Rosewall and Gonzales Careers Official Thread

[BobbyOne]

Originally Posted by forzamilan90

Would you say Gonzales is better on clay, than say Rosewall on grass (assuming grass is Rosewall's weakest and clay is Gonzales' strongest surface)?

Forza, I believe that Rosewall was a bit better on grass than indoors even though he won most of his majors indoors.

[BobbyOne]

Originally Posted by forzamilan90

Hmmm the more I learn about Rosewall, the stronger he seems. Definitely underrated.

Forza, Welcome to the club! I made the same experience many years ago (guess I'm older than you).

[BobbyOne]

Originally Posted by pc1

It wasn't played that often on wood indoors. They played also on indoor canvas during the head to head tours. In fact Kramer used to transport an indoor canvas from tournament to tournament to have it laid down on the area where they would play in previous years. Remember I'm talking about the head to head tours also and not just the tournaments. They played often on hard court, clay and grass also. I would say the clay, grass and hard court were actually the most common. Wood of course would be played on occasionally, particularly at Wembley. A great feat of Rosewall was that he would win the French Pro on red clay and the next week play and win Wembley on wood, perhaps the fastest of all surfaces. This is perhaps superior to Borg winning on red clay at the French and a few weeks later winning at Wimbledon on grass.

pc1, I'm very glad you mention Rosewall's great feat at the French Pro (on clay)and Wembley which he won three years in a row (1960s to 1962). He actually had only one or two days for travelling from Paris to London and to adapt his game from the slowest surface to the (probably) fastest one. All these tournaments had 16 strong participants. Yes, I rate this run as a greater one than even Borg's famous run because Borg had two full weeks to transform his game from clay to grass.

Alone with this achievement Rosewall is for me a GOAT contender.

It's a shame that this probably greatest feat of Rosewall is almost unknown. Therefore a great Thank you to you, pc1.

[BobbyOne]

Originally Posted by Frankc

Great thread - I am just "discovering" Rosewall myself. Watching his 5 set Wimby win over Smith right now - Muscles was was 39 right?

Pc1 - thanks for the link - just gorgeous, varied stuff...

Frankc, Even as a Rosewall admirer I must say that that Wimbledon SF match was not Rosewall's best. Yes, he played well in the fourth and fifth set but he also profited from a lapse in Smith's game. I would rather like to watch the QF match against Newcombe because Newk was the undisputed No.1 at that time.

[FedericRoma83]

Originally Posted by BobbyOne

Frankc, Even as a Rosewall admirer I must say that that Wimbledon SF match was not Rosewall's best. Yes, he played well in the fourth and fifth set but he also profited from a lapse in Smith's game.

This is tennis, if someone rises, the other may decline. Every victory is a well deserved victory, and that was a hell of a match, something really epic (even though I've seen only its highlights unfortunately).

[forzamilan90]

Bobby if you know Rosewall and communicate with him tell him might be a good idea to pop up for a chat with the Aussie Open commentators (ESPN). Laver has been getting media attention recent years and introduced to the younger audience, yours truly including. If Rosewalll does something like that many of the younger people will become more familiar with him and his legacy.

[Nathaniel_Near]

http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showthread.php?t=433303

[forzamilan90]

Originally Posted by Nathaniel_Near

http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showthread.php?t=433303

You forgot to say official homeboy.

[pc1]

Originally Posted by Frankc

Great thread - I am just "discovering" Rosewall myself. Watching his 5 set Wimby win over Smith right now - Muscles was was 39 right?

Pc1 - thanks for the link - just gorgeous, varied stuff...

And remember that at 39, while still an excellent player he was but a shadow of what he was. I don't think he was even as good as he was just several years before.

It's funny some posters tend to focus on Rosewall's height but he was incredible with the overhead and his range at the net was unbelievable. I remember watching him at Forest Hills and some players would hit some blazing attempted passing shots when Rosewall was at the net. The ball would seem to pass him but somehow with his back almost to the net he would hit a great angled stop volley. But he was known for his legendary backhand, mostly flat with some slice.

