Pancho Gonzales is the mentally toughest and greatest tennis player of all time

[PanchoGonzalesTheGreatest]

Originally Posted by kiki

Certainly, Great Pancho didn´t have the menthal issue fed has with Nadal, he just didn´t have too many menthal issues to worry about.I con´t know if he was superior to others from that point of view, but he certainly deserves to be respected as a man of great nerve and courage.

From everything I have read, Pancho was the mentally toughest competitor in tennis history. Jimmy Connors said that if he had to choose one player to play for his life, it would be Pancho. Jimmy also said that watching Pancho play was like looking into a burning flame. Pancho's desire to win was greater than the others. He was much tougher than Federer. Pancho was also much tougher than nadal. Even Nadal admitted to having mental issues against Djokovic last year. Pancho had no mental issues against anyone.

[RF20Lennon]

Originally Posted by PanchoGonzalesTheGreatest

From everything I have read, Pancho was the mentally toughest competitor in tennis history. Jimmy Connors said that if he had to choose one player to play for his life, it would be Pancho. Jimmy also said that watching Pancho play was like looking into a burning flame. Pancho's desire to win was greater than the others. He was much tougher than Federer. Pancho was also much tougher than nadal. Even Nadal admitted to having mental issues against Djokovic last year. Pancho had no mental issues against anyone.

ok thats true but lets be honest here!! the game has changed a lot. There is waaaay more competition now than ever before

[BobbyOne]

Originally Posted by RF20Lennon

ok thats true but lets be honest here!! the game has changed a lot. There is waaaay more competition now than ever before

Interesting that this nonsense is repeated rather often in this forum. And I can repeat what other posters have already written: The competition at the top has NOT increased Rather the opposite is true.

Federer has now three tough opponents or 5 if we include Berdych and del Potro who are not really consistent.

Gonzalez had Kramer, Budge, Trabert, Hoad, Rosewall, Sedgman, Segura, Laver Gimeno, Newcombe, Roche, Ashe and Smith to name the most important.

In the 1950s pro tour Gonzalez, Sedgman, Segura, Rosewall, Hoad and Trabert played often against each other in one tournament. Day after day an all-time great...

[RF20Lennon]

Originally Posted by BobbyOne

Interesting that this nonsense is repeated rather often in this forum. And I can repeat what other posters have already written: The competition at the top has NOT increased Rather the opposite is true.

Federer has now three tough opponents or 5 if we include Berdych and del Potro who are not really consistent.

Gonzalez had Kramer, Budge, Trabert, Hoad, Rosewall, Sedgman, Segura, Laver Gimeno, Newcombe, Roche, Ashe and Smith to name the most important.

In the 1950s pro tour Gonzalez, Sedgman, Segura, Rosewall, Hoad and Trabert played often against each other in one tournament. Day after day an all-time great...

what i mean by competition is that it takes a lot more of hardwork to win matches these days. Just because you dont have multiple slam champions doesnt mean there not good just goes to further prove how tough it is to win slams in this era

[90's Clay]

Yet he was barely ranked when they had the GOAT tennis list a few months back on ESPN or whatever it was

[pc1]

Originally Posted by RF20Lennon

what i mean by competition is that it takes a lot more of hardwork to win matches these days. Just because you dont have multiple slam champions doesnt mean there not good just goes to further prove how tough it is to win slams in this era

It's all debatable. The champions of the past may play one hundred to hundreds of matches per year and move by car on their own from place to place. They don't travel by first class airplane or perhaps their own private plane. They hit with tiny heavy wood racquets which takes a big toll on you over a period when you swing many thousands of time. They often ate at cheap places to save money on expenses.

Think of it this way I don't think the players are that tough when guys like Nadal and Djokovic complain about playing on Blue Clay. Laver and Gonzalez once played the US Pro in 1964 in a horrible rainstorm in which the court conditions were described as a bog. They had to play because the next day they had to go to another tournament.

Ken Rosewall for example in 1957 played about 172 matches. Rod Laver in 1963 played 147 matches, in 1964 he played a mere 98 matches. In 1966 118 matches. In 1969 a mere 122 matches.

Pancho Gonzalez played Jack Kramer on a tour from October 1949 to June of 1950 in which they played 123 matches. That's 123 matches in about eight months just on the tour. They may have played some tournaments and one night stands in between the tour. I believe Kramer did play several tournaments during that time and Gonzalez played at least one tournament I know of. That's a lot of tennis.

