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

[BobbyOne]

Dan Lobb,

Firstly I admit that you are right regarding the 1964 New Zealand tour.

At the other points raised by you: Why should I weep?. If at all I could almost weep about your stubborness.

As Mustard rightly says Anderson's best showing in 1959 and in his whole career was his win at Wembley.

I respect you for having much knowledge of tennis but you sometimes don't value the fact rightly!

23:21 or 23:23? I have read the latter both in British Lawn Tennis and in an American newspaper of that time.

A 15:13 balance of Gonzalez against Hoad you easily can find if you count all matches of the two in their 1959 tour in World Tennis. I don't know who made a mistake. Was it Kramer or was it the reporter from World tennis...

Bartzen, Giammalva &Co were just teaching pros after their amateur careers.

Regarding prize money: Are you aware that also doubles achievements are included in a player's money list? You should.

[Dan Lobb]

Originally Posted by Mustard

Winning the 1959 Wembley Pro was a far greater achievement for Anderson than losing in the first round of the 1959 Tournament of Champions, even if a peak Lew Hoad was his opponent. Winning the 1959 Wembley Pro was Anderson's best career achievement.



But it was a 4-man tour. Hoad lost 7 times to either Cooper or Anderson, while Gonzales didn't lose a match to either Cooper or Anderson. Had it been a 2-man tour like in 1958 with even more Gonzales vs. Hoad matches, I'm sure Gonzales would have found a way to win again. He was just too consistent day-in, day-out over several months, even if Gonzales did fear a peak Hoad.

Gonzales considered it a two-man event. "The only time I lost a head to head tour was in 1959, 15 to 13 to Hoad." NY Times 1969
Hoad also looked on it as hth, and the London Times reported 21 to 20 after Forest Hills.

[BobbyOne]

Dan Lobb,

I trust you with the 21:20 balance of Hoad against Gonzalez after Forest Hills,
then you have added the matches in Joe's book but you also know that Joe's records are not complete. Thus British Lawn tennis and the American newspaper could be easily right with their 23:23 balance. It's just newspaper versus magazine and newspaper.

[TomT]

I've been reading through this thread. Informative and interesting comments. Great thread. Motivates me to try to find some more videos of Rosewall and Gonzalez in their primes.

[Dan Lobb]

Originally Posted by BobbyOne

Dan Lobb,

Firstly I admit that you are right regarding the 1964 New Zealand tour.

At the other points raised by you: Why should I weep?. If at all I could almost weep about your stubborness.

As Mustard rightly says Anderson's best showing in 1959 and in his whole career was his win at Wembley.

I respect you for having much knowledge of tennis but you sometimes don't value the fact rightly!

23:21 or 23:23? I have read the latter both in British Lawn Tennis and in an American newspaper of that time.

A 15:13 balance of Gonzalez against Hoad you easily can find if you count all matches of the two in their 1959 tour in World Tennis. I don't know who made a mistake. Was it Kramer or was it the reporter from World tennis...

Bartzen, Giammalva &Co were just teaching pros after their amateur careers.

Regarding prize money: Are you aware that also doubles achievements are included in a player's money list? You should.

Was Gonzales himself part of the conspiracy? He reported 15 to 13 for Hoad in a 1969 New York Times interview, and said that it was the only time he lost a head to head tour. (He obviously downgraded the 1949-50 Kramer tour, where Gonzales had a knee injury.)
Hoad claimed that he led 15 to 3 before deciding to coast and rest his back, the hth result already decided early.
Your claim doesn't seem to stand up to the players' own statements.
The 1962 US Pro featured Tut Bartzen and Sammy Giammalva in the final, and Giammalva had a lengthy career playing pro tournaments against the top players throughout the 1950's. (I don't see any quotes for your information, please give us some.) The Kramer/Trabert group did not participate in the 1962 event in DC, but exercised their option to stage the 1963 US Pro at Forest Hills, a financial disaster.
Doubles achievements were included in the 1959 bonus money pool calculations? Every player had a chance, but in singles Hoad led the pack with six tournament victories, to Gonzales' five (which included the "US Pro", not a part of the calculations), Rosewall with two, Sedgman and Trabert with one each, also Anderson and Cooper with one each, Segura with a win at Tel Aviv, the strongest year of pro tennis ever.

[Dan Lobb]

Originally Posted by BobbyOne

Dan Lobb,

I trust you with the 21:20 balance of Hoad against Gonzalez after Forest Hills,
then you have added the matches in Joe's book but you also know that Joe's records are not complete. Thus British Lawn tennis and the American newspaper could be easily right with their 23:23 balance. It's just newspaper versus magazine and newspaper.