He had amazing variety, far more than most players that I have seen.

[forzamilan90]

Would you say his backhand was stronger than Budge? By strong I mean more "hard hitting?"

[BobbyOne]

Originally Posted by FedericRoma83

This is tennis, if someone rises, the other may decline. Every victory is a well deserved victory, and that was a hell of a match, something really epic (even though I've seen only its highlights unfortunately).

Yes, it was a great victory for Rosewall at 39 plus and after saving a match point against the mighty Smith on grass.

[BobbyOne]

Originally Posted by forzamilan90

Bobby if you know Rosewall and communicate with him tell him might be a good idea to pop up for a chat with the Aussie Open commentators (ESPN). Laver has been getting media attention recent years and introduced to the younger audience, yours truly including. If Rosewalll does something like that many of the younger people will become more familiar with him and his legacy.

Forza, I know that Muscles is rather reserved rearding commentating. I even don't know if Ken has ever commentated a tennis match for TV or radio...

[BobbyOne]

Originally Posted by forzamilan90

Would you say his backhand was stronger than Budge? By strong I mean more "hard hitting?"

Forza, I'm sure that Budge played his backhand harder than Rosewall did. But I could imagine that Rosewall's was mor exact and steadier. I concede I never saw Budge.

[Dan Lobb]

Originally Posted by BobbyOne

pc1, I'm very glad you mention Rosewall's great feat at the French Pro (on clay)and Wembley which he won three years in a row (1960s to 1962). He actually had only one or two days for travelling from Paris to London and to adapt his game from the slowest surface to the (probably) fastest one. All these tournaments had 16 strong participants. Yes, I rate this run as a greater one than even Borg's famous run because Borg had two full weeks to transform his game from clay to grass.

Alone with this achievement Rosewall is for me a GOAT contender.

It's a shame that this probably greatest feat of Rosewall is almost unknown. Therefore a great Thank you to you, pc1.

It helped that the opposition was weaker than in 1958 or 1959.
Rosewall played the 1960 4-man, which sharpened his game for these.

[Mustard]

Originally Posted by forzamilan90

Both have great records, great longevity. Let's analyze their careers and compare them. Also, let's Try not to emphasize other players (a lot of threads get their topics off track). Serious discussion only. I personally want to get educated about these two cause they fly under the radar somewhat and there may be some misconceptions about these guys. Of particular interest to me is which of the two you feel had a greater career.

Big achievements of Pancho Gonzales

• Won 2 US Championships as an amateur in 1948 and 1949

• Won 3 Wembley Pros in a row in 1950, 1951 and 1952

• Added a fourth Wembley Pro title in 1956

• Won 7 US Pros in a row in 1953, 1954, 1955, 1956, 1957, 1958 and 1959

• Didn't play the 1960 US Pro, but won his 8th US Pro title in 1961

• Won 3 consecutive Tournament of Champions titles in 1956, 1957 and 1958

• Won the head-to-head World Pro Tours of 1954, 1956, 1957, 1958, 1959, 1960 and 1961, which were the biggest events in professional tennis at the time. 1954 was Gonzales beating Segura, Sedgman and Budge. 1956 was Gonzales beating Trabert (74-27), 1957 was Gonzales beating Rosewall (50-26), 1958 was Gonzales beating Hoad (51-36), 1959 was Gonzales beating Hoad, Cooper and Anderson, 1960 was Gonzales beating Rosewall, Segura and Olmedo. And 1961 was Gonzales beating Gimeno, Hoad, MacKay, Olmedo, Buchholz and Sedgman.

• I personally have Gonzales as world number 1 for 8 years in a row (1954-1961), and it's pretty close at the top in 1952 between Segura and Gonzales without a big head-to-head tour involving Kramer that year.

• At the age of 41, Gonzales saved 7 match points, twice from 0-40 down, during his 1969 Wimbledon first round match against Pasarell. Gonzales won the match 22-24, 1-6, 16-14, 6-3, 11-9, and is thought to be the biggest reason behind the introduction of the tiebreak into tennis from 1970-1973

• Capable of beating Rod Laver in 5 sets during Laver's peak in a $10,000 winner takes all match, which he did in February 1970.

