed in 1962. The 1962 US Pro had very few top players, with only Buchholz, Arkinstall, Segura and MacKay taking part. This tournament is the recognised US Pro, even though it regularly went under the title of "World Professional Championships".

[Dan Lobb]

Originally Posted by BobbyOne

Dan Lobb,

Wembley 1959 was a tournament where the top pros had a weaker day. That happens from time to time. No reason for your zynism.

You underrate both Anderson and Segura. In my rankings Anderson was No 7 and Segura was No 5, tied with Trabert in 1959.

Remember that Little Pancho at 41 had match point against world champion Rosewall at Wembley in 1962 and that Anderson, also a first class player, had two matchpoints against Jimmy Connors in Jimbo's best year, 1974 when being 39...

You find the 1959 Wembley had a rather weak field. Then why did your darling not win but lose to old Segura who later lost to Anderson??

Now we get to the crux of it.
Hoad had been touring all season against Gonzales, and was clearly tired (evidenced by his loss in the Slazenger final to Cooper).
Gonzales was also tired, and didn't even make the trip to Britain.
The two top guys saved their best efforts for each other. Sure, the big guys have off days. In the LESS IMPORTANT TOURNAMENTS.
In the most important tournament of the year, Forest Hills, the top two players faced each other in the final. Surprise, surprise!
"Your" rankings do not agree with the final official rankings based on the money list, so, I am sorry to say, they do not bear any credibility with me.