Pancho Gonzalez career stats

thrust · Apr 21, 2017

BobbyOne said:
thrust, Good answer to the ever-doubting Dan Lobb.

I would rate Rosewall's big open era wins among the top events of every year as follows:

1968: 1) Wimbledon; 2) US Open; 3) French Open
1970: 1) Wimbledon; 2) US Open
1971: 1) Wimbledon; 2) WCT Finals; 3) US Open and AO
1972: 1) US Open; 2) WCT Finals and Wimbledon (depleted field).

Slight disagreement:
1968: 1- FO-Won Not sure of the others
1970: 1- USO-Won, 2- Wimbledon-Final
1971: 1- AO-Won, 2- WCT-Won. It was on TV on I Friday night, but I did not see it.
1972: 1- WCT- Won one of the most significant matches in tennis history, because due to the large US TV audience helped
make tennis much more popular in the US, and perhaps in other countries as well. One of the greatest and most exciting matches I ever saw. Of course the fact that he beat Laver made if very special for me, though I nearly had a heart attack near the end-LOL!
in the open era

BobbyOne · Apr 22, 2017

Dan Lobb said:
Yes, indeed, important, but the MOST important of the year?

Dan Lobb, Those Rosewall victories were among the top three events of those years.

BobbyOne · Apr 22, 2017

krosero said:
My current numbers for the "Big Three":

Laver 1564 / 453 / 2017 (Tennis Base has 1466/430)

Rosewall 1718 / 639 / 2357 (TB has 1638/617)

Gonzalez 1351 / 628 / 1979 (TB has 1219/547)

TB has Segura at 1196 / 713. They've got Tilden at 1451 / 339, but Tilden has a lot of undocumented activity and those numbers must be higher.

krosero, Many thanks for the numbers. It seems a s though Rosewall played more matches than any other player with the only exception of Tilden.

Many Tilden matches are missing. Hans Nüsslein once said that he played 300 to 400 matches against Tilden. Many of them are not documented.

BobbyOne · Apr 22, 2017

thrust said:
Slight disagreement:
1968: 1- FO-Won Not sure of the others
1970: 1- USO-Won, 2- Wimbledon-Final
1971: 1- AO-Won, 2- WCT-Won. It was on TV on I Friday night, but I did not see it.
1972: 1- WCT- Won one of the most significant matches in tennis history, because due to the large US TV audience helped
make tennis much more popular in the US, and perhaps in other countries as well. One of the greatest and most exciting matches I ever saw. Of course the fact that he beat Laver made if very special for me, though I nearly had a heart attack near the end-LOL!
in the open era

thrust, You have been lucky to having watched that 1972 Dallas final.

We made different lists: You ranked the Rosewall wins among themselves. I ranked the overall best events of the year.

thrust · Apr 23, 2017

BobbyOne said:
thrust, You have been lucky to having watched that 1972 Dallas final.

We made different lists: You ranked the Rosewall wins among themselves. I ranked the overall best events of the year.

True, I realized that after I posted my reply. I need to read these posts more than once these days-LOL!

Drob · Apr 24, 2017

BobbyOne said:
Lobb, Don't speculate so much about Bud Colins. My close friend died last year and has not deserved to be insulted by your insinuations and stupid questions! Just read his books and articles! Krosero and I have already pointed to 1965 and 1977 (W.o.T. yearbook 1978) articles.

You actually present us Bud Collins as a village idiot who did not understand what the US Pro was and which events were labelled that way!! Very mean!!!!

Buy Bud's outstanding encyclopedias and you will shut up with your distorting his statements and history in general. Pardon, I rather guess even that reading will not convince you because you are more intelligent than Bud Collins, as you think...

In his book Bud writes about the 1963 and 1964 "US Pro", NOT (NOT!) about "US Pro Grasscourt". These two labels meant the same thing, you curious boy!! US Pro Grasscourt might have been the official title but it was generally regarded also and at first place as "US Pro"!!

You either will bring me into my grave or cause that I'm banned forever (my first ban happened because I wrote a bad word to you). Do you really want that?? Or are you ready to learn from krosero and other posters? You never have conceded that a poster has disproved you, not only at Rosewall's and Hoad's numbers which are "totally wrong" as krosero means.

Drob · Apr 24, 2017

krosero said:
Dan, this is simply not true and it would be helpful if you acknowledged this point because it is basic and fundamental to the issue. That article does not state, much less state "plainly," that the US Pro was not held in 1952-61. It says that "an active national tournament" run by the PLTA has been held annually with the exception of some years including 1952-61. That tournament is clearly the PLTA tournament, not the US Pro major, which we know because the article states that the '67 champion was Sammy Giammalva. That's the "active national tournament" that was not held in 1952-61: the PLTA tournament, won by Giammalva in '67. That tournament, as the article plainly states, was still running in 2002 when the article was written (I guess it's still running today?), which again shows they were not speaking of the US Pro, which ended in 1999.

There are many other complicated political and historical questions about all this to discuss, but let's set aside the claim that the PLTA website states that the US Pro was not held in 1952-61. That is simply not true.

Elsewhere on that site, in fact -- if you want to depend so heavily on that site -- if you look at the profile for Pancho Segura you see that they state that he won the US Pro in 1950-52. That is not consistent with your argument that the US Pro was not held anywhere in 1952. But it is consistent with the view that the US Pro was held, starting in 1952, at Cleveland.

It's just that the two articles on that site are speaking of two different things. The Segura article is simply referring to the US Pro championships, wherever it might have been held, regardless of what organization hosted it. The other article is referring to the annual tournament produced particularly by the PLTA organization, which through 1951 was synonymous with the US Pro but starting in 1952 was no longer synonymous. In that year there was a split. The US Pro began to be hosted/produced by other organizations (Jack March's, at first), while the PLTA was left to run its own event, which it began doing so in 1962.

What would be interesting now, Dan, would be to hear more about this break in 1952. You and Bobby both seem to know something about it and I'd be happy to hear whatever you guys, or anyone else, knows about it.

I have not looked for such a thing so I'd be careful about making such a sweeping claim. However even if the US Pro designation was missing, that in itself means potentially very little. Jack March called the Cleveland event a World Pro, but that does not mean that it was not the US Pro. The French Pro in '58 and '61 was called World Pro, but in each of those years I have not seen references to "French Pro" (I have looked for this). That doesn't mean it was not the French Pro; of course it was. It's just that the event was billed instead as World Pro.

As I said I haven't searched in the Cleveland years but in documenting Gonzalez's record I did come across some statements by Bud Collins in 1965. He wrote that year about the US Pro at Longwood and he said that Gonzalez had won "this title" 8 times, so of course he regarded Cleveland as the US Pro. Later in Gonzalez's career it was regularly said that he won the US Pro 8 times.

This business of no US Pro in Cleveland over 10 seasons is ludicrous but continues to be debated here - perhaps by only one person. Perhaps he gets confused because the event changed venues a few times, and in the early 1960s went to Forest Hills for a year or two and then to Boston (Longwood Cricket Club) [I don't have my reference books handy so won't cite exact dates] It is the same tournament - the one Gonzalez took eight consecutive times (sitting out one year). The exact title of the tournament is indicative of nothing. Are Key Biscayne and Miami Masters not the same tournament?; Rogers Cup and Canadian Open?; Italian Open and Rome Masters?; Indian Wells and BNP Paribras Open?; Paris Indoor and BNP Paribras Masters?; Masters Grand Prix, Tennis Masters Cup and ATP World Tour Finals (played in several different cities over the years)?, or, even for that matter; German Open and Mutua Madrid Open? There are different names (and in some cases different venues) for the same tournament.