[Nathaniel_Near]

Originally Posted by forzamilan90

You forgot to say official homeboy.

That's not really relevant is it. The point is that you are interested in their careers, so you can also read further stuff there.

[Dan Lobb]

Originally Posted by Mustard

Big achievements of Pancho Gonzales

• Won 2 US Championships as an amateur in 1948 and 1949

• Won 3 Wembley Pros in a row in 1950, 1951 and 1952

• Added a fourth Wembley Pro title in 1956

• Won 7 US Pros in a row in 1953, 1954, 1955, 1956, 1957, 1958 and 1959

• Didn't play the 1960 US Pro, but won his 8th US Pro title in 1961

• Won 3 consecutive Tournament of Champions titles in 1956, 1957 and 1958

• Won the head-to-head World Pro Tours of 1954, 1956, 1957, 1958, 1959, 1960 and 1961, which were the biggest events in professional tennis at the time. 1954 was Gonzales beating Segura, Sedgman and Budge. 1956 was Gonzales beating Trabert (74-27), 1957 was Gonzales beating Rosewall (50-26), 1958 was Gonzales beating Hoad (51-36), 1959 was Gonzales beating Hoad, Cooper and Anderson, 1960 was Gonzales beating Rosewall, Segura and Olmedo. And 1961 was Gonzales beating Gimeno, Hoad, MacKay, Olmedo, Buchholz and Sedgman.

• I personally have Gonzales as world number 1 for 8 years in a row (1954-1961), and it's pretty close at the top in 1952 between Segura and Gonzales without a big head-to-head tour involving Kramer that year.

• At the age of 41, Gonzales saved 7 match points, twice from 0-40 down, during his 1969 Wimbledon first round match against Pasarell. Gonzales won the match 22-24, 1-6, 16-14, 6-3, 11-9, and is thought to be the biggest reason behind the introduction of the tiebreak into tennis from 1970-1973

• Capable of beating Rod Laver in 5 sets during Laver's peak in a $10,000 winner takes all match, which he did in February 1970.

The "US Pro" was unaccredited between 1952 and 1962.
The Kramer organization held the official rights to the US Pro title after 1959, but did not exercise its rights until 1963, owing to the absence of Gonzales in 1960 and 1962, and Hoad in 1961.

[FedericRoma83]

Originally Posted by Dan Lobb

The "US Pro" was unaccredited between 1952 and 1962.
The Kramer organization held the official rights to the US Pro title after 1959, but did not exercise its rights until 1963, owing to the absence of Gonzales in 1960 and 1962, and Hoad in 1961.

In these years it wasn't called US Pro, but World Pro (at least since 1954).
It was surely a first class tournament on some editions (1952, and from 1954 to 1957), while others had depleted fields (1953, and from 1958 to 1962).
Of the eight victories Gonzales had there, only four can be considered effective Majors.

[Mustard]

At the US Pros in Cleveland:

1952 had Segura, Gonzales, Budge and Kovacs
1953 had Gonzales, Budge, Riggs and Kovacs
1954 had Gonzales, Sedgman, Segura, Budge, Kovacs and Riggs
1955 had Gonzales, Segura, Kovacs, Riggs, Parker, Budge and Perry
1956 had Gonzales, Segura, Trabert, Hartwig, Parker and Kovacs
1957 had Gonzales, Segura, Rosewall, Trabert, Riggs, Parker and Kovacs
1958 had Gonzales, Hoad, Segura, Trabert, Riggs and Parker
1959 had Gonzales, Hoad, Segura, Cooper, Anderson, Riggs and Parker
1960 had Olmedo, Trabert, Segura, Cooper and Parker
1961 had Gonzales, Sedgman, Gimeno and MacKay
1962 had Buchholz, Segura and MacKay

[forzamilan90]

Originally Posted by Nathaniel_Near

That's not really relevant is it. The point is that you are interested in their careers, so you can also read further stuff there.

Yeah I gotcha