Bobby, give us more specifics, because I do not see any possibility of more Hoad/Gonzales matches other than the ones reported by McCauley after Forest Hills.

[BobbyOne]

Dan Lobb,

The 15:13 balance of Gonzalez against Rosewall is not my claim. I just reported that the results of the World Tennis reords are reading so. Surely no conspiracy of course.

You are wrong that Giammalva played much against top pros in the 1950s. In fact he stayed amateur through 1958 and there are no reports in the McCauley book about such matches for 1959 and 1960. I repeat: he was a teaching pro. It's not my turn to prove my words (such as statements as "Giammalva was not a touring pro"). It's YOUR turn to prove the opposite!

I cannot understand that you can rule out the possibility that Joe has missed some results. I say this as a friend of Joe's. No book is perfect!
I just reported that two sources do have a 23:23 record.

[Dan Lobb]

Originally Posted by BobbyOne

Dan Lobb,

The 15:13 balance of Gonzalez against Rosewall is not my claim. I just reported that the results of the World Tennis reords are reading so. Surely no conspiracy of course.

You are wrong that Giammalva played much against top pros in the 1950s. In fact he stayed amateur through 1958 and there are no reports in the McCauley book about such matches for 1959 and 1960. I repeat: he was a teaching pro. It's not my turn to prove my words (such as statements as "Giammalva was not a touring pro"). It's YOUR turn to prove the opposite!

I cannot understand that you can rule out the possibility that Joe has missed some results. I say this as a friend of Joe's. No book is perfect!
I just reported that two sources do have a 23:23 record.

What are you talking about, Bobby? We were discussing Gonzales/Hoad, not Gonzales/Rosewall, and everyone agrees that it was 15 to 13 for Hoad in 1959. Are we on the same planet?
Giammalva was runnerup to Gonzales in a 1960 pro tournament, and Giammalva also competed in the biggest pro event of 1959, the Forest Hills Tournament of Champions.
Bobby, where are you getting this stuff from?
Give more details about these two sources.

[BobbyOne]

Dan Lobb,

I can assure you: I'm still on the same planet as you are depite of my mistake in confusing Hoad and Rosewall (maybe a Freudian slip because I admire both Rosewall and Hoad).

I say it for the third time: Giammalva was a teaching pro . I know that the teaching pros had one or even a few pro tournamenst every year but those were second or third class events.

Tuscaloosa 1960 was also a tournament of teaching pros plus a Pancho Gonzalez who was in quarrel with Jack Kramer and after that tournament was ruled out of the regular pro tournaments for a while.

In that tournament Giammalva beat both Jim Evert and Armando Vieira...

In the Forest Hills 1959 event he lost to giant Cooper 1-6,3-6.

Really a (touring) pro career in participating in one regulary pro tournament in two years!!

[BobbyOne]

Dan Lobb,

I can assure you: I'm still on the same planet as you are depite of my mistake in confusing Hoad and Rosewall (maybe a Freudian slip because I admire both Rosewall and Hoad).

I say it for the third time: Giammalva was a teaching pro . I know that the teaching pros had one or even a few pro tournamenst every year but those were second or third class events.

Tuscaloosa 1960 was also a tournament of teaching pros plus a Pancho Gonzalez who was in quarrel with Jack Kramer and after that tournament was ruled out of the regular pro tournaments for a while.

In that tournament Giammalva beat both Jim Evert and Armando Vieira...

In the Forest Hills 1959 event he lost to giant Cooper 1-6,3-6.

Really a (touring) pro career in participating in one regulary pro tournament in two years!!

[BobbyOne]

Dan Lobb,

My sources for 23:23:

First British Lawn Tennis. I don't know the issue. I have read and written down that result in the 1970s in the library of ITF even though I missed to write down the special issue of that famous magazine. Please trust me that I wrote it correctly.

Second I have found now in my many papers the clipping of that American newspaper. Unfortunately Greg Gonzalez, nephew of Pancho's, did not give me the name of the newspaper. He sent me many clippings without mentioning the name of the newspaper...

But I can cite something:

Tired of Traveling- Pancho Gonzales Plans to Pass Up Fortune by Quitting Tennis. That's the title of the article by Jeane Hoffman.

The deciding passage:

Kramer's business is also fine: he has Lew Hoad, WHO TIED PANCHO 23-ALL last year...

It's also written that Pancho retired from the game July 1.

I only can hope that you use your logical understanding...