And I agree with the other comment in defense of the late Bud Collins. I have caught precious few Collins mistakes (Don Budge winning streak for example), but I think the broad and justified consensus is that when Collins states a fact it should be respected absent significant, documented evidence to the contrary.

Drob · Apr 24, 2017

krosero said:
1961

I have Gonzalez at 87-33

64-30 in tour matches

23-3 in tournaments

_______________________________

TOUR MATCHES

52-19 in World Series (Dec. 30, 1960-May 30, 1961)
(31-11 in first phase and 21-8 in second phase)

1-0 in Hawaii Exhibitions vs MacKay (Jan. 6) (McCauley correctly lists this as separate from the WS, though he incorrectly repeats it on June 6; he also lists a “Bermuda Exhibition” win over Buchholz on April 2, as separate from the WS, but it was actually part of the series)

2-0 in Mexico City (May 23-24) over Gimeno 6-0, 3-6, 12-10 and MacKay 8-6, 8-6, probably on clay (McCauley had only the Gimeno result, and listed it incorrectly as part of the World Series; these matches were filmed for TV and were separate from the Series)

1-0 at Saint-Jean-de-Luz (Aug. 8), 6-4, 6-4 over Rosewall

0-1 at Arcachon (Aug. 9), 6-4, 6-2 against Rosewall

1-0 at La Baule (Aug. 10), 6-4, 7-5 over Rosewall

0-1 at Dieppe (Aug. 11), 6-1, 3-6, 6-4 against Rosewall

0-1 at Le Touquet (Aug. 14), 6-3, 6-0 against Rosewall

0-1 at Bristol (Aug. 26) against Hoad

1-0 at Dublin (Aug. 27), on grass, 6-4, 4-6, 12-10 over Hoad

0-1 at Dundee, Scotland (Aug. 28), 6-3, 6-2 against Hoad

0-1 at Scarborough (Sept. 1), 7-5, 5-7, 6-2 against Hoad

3-3 in other stands throughout the UK (Aug. 29-Sept. 4) against Hoad

1-1 in Kramer Cup semifinal in Barcelona (Oct. 10-16), on clay, losing to Gimeno (Oct. 12) and beating Haillet (Oct. 15)

0-1 at Padova (Oct. 21), 4-6, 7-5, 7-5 against Rosewall

2-0 in Inter-Country Pro Challenge at Turin (Oct. 29)

_______________________________

TOURNAMENTS

2-0 in US Pro at Cleveland (Apr 29-May 3)

0-1 in Dutch Pro (July 31-Aug. 8) on clay, lost in QF 6-3, 3-6, 6-2 to Segura (McCauley has this event but nothing for Gonzalez)

3-0 in Geneva Gold Trophy (Aug. 20 final) on clay

3-1 in French/World Pro (Sept. 17 final) on clay

3-1 in Wembley Pro (Sept. 24 final)

4-0 in Scandinavian Pro at Copenhagen (Oct. 1 final)

4-0 in Milan Pro (Oct. 7 final)

4-0 in Austrian Pro Indoor at Vienna (Oct. 20 final)

_______________________________

The World Series is documented at Tennis Base. This year for the first time it accommodated 6 players rather than 4, so every stand consisted of 3 singles matches rather than the customary two. Consequently they had to largely abandon best-of-three matches. In the first phase, 8 of Gonzalez's 42 matches were best-of-three; the remainder were single-set. In the second phase, played between Gonzalez and Gimeno for the championship, all 29 matches were single-set -- but these were first to 12 games, so essentially as long as a two-set match.

(The same two-phase format, heavily reliant on pros sets, was again used in the last of the H2H championship tours, the '63 series won by Rosewall.)

Gonzalez's record in the first phase was 31-11 (broken down as 8-1 vs. Buchholz, 6-3 vs. Gimeno, 6-2 vs. Hoad, 5-2 vs. Mackay, 6-2 vs. Olmedo, 0-1 vs. Trabert). His official tally ended up as 33-14 because Segura substituted on his behalf while Big Pancho was injured, winning 2 matches and losing 3 from Jan. 28-Feb. 3.

I like your relative neutrality, Krosero - let the facts fall where they may. And, like the other participants, I admire your dogged research. Perhaps slightly more partisan (although I love The Little Master) I see the overall 1960-61 record showing that Gonzalez remained No. 1, or co No. 1. No one took away his crown. Any argument that Sedgman was a co.-No 1 in 1958 fails, based on too little data. Lew Hoad has a better argument for a co-No. 1 ranking in 1959. Hoad and Gonzalez were essentially tied head-to-head, Richard beating Lew at the U.S. Pro, and Lew avenging that at the T.O.C. Gonzalez did not play the London Indoor or the French Pro, boycotting Kramer, and Lew failed utterlyto capitalize, and the two Majors were split between Mal Anderson and Tony Trabert. 1960 must clearly go to Gonzalez over Rosewall or Hoad. Gorgo beat Muscles something like 14-3 in the WCS tour that season (Krosero no doubt has more exact figures, but the essence of the argument remains), and then temporarily retired. Rosewall that year won six of nine important tournaments he entered, including Wembley and Roland Garros. If you want to call that a shared No. 1 w Gonzalez, I guess you can, but The Little Master was clobbered by Big Pancho head-to-head. Hoad did not produce enough in 1960 to consider him in the running. In 1961, the situation was different. Gonzalez won his seventh WCS (in which Rosewall declined to participate), and eighth U.S. Pro, but came up short at Wembley and Roland Garros, which Kenny won. But Richard beat Kenny at an important clay court tournament, and finished off his pro career with three consecutive important titles - something akin perhaps to winning Shanghai, Paris Indoor and ATP World Tour Finals to punctuate your season. In those three tournaments, Rosewall did not get past the the semifinals. Looks like a tie here between the two greats. I mentioned before, in the absence of someone clearly taking the crown from the popularly acknowledged king - and no one did so - Gonzalez remains World No. 1, 1954-61 (perhaps it is a shared No. 1 in 1959 and 1961 - and, for that matter, shared in 1952, w Sedg and Kramer). Krosero may have better records than McCauley. But, based on McCauley, after he staved off Hoad in their 1957-58 WCS, Gonzalez then won 13 of 22 tournmanents he entered, and three of three WCS, before retiring for two-plus years.

Dan Lobb · Apr 24, 2017

Drob said:
This business of no US Pro in Cleveland over 10 seasons is ludicrous but continues to be debated here - perhaps by only one person. Perhaps he gets confused because the event changed venues a few times, and in the early 1960s went to Forest Hills for a year or two and then to Boston (Longwood Cricket Club) [I don't have my reference books handy so won't cite exact dates] It is the same tournament - the one Gonzalez took eight consecutive times (sitting out one year). The exact title of the tournament is indicative of nothing. Are Key Biscayne and Miami Masters not the same tournament?; Rogers Cup and Canadian Open?; Italian Open and Rome Masters?; Indian Wells and BNP Paribras Open?; Paris Indoor and BNP Paribras Masters?; Masters Grand Prix, Tennis Masters Cup and ATP World Tour Finals (played in several different cities over the years)?, or, even for that matter; German Open and Mutua Madrid Open? There are different names (and in some cases different venues) for the same tournament.

And I agree with the other comment in defense of the late Bud Collins. I have caught precious few Collins mistakes (Don Budge winning streak for example), but I think the broad and justified consensus is that when Collins states a fact it should be respected absent significant, documented evidence to the contrary.

I guess you missed the debate over the 1951 U.S. Pro, which is claimed by some to have been held in Cleveland, and by others to be held at Forest Hills.

