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

[Dan Lobb]

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?

There is a good reason, but not a happy one.
True, the level of pro play was incredibly high, the highest ever, in the late 1950's. And the pros played in big-time venues like Forest Hills, Roland Garros, Kooyong, White City, etc.
Unfortunately, Kramer refused television contracts to show these events on national television, which would have broken the doors open to open tennis.
Why? Kramer, and others, figured they could get more immediate financial returns by keeping the pro tours behind doors and charging for live attendance, attempting to monopolize the market for the best tennis.
This was ultimately a strategy which backfired, and after Hoad and Gonzales, the two big draws, went into semi-retirement in 1960, the remaining pros could not command the big venues anymore, and had to settle for minor venues, including sometimes downtown streets in Oklahoma.
The pro game disappeared from the newspaper headlines, unlike the late 1950's, The New York Times no longer had a major pro tournament to cover, people forgot about pro tennis.
It took Open tennis in 1968 to bring the pros back into public consciousness.
But there had been a golden opportunity in the late 1950's for the pro game to dominate, if only it had gone to television, like pro golf.

[krosero]

Originally Posted by pc1

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.

PC1, this is a great analogy. I love it. Think about what our debates here would look like if Andy Murray played the role of Emerson, while Federer, Djokovic and Nadal were toiling away on the pro tour as the best players in the world, but barred from the Slams.



TMF: Federer was ranked only #29 in the recent Tennis Channel special. Murray was #10. Those are experts, I think they know what they're talking about.

Mustard: Federer is among the most underappreciated champions in history. People only care about the 2 US titles he won as an amateur; much fewer people pay attention to what he did after turning pro. Same with Nadal and Djokovic. Those 3 players are all underappreciated champions. Look at their records on the grueling pro tour, they were unquestionably the best players in the world for many, many years.

TMF: You guys don't know what you're talking about.

[pc1]

Originally Posted by krosero

PC1, this is a great analogy. I love it. Think about what our debates here would look like if Andy Murray played the role of Emerson, while Federer, Djokovic and Nadal were toiling away on the pro tour as the best players in the world, but barred from the Slams.



TMF: Federer was ranked only #29 in the recent Tennis Channel special. Murray was #10. Those are experts, I think they know what they're talking about.

Mustard: Federer is among the most underappreciated champions in history. People only care about the 2 US titles he won as an amateur; much fewer people pay attention to what he did after turning pro. Same with Nadal and Djokovic. Those 3 players are all underappreciated champions. Look at their records on the grueling pro tour, they were unquestionably the best players in the world for many, many years.

TMF: You guys don't know what you're talking about.

You are so right about the tone of the conversations if this happened.

[krosero]

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

He has to be considered one of the mentally toughest of all time, but one possible negative against him is his temper. It effected his level of play on two occasions that I know of (perhaps there were others).

He won the 1949 US title over Ted Schroeder, 16-18, 2-6, 6-1, 6-2, 6-4. This was in the press:

Gonzales lost his temper and almost his match when a questionable call by the umpire gave Schroeder a set point in that wild first set. Pancho lost the next point and the set. He was so disgusted, he kicked away the second set at 6-2.

Something similar happened in the famous Pasarell match, which Pancho won 22-24, 1-6, 16-14, 6-3, 11-9. After losing his serve in the last game of the first set (from 40-love up!), he started complaining about the fading light. He couldn't get the referee to stop the match; in his anger he swatted several of Charlie's serves into the net, and he ended up losing the set 6-2. It was a complete change from the great discipline he showed in the first set.

Of course in both matches he pulled it together and came all the way back. But maybe a case can be made that Pancho's mental toughness was not perfect, due to his temper.

[Mustard]

Kramer once said that Gonzales played even better when he was mad. By "mad", I assume Kramer meant when Gonzales kept his anger inside and didn't explode. Anger can be used as a weapon as long as it is concentrated in the same direction, in the same way a piston box can make steam a weapon.

[Limpinhitter]

Originally Posted by BobbyOne

Pancho Gonzalez deserves any praise and not any irony.

I think Pancho would have thought it was funny.

[ClarkC]

A great player. Some of his defenders are pretty slow learners when it comes to spelling his name, however.

[Mustard]

Originally Posted by ClarkC

A great player. Some of his defenders are pretty slow learners when it comes to spelling his name, however.

Gonzales' real name was Ricardo Alonso Gonzalez. Why was he called Pancho? Pancho is short for Francisco, which is why Segura's first name was Pancho. Gonzales' first name was Ricardo, or Richard in anglicised form, so Pancho was more of a nickname for him.