[pc1]

Originally Posted by 90's Clay

Yet he was barely ranked when they had the GOAT tennis list a few months back on ESPN or whatever it was

It was on the Tennis Channel. It was a ridiculous superficial way of looking at players. They is NO WAY Roy Emerson ranks ahead of Pancho Gonzalez but he was higher than Gonzalez on that Tennis Channel list. I think (not sure) he was a lot higher than Pancho Gonzalez.

[BobbyOne]

Originally Posted by 90's Clay

Yet he was barely ranked when they had the GOAT tennis list a few months back on ESPN or whatever it was

On Tennis Channel list Pancho was ranked only 22nd which was the greatest joke of all time or the biggest scandal in the history of ranking.

As Carlo Colussi once wrote: Any top ten list without Gonzalez (and Rosewall) is a bad list...

Bud Collins meant in a phone call that the list was a joke and made to provoke various answers. Nevertheless I find it a scandal.

They also could have ranked Bill Scanlon 3rd and Owen Davidson 7th...

[BobbyOne]

Originally Posted by pc1

It was on the Tennis Channel. It was a ridiculous superficial way of looking at players. They is NO WAY Roy Emerson ranks ahead of Pancho Gonzalez but he was higher than Gonzalez on that Tennis Channel list. I think (not sure) he was a lot higher than Pancho Gonzalez.

If I recall rightly Emmo was ranked at 11th place. This shows that the people who made that list ranked about along the Grand Slam titles the players have won.

[Mustard]

Originally Posted by BobbyOne

If I recall rightly Emmo was ranked at 11th place. This shows that the people who made that list ranked about along the Grand Slam titles the players have won.

It's quite incredible that people who are supposed to be experts don't know how the tennis world worked in those days, and that the top professionals were much better players than the top amateurs.

[Limpinhitter]

Originally Posted by PanchoGonzalesTheGreatest

It is said by those who saw him that he was such a fierce competitor that he makes Jimmy Connors look like a *****cat in comparison. Think about that for a second.

It has also been said that he never lost serve whilst serving for the set or match. He was the World No. 1 professional tennis player for an unequalled eight years in the 1950s and early 1960s.

A 1999 Sports Illustrated article about the magazine's 20 "favorite athletes" of the 20th century said about Gonzales (their number 15 pick): "If earth was on the line in a tennis match, the man you want serving to save humankind would be Ricardo Alonso Gonzalez." American tennis commentator Bud Collins echoed this in an August 2006 article for MSNBC.com: "If I had to choose someone to play for my life, it would be Pancho Gonzales."

He also had great longetivity and as a 41-year-old at Wimbledon in 1969, Gonzales met Charlie Pasarell, a Puerto Rican younger than Gonzales by 16 years.

Gonzales fought back from 2 sets down to win an epic encounter 22-24, 1–6, 16-14, 6–3, 11-9. Gonzales saved all seven match points that Pasarell had against him in the fifth set, twice coming back from 0-40 deficits, to walk off the court the eventual winner in a 5-hour, 12-minute epic.

Here is a YouTube video about the incredible Pancho Gonzales: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nd0gJzm_EQY

I also read that Pancho walked on water, fed a multitude with 5 loaves of bread and 2 fish, AND rose from the dead. No wait . . . .

[pc1]

Originally Posted by BobbyOne

If I recall rightly Emmo was ranked at 11th place. This shows that the people who made that list ranked about along the Grand Slam titles the players have won.

One of the reasons they rank by majors alone is that it is the easiest way to rank. How much easier is it to simply count majors? It's too simplistic and they conveniently forget the rest of the tournament schedule outside of the majors.

[BobbyOne]

Originally Posted by Mustard

It's quite incredible that people who are supposed to be experts don't know how the tennis world worked in those days, and that the top professionals were much better players than the top amateurs.

Yes, and therefore it's so important to present the list of the big pro majors additionally to the GS tournaments.

[Mustard]

Originally Posted by pc1

One of the reasons they rank by majors alone is that it is the easiest way to rank. How much easier is it to simply count majors? It's too simplistic and they conveniently forget the rest of the tournament schedule outside of the majors.

Unfortunately for them, tennis history is the exact opposite of simplistic.