Dan Lobb · Apr 24, 2017

Drob said:
I like your relative neutrality, Krosero - let the facts fall where they may. And, like the other participants, I admire your dogged research. Perhaps slightly more partisan (although I love The Little Master) I see the overall 1960-61 record showing that Gonzalez remained No. 1, or co No. 1. No one took away his crown. Any argument that Sedgman was a co.-No 1 in 1958 fails, based on too little data. Lew Hoad has a better argument for a co-No. 1 ranking in 1959. Hoad and Gonzalez were essentially tied head-to-head, Richard beating Lew at the U.S. Pro, and Lew avenging that at the T.O.C. Gonzalez did not play the London Indoor or the French Pro, boycotting Kramer, and Lew failed utterlyto capitalize, and the two Majors were split between Mal Anderson and Tony Trabert. 1960 must clearly go to Gonzalez over Rosewall or Hoad. Gorgo beat Muscles something like 14-3 in the WCS tour that season (Krosero no doubt has more exact figures, but the essence of the argument remains), and then temporarily retired. Rosewall that year won six of nine important tournaments he entered, including Wembley and Roland Garros. If you want to call that a shared No. 1 w Gonzalez, I guess you can, but The Little Master was clobbered by Big Pancho head-to-head. Hoad did not produce enough in 1960 to consider him in the running. In 1961, the situation was different. Gonzalez won his seventh WCS (in which Rosewall declined to participate), and eighth U.S. Pro, but came up short at Wembley and Roland Garros, which Kenny won. But Richard beat Kenny at an important clay court tournament, and finished off his pro career with three consecutive important titles - something akin perhaps to winning Shanghai, Paris Indoor and ATP World Tour Finals to punctuate your season. In those three tournaments, Rosewall did not get past the the semifinals. Looks like a tie here between the two greats. I mentioned before, in the absence of someone clearly taking the crown from the popularly acknowledged king - and no one did so - Gonzalez remains World No. 1, 1954-61 (perhaps it is a shared No. 1 in 1959 and 1961 - and, for that matter, shared in 1952, w Sedg and Kramer). Krosero may have better records than McCauley. But, based on McCauley, after he staved off Hoad in their 1957-58 WCS, Gonzalez then won 13 of 22 tournmanents he entered, and three of three WCS, before retiring for two-plus years.

Gonzales finished second on the 1959 Ampol world championship tour.

Drob · Apr 24, 2017

Dan Lobb said:
Gonzales finished second on the 1959 Ampol world championship tour.

So, I guess Collins, McCauley, Michel Sutter, Kramer and all the rest of us are wrong about who won the 1959 WCS.

Dan Lobb · Apr 24, 2017

Drob said:
So, I guess Collins, McCauley, Michel Sutter, Kramer and all the rest of us are wrong about who won the 1959 WCS.

It depends which world championship series you are referring to.
There was the 4 man tour of the U.S.A. involving Gonzales, Hoad, Cooper, and Anderson, and the 12-month Ampol world tournament championship involving all of the top twelve pros.

Drob · Apr 24, 2017

Dan Lobb said:
It depends which world championship series you are referring to.
There was the 4 man tour of the U.S.A. involving Gonzales, Hoad, Cooper, and Anderson, and the 12-month Ampol world tournament championship involving all of the top twelve pros.

As I read Krosero's research - which generally is the most reliable in these forums - it indicates Gonzalez may well have won the "Ampol" series of upward of 16 tournaments.

"Dan Lobb, Jun 22, 2016 Report
BobbyOne said: ↑
Dan, As far as I understand krosero's words, he assumes but is not sure if the South African tour actually was a part of the long tournament tour.
Krosero argues that the points standings indicate that South Africa was included, making about 16 total events.

#251 Like + Quote Reply

Dan Lobb Legend
Joined:
Oct 31, 2011
Messages:
5,384
Dan Lobb, Jul 20, 2016 Report
'Krosero, here is where we left the discusion,

'Krosero stated:

'I've had another email from BobbyOne, which has prompted me to do a little more digging into this Ampol series. He noted that the total points I calculated for the players for the entire year-long series do not line up with the numbers given by McCauley (on p. 99 McCauley gives the total points earned in the "Australian tournaments").

'BobbyOne also doubted that Wembley was not included in the series. On both counts his instincts have proven right. I've done a little searching today and have found Wembley listed as one of the Ampol tournaments.

'I've found, too, a lot of conflicting information about the total number of tournaments. A lot of the information can be reconciled, especially for the first 5 events of the year; there appears no question about those and all the numbers line up nicely; but a lot of the material just brings up more questions.

'I do think that Anderson's original statement that there were 14 tournaments is a solid basis and may yet be proven correct. But instead of attempting to answer all these questions myself, let me just start by getting the new information out there. Any ideas and comments would be welcome.

'Ampol announced its plan at the beginning of the year: http://trove.nla.gov.au/ndp/del/article/131618684.

'They name 11 tournaments: Melbourne, Brisbane, Sydney, Adelaide, Perth, Paris, Wembley, Vienna, Forest Hills, Los Angeles and “a tournament at Melbourne Olympic pool in November, 1959.”

'Ampol standings after 2 events: http://trove.nla.gov.au/ndp/del/article/103090581

'LA Times, in a preview of the Masters on June 3:

'There are 10 pro net tournaments booked around the world this year and this is the sixth. Still to be held are the championships at New York, Paris, Wembley (London), South Africa and Melbourne.

'After half of these tests Hoad leads with 20 points. He will be the favorite here. The definite Australia imprint on Kramer’s troupe is shown by the fact that Rosewall is second with 17 and Sedgman third with 16. Gonzales, the product of Los Angeles public courts and the LATC, stands fourth with 14.

'$5,000 Goes to Winner

'When the 10 tournaments have run their course the player with the most points collects $5,000 and the Ampol trophy, donated by an Aussie firm.

'In addition to this, and the opening up of his purse strings for the California Youth Tennis Foundation, Kramer is paying the winner of the most matches here—each player meets the rest—$3,000. Second place is worth $2,000 and $1,600 goes to the third best.

'Up to this point everything is actually clear. All the numbers line up perfectly, and all of the first 6 events can be identified.

'Questions start popping up right after the Masters.

'- Was Toronto one of the tournaments? It's not listed in any article I've found. Yet Gonzalez won this event, and without winning 7 points there he would not reach the 32 points that we know he had on the eve of the French Pro: http://trove.nla.gov.au/ndp/del/article/131614593. He reaches 32 exactly, if he's given points for Toronto and the next tournament, Forest Hills.

'- What about South Africa? It's on the LA Times list as one of the events, but does that mean the South Africa tour of November? If so, was the whole tour counted, or just a portion? Rosewall, Anderson, Segura and Cooper all participated. It does make some sense that this was included, because in the final standings at the end of the year, per McCauley, Rosewall trailed Gonzalez in total points by only 41 to 43. Rosewall won 2 of the 14 tournaments we named upthread, while Gonzalez won 4, which should put Gonzalez well ahead of Rosewall in points. But Rosewall won this South Africa tour which could explain how he got so close to Gonzalez by year's end.

'- What about those last 5 events in Australia, in December? The Sept. 23 link names all of them as part of the world series, but other links name only Melbourne as one of the Ampol events. Including all 5, as well as Toronto, Wembley and South Africa, takes us beyond 14.

'Again any comments/ questions/help is welcome. Again thanks to Dan for putting his list together; and to BobbyOne for, essentially, proofing my work.

'Krosero, here is where we left the discussion. You can see that Perth and Adelaide are included.'"

