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

[BobbyOne]

Originally Posted by pc1

Of course I disagree with him there but at least I believe he's flexible in his opinions. Like I wrote some are here to state an agenda. There is no discussion in these cases.

pc1, I agree here.

[Phoenix1983]

Originally Posted by BobbyOne

Phoenix, Gonzalez from a weaker era than Sampras? I mean to dream. Or do YOU dream with your claim that the older decades had weaker competition, as most younger fans do?

I agree with Dan that the late 1950s had the strongest ever competition (six all-time greats playing each other in the pro events).

Well, you and the other older posters are being equally biased by always claiming that the era of the 1950s/1960s was the strongest ever and that the top 3-4 players of all-time were all playing during that period. I consider my GOAT list rather balanced as the top 10 are mainly from different eras (other than Federer/Nadal, Laver/Rosewall). However many of the older posters' lists have Laver, Rosewall, Gonzales, Hoad, Kramer etc. all in the top 10 and usually filling most of the top 5!

That for me is biased...You personally I think have Rosewall, Laver and Gonzales as 3 of your top 4 for instance. Very unlikely that 3 of the top 4 players ever all peaked at around the same time...

And yes I think the pro tour was weaker than today, I have stated why before but it boils down to:

1). The pro majors were the same as playing the QF/SF/F of the Open Era slams, without having to face the 'lesser' players in the earlier rounds who could still, on their day, win. Thus players had to face fewer obstacles i.e. guys like Rosol beating Nadal at W last year.

2). My objections about using H2H as a measuring stick for greatness, as I pointed out to pc1.

[pc1]

Originally Posted by Phoenix1983

Well, you and the other older posters are being equally biased by always claiming that the era of the 1950s/1960s was the strongest ever and that the top 3-4 players of all-time were all playing during that period. I consider my GOAT list rather balanced as the top 10 are mainly from different eras (other than Federer/Nadal, Laver/Rosewall). However many of the older posters' lists have Laver, Rosewall, Gonzales, Hoad, Kramer etc. all in the top 10 and usually filling most of the top 5!

That for me is biased...You personally I think have Rosewall, Laver and Gonzales as 3 of your top 4 for instance. Very unlikely that 3 of the top 4 players ever all peaked at around the same time...

And yes I think the pro tour was weaker than today, I have stated why before but it boils down to:

1). The pro majors were the same as playing the QF/SF/F of the Open Era slams, without having to face the 'lesser' players in the earlier rounds who could still, on their day, win. Thus players had to face fewer obstacles i.e. guys like Rosol beating Nadal at W last year.

2). My objections about using H2H as a measuring stick for greatness, as I pointed out to pc1.

Perceptions about strength of field is always debatable. Frankly outside of the big four I really am not impressed by the so called depth of the field today. What is very clear to me and again this is very subjective but there is evidence I believe in my opinion is that Gonzalez and Rosewall were at worst around the same level. Who was better depends on the person's opinion. You can easily argue that Gonzalez was superior to Rosewall even as late as the early 1960's when he beat Rosewall easily on a multi player tour individually by 15 to 4. Overall on that tour Gonzalez beat Olmedo, Segura and Rosewall by an incredible score of 49 to 8. Just a year later he defeated Gimeno, Hoad, MacKay, Olmedo and Buchholz by 33 to 14. The top two played off and Gonzalez defeated second place finisher Gimeno by 21 to 7.

Rosewall in 1960 was at or at least around his peak yet Gonzalez defeated him. We know old Rosewall was one of the top players of the early Open Era even with a decline in playing level from the early to later 1960's. So where does that put the Great Gonzalez who beat everyone he was supposed to beat and won a huge amount of tournaments to boot.

Is the era than really weaker than today? Could be but tennis has many variables as opposed to other sports. The racquets allow players, even players like me to easily hit heavy backhand topspin. I can hit sharp angles now I wouldn't have dreamed of years ago and I make fewer errors off the ground because the racquet surface is larger plus the racquet is lighter by far. Wood racquets, imo may allow a player to learn different skills not used today by players growing up on today's racquets. It never fails to annoy me when some player like a Roddick or Nadal won't volley a soft floater and chooses to let it bounce deep on the baseline and hit a heavy topspin drive. Is tennis now a ground of attrition? Does it have to be?

Maybe it's better today. I love watching Djokovic, Nadal and Murray play especially Murray and Djokovic's backhands. But I see no players with the shotmaking ability of Nastase who combined touch, angle, volleys and speed brilliantly. Perhaps I should rephrase, no one today who uses their shotmaking ability. Perhaps the closest to me is Murray but he doesn't utilized those gifts as much as I would like. Nastase was unique of course but there were a number of players that had a lot of versatility a number of years ago.

