Rosewall and Gonzales Careers Official Thread

[BobbyOne]

Originally Posted by Dan Lobb

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

Dan, Rosewall on his fantastic run 1960 to 1962 (winning the French pro on clay and seven days later winning Wembley on painted wood) did beat Gonzalez, Sedgman, Segura, Hoad, Trabert, Gimeno, Olmedo, Cooper and Anderson. Weaker than in 1958 and 1959?

It might be of interest that in all three years the runner up of Paris was not identic with the runner up of Wembley. This shows Rosewall's consistency on a high level at that time.

[BobbyOne]

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.

Mustard, great list. By the way, I have made a similary list for Rosewall's achievements a few months ago.

I rate several Gonzalez wins in open era (two wins against Laver, two wins against Rosewall, the wins against Newcombe, Roche, Ashe, Smith higher
than the famous victory over Pasarell (even though the latter was a big win).

[Dan Lobb]

Originally Posted by BobbyOne

Dan, Rosewall on his fantastic run 1960 to 1962 (winning the French pro on clay and seven days later winning Wembley on painted wood) did beat Gonzalez, Sedgman, Segura, Hoad, Trabert, Gimeno, Olmedo, Cooper and Anderson. Weaker than in 1958 and 1959?

It might be of interest that in all three years the runner up of Paris was not identic with the runner up of Wembley. This shows Rosewall's consistency on a high level at that time.

I say weaker because the two big guys, Hoad and Gonzales, were past peak in the 1960 to 1964 period.
This is clear from the descriptions of eyewitness reporters, who noted that Hoad was carrying extra pounds and moving slower in 1960, etc.
Sedgman had a big year in 1959, winning at Kooyong and winning two tours, Grand Prix de Europe and South Africa. But he clearly dropped down in level after 1959.
Gimeno and Olmedo never reached the heights of greatness, despite their promise.
Trabert slowed down after 1959.
Cooper and Anderson had good years in 1959, but played little after that.
How old was Segura in 1962? 45?

[hoodjem]

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)?

Is clay truly Gonzales' strongest surface?

(With his big serve and great net play, I would have thought a faster, hard-court surface.)

[FedericRoma83]

Originally Posted by hoodjem

Is clay truly Gonzales' strongest surface?
(With his big serve and great net play, I would have thought a faster, hard-court surface.)

It wasn't, in fact. As I've said before, he missed a clay Major, reaching two finals and losing them both. That's why I don't put him in my three GOAT candidates (anyway, he's just below them).

[FedericRoma83]

Originally Posted by Dan Lobb

I say weaker because the two big guys, Hoad and Gonzales, were past peak in the 1960 to 1964 period.
This is clear from the descriptions of eyewitness reporters, who noted that Hoad was carrying extra pounds and moving slower in 1960, etc.
Sedgman had a big year in 1959, winning at Kooyong and winning two tours, Grand Prix de Europe and South Africa. But he clearly dropped down in level after 1959.
Gimeno and Olmedo never reached the heights of greatness, despite their promise.
Trabert slowed down after 1959.
Cooper and Anderson had good years in 1959, but played little after that.
How old was Segura in 1962? 45?

This is tennis, when one goes up, the other goes down. Someone says that Lendl domination was helped by the fact that Connors was too old and McEnroe passed his prime after 1984. Other says that Connors wouldn't have been no. 1 in 1982 if Borg had not retired. Other says that Djokovic is helped by the fact that Federer is much older and Nadal his slowly fading (except on clay). This is how tennis works: we will never know the truth, we just have to accept that the player who is on top deserves his spot.

[BobbyOne]

Originally Posted by Dan Lobb

I say weaker because the two big guys, Hoad and Gonzales, were past peak in the 1960 to 1964 period.
This is clear from the descriptions of eyewitness reporters, who noted that Hoad was carrying extra pounds and moving slower in 1960, etc.
Sedgman had a big year in 1959, winning at Kooyong and winning two tours, Grand Prix de Europe and South Africa. But he clearly dropped down in level after 1959.
Gimeno and Olmedo never reached the heights of greatness, despite their promise.
Trabert slowed down after 1959.
Cooper and Anderson had good years in 1959, but played little after that.
How old was Segura in 1962? 45?