End of Quotes. So, maybe one, or five, late-season Aussie events were included. Was Gonzalez even present for those? I lack reference materials as I write this, but did Gonzalez even go to Australia that late in his (first) career? I could be missing something, but Kosero seems to be saying the Ampol series is a mystery, and also that there is some indication that Gonzalez was the champion. Finally, I presume that Wembley and the French Pro were part of Ampol (correct me if I am wrong) and we know Gonzalez refused to participate in either of those tournaments in 1959, in order to try to hurt Jack Kramer financially. If my presumption is correct, and Wembley and Roland Garros were included, Gonzalez comes out as clearly the superior player on the tour in proportion to tournaments in which he participated. All this means is that I don't think Ampol analysis is real helpful, except that it indicates Hoad and Rosewall played quite well, but could not catch The Lone Wolf.

Dan Lobb · Apr 24, 2017

Drob said:
As I read Krosero's research - which generally is the most reliable in these forums - it indicates Gonzalez may well have won the "Ampol" series of upward of 16 tournaments.

"Dan Lobb, Jun 22, 2016 Report
BobbyOne said: ↑
Dan, As far as I understand krosero's words, he assumes but is not sure if the South African tour actually was a part of the long tournament tour.
Krosero argues that the points standings indicate that South Africa was included, making about 16 total events.

#251 Like + Quote Reply

Dan Lobb Legend
Joined:
Oct 31, 2011
Messages:
5,384
Dan Lobb, Jul 20, 2016 Report
'Krosero, here is where we left the discusion,

'Krosero stated:

'I've had another email from BobbyOne, which has prompted me to do a little more digging into this Ampol series. He noted that the total points I calculated for the players for the entire year-long series do not line up with the numbers given by McCauley (on p. 99 McCauley gives the total points earned in the "Australian tournaments").

'BobbyOne also doubted that Wembley was not included in the series. On both counts his instincts have proven right. I've done a little searching today and have found Wembley listed as one of the Ampol tournaments.

'I've found, too, a lot of conflicting information about the total number of tournaments. A lot of the information can be reconciled, especially for the first 5 events of the year; there appears no question about those and all the numbers line up nicely; but a lot of the material just brings up more questions.

'I do think that Anderson's original statement that there were 14 tournaments is a solid basis and may yet be proven correct. But instead of attempting to answer all these questions myself, let me just start by getting the new information out there. Any ideas and comments would be welcome.

'Ampol announced its plan at the beginning of the year: http://trove.nla.gov.au/ndp/del/article/131618684.

'They name 11 tournaments: Melbourne, Brisbane, Sydney, Adelaide, Perth, Paris, Wembley, Vienna, Forest Hills, Los Angeles and “a tournament at Melbourne Olympic pool in November, 1959.”

'Ampol standings after 2 events: http://trove.nla.gov.au/ndp/del/article/103090581

'LA Times, in a preview of the Masters on June 3:

'There are 10 pro net tournaments booked around the world this year and this is the sixth. Still to be held are the championships at New York, Paris, Wembley (London), South Africa and Melbourne.

'After half of these tests Hoad leads with 20 points. He will be the favorite here. The definite Australia imprint on Kramer’s troupe is shown by the fact that Rosewall is second with 17 and Sedgman third with 16. Gonzales, the product of Los Angeles public courts and the LATC, stands fourth with 14.

'$5,000 Goes to Winner

'When the 10 tournaments have run their course the player with the most points collects $5,000 and the Ampol trophy, donated by an Aussie firm.

'In addition to this, and the opening up of his purse strings for the California Youth Tennis Foundation, Kramer is paying the winner of the most matches here—each player meets the rest—$3,000. Second place is worth $2,000 and $1,600 goes to the third best.

'Up to this point everything is actually clear. All the numbers line up perfectly, and all of the first 6 events can be identified.

'Questions start popping up right after the Masters.

'- Was Toronto one of the tournaments? It's not listed in any article I've found. Yet Gonzalez won this event, and without winning 7 points there he would not reach the 32 points that we know he had on the eve of the French Pro: http://trove.nla.gov.au/ndp/del/article/131614593. He reaches 32 exactly, if he's given points for Toronto and the next tournament, Forest Hills.

'- What about South Africa? It's on the LA Times list as one of the events, but does that mean the South Africa tour of November? If so, was the whole tour counted, or just a portion? Rosewall, Anderson, Segura and Cooper all participated. It does make some sense that this was included, because in the final standings at the end of the year, per McCauley, Rosewall trailed Gonzalez in total points by only 41 to 43. Rosewall won 2 of the 14 tournaments we named upthread, while Gonzalez won 4, which should put Gonzalez well ahead of Rosewall in points. But Rosewall won this South Africa tour which could explain how he got so close to Gonzalez by year's end.

'- What about those last 5 events in Australia, in December? The Sept. 23 link names all of them as part of the world series, but other links name only Melbourne as one of the Ampol events. Including all 5, as well as Toronto, Wembley and South Africa, takes us beyond 14.

'Again any comments/ questions/help is welcome. Again thanks to Dan for putting his list together; and to BobbyOne for, essentially, proofing my work.

'Krosero, here is where we left the discussion. You can see that Perth and Adelaide are included.'"

End of Quotes. So, maybe one, or five, late-season Aussie events were included. Was Gonzalez even present for those? I lack reference materials as I write this, but did Gonzalez even go to Australia that late in his (first) career? I could be missing something, but Kosero seems to be saying the Ampol series is a mystery, and also that there is some indication that Gonzalez was the champion. Finally, I presume that Wembley and the French Pro were part of Ampol (correct me if I am wrong) and we know Gonzalez refused to participate in either of those tournaments in 1959, in order to try to hurt Jack Kramer financially. If my presumption is correct, and Wembley and Roland Garros were included, Gonzalez comes out as clearly the superior player on the tour in proportion to tournaments in which he participated. All this means is that I don't think Ampol analysis is real helpful, except that it indicates Hoad and Rosewall played quite well, but could not catch The Lone Wolf.

No, Krosero found the Australian period in the fall coverage in the Aussie press....Gonzales played, but missed the final event at Kooyong.
Hoad was awarded the championship monetary award for winning the 12-month series of tournaments. It's all there...keep checking.
Hoad's percentage of won/lost on that tour was 72%, Gonzales was 71%.
TennisBase gives Hoad the world number one as a result of that 12 month period.
There is no argument.

BobbyOne · Apr 24, 2017

Drob said:
I like your relative neutrality, Krosero - let the facts fall where they may. And, like the other participants, I admire your dogged research. Perhaps slightly more partisan (although I love The Little Master) I see the overall 1960-61 record showing that Gonzalez remained No. 1, or co No. 1. No one took away his crown. Any argument that Sedgman was a co.-No 1 in 1958 fails, based on too little data. Lew Hoad has a better argument for a co-No. 1 ranking in 1959. Hoad and Gonzalez were essentially tied head-to-head, Richard beating Lew at the U.S. Pro, and Lew avenging that at the T.O.C. Gonzalez did not play the London Indoor or the French Pro, boycotting Kramer, and Lew failed utterlyto capitalize, and the two Majors were split between Mal Anderson and Tony Trabert. 1960 must clearly go to Gonzalez over Rosewall or Hoad. Gorgo beat Muscles something like 14-3 in the WCS tour that season (Krosero no doubt has more exact figures, but the essence of the argument remains), and then temporarily retired. Rosewall that year won six of nine important tournaments he entered, including Wembley and Roland Garros. If you want to call that a shared No. 1 w Gonzalez, I guess you can, but The Little Master was clobbered by Big Pancho head-to-head. Hoad did not produce enough in 1960 to consider him in the running. In 1961, the situation was different. Gonzalez won his seventh WCS (in which Rosewall declined to participate), and eighth U.S. Pro, but came up short at Wembley and Roland Garros, which Kenny won. But Richard beat Kenny at an important clay court tournament, and finished off his pro career with three consecutive important titles - something akin perhaps to winning Shanghai, Paris Indoor and ATP World Tour Finals to punctuate your season. In those three tournaments, Rosewall did not get past the the semifinals. Looks like a tie here between the two greats. I mentioned before, in the absence of someone clearly taking the crown from the popularly acknowledged king - and no one did so - Gonzalez remains World No. 1, 1954-61 (perhaps it is a shared No. 1 in 1959 and 1961 - and, for that matter, shared in 1952, w Sedg and Kramer). Krosero may have better records than McCauley. But, based on McCauley, after he staved off Hoad in their 1957-58 WCS, Gonzalez then won 13 of 22 tournmanents he entered, and three of three WCS, before retiring for two-plus years.