Anyone bottom line is that if you argue Gonzalez is at least on the level of Rosewall, how can anyone think he wouldn't have been dominant in the early Open Era which had many many strong players. Players like Newcombe, Roche, Okker, Laver, Rosewall, Connors, Vilas, Borg, Nastase, Smith, Ashe, Gimeno, Santana etc. Laver was dominant early and many believe Gonzalez was superior to Laver.

[Phoenix1983]

Originally Posted by pc1

Perceptions about strength of field is always debatable. Frankly outside of the big four I really am not impressed by the so called depth of the field today. What is very clear to me and again this is very subjective but there is evidence I believe in my opinion is that Gonzalez and Rosewall were at worst around the same level. Who was better depends on the person's opinion. You can easily argue that Gonzalez was superior to Rosewall even as late as the early 1960's when he beat Rosewall easily on a multi player tour individually by 15 to 4. Overall on that tour Gonzalez beat Olmedo, Segura and Rosewall by an incredible score of 49 to 8. Just a year later he defeated Gimeno, Hoad, MacKay, Olmedo and Buchholz by 33 to 14. The top two played off and Gonzalez defeated second place finisher Gimeno by 21 to 7.

This is all very interesting (I mean that sincerely), but I still can't use H2H's as the main indicator of greatness.

Originally Posted by pc1

Rosewall in 1960 was at or at least around his peak yet Gonzalez defeated him. We know old Rosewall was one of the top players of the early Open Era even with a decline in playing level from the early to later 1960's. So where does that put the Great Gonzalez who beat everyone he was supposed to beat and won a huge amount of tournaments to boot.

I rate Rosewall > Gonzales as he won on all surfaces. Gonzales won nothing on clay.

Originally Posted by pc1

Is the era than really weaker than today? Could be but tennis has many variables as opposed to other sports. The racquets allow players, even players like me to easily hit heavy backhand topspin. I can hit sharp angles now I wouldn't have dreamed of years ago and I make fewer errors off the ground because the racquet surface is larger plus the racquet is lighter by far. Wood racquets, imo may allow a player to learn different skills not used today by players growing up on today's racquets. It never fails to annoy me when some player like a Roddick or Nadal won't volley a soft floater and chooses to let it bounce deep on the baseline and hit a heavy topspin drive. Is tennis now a ground of attrition? Does it have to be?

This is all true but this is more to do with styles of play etc. rather than strength of competition.

Originally Posted by pc1

Maybe it's better today. I love watching Djokovic, Nadal and Murray play especially Murray and Djokovic's backhands. But I see no players with the shotmaking ability of Nastase who combined touch, angle, volleys and speed brilliantly. Perhaps I should rephrase, no one today who uses their shotmaking ability. Perhaps the closest to me is Murray but he doesn't utilized those gifts as much as I would like. Nastase was unique of course but there were a number of players that had a lot of versatility a number of years ago.

Anyone bottom line is that if you argue Gonzalez is at least on the level of Rosewall, how can anyone think he wouldn't have been dominant in the early Open Era which had many many strong players. Players like Newcombe, Roche, Okker, Laver, Rosewall, Connors, Vilas, Borg, Nastase, Smith, Ashe, Gimeno, Santana etc. Laver was dominant early and many believe Gonzalez was superior to Laver.

Gonzales is on the same level as Rosewall - I rank them as #7 and #6 all time respectively.

Anyone who argues Gonzales > Laver is being a bit silly though. Laver dominated all surfaces at his peak, something Gonzales could never do.

[Xavier G]

The more I read about Gonzales, the more I think he may have been the greatest player ever, but I think Rosewall's career just has the edge, with him being able to win big into the Open era and still reaching Grand Slam finals in his 40th year. They both had great longevity.

[pc1]

Originally Posted by Phoenix1983

This is all very interesting (I mean that sincerely), but I still can't use H2H's as the main indicator of greatness.



I rate Rosewall > Gonzales as he won on all surfaces. Gonzales won nothing on clay.



This is all true but this is more to do with styles of play etc. rather than strength of competition.



Gonzales is on the same level as Rosewall - I rank them as #7 and #6 all time respectively.

Anyone who argues Gonzales > Laver is being a bit silly though. Laver dominated all surfaces at his peak, something Gonzales could never do.

Actually Rosewall and Hoad rank Gonzalez ahead of Laver. As does Jack Kramer and Ellsworth Vines. Now it may not be true and I think Laver is ahead of Gonzalez (close however) but it's not silly. Gonzalez accomplished so much that his record may exceed anyone's.