[BobbyOne]

Originally Posted by Limpinhitter

I also read that Pancho walked on water, fed a multitude with 5 loaves of bread and 2 fish, AND rose from the dead. No wait . . . .

Pancho Gonzalez deserves any praise and not any irony.

[pc1]

Originally Posted by Mustard

Unfortunately for them, tennis history is the exact opposite of simplistic.

Of course and some of these people who vote should realize that and at least attempt to understand the history and story of the greats of tennis.

Federer is obviously a great player but it does bother me when some refuse to understand that greats like Gonzalez had no chance to get to 17 majors because he wasn't allowed to play during his best years and even past his best years. You can't just count majors in the case of players like Gonzalez and many in the past like Tilden who couldn't travel from country to country in hours like they do now. If the Tennis Channel "experts" realized that and looked into the true accomplishments of these players maybe the list would have been far different.

[Mustard]

Originally Posted by BobbyOne

Yes, and therefore it's so important to present the list of the big pro majors additionally to the GS tournaments.

Someone needs to tell these guys that before the open era started, the 4 mainstream majors were stepping stones to get into the professional game with the best monetary contract and challenge the real best players in the world, not like now where those 4 majors contain all the best players.

From the end of WW2 up until the start of the open era, apart from Roy Emerson, not one player dominated in the amateur majors for long, and that's because the best amateur players would turn professional. Kramer was dominant in the amateurs in 1946 and 1947, then turned professional, with Pails and Segura joining him. Gonzales turned professional after successfully defending his US Championships title and needing the money for his family. Sedgman turned pro in late 1952 after such a good period as an amateur. Ditto later on with McGregor, Trabert, Rosewall, Hoad, Cooper, Anderson, Olmedo, Gimeno, MacKay, Buchholz etc.

Instead of them recognising that these players moved onto the professional game, i.e. to bigger things, why do I get the impression that they think these players fell off the face of the Earth instead?

[Mustard]

Originally Posted by pc1

Of course and some of these people who vote should realize that and at least attempt to understand the history and story of the greats of tennis.

Federer is obviously a great player but it does bother me when some refuse to understand that greats like Gonzalez had no chance to get to 17 majors because he wasn't allowed to play during his best years and even past his best years. You can't just count majors in the case of players like Gonzalez and many in the past like Tilden who couldn't travel from country to country in hours like they do now. If the Tennis Channel "experts" realized that and looked into the true accomplishments of these players maybe the list would have been far different.

Yes, well said.

[pc1]

Originally Posted by Mustard

Someone needs to tell these guys that before the open era started, the 4 mainstream majors were stepping stones to get into the professional game with the best monetary contract and challenge the real best players in the world, not like now where those 4 majors contain all the best players.

From the end of WW2 up until the start of the open era, apart from Roy Emerson, not one player dominated in the amateur majors for long, and that's because the best amateur players would turn professional. Kramer was dominant in the amateurs in 1946 and 1947, then turned professional, with Pails and Segura joining him. Gonzales turned professional after successfully defending his US Championships title and needing the money for his family. Sedgman turned pro in late 1952 after such a good period as an amateur. Ditto later on with McGregor, Trabert, Rosewall, Hoad, Cooper, Anderson, Olmedo, Gimeno, MacKay, Buchholz etc.

Instead of them recognising that these players moved onto the professional game, i.e. to bigger things, why do I get the impression that they think these players fell off the face of the Earth instead?

Because they don't look at anything besides the records in majors. They don't ask what happened to the top players.

If the same conditions existed today of course top players like Nadal, Djokovic and Federer would turn Pro because they won amateur majors. Guess who would still be an amateur because he didn't dominate and win a major---Andy Murray! Maybe Murray would have won a lot of amateur majors now if the old system still existed. Federer would not have 17 classic majors because he would be a Pro, same with the others. Maybe by now Murray would have reached Roy Emerson type status because he may have dominated the amateurs. The Old system changed tennis records.

[TheFifthSet]

Originally Posted by PanchoGonzalesTheGreatest

It has also been said that he never lost serve whilst serving for the set or match.

Good post, but this is fantasy for sure. Gonzales had played in probably 1500 documented matches, probably more (I'm just guessing). That's thousands of opportunities to serve for a set or match. There's no way he held serve every time. Apocryphal claim.