Dan, you really are the old Dan. Will you ever stop to belittle Rosewall and his opponents? Please stop to rank Rosewall in the top ten! It's just irony to include him who did not have any strong opponent in his career...

You belittle even your two darlings when writing that Hoad and Gonzalez were past peak in that period. Gonzalez was at least a Co.-No. 1 in 1960 and 1961 and Hoad was still very strong in 1960 and even later. All that nonsense in order to belittle Rosewall...

All the players you mentioned were still damned strong in the early 1960s. For instance Segura, who was 41 in 1962, was at the Laver level that year.

Gimeno did reach the heights of greatness as No.3 in several years.

You also are wrong regarding Anderson. He did play much every year in that period. And he did play very well.

I would say it's wasted time to discuss with such an unserious poster. I'm aware that some posters now will again say I'm intolerant but I would say that even my intolerance is reasonable and not as terrible as your non-seriousness!

[kiki]

Originally Posted by BobbyOne

Dan, you really are the old Dan. Will you ever stop to belittle Rosewall and his opponents? Please stop to rank Rosewall in the top ten! It's just irony to include him who did not have any strong opponent in his career...

You belittle even your two darlings when writing that Hoad and Gonzalez were past peak in that period. Gonzalez was at least a Co.-No. 1 in 1960 and 1961 and Hoad was still very strong in 1960 and even later. All that nonsense in order to belittle Rosewall...

All the players you mentioned were still damned strong in the early 1960s. For instance Segura, who was 41 in 1962, was at the Laver level that year.

Gimeno did reach the heights of greatness as No.3 in several years.

You also are wrong regarding Anderson. He did play much every year in that period. And he did play very well.

I would say it's wasted time to discuss with such an unserious poster. I'm aware that some posters now will again say I'm intolerant but I would say that even my intolerance is reasonable and not as terrible as your non-seriousness!

Segura at Laver´s level? OMG¡¡¡

[Mustard]

Originally Posted by kiki

Segura at Laver´s level? OMG¡¡¡

Segura was the second or third best player of the 1950s.

[kiki]

Originally Posted by Mustard

Segura was the second or third best player of the 1950s.

How many pro majors did he win?

[FedericRoma83]

Originally Posted by kiki

How many pro majors did he win?

Three, on three different surfaces.

Four if we include Australian Pro 1957 (and I do).

[kiki]

Originally Posted by FedericRoma83

Three, on three different surfaces.

Four if we include Australian Pro 1957 (and I do).

Good to know.Thanks.

[Dan Lobb]

Originally Posted by Mustard

Segura was the second or third best player of the 1950s.

We are talking 1962.
Actually, Segura put up a great fight against Rosewall at Wembley that year.
But he was past peak by this time.

[Dan Lobb]

Originally Posted by BobbyOne

Dan, you really are the old Dan. Will you ever stop to belittle Rosewall and his opponents? Please stop to rank Rosewall in the top ten! It's just irony to include him who did not have any strong opponent in his career...

You belittle even your two darlings when writing that Hoad and Gonzalez were past peak in that period. Gonzalez was at least a Co.-No. 1 in 1960 and 1961 and Hoad was still very strong in 1960 and even later. All that nonsense in order to belittle Rosewall...

All the players you mentioned were still damned strong in the early 1960s. For instance Segura, who was 41 in 1962, was at the Laver level that year.

Gimeno did reach the heights of greatness as No.3 in several years.

You also are wrong regarding Anderson. He did play much every year in that period. And he did play very well.

I would say it's wasted time to discuss with such an unserious poster. I'm aware that some posters now will again say I'm intolerant but I would say that even my intolerance is reasonable and not as terrible as your non-seriousness!

Bobby, I thought that you respected Peter Rowley's judgment.
It was Rowley who claimed that Hoad was carrying extra poundage and moving slowly in 1960.
Of course, given Hoad's long layoff, propensity for the brew, and lack of serious training, what would you expect?

