macattack, Why Mac so high? Nomen est omen? McEnroe has won 15 majors (including "Masters" and WCT Finals). Rosewall has won 25 majors...
Where is Pancho Gonzalez? Lost in history...
Whats your top 10 of all time right now?
- Thread starter 90's Clay
- Start date
macattack, Why Mac so high? Nomen est omen? McEnroe has won 15 majors (including "Masters" and WCT Finals). Rosewall has won 25 majors...
Where is Pancho Gonzalez? Lost in history...
macattack
Professional
I love Pancho, but he does not make my top ten. To be honest I could have shuffled Agassi, McEnroe, Rosewall and Tilden in any order for the last four. I'm not as much of a stat hound as some on here are (nothing wrong with being obsessed with stats, though, of course). So this was more of a "feel" list for me. Off the top of my head, at a cocktail party, that's the list I'd throw out. It would probably get shuffled and changed a bit for 7-10 any day of the week.
Also, great use of nomen est omen. You don't see a lot of Plautus references on the board. Haha. And yes, that probably had something to do with Mac above Rosewall.
NatF, I just counted all players who have won a Grand Slam tournament (in singles) and who have lost at least once to Rosewall. I got to the huge number of 42 (plus 2 players who won pro majors, i. e. Segura and Buchholz). He never beat Drobny and Borg.
Using your list of Federer's great victims Roger won against 19 such players. We don't know yet about future GS winners.
I don't know how many great players Gonzalez won but (after a short examination) I believe they are about 30 GS winners and 2 Pro majors winners (again Segura and Buchholz).
That way, Rosewall seems to be the most successful male player regarding beating winners of majors. It's the first time I realized that so clearly...
Mac, Thanks. Did not know that this Latin term was created by Plautus.
Ceterum censeo: Pancho Gonzalez should be included in the top ten (without pushing out both Tilden and Rosewall). Pancho was the hell of a player and greater than Agassi!
macattack
Professional
Fair enough! He just doesn't make my top ten list. Top 15 for sure, though. I do have a ton of respect for him as a player. You're really testing my latin! I'm very rusty. Haven't flexed those muscles since grad school!
That is a very subjective opinion...most commentators accept the amateur slams of Tilden, Lacoste, Vines, Crawford, Perry, Kramer, Schroeder, Riggs, Gonzales, Hoad, Laver as being of some significance, and your blanket dismissal of them all is rather strange.
Yes, I noticed that, but the words are so appropriate to our theme, I could not ignore the application.
NatF
Bionic Poster
I'm not sure why this is significant? Consider that due to the amateur and pro split there were 7 'majors' to compete in not just 4, not to mention many of those amateur winners would not have been slam winners in an Open Era. It seems you are omitting just those that won pro majors, however the split still means it was easier to win a major back then. Not to mention Federer-Nadal-Djokovic have locked up the majors almost completely since 2004 preventing many new slam winners from emerging.
I am sure there would have been many less major winners for Rosewall to vanquish had tennis been Open. And regardless of this what does it actually prove anyway? Rosewall had amazing longevity to play so long and beat so many players - but again I would scarcely consider many of these players his actual competition.
Besides that Federer also has wins over Kafelnikov, Costa, Krajicek- he also played Bruguera (though he lost) as with Rafter. So currently total would be wins against 22 slam winners. I would be interested to see the lists of other players, there's little doubt Federer's will grow when the next crop starts winning majors.
If this is your criteria for strength of opposition I find it unlikely that Federer will suffer in this regard compared to players from the last 20 or so years. In the early open era and when the AO wasn't viewed as a true major lesser players could sneak out majors in the absence of the top players unlike now.
I counted 25 or so roughly for Sampras, so considering Federer has likely played future slam winners already it seems unlikely that those numbers are going to be much different. For Nadal I can count 17 so far, Djokovic 12.
I'm aware that it's subjective. Before the later 30's the Pro and Amateur major divide wasn't so pronounced, I'm only talking about the players previously mentioned.
As far as strange goes, many of your views are surely stranger...
Last edited:
Limpinhitter
G.O.A.T.
I'm a big Agassi fan. And, I don't know your criteria for your ranking. But, I haven't see a strong argument for putting Agassi, McEnroe, Rosewall or even Nadal above Pancho Gonzalez. Gonzalez dominated for almost 10 years, and for most of that time, possibly the strongest field in tennis history.
macattack
Professional
Your point is well taken. Like I said up above, it was a "feel" ranking in that I wasn't going deep into stats, but rather off the top of my head. I have no real argument for not putting Pancho in there, to be completely honest. The bottom four was pretty tough for me and I could have slide several in or out including Gonzalez, Perry, Emerson, Budge, etc.