Drob, I rank Gonzalez and Rosewall tied No.1 for 1960 and 1961. Pancho played very little in 1960. Rosewall won the big tournaments. The 1960 World Series favoured Gonzalez by a rather strange format and schedule (Rosewall had to play many matches under the 3 bounce rule, Gonzalez not).

In 1961 the last tournament of the year was not an equivalent to WTF (even though it was played in my hometown..).

In 1958 Sedgman has a claim to be Co. -No.1 but I still give Pancho the edge. Sedgman beat Gonzalez in big tournaments including Wembley, the inofficial world pro championship.

In 1959 Rosewall had a hth of 8:4 matches against Gonzalez. Hoad won the big AMPOL tournament tour. Thus both Lew and Pancho won a big tour that year.

Altogether we can see that Gonzalez was better in world tours than in big tournaments. He lost several pro majors and other big events even in his peak time (in 1956, 1957, 1958, 1959).

Unlike to poster pc1 I don't think that winning a world series is harder than winning a pro major. Mostly Gonzalez was favoured by playing a rookie pro on canvas. In such series you can lose many matches and yet win the series. In an elimination tournament you must win every match and meet all several top players. The 1956 to 1958 series were only two man series. 1959 had two rookie pros involved.

BobbyOne · Apr 24, 2017

Drob said:
As I read Krosero's research - which generally is the most reliable in these forums - it indicates Gonzalez may well have won the "Ampol" series of upward of 16 tournaments.

"Dan Lobb, Jun 22, 2016 Report
BobbyOne said: ↑
Dan, As far as I understand krosero's words, he assumes but is not sure if the South African tour actually was a part of the long tournament tour.
Krosero argues that the points standings indicate that South Africa was included, making about 16 total events.

#251 Like + Quote Reply

Dan Lobb Legend
Joined:
Oct 31, 2011
Messages:
5,384
Dan Lobb, Jul 20, 2016 Report
'Krosero, here is where we left the discusion,

'Krosero stated:

'I've had another email from BobbyOne, which has prompted me to do a little more digging into this Ampol series. He noted that the total points I calculated for the players for the entire year-long series do not line up with the numbers given by McCauley (on p. 99 McCauley gives the total points earned in the "Australian tournaments").

'BobbyOne also doubted that Wembley was not included in the series. On both counts his instincts have proven right. I've done a little searching today and have found Wembley listed as one of the Ampol tournaments.

'I've found, too, a lot of conflicting information about the total number of tournaments. A lot of the information can be reconciled, especially for the first 5 events of the year; there appears no question about those and all the numbers line up nicely; but a lot of the material just brings up more questions.

'I do think that Anderson's original statement that there were 14 tournaments is a solid basis and may yet be proven correct. But instead of attempting to answer all these questions myself, let me just start by getting the new information out there. Any ideas and comments would be welcome.

'Ampol announced its plan at the beginning of the year: http://trove.nla.gov.au/ndp/del/article/131618684.

'They name 11 tournaments: Melbourne, Brisbane, Sydney, Adelaide, Perth, Paris, Wembley, Vienna, Forest Hills, Los Angeles and “a tournament at Melbourne Olympic pool in November, 1959.”

'Ampol standings after 2 events: http://trove.nla.gov.au/ndp/del/article/103090581

'LA Times, in a preview of the Masters on June 3:

'There are 10 pro net tournaments booked around the world this year and this is the sixth. Still to be held are the championships at New York, Paris, Wembley (London), South Africa and Melbourne.

'After half of these tests Hoad leads with 20 points. He will be the favorite here. The definite Australia imprint on Kramer’s troupe is shown by the fact that Rosewall is second with 17 and Sedgman third with 16. Gonzales, the product of Los Angeles public courts and the LATC, stands fourth with 14.

'$5,000 Goes to Winner

'When the 10 tournaments have run their course the player with the most points collects $5,000 and the Ampol trophy, donated by an Aussie firm.

'In addition to this, and the opening up of his purse strings for the California Youth Tennis Foundation, Kramer is paying the winner of the most matches here—each player meets the rest—$3,000. Second place is worth $2,000 and $1,600 goes to the third best.

'Up to this point everything is actually clear. All the numbers line up perfectly, and all of the first 6 events can be identified.

'Questions start popping up right after the Masters.

'- Was Toronto one of the tournaments? It's not listed in any article I've found. Yet Gonzalez won this event, and without winning 7 points there he would not reach the 32 points that we know he had on the eve of the French Pro: http://trove.nla.gov.au/ndp/del/article/131614593. He reaches 32 exactly, if he's given points for Toronto and the next tournament, Forest Hills.

'- What about South Africa? It's on the LA Times list as one of the events, but does that mean the South Africa tour of November? If so, was the whole tour counted, or just a portion? Rosewall, Anderson, Segura and Cooper all participated. It does make some sense that this was included, because in the final standings at the end of the year, per McCauley, Rosewall trailed Gonzalez in total points by only 41 to 43. Rosewall won 2 of the 14 tournaments we named upthread, while Gonzalez won 4, which should put Gonzalez well ahead of Rosewall in points. But Rosewall won this South Africa tour which could explain how he got so close to Gonzalez by year's end.

'- What about those last 5 events in Australia, in December? The Sept. 23 link names all of them as part of the world series, but other links name only Melbourne as one of the Ampol events. Including all 5, as well as Toronto, Wembley and South Africa, takes us beyond 14.

'Again any comments/ questions/help is welcome. Again thanks to Dan for putting his list together; and to BobbyOne for, essentially, proofing my work.

'Krosero, here is where we left the discussion. You can see that Perth and Adelaide are included.'"

End of Quotes. So, maybe one, or five, late-season Aussie events were included. Was Gonzalez even present for those? I lack reference materials as I write this, but did Gonzalez even go to Australia that late in his (first) career? I could be missing something, but Kosero seems to be saying the Ampol series is a mystery, and also that there is some indication that Gonzalez was the champion. Finally, I presume that Wembley and the French Pro were part of Ampol (correct me if I am wrong) and we know Gonzalez refused to participate in either of those tournaments in 1959, in order to try to hurt Jack Kramer financially. If my presumption is correct, and Wembley and Roland Garros were included, Gonzalez comes out as clearly the superior player on the tour in proportion to tournaments in which he participated. All this means is that I don't think Ampol analysis is real helpful, except that it indicates Hoad and Rosewall played quite well, but could not catch The Lone Wolf.

Drob, I'm sorry but you are late. The matter has been cleared by krosero, Dan and of course Mal Anderson (the last in 1959). Mal clearly gave the final ranking with 1) Hoad, 2) Gonzalez, and 3) Rosewall. Anderson ranked all eight participants. Hoad was the winner and deserves a No.1 place for 1959 (with Pancho the Co.-No.1).

Pancho played five early 1959 tournaments in Australia and four late 1959 Aussie tournaments.

While nowadays Gonzalez usually is neglected or belittled (see that moron Tennis Channel list of the 100 best of all time) he was overrated during his prime and also some years later.

Some people (including the Gonzalez family) used to claim that Pancho was the No.1 player from 1950 through 1964 ignoring the fact that Pancho did not play in 1962 and only one match in 1963. In my rankings Gonzalez is lone No.1 from 1954 to 1958 (the last year only by a hair's breadth) and a Co.-No.1 player in 1952, 1959, 1960, and 1961. That's an all-time record.