[BobbyOne]

Originally Posted by Dan Lobb

We are talking 1962.
Actually, Segura put up a great fight against Rosewall at Wembley that year.
But he was past peak by this time.

Dan, Segura deserves a fourth place for 1962 even if you don't believe it.

[pc1]

Originally Posted by kiki

Segura at Laver´s level? OMG¡¡¡

Remember Kiki that Segura was a pro and Laver wasn't nearly the player he would be in 1962. Segura is one of the finest players ever lived. He had a two handed quite similar looking to Jimmy Connors' backhand but those who have seen both consider Segura's forehand clearly better, some think by a wide margin. Many have called it the best single stroke in tennis history. Laver called it the finest forehand he ever faced. This is something to imagine since Laver only faced the Segura forehand when Segura was in his forties and Laver faced many awesome forehands.

As you have written yourself, the 1950's, in the pros was arguably the highest level of tennis play ever and Segura won most of his tournaments in that era, defeating players like Gonzalez in the US Pro final for example. Segura was a super mover with a fantastic volley, especially the forehand volley. He had a very solid backhand with great control. He was so quick he could run around his backhand to hit his super forehand an excellent percentage of the time.

So with Segura you had a guy with a good serve, super volley, very very mobility with perhaps the greatest forehand of all time. That's a lot going for you. If you asked me if Segura at his best was better than Emerson, I would say yes.

[BobbyOne]

Originally Posted by pc1

Remember Kiki that Segura was a pro and Laver wasn't nearly the player he would be in 1962. Segura is one of the finest players ever lived. He had a two handed quite similar looking to Jimmy Connors' backhand but those who have seen both consider Segura's forehand clearly better, some think by a wide margin. Many have called it the best single stroke in tennis history. Laver called it the finest forehand he ever faced. This is something to imagine since Laver only faced the Segura forehand when Segura was in his forties and Laver faced many awesome forehands.

As you have written yourself, the 1950's, in the pros was arguably the highest level of tennis play ever and Segura won most of his tournaments in that era, defeating players like Gonzalez in the US Pro final for example. Segura was a super mover with a fantastic volley, especially the forehand volley. He had a very solid backhand with great control. He was so quick he could run around his backhand to hit his super forehand an excellent percentage of the time.

So with Segura you had a guy with a good serve, super volley, very very mobility with perhaps the greatest forehand of all time. That's a lot going for you. If you asked me if Segura at his best was better than Emerson, I would say yes.

pc1, Segura by far stronger than Emerson.

[FedericRoma83]

Originally Posted by pc1

So with Segura you had a guy with a good serve, super volley, very very mobility with perhaps the greatest forehand of all time. That's a lot going for you. If you asked me if Segura at his best was better than Emerson, I would say yes.

I would say WAY better, without any kind of doubt. Emerson never faced peak-Kramer, peak-Sedgman, peak-Gonzales, peak-Rosewall, and peak-Hoad, while Segura did, and he caught 3-4 Majors title despite this enormous competition.

[Dan Lobb]

Originally Posted by FedericRoma83

I would say WAY better, without any kind of doubt. Emerson never faced peak-Kramer, peak-Sedgman, peak-Gonzales, peak-Rosewall, and peak-Hoad, while Segura did, and he caught 3-4 Majors title despite this enormous competition.

Which titles? Were they really majors?
In 1951 at Forest Hills, Kramer dropped out with back ache, Gonzales was rusty from lack of play.
Segura had good wins at Slazenger 1953 against Sedgman, and 1957 at Melbourne against Gonzales and Sedgman, LA Masters in 1958 against the field.
At Wembley he was a perennial bridesmaid.

[BobbyOne]

Originally Posted by Dan Lobb

Which titles? Were they really majors?
In 1951 at Forest Hills, Kramer dropped out with back ache, Gonzales was rusty from lack of play.
Segura had good wins at Slazenger 1953 against Sedgman, and 1957 at Melbourne against Gonzales and Sedgman, LA Masters in 1958 against the field.
At Wembley he was a perennial bridesmaid.

Dan, They were really majors. Your own counting does not mean too much...