Originally Posted by Xavier G

The more I read about Gonzales, the more I think he may have been the greatest player ever, but I think Rosewall's career just has the edge, with him being able to win big into the Open era and still reaching Grand Slam finals in his 40th year. They both had great longevity.

Now there is a difference. Do you rank Gonzalez as the greatest player but also do you think Rosewall accomplished more? Not sure exactly what you mean. Can you clarify your statement?

My personal opinion is that Gonzalez today would perhaps even have a better more consistent serve than John Isner today. That alone would make him very tough to beat for anyone. But Gonzalez would have so much more in that he had great mobility, a great volley and overhead, smoothness in all his shots. A great forehand plus a good backhand. Yes I could easily see Gonzalez as the top player in tennis today.

[Phoenix1983]

Originally Posted by pc1

Gonzalez accomplished so much that his record may exceed anyone's.

No way, not when Federer and Laver won on the biggest stages on all surfaces.

[BobbyOne]

Originally Posted by Phoenix1983

This is all very interesting (I mean that sincerely), but I still can't use H2H's as the main indicator of greatness.



I rate Rosewall > Gonzales as he won on all surfaces. Gonzales won nothing on clay.



This is all true but this is more to do with styles of play etc. rather than strength of competition.



Gonzales is on the same level as Rosewall - I rank them as #7 and #6 all time respectively.

Anyone who argues Gonzales > Laver is being a bit silly though. Laver dominated all surfaces at his peak, something Gonzales could never do.

Phoenix, Head-to-heads may not be THE main indicator of greatness but are surely A main indicator.

[BobbyOne]

Originally Posted by Xavier G

The more I read about Gonzales, the more I think he may have been the greatest player ever, but I think Rosewall's career just has the edge, with him being able to win big into the Open era and still reaching Grand Slam finals in his 40th year. They both had great longevity.

Xavier G, I agree totally.

[pc1]

Originally Posted by Phoenix1983

No way, not when Federer and Laver won on the biggest stages on all surfaces.

You do realize that Gonzalez won many clay court tournaments in his career and has beaten Rosewall and Laver in many clay tournaments. He won the big clay tournament the National Clay Courts in the late 1940's. Gonzalez was a superb clay court player. Greatness is when you know the player was great on all surfaces and Gonzalez was. Let's say Martina Navratilova by a series of bad events never won the US Open. Does that make her any less great on hard court? Evert won more US Opens than Navratilova. Does it make her a better hard court player than Navratilova? I don't think so. And if Navratilova was not allowed to enter the US Open during her best years she may have never won it. Gonzalez could not entered the French during his best years.

I guess Tilden MAY have to rank ahead of all since he won the World Hardcourt, the world championship of clay and was more dominant than anyone.

Read up on Pancho Gonzalez and what he accomplished. Read up on what was the prerequisites to be World Champion. It's an interesting read. He's a fascinating individual to say the least. I understand that they are again looking into the possibility of making a movie about Gonzalez's life. They were thinking of it years ago with Benjamin Bratt playing Gonzalez but it didn't work out.

[pc1]

Originally Posted by BobbyOne

Phoenix, Head-to-heads may not be THE main indicator of greatness but are surely A main indicator.

Of course. To ignore head to head makes no sense. A head to head series of matches over a variety of surfaces indicates the strength of the players.

[ultradr]

Originally Posted by pc1

Actually Rosewall and Hoad rank Gonzalez ahead of Laver. As does Jack Kramer and Ellsworth Vines.

While Laver was achieving the grand slam on amateur tour, the older Gonzalez
was playing in pro tour.

When Laver started playing in pro tour, he was initially beaten up badly by
Gonzalez. And Lever couldn't beat older Gonzalez until Gonzalez got really old, AFAIK.

I think people hinges on that to say Gonzalez was way better than Laver.

[Xavier G]

Originally Posted by pc1

Actually Rosewall and Hoad rank Gonzalez ahead of Laver. As does Jack Kramer and Ellsworth Vines. Now it may not be true and I think Laver is ahead of Gonzalez (close however) but it's not silly. Gonzalez accomplished so much that his record may exceed anyone's.



Now there is a difference. Do you rank Gonzalez as the greatest player but also do you think Rosewall accomplished more? Not sure exactly what you mean. Can you clarify your statement?