Oddly, that Tennis Channel 100 greatest from 2012 has Gonzalez at 35, with 12 women ahead of him making him 23 among the men listed. They have Edberg, Becker, Wilander above Pancho. I'm not saying I agree with that at all or that the Tennis Channel list holds any credence, but hey, it's there. I love making these lists for fun, but they are kind of ridiculous. Haha. I'd rather do a top ten "favorite" list!
hoodjem
G.O.A.T.
The Tennis Channel list is often lampooned on here, as the exemplar of poorly informed, simple-minded misinformation.
macattack
Professional
And I agree with that characterization. It's a very strange list in general. I was just pointing out how ridiculous lists like this are in general. And yet I love making them for some reason.
Limpinhitter
G.O.A.T.
In my view, that Tennis Channel ranking was embarrassingly uninformed and a disservice to the tennis public.
Having said that, a word of warning. This is TW. GOAT lists on TW have nothing to do with fun. Like the game itself, it's not a matter of life and death. It's much more than that.
Have fun! 
pc1
G.O.A.T.
This article may help a bit in understand the greatness of Pancho Gonzalez.
http://www.tennisnow.com/News/The-Natural--Remembering-Pancho-Gonzalez.aspx
What Raymond Lee foolishly left out was the importance of the 7 World Championship Tours, many close to 100 matches. These tours were for the World Championship that year in tennis. So not only did Gonzalez won a number of important tournaments on the Old Pro Tour but he won the most important World Championship Tours. Gonzalez, after losing his first World Championship Tour to Jack Kramer never lost another one. They were far more important than the so called Pro Majors.
Some of the information in that article is a bit inaccurate due to new information that's been found. Gonzalez is now considered to have won 17 Pro Majors and classic majors and about 130 total tournaments won.
And yes macattack, lists are often fun to do.
Last edited:
Only a contribution : up to 10 years ago in Italy no one knew who he was Pancho Gonzalez .
He was not mentioned by any Italian journalist (sometimes by Clerici and Tommasi , sometimes... ) .
Not only Pancho was not mentioned in the first 20 alltime . He not exist !
Jack Kramer was a racket .. .
Lacoste ... a t-shirt .
I discovered by accident Gonzo reading (1980) a book by Vic Braden explaining between a shot and the other that once , many years ago, ruled Pancho , the better.
Before the GS 1969 there was a .... black hole .
The first news worthy tennis depart in the early 70years with Nastase , Smith and Newk .
Before it rumbled on Laver legends (the one who won two GS ) and Rosewall ( the great champion what always lose at Wimbledon .. sigh !! ) .
Before .. nothing ... in the primordial darkness.
He was not mentioned by any Italian journalist (sometimes by Clerici and Tommasi , sometimes... ) .
Not only Pancho was not mentioned in the first 20 alltime . He not exist !
Jack Kramer was a racket .. .
Lacoste ... a t-shirt .
I discovered by accident Gonzo reading (1980) a book by Vic Braden explaining between a shot and the other that once , many years ago, ruled Pancho , the better.
Before the GS 1969 there was a .... black hole .
The first news worthy tennis depart in the early 70years with Nastase , Smith and Newk .
Before it rumbled on Laver legends (the one who won two GS ) and Rosewall ( the great champion what always lose at Wimbledon .. sigh !! ) .
Before .. nothing ... in the primordial darkness.
Last edited:
Limpinhitter
G.O.A.T.
This article may help a bit in understand the greatness of Pancho Gonzalez.
http://www.tennisnow.com/News/The-Natural--Remembering-Pancho-Gonzalez.aspx
What Raymond Lee foolishly left out was the importance of the 7 World Championship Tours, many close to 100 matches. These tours were for the World Championship that year in tennis. So not only did Gonzalez won a number of important tournaments on the Old Pro Tour but he won the most important World Championship Tours. Gonzalez, after losing his first World Championship Tour to Jack Kramer never lost another one. They were far more important than the so called Pro Majors.
Some of the information in that article is a bit inaccurate due to new information that's been found. Gonzalez is now considered to have won 17 Pro Majors and classic majors and about 130 total tournaments won.
And yes macattack, lists are often fun to do.
Absolutely astonishing!