Drob · Apr 24, 2017

Dan Lobb said:
No, Krosero found the Australian period in the fall coverage in the Aussie press....Gonzales played, but missed the final event at Kooyong.
Hoad was awarded the championship monetary award for winning the 12-month series of tournaments. It's all there...keep checking.
Hoad's percentage of won/lost on that tour was 72%, Gonzales was 71%.
TennisBase gives Hoad the world number one as a result of that 12 month period.
There is no argument.

None at all, Except that the Champ skipped London Pro Indoor, French Pro and Kooyong. Except that there is no pre-open pro season when the WCS winner was not acclaimed the World Champion (save a handful of years w/o a WCS, and 1964-67, when the pros went to a straight tournament format). Except, I believe Kosero gives Gorgo a 23-22 match edge for the entire year. Except, when Hoad had the opportunity to step up and win one of three traditional Pro Majors, he failed: to Gonzalez at U.S. Pro Final, to Segura at the Wembley quarter-final and to Sedg at Roland Garros semifinal.

That's some No. 1.

In an earlier post I allowed that a Gonzalez-Hoad Co-No. 1 for 1959 was a valid position. Looking over the record again, I would have to say that acknowledgment may have been too generous to The Golden Boy.

BobbyOne said:
Drob, I rank Gonzalez and Rosewall tied No.1 for 1960 and 1961. Pancho played very little in 1960. Rosewall won the big tournaments. The 1960 World Series favoured Gonzalez by a rather strange format and schedule (Rosewall had to play many matches under the 3 bounce rule, Gonzalez not).

In 1961 the last tournament of the year was not an equivalent to WTF (even though it was played in my hometown..).

In 1958 Sedgman has a claim to be Co. -No.1 but I still give Pancho the edge. Sedgman beat Gonzalez in big tournaments including Wembley, the inofficial world pro championship.

In 1959 Rosewall had a hth of 8:4 matches against Gonzalez. Hoad won the big AMPOL tournament tour. Thus both Lew and Pancho won a big tour that year.

Altogether we can see that Gonzalez was better in world tours than in big tournaments. He lost several pro majors and other big events even in his peak time (in 1956, 1957, 1958, 1959).

Unlike to poster pc1 I don't think that winning a world series is harder than winning a pro major. Mostly Gonzalez was favoured by playing a rookie pro on canvas. In such series you can lose many matches and yet win the series. In an elimination tournament you must win every match and meet all several top players. The 1956 to 1958 series were only two man series. 1959 had two rookie pros involved.

Reasoned comments Bobby One. I take a different view - for one thing Cooper was the classic amateur God w 3 Majors in 1958, just the way the pros wanted the WCS to be set up - and I also think Gonzalez's victory over Hoad at the Masters RR matters, and, as mentioned, Lew tanking in London and Paris showed he was no No. 1, although I rather wish he had been. It is a bit up for grabs, and I acknowledge your researched arguments and we end up in the same neighborhood. I don't know about Anderson, but if Krosero ultimately concluded Hoad edged Gonzalez by a match or three in head-to-head in 1959, thanks for correcting me.

Dan Lobb · Apr 25, 2017

Drob said:
None at all, Except that the Champ skipped London Pro Indoor, French Pro and Kooyong. Except that there is no pre-open pro season when the WCS winner was not acclaimed the World Champion (save a handful of years w/o a WCS, and 1964-67, when the pros went to a straight tournament format). Except, I believe Kosero gives Gorgo a 23-22 match edge for the entire year. Except, when Hoad had the opportunity to step up and win one of three traditional Pro Majors, he failed: to Gonzalez at U.S. Pro Final, to Segura at the Wembley quarter-final and to Sedg at Roland Garros semifinal.

That's some No. 1.

In an earlier post I allowed that a Gonzalez-Hoad Co-No. 1 for 1959 was a valid position. Looking over the record again, I would have to say that acknowledgment may have been too generous to The Golden Boy.

Reasoned comments Bobby One. I take a different view - for one thing Cooper was the classic amateur God w 3 Majors in 1958, just the way the pros wanted the WCS to be set up - and I also think Gonzalez's victory over Hoad at the Masters RR matters, and, as mentioned, Lew tanking in London and Paris showed he was no No. 1, although I rather wish he had been. It is a bit up for grabs, and I acknowledge your researched arguments and we end up in the same neighborhood. I don't know about Anderson, but if Krosero ultimately concluded Hoad edged Gonzalez by a match or three in head-to-head in 1959, thanks for correcting me.

The Hoad/Gonzales hth for 1959 was 24 to 23 for Hoad, according to the Kramer tour.
No, Krosero found Australian press reports of Hoad winning the Ampol world tour and was proclaimed world champion by the Australian press...I guess you missed that.
And TennisBase rated Hoad number one for the 1959 period.

Drob · Apr 25, 2017

Dan Lobb said:
The Hoad/Gonzales hth for 1959 was 24 to 23 for Hoad, according to the Kramer tour.
No, Krosero found Australian press reports of Hoad winning the Ampol world tour and was proclaimed world champion by the Australian press...I guess you missed that.
And TennisBase rated Hoad number one for the 1959 period.

He failed to win a single traditional Pro Major, making one final in three competitions. In fact, in his entire pro career, Hoadie was only champ once at a Pro Major in eight finals, and that is if we count the TOC.

Aussie Press of course would use

Drob · Apr 25, 2017

Drob said:
He failed to win a single traditional Pro Major, making one final in three competitions. In fact, in his entire pro career, Hoadie was only champ once at a Pro Major in eight finals, and that is if we count the TOC.

Aussie Press of course would use

Any possible basis to proclaim him No. 1 and the Tennis Base is just wrong on this. And why does Hoad get special treatment? Talent is one thing. Major titles are another. For all other players we seem to demand both. But not for Hoad.

You are welcome to the last word. Thanks for the chat.

Dan Lobb · Apr 25, 2017

Drob said:
He failed to win a single traditional Pro Major, making one final in three competitions. In fact, in his entire pro career, Hoadie was only champ once at a Pro Major in eight finals, and that is if we count the TOC.

Aussie Press of course would use

Dan Lobb · Apr 25, 2017

Drob said:
Any possible basis to proclaim him No. 1 and the Tennis Base is just wrong on this. And why does Hoad get special treatment? Talent is one thing. Major titles are another. For all other players we seem to demand both. But not for Hoad.

You are welcome to the last word. Thanks for the chat.

You seem to be rather confused about "pro majors", which is not a useful term for the chaotic world of pro tennis in the fifties.
The pros gave more attention to "tours", and as far as prestige tournaments were concerned, only a handful of irregularly held events qualify for the term "major", which is a purely subjective designation for the pro tennis circuit. Hoad won three of most prestigious tournaments in the pro world, the 1958 Kooyong, the 1959 Forest Hills, and the 1960 Kooyong.

Forest Hills was the most prestigious event in the pros, when held, in terms of press coverage and world attention. There were even news clips in the movie theatres for the Forest Hills events, not usually for other pro events.

The Ampol World Tournament Championship was the most impressive of the old pro tours, involving twelve pros, the first points series for a tournament tour, and Krosero has done superb research to show us this world championship tour.

TennisBase gives us the first objective evaluation of the old pro tours, and puts Hoad in first place for the biggest year ever of pro tennis, 1959.