My personal opinion is that Gonzalez today would perhaps even have a better more consistent serve than John Isner today. That alone would make him very tough to beat for anyone. But Gonzalez would have so much more in that he had great mobility, a great volley and overhead, smoothness in all his shots. A great forehand plus a good backhand. Yes I could easily see Gonzalez as the top player in tennis today.

Yes. I'm thinking Gonzales may have been the greatest ever, or very close between himself, Laver and Rosewall I think, but that Rosewall's career just edges Mr Gonzales' career for his achievements in the Open era, the fact that he won more of the traditional GS tournaments and that he reached the Wimbledon and US Open finals in his 40th year.
They both had longevity, about equal in that respect.

[Xavier G]

Originally Posted by BobbyOne

Xavier G, I agree totally.

Thanks. Gonzales must have been some player. I know Jack Kramer rated him very highly. I would like to have seen him play live.

[pc1]

Originally Posted by Xavier G

Yes. I'm thinking Gonzales may have been the greatest ever, or very close between himself, Laver and Rosewall I think, but that Rosewall's career just edges Mr Gonzales' career for his achievements in the Open era, the fact that he won more of the traditional GS tournaments and that he reached the Wimbledon and US Open finals in his 40th year.
They both had longevity, about equal in that respect.

Yes but you also have to take into account Gonzalez was very old (became forty in 1968 when Open Tennis started) during the dawn of Open Tennis. Rosewall was a lot younger and had a different game from Gonzalez.

Laver wasn't that good at 40 either but that doesn't take away from his greatness. Perhaps the best 40 plus player of all time was Bill Tilden. Actually you could easily argue Bill Tilden was the best of all time.

Bear in mine that the one night stands aka head to head tours were considered clearly more important than the Pro Majors. Gonzalez prepared for them because if he won he was the World Champion. If he lost he was a has been. That's how they did it at that time. Gonzalez won many head to head tours for the World Championship.

[Xavier G]

Originally Posted by pc1

Yes but you also have to take into account Gonzalez was very old (became forty in 1968 when Open Tennis started) during the dawn of Open Tennis. Rosewall was a lot younger and had a different game from Gonzalez.

Laver wasn't that good at 40 either but that doesn't take away from his greatness. Perhaps the best 40 plus player of all time was Bill Tilden. Actually you could easily argue Bill Tilden was the best of all time.

Bear in mine that the one night stands aka head to head tours were considered clearly more important than the Pro Majors. Gonzalez prepared for them because if he won he was the World Champion. If he lost he was a has been. That's how they did it at that time. Gonzalez won many head to head tours for the World Championship.

Gonzalez/Gonzales won many head to head tours, I know, he was the king for a long time in the pro game. I've read Jack Kramer's and Ken Rosewall's accounts, maybe I will find out more from Pancho's viewpoint.
Gonzalez turned 40 in 1968, Rosewall in 1974, six years difference in age basically. It's not Rosewall's fault he's younger and the Open era came around when it did, he's got to play his tennis.
Gonzalez was a big man 6' 2 or 6'3 with a big serve, a big weapon for him. Kenny was 5'7 or thereabouts so they had different games. The indoor tours suited Gonzalez' game by all accounts. I think he must have been a great player.
Really, whose career you prefer is just personal choice, I don't think there's a wrong answer.

[pc1]

Originally Posted by Xavier G

Gonzalez/Gonzales won many head to head tours, I know, he was the king for a long time in the pro game. I've read Jack Kramer's and Ken Rosewall's accounts, maybe I will find out more from Pancho's viewpoint.
Gonzalez turned 40 in 1968, Rosewall in 1974, six years difference in age basically. It's not Rosewall's fault he's younger and the Open era came around when it did, he's got to play his tennis.
Gonzalez was a big man 6' 2 or 6'3 with a big serve, a big weapon for him. Kenny was 5'7 or thereabouts so they had different games. The indoor tours suited Gonzalez' game by all accounts. I think he must have been a great player.
Really, whose career you prefer is just personal choice, I don't think there's a wrong answer.

I agree. They are both super players. Gonzalez was 6'3 1/2" by the way.

They do have a number of things in common. Arthur Ashe once wrote that the two players with the greatest footwork he had ever seen were Gonzalez and Rosewall. They also are very smooth elegant players in all strokes.

[hoodjem]

Muscles has more slams and greater longevity.

Pancho has more years as world no. 1 and greater dominance.

Six of one, . . .




(In a battle for the defense of the planet Earth, I'd probably take Gonzales.)

[kiki]

Both even.Gonzales may have been tougher head to head but Rosewall was steadier, specially on clay.

There was a surface, wood, not used anymore.Pancho would´ve been probably the best ever wood player of all time.