[Dan Lobb]

Originally Posted by BobbyOne

Dan Lobb,

I can assure you: I'm still on the same planet as you are depite of my mistake in confusing Hoad and Rosewall (maybe a Freudian slip because I admire both Rosewall and Hoad).

I say it for the third time: Giammalva was a teaching pro . I know that the teaching pros had one or even a few pro tournamenst every year but those were second or third class events.

Tuscaloosa 1960 was also a tournament of teaching pros plus a Pancho Gonzalez who was in quarrel with Jack Kramer and after that tournament was ruled out of the regular pro tournaments for a while.

In that tournament Giammalva beat both Jim Evert and Armando Vieira...

In the Forest Hills 1959 event he lost to giant Cooper 1-6,3-6.

Really a (touring) pro career in participating in one regulary pro tournament in two years!!

Jimmy Evert was the Canadian champion one year.
Forest Hills 1959 was the biggest pro tournament of 1959. Would they let you or I play in it? Not likely.

[Dan Lobb]

Originally Posted by BobbyOne

Dan Lobb,

My sources for 23:23:

First British Lawn Tennis. I don't know the issue. I have read and written down that result in the 1970s in the library of ITF even though I missed to write down the special issue of that famous magazine. Please trust me that I wrote it correctly.

Second I have found now in my many papers the clipping of that American newspaper. Unfortunately Greg Gonzalez, nephew of Pancho's, did not give me the name of the newspaper. He sent me many clippings without mentioning the name of the newspaper...

But I can cite something:

Tired of Traveling- Pancho Gonzales Plans to Pass Up Fortune by Quitting Tennis. That's the title of the article by Jeane Hoffman.

The deciding passage:

Kramer's business is also fine: he has Lew Hoad, WHO TIED PANCHO 23-ALL last year...

It's also written that Pancho retired from the game July 1.

I only can hope that you use your logical understanding...

Every source on the planet, except these unmentionable ones, cites 15 to 13 for Hoad. And that includes Hoad and Gonzales, and Sports Illustrated, and New York Times, and London Times, etc., etc.,...you get the picture.
How much credibility do I give to these two unmentionable sources?
How about something less than zero.
Also, if Pancho retired on July 1, what was he doing playing the Australian tour in November and December?
Remember, as of July 1, Hoad led 21 to 20 (London Times). Then Gonzales does not play again until the Australian tour in November and December, where he loses twice to Hoad before winning at Sydney. Then, Gonzales quits tournament play before the final event at Kooyong, because Hoad withdraws from the 1960 pro championship tour.
So that gives us 23 to 21, and if someone makes an adding mistake, I cannot alter the reality on that account.
Are you sure that you and I are really on the same planet?

[BobbyOne]

Dan Lobb,

I usually like to discuss with people who have a different view than me but I feel we come now to the end of our "fight" because you are rather ignorant towards facts.

JImmy Evert was a "nothing" in 1960 even though he was Canadian Champ many years before.

To call my sources "unmentionable sources" is an impertinence!.

I believe my newspaper clipping is of 1960, NOT 1959, see: "...who tied Pancho LAST year"!

I have two reasonable sources you have only won. Furthermore you have only a partly standing (21:20) and a few , probably not all, additional results from a McCauley book which has some gaps for every year (I don't blame Joe because he has brought more pro results than all other experts together!!!).

To specify World Tennis: Also W.T. has reported a 15:13 balance of the tour for Hoad. I hear you saying:Haha,that's it. But wait, my friend: The pages before that final standings give all Gonzalez-Hoad matches of that 4 man tour plus of course all other matches (Cooper etc) and if you read and count those matches you yet come to a 15:13 balance for PANCHO against Hoad. It is embarrassing and I never said the one or the other version is right. I only hint to that discrepancy.

Good bye my friend and please try to become more objective!

[krosero]

Originally Posted by Dan Lobb

Hoad claimed that he led 15 to 3 before deciding to coast and rest his back, the hth result already decided early.

If Hoad said that, his memory is off. The New York Times had Hoad leading 10-5 on April 16. The Deseret News reported Hoad leading 13-6 on May 5, which you can read here.

When did Hoad make that claim?

Originally Posted by BobbyOne

Dan Lobb,

My sources for 23:23:

First British Lawn Tennis. I don't know the issue. I have read and written down that result in the 1970s in the library of ITF even though I missed to write down the special issue of that famous magazine. Please trust me that I wrote it correctly.

Second I have found now in my many papers the clipping of that American newspaper. Unfortunately Greg Gonzalez, nephew of Pancho's, did not give me the name of the newspaper. He sent me many clippings without mentioning the name of the newspaper...