BobbyOne · Apr 25, 2017

Drob said:
None at all, Except that the Champ skipped London Pro Indoor, French Pro and Kooyong. Except that there is no pre-open pro season when the WCS winner was not acclaimed the World Champion (save a handful of years w/o a WCS, and 1964-67, when the pros went to a straight tournament format). Except, I believe Kosero gives Gorgo a 23-22 match edge for the entire year. Except, when Hoad had the opportunity to step up and win one of three traditional Pro Majors, he failed: to Gonzalez at U.S. Pro Final, to Segura at the Wembley quarter-final and to Sedg at Roland Garros semifinal.

That's some No. 1.

In an earlier post I allowed that a Gonzalez-Hoad Co-No. 1 for 1959 was a valid position. Looking over the record again, I would have to say that acknowledgment may have been too generous to The Golden Boy.

Reasoned comments Bobby One. I take a different view - for one thing Cooper was the classic amateur God w 3 Majors in 1958, just the way the pros wanted the WCS to be set up - and I also think Gonzalez's victory over Hoad at the Masters RR matters, and, as mentioned, Lew tanking in London and Paris showed he was no No. 1, although I rather wish he had been. It is a bit up for grabs, and I acknowledge your researched arguments and we end up in the same neighborhood. I don't know about Anderson, but if Krosero ultimately concluded Hoad edged Gonzalez by a match or three in head-to-head in 1959, thanks for correcting me.

Drob, It's a blame in Pancho's resume that he several times skipped the big tournaments.

Gonzalez maybe edged out Hoad by ONE match. Other sources say they were equal 23:23.

Anderson reported in World Tennis about the long and important tournament tour.

Cooper was an easy prey for Gonzalez as also rookie Anderson was. But still remarkable that Pancho won all his matches against them in the 1959 tour.

Yes, the winner of the World Series was acknowledged then as world champion but from a current view we can say that that acknowledgment was not always reasonable. 1959 is a good example for that.

Hoad defeated Gonzalez in the important Forest Hills final. F.H. that year the true US Pro.

BobbyOne · Apr 25, 2017

Dan Lobb said:
You seem to be rather confused about "pro majors", which is not a useful term for the chaotic world of pro tennis in the fifties.
The pros gave more attention to "tours", and as far as prestige tournaments were concerned, only a handful of irregularly held events qualify for the term "major", which is a purely subjective designation for the pro tennis circuit. Hoad won three of most prestigious tournaments in the pro world, the 1958 Kooyong, the 1959 Forest Hills, and the 1960 Kooyong.

Forest Hills was the most prestigious event in the pros, when held, in terms of press coverage and world attention. There were even news clips in the movie theatres for the Forest Hills events, not usually for other pro events.

The Ampol World Tournament Championship was the most impressive of the old pro tours, involving twelve pros, the first points series for a tournament tour, and Krosero has done superb research to show us this world championship tour.

TennisBase gives us the first objective evaluation of the old pro tours, and puts Hoad in first place for the biggest year ever of pro tennis, 1959.

Dan Lobb, You are still wrong regarding the pro majors. They were not subjective at all.

krosero · Apr 25, 2017

Drob said:
I like your relative neutrality, Krosero - let the facts fall where they may. And, like the other participants, I admire your dogged research. Perhaps slightly more partisan (although I love The Little Master) I see the overall 1960-61 record showing that Gonzalez remained No. 1, or co No. 1. No one took away his crown. Any argument that Sedgman was a co.-No 1 in 1958 fails, based on too little data. Lew Hoad has a better argument for a co-No. 1 ranking in 1959. Hoad and Gonzalez were essentially tied head-to-head, Richard beating Lew at the U.S. Pro, and Lew avenging that at the T.O.C. Gonzalez did not play the London Indoor or the French Pro, boycotting Kramer, and Lew failed utterlyto capitalize, and the two Majors were split between Mal Anderson and Tony Trabert. 1960 must clearly go to Gonzalez over Rosewall or Hoad. Gorgo beat Muscles something like 14-3 in the WCS tour that season (Krosero no doubt has more exact figures, but the essence of the argument remains), and then temporarily retired. Rosewall that year won six of nine important tournaments he entered, including Wembley and Roland Garros. If you want to call that a shared No. 1 w Gonzalez, I guess you can, but The Little Master was clobbered by Big Pancho head-to-head. Hoad did not produce enough in 1960 to consider him in the running. In 1961, the situation was different. Gonzalez won his seventh WCS (in which Rosewall declined to participate), and eighth U.S. Pro, but came up short at Wembley and Roland Garros, which Kenny won. But Richard beat Kenny at an important clay court tournament, and finished off his pro career with three consecutive important titles - something akin perhaps to winning Shanghai, Paris Indoor and ATP World Tour Finals to punctuate your season. In those three tournaments, Rosewall did not get past the the semifinals. Looks like a tie here between the two greats. I mentioned before, in the absence of someone clearly taking the crown from the popularly acknowledged king - and no one did so - Gonzalez remains World No. 1, 1954-61 (perhaps it is a shared No. 1 in 1959 and 1961 - and, for that matter, shared in 1952, w Sedg and Kramer). Krosero may have better records than McCauley. But, based on McCauley, after he staved off Hoad in their 1957-58 WCS, Gonzalez then won 13 of 22 tournmanents he entered, and three of three WCS, before retiring for two-plus years.

Drob, just a few statistical disagreements, to start. I have Gonzalez beating Rosewall 19-5 in the '60WS, and Rosewall winning 7 of 10 tourneys that year. I have Gorgo winning 12 of 30 tournaments, starting with the '58 Tournament of Champions at Forest Hills and through the '61 season (if I've counted correctly, McCauley has 12 of 26).

I certainly agree that Gonzalez has a strong case to be #1 or co No. 1 all the way through '61, and that one of the arguments that could be used is that no one took away his crown. But that particular argument -- if it's based on the World Series -- makes it impossible to give him a number one place in 1952. Kramer had not lost a World Series at that point, and in fact he won another over Sedgman in '53. Gonzalez won a big round-robin tour over other pros in '54 and he certainly had the best pro record that year; but again he didn't beat Kramer or knock him off in a world championship. As far as I'm aware, Gonzalez was not proclaimed world champion when he won the '54 round-robin tour. Back in the 50s and 60s he was sometimes referred to as the world's number one player starting in '53 or '54; but sometimes he's described as "world champion" since '56 -- and that was the year he won a world series over Trabert that was publicly described as a world championship.

I think the whole concept of "world champion" is a debatable one; it was not universally agreed, at the time, that the world series staged by Kramer produced the world champion.

I've been looking through the pages of World Tennis, and here's a letter from a fan, in the October 1959 issue:

One of the most partial and biased articles ever published in your wonderful magazine appeared in the August issue under the heading “Hoad Crushes Gonzales At Forest Hills” by Bobby Riggs. I doubt if it is a question of ignorance, for Mr. Riggs has been around too much and certainly knows better. Bobby said that “The match signified the end of an era. The great Gonzales who has dominated pro tennis for four years was beaten decisively by a young man.” In the first place, a defeat in four sets is never a crushing one; secondly, Gonzales has dominated pro tennis not for four years but for seven.

The Forest Hills tournament had no more significance than the Toronto or the Los Angeles tournaments, which were both won by Gonzales. In Toronto Sedgman defeated Hoad “crushingly,” as Riggs would put it, 6-0 in the fourth; in the final, Gonzales beat Sedgman 6-1, 6-4, 6-1! In Los Angeles Hoad was beaten by Pancho. Gonzales won the pro tour this year, receiving prize money of $29,150 as against Hoad’s $28,250. The win-loss record was Gonzales 47-15, Hoad 42-20. In direct matches, Hoad came out two matches ahead. Above all, the most important tournament in pro ranks, emblematic of world supremacy, is and has been the “World Pro Championships” in Cleveland. It was won by Gonzales again. He defeated Hoad in the final in straight sets, 6-4, 6-2, 6-4!