"Returning home to Southern California, he entered into the first of six marriages in 1948 and though he had played little tennis in the previous years, Gonzalez soon began his climb up the amateur rankings.It was then that the unheralded Gonzalez exploded onto the elite scene, storming through the Forest Hills field as the 17th-ranked amateur player to score a 6-2, 6-3, 14-12 victory over South Africa's Eric Sturgess to capture the 1948 U.S. Nationals, which is the equivalent of the U.S. Open today. He was 20 years old and a Grand Slam champion.
"A year later, Gonzalez turned the final into a showcase for his fierce, fighting spirit. Facing a two-set deficit against top-seeded Ted Schroeder, 16-18, 2-6, 6-1, 6-2, 6-4 to successfully defend his championship. The victory gave Gonzalez the credibility to turn pro and play a long tour of 123 matches with the veteran world champion of tennis, Jack Kramer, who was then the world's best player.
At this point of his tennis career Gonzalez only had been playing for five years, not counting his years in the Navy, and lacked the extensive junior tournament experience of his rivals. . . ."
Phoenix1983
G.O.A.T.
1. Roger "GOAT" Federer
2. Rod "Rocket" Laver
3. "Pistol" Pete Sampras
4. Ricardo "Pancho" Gonzales
5. Novak "Nole" Djokovic
6. Rafael "Bull" Nadal
7. Ken "Muscles" Rosewall
8. Bjorn "Iceman" Borg
9. "Big" Bill Tilden
10. (The) Don Budge
2. Rod "Rocket" Laver
3. "Pistol" Pete Sampras
4. Ricardo "Pancho" Gonzales
5. Novak "Nole" Djokovic
6. Rafael "Bull" Nadal
7. Ken "Muscles" Rosewall
8. Bjorn "Iceman" Borg
9. "Big" Bill Tilden
10. (The) Don Budge
Limpinhitter
G.O.A.T.
Put Borg in the top 6 and put Agassi, Mac, Connors and Lendl after Nadal and we are very close.
pc1
G.O.A.T.
In The Ultimate Tennis Book b Clerici there is a paragraph on Gonzalez that is noteworthy "Have I exaggerated? The story is too long, maybe a little rhetorical. Pancho's career was a long one, and many feel he may well be the strongest of any of the tennis giants, including Tilden, Kramer, and even Laver."
So while Gianni Clerici did not mention Gonzalez much, it's clear that he thought Gonzalez was perhaps the greatest.
NatF, I'm disappointed. I thought that Rosewall's fantastic list of beaten major winners would impress EVEN YOU.
I did not omit the winners of (only) pro majors. There only are two, Segura and Buchholz. All others winners of pro majors had won also amateur GS tournaments or have won open era majors (Gimeno).
I at least thought you would realize that Rosewall won more than Gonzalez on this field. Pancho is much more praised on TT than Rosewall...
I only included very few "weak" winners just as Bowrey and Teacher. Almost all are all-time greats and Hall of Famers.
Last edited:
If you consider Tennis Channel list, there can be no discussion. It was crap. Emerson ahead of Rosewall and Gonzalez!!!
Put Borg in the top 6 and put Agassi, Mac, Connors and Lendl after Nadal and we are very close.
Limpin, I'm impressed. Rosewall jumped from 18 to 11? You begin to learn...
macattack
Professional
Yeah I know that list is crap. I talked about that in another comment above.
No mention of Rosewall? This Gianni Clerici is clearly a non-expert
NatF, Your "joke" is not witty because it is nasty. Again the nasty NatF?
You err: Clerici has Rosewall in high esteem: He starts his chapter about the greatest players after WW2 with 4 photos: those of Kramer, Gonzalez, Rosewall and Laver...
Yes, but you still refuse to give Pancho G. a due place.
macattack
Professional
First, I can have whatever opinion I want. I don't know why you're getting so riled up. I clearly stated that I just threw ten names together off the top of my head. Second, it's just a list, man. Don't get so hung up on my answers.
Wait....Rita? Is that you?
I do not give my own views of tennis greatness, I simply quote the views of the true experts, the players themselves.
Needless to say, these true experts differ from the opinions commonly expressed on these pages.
Yes, but if he also lost to those same players when they were in their prime, that takes some of the shine off the stat.
NatF
Bionic Poster
Please, after your "There's nothing exceptional about Federer" line you have no high ground to start on. It's just a bit of banter.
As far as his list of beaten major winners being impressive, it is of course impressive. Though how much of that is timing? As far as I know Gonzalez was not so good in the amateurs as Rosewall and was even older when tennis became Open. Gonzalez still has a more impressive career as far as I'm concerned. Rosewall's late career wins over great players is exceptional and a major plus in his resume.
hoodjem
G.O.A.T.