But I can cite something:

Tired of Traveling- Pancho Gonzales Plans to Pass Up Fortune by Quitting Tennis. That's the title of the article by Jeane Hoffman.

The deciding passage:

Kramer's business is also fine: he has Lew Hoad, WHO TIED PANCHO 23-ALL last year...

That's all an exact quote from an LA Times story, by Jeane Hoffman, dated Jan. 12, 1960.

[Mustard]

Gonzales hardly played any tournaments in 1960, although he did play a full schedule in 1961 before retiring at the end of the year. The retirement only lasted 18 months.

[Dan Lobb]

Originally Posted by BobbyOne

Dan Lobb,

I usually like to discuss with people who have a different view than me but I feel we come now to the end of our "fight" because you are rather ignorant towards facts.

JImmy Evert was a "nothing" in 1960 even though he was Canadian Champ many years before.

To call my sources "unmentionable sources" is an impertinence!.

I believe my newspaper clipping is of 1960, NOT 1959, see: "...who tied Pancho LAST year"!

I have two reasonable sources you have only won. Furthermore you have only a partly standing (21:20) and a few , probably not all, additional results from a McCauley book which has some gaps for every year (I don't blame Joe because he has brought more pro results than all other experts together!!!).

To specify World Tennis: Also W.T. has reported a 15:13 balance of the tour for Hoad. I hear you saying:Haha,that's it. But wait, my friend: The pages before that final standings give all Gonzalez-Hoad matches of that 4 man tour plus of course all other matches (Cooper etc) and if you read and count those matches you yet come to a 15:13 balance for PANCHO against Hoad. It is embarrassing and I never said the one or the other version is right. I only hint to that discrepancy.

Good bye my friend and please try to become more objective!

Hello, my friend, and let's get real.
The London Times is a more credible source than someone (Jeannie Hoffman?) writing some six or more months after the London Times report.
Could you give some further reference to the World Tennis source?
As of now, we only have your word to go on, and while I am not calling you "ignorant", it is possible that you calculated differently than Gonzales, Hoad, Kramer, Cooper, Anderson, Sports Illustrated, New York Times, London Times, etc., all of whom came up with 15 to 13 for Hoad, AND money was paid to the players on the basis of 15 to 13 for Hoad.
Can you see Gonzales settling for less pay than he was entitled to? No, I can't either.
Or repeating in the New York Times in a 1969 interview that the only head to head tour he lost was in 1959 to Hoad? No, that doesn't add up either.
Something smells funny here.

[Dan Lobb]

Originally Posted by krosero

If Hoad said that, his memory is off. The New York Times had Hoad leading 10-5 on April 16. The Deseret News reported Hoad leading 13-6 on May 5, which you can read here.

When did Hoad make that claim?

That's all an exact quote from an LA Times story, by Jeane Hoffman, dated Jan. 12, 1960.

Hoad stated that he led 11 to 2 when his back started to act up, (TENNIS magazine, interview in 1985), and Pollard stated in his biography of Hoad that he ran up a 15 to 3 stretch and nearly caught up to the two-year score (which would have been 56 to 54 for Gonzales).
Perhaps the newspaper reporters included tournament matches from Australia.

[krosero]

Originally Posted by Dan Lobb

Hoad stated that he led 11 to 2 when his back started to act up, (TENNIS magazine, interview in 1985), and Pollard stated in his biography of Hoad that he ran up a 15 to 3 stretch and nearly caught up to the two-year score (which would have been 56 to 54 for Gonzales).
Perhaps the newspaper reporters included tournament matches from Australia.

The reporters did not include any of Pancho's wins in Australia. You can read here that Pancho got his first 4 victories in in San Francisco; Washington, D.C.; Houston, Texas; and Palm Beach, Florida. They report Hoad leading 7-4 at that point, in the American series, which shows that Hoad was mistaken in recalling that he took an 11-2 lead.

The next day Pancho won his fifth victory, in Jacksonville (his third straight win over Hoad on clay courts).

That cut Hoad's lead to 7-5. Really a very different picture from the 11-2 lead that Hoad claimed.

That's not to cast blame on Hoad, because after all he was speaking 26 years after the tour in question!

From Jacksonville to the end of the tour, Hoad could have won 8 of the last 16 matches, if he finished 15-13. I don't know how to square that with Pollard, whose book I don't have (so I can't analyze what he wrote). Hoad did win 6 straight matches over Pancho to pull up to 13-5. But obviously that is not even close to 15 victories in 18 matches, mentioned in Pollard's book.

[BobbyOne]

krosero,

Thanks for the newspaper detail. It's great that you have got the clipping of L.A. Times.