[kiki]

Originally Posted by Mustard

Kramer once said that Gonzales played even better when he was mad. By "mad", I assume Kramer meant when Gonzales kept his anger inside and didn't explode. Anger can be used as a weapon as long as it is concentrated in the same direction, in the same way a piston box can make steam a weapon.

Laver himself said that he rather play a furious and angered Gonzales ( which was a scaring big man) because he´d made unexpected mistakes, than a calm Gonzales, who could concentrated in the best use of his devastating play.

He also cites locker room funny stuff, like he stood up against Pancho after a torrid match and the guy was so surprised that anybody dared to face him ( specially a small guy but with a terrific wrist and arm) that he suddenly calmed down...

[CyBorg]

Pancho was pretty cool. No qualms with people calling him the best. He has a case and was the game's best player for close to a decade.

[Benhur]

Originally Posted by krosero

PC1, this is a great analogy. I love it. Think about what our debates here would look like if Andy Murray played the role of Emerson, while Federer, Djokovic and Nadal were toiling away on the pro tour as the best players in the world, but barred from the Slams.



TMF: Federer was ranked only #29 in the recent Tennis Channel special. Murray was #10. Those are experts, I think they know what they're talking about.

Mustard: Federer is among the most underappreciated champions in history. People only care about the 2 US titles he won as an amateur; much fewer people pay attention to what he did after turning pro. Same with Nadal and Djokovic. Those 3 players are all underappreciated champions. Look at their records on the grueling pro tour, they were unquestionably the best players in the world for many, many years.

TMF: You guys don't know what you're talking about.

That was great. It made me laugh. Thanks!

[ClarkC]

Originally Posted by Mustard

Gonzales' real name was Ricardo Alonso Gonzalez. Why was he called Pancho? Pancho is short for Francisco, which is why Segura's first name was Pancho. Gonzales' first name was Ricardo, or Richard in anglicised form, so Pancho was more of a nickname for him.

I was not referring to the spelling of his first name. I was pointing out that his own fans cannot spell his last name consistently, even days after being corrected.

[Mustard]

Originally Posted by ClarkC

I was not referring to the spelling of his first name. I was pointing out that his own fans cannot spell his last name consistently, even days after being corrected.

And as I've explained, Richard Gonzales is anglicised, i.e. English language. Ricardo Alonso Gonzalez is his real Spanish language name. Pancho was his nickname, as it's only usually used for men with the first name Francisco, like Francisco "Pancho" Segura, not for men with the first name Ricardo.

It's like Johan Cruyff (English language), Johan Cruijff (Dutch language).

[kiki]

there´s traditionally 2 kinds of tough guys: the cooky, street fighter guy like Connors,Gonzales,Becker,Mac and, somehow, even Nadal and recently Djokovic and the cool, iced, rational guys like Laver ( he was more of a mixture, though), Rosewall,Lendl,Borg,Wilander,Sampras and Federer.

it is just a matter of style and personality.it does not make you stronger menthally whether you are cooky or you are cold as an ice block.

[Dan Lobb]

Originally Posted by Mustard

And as I've explained, Richard Gonzales is anglicised, i.e. English language. Ricardo Alonso Gonzalez is his real Spanish language name. Pancho was his nickname, as it's only usually used for men with the first name Francisco, like Francisco "Pancho" Segura, not for men with the first name Ricardo.

It's like Johan Cruyff (English language), Johan Cruijff (Dutch language).

When did "Gonzalez" start being used as spelling? About forty years after he retired?

[Mustard]

Originally Posted by Dan Lobb

When did "Gonzalez" start being used as spelling? About forty years after he retired?

That was his real name.

[Dan Lobb]

Originally Posted by Mustard

That was his real name.

But he appeared to accept "Gonzales", even in his own autobiography. How did he sign his cheques?

[Mustard]

Originally Posted by Dan Lobb

But he appeared to accept "Gonzales", even in his own autobiography. How did he sign his cheques?

Just like Johan Cruijff excepted "Cruyff". Gonzales is anglicised, Gonzalez is the Spanish language version of his name. He accepted Gonzales and Gonzalez, as well as Richard and Ricardo. I'm not sure what he thought of the nickname Pancho, though. I've even heard rumours that he disliked the Pancho nickname.

[pc1]

Originally Posted by Dan Lobb

When did "Gonzalez" start being used as spelling? About forty years after he retired?

Check out the spelling on the court that Gonzalez played on in this video at about 2:25. I do know for a fact the family prefers that his name be spelled Gonzalez.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nd0gJzm_EQY

[Gonzalito17]

I think Pancho Gonzalez was the ultimate warrior in tennis history and the amazing Pasarell victory was his defining moment.