There's the headstone statement we've all been searching for.
Last edited:
pc1
G.O.A.T.
Gonzalez was perhaps as great an athlete and perhaps as great a talent as there ever was in tennis.
There always seems some sort of stat found and used to boost a certain player. A person has to realize whether the stat is nonsense or not. For example with Federer you can argue he beat greats like Nadal, Sampras, Djokovic, Roddick, Agassi, Murray in majors many times and the amount of majors between these players are incredible. The argument could be that Federer defeated far more dominant players than Rosewall did overall in majors. I'm not saying either is correct but a fan can spin it that way. In the classic majors the best players Rosewall faced were Hoad, Laver, Newcombe and Connors. Laver of course was great but Hoad in the amateurs wasn't nearly what he would be. Newcombe often defeated Rosewall on huge occasions and so did Connors. Newcombe however wasn't always in shape, Hoad had major injuries in the pros and deteriorated where he rarely beat Rosewall. Prime Connors imo would be a nightmare for Rosewall whether Rosewall was young or not. I will grant that Rosewall was older when he faced Newk and Connors. However it was Roy Emerson's (I think it was Emerson) opinion Rosewall had no place to hide his relatively weak serve against the powerful Connors return. When Rosewall played against Newcombe he could at least attack the weaker Newcombe backhand but against Connors there was nothing he could do. Rosewall had his choice of poisons against Connors.
Connors didn't have the greatest serve either but he was a lefty and he had a very high serving percentage with greater spin than Rosewall imo.
Clerici did hold Rosewall in high esteem. You have to be crazy not to but he didn't rank Rosewall as one of the GIANTS of the game.
Last edited:
macattack, You have not mentioned only once that Gonzalez is not one of your top ten. Therefore I don't think that your ranking him so lowly is a spontaneous one. Of course you can rank how you want. You even can rate Pancho at No. 43...
There are serious rankings and non-serious rankings. In a serious list Gonzalez should be included in the top ten. By the way, Emerson should not...
I don't mind if anybody puts Pancho at No. 1 or 5 or 7 (he is my No.3). It's debatable. But it's not debatable f.i. if Rod Laver is a top ten player or not.
Last edited:
NatF, It's okay.
hoodjem, Who is we all? I was not searching for it.
pc1
G.O.A.T.
I'm glad that you're more accepting.
macattack
Professional
If I put Pancho Gonzalez in my top ten will you stop having a conniption fit?
Is this better?
1. Federer
2. Laver
3. Sampras
4. Nadal
5. Borg
6. Gonzalez
7. Djoko
8. Agassi
9. McEnroe
10. Rosewall
abmk
Bionic Poster
Nadal
Djokovic
Sampras
Agassi
Murray
Kuerten
Hewitt
Safin
Roddick
Del potro
Cilic
Wawrinka
Gaudio
Ferrero
Ivanisevic
Krajicek
Chang
Moya
Costa
Kafelnikov
T. Johansson
that's 21, not 19 and # will likely increase to 25 or so ..
what Rosewall's # shows is his great longevity. not an indication of peak play ....
joe sch
Legend
Like your choice to limit your list to Open era. Nice list but dont agree with ordering.
Phoenix1983
G.O.A.T.
Phoenix1983
G.O.A.T.
Arti
Professional
very true, I'd like to put edberg at ten though because Mcenroe played a less classy and sportsmanlike style of tennis.
Rafa the King
Hall of Fame
Noleberic123
G.O.A.T.
Would change a few things there.
1. Federer
2. Nadal
3. Sampras
4. Djokovic
5. Borg
And would put Connors above Agassi.
Rafa the King
Hall of Fame
I think Mac should be above Agassi too maybe
Noleberic123
G.O.A.T.
Yes maybe. But I am being generous to Agassi
Phoenix1983, Your intellectual level is lower than even Limpinhitter's.
Your post is obnoxious. One properly should report it as some others from yourself should have been reported.
Your gravestone's inscription is an insult against one of the greatest players of all times and against his many admirers.
Note: Your darling, Gonzalez, was also utterly incapable of winning at SW19 because of a psychological weakness. He tried it several times. He can't be a GOAT candidate. Don't give any excuses just like he was too young or too old...
On your gravestone it could be written: "He did not know anything about tennis history but he was a first class libeller"
Last edited:
Yes because you include Pancho. But I still miss Tilden...
Similar threads