In my book, Richard “Pancho” Gonzales is the world’s greatest living tennis player and one of the top all time greats. He has proved it, not only as a professional but even as an amateur, winning Forest Hills twice. All of it was accomplished despite his well-known lack of training, his difficulties with Kramer and his domestic troubles. Until he actually loses the title, let’s have the courtesy of calling him “Champ.” Riggs is not the only one who sins in the coverage of tournaments concerning Gonzales. If he wins, the other guy didn’t play well or was “feeling sick.”

R. Keenan

San Rafael, Calif.

Now this fan gives Gonzalez 7 years as number one, which would mean starting with the 1953 season -- the year that he first won the US/World Pro in Cleveland. The fan (I'll call him RK) has the concept of the "Champ" holding a title that must be taken away. But RK doesn't call the '59 tour specifically a world championship tour and in fact he seems to identify Cleveland, more than any other single event, as the event where that "title" is conferred.

Riggs, based on his '59 article practically proclaiming the Gonzalez era as over, seems to have the same concept of the "Champ" holding a title that must be directly taken away -- but he seems to regard the title of Champ as something that could be won or lost at a tournament, like Forest Hills.

Of course the world championship series was a genuine world championship, but it was not the only one. Pro tennis just wasn't organized enough to have a single, universally accepted way of designating a champion -- and "champion" is a nebulous term anyway, though of course an important and powerful one.

krosero · Apr 25, 2017

Riggs, in that '59 article, says that Gonzalez has dominated pro tennis "for four years." That was written in July 1959, so I guess Riggs dates Gonzalez's dominance as beginning with the 1956 season, or possibly from mid-'55.

Julius Heldman wrote an article in the June 1960 issue of World Tennis, in his Pancho Gonzalez installment of his series, “Styles of the Greats”. He also says that Gonzalez was World Champion starting with the Trabert series of '56:

It is my belief that Pancho Gonzales is the most natural player who ever lived. He never had a tennis lesson and he had almost no tournament competition during his formative years. When he dropped out of school in the tenth grade, the Southern California Tennis Association did not permit him to play in Junior tournaments. He was 19 when he played his first big event, which was the Southern California Championships. He defeated 19-year-old Herb Flam, the National Junior Champion.

Two months later, Pancho went back East to play the clay and grass court circuit. His play was spotty, but he managed to earn a No. 17 ranking. The following year (1948) he was No. 1 in the country, beating Eric Sturgess to win at Forest Hills. The next year he again won the Nationals, defeating his old nemesis, Ted Schroeder. He turned professional a few months later and was decisively beaten by Jack Kramer. He had actually had only three summers of top amateur competition and was far from a polished tennis player.

His loss to Kramer put him out of the “big time” in professional tennis. He waited on the sidelines while Kramer annually played against the neophyte pro of the year. Gonzales was eager to get back on the pro tour. His annual competition was limited almost solely to Jack March’s World Pro Championships in Cleveland, which he won with monotonous regularity, and yet he did not receive a bid to tour with Kramer’s boys. Eventually Pancho got his opportunity. Jake offered him $15,000—an all-time low for a feature player—to play against Tony Trabert, who was to receive $95,000. Gonzales reluctantly accepted, although the amount he received left him with bitter feelings towards his boss which has lasted to this day.

From here on Gonzales was the World Champion. He beat Trabert, Sedgman, Segura, Rosewall, Hoad and Olmedo. He barely edged past Hoad last year, losing in Ampol (tournament) points but winning out on day-by-day play. This year, in a limited tour, he lost fewer matches than ever before in two-night tournament stands against Rosewall, Segura and Olmedo. Last month he announced his retirement from professional competition.

I wish Heldman had specified what he meant by calling the '60 world series "a limited tour." Unlike the '54 tour, the press referred to it as being for the world championship (or the pro championship). I'm not sure in what sense it was limited, except maybe in that it was restricted to best of three sets, and sometimes used Pro Sets.

Dan Lobb · Apr 26, 2017

krosero said:
Riggs, in that '59 article, says that Gonzalez has dominated pro tennis "for four years." That was written in July 1959, so I guess Riggs dates Gonzalez's dominance as beginning with the 1956 season, or possibly from mid-'55.

Julius Heldman wrote an article in the June 1960 issue of World Tennis, in his Pancho Gonzalez installment of his series, “Styles of the Greats”. He also says that Gonzalez was World Champion starting with the Trabert series of '56:

It is my belief that Pancho Gonzales is the most natural player who ever lived. He never had a tennis lesson and he had almost no tournament competition during his formative years. When he dropped out of school in the tenth grade, the Southern California Tennis Association did not permit him to play in Junior tournaments. He was 19 when he played his first big event, which was the Southern California Championships. He defeated 19-year-old Herb Flam, the National Junior Champion.

Two months later, Pancho went back East to play the clay and grass court circuit. His play was spotty, but he managed to earn a No. 17 ranking. The following year (1948) he was No. 1 in the country, beating Eric Sturgess to win at Forest Hills. The next year he again won the Nationals, defeating his old nemesis, Ted Schroeder. He turned professional a few months later and was decisively beaten by Jack Kramer. He had actually had only three summers of top amateur competition and was far from a polished tennis player.

His loss to Kramer put him out of the “big time” in professional tennis. He waited on the sidelines while Kramer annually played against the neophyte pro of the year. Gonzales was eager to get back on the pro tour. His annual competition was limited almost solely to Jack March’s World Pro Championships in Cleveland, which he won with monotonous regularity, and yet he did not receive a bid to tour with Kramer’s boys. Eventually Pancho got his opportunity. Jake offered him $15,000—an all-time low for a feature player—to play against Tony Trabert, who was to receive $95,000. Gonzales reluctantly accepted, although the amount he received left him with bitter feelings towards his boss which has lasted to this day.

From here on Gonzales was the World Champion. He beat Trabert, Sedgman, Segura, Rosewall, Hoad and Olmedo. He barely edged past Hoad last year, losing in Ampol (tournament) points but winning out on day-by-day play. This year, in a limited tour, he lost fewer matches than ever before in two-night tournament stands against Rosewall, Segura and Olmedo. Last month he announced his retirement from professional competition.

I wish Heldman had specified what he meant by calling the '60 world series "a limited tour." Unlike the '54 tour, the press referred to it as being for the world championship (or the pro championship). I'm not sure in what sense it was limited, except maybe in that it was restricted to best of three sets, and sometimes used Pro Sets.

Fascinating reference by Heldman to the Ampol tour....Heldman was clearly very confused about what exactly the Ampol points system was referring to.
In this article, Heldman appears to think that it was associated with the four-man tour, and ending about the same time as that 4-man. Heldman did not believe that the Ampol series existed as a tour. Also, that the Ampol was not related to "day by day play", This understanding was shared by McCauley, who believed that the Ampol points ended during the summer.

It is clear that Kramer did not bother to explain the Ampol tour to American media, and there were only a few confused references to the Ampol tour in the American press.
Heldman also stated that "Hoad never won a tour from Gonzales" although that was clearly not true, Hoad won that Ampol tour in 1959.

krosero · Apr 26, 2017

Dan Lobb said:
Fascinating reference by Heldman to the Ampol tour....Heldman was clearly very confused about what exactly the Ampol points system was referring to.
In this article, Heldman appears to think that it was associated with the four-man tour, and ending about the same time as that 4-man. Heldman did not believe that the Ampol series existed as a tour. Also, that the Ampol was not related to "day by day play", This understanding was shared by McCauley, who believed that the Ampol points ended during the summer.

It is clear that Kramer did not bother to explain the Ampol tour to American media, and there were only a few confused references to the Ampol tour in the American press.
Heldman also stated that "Hoad never won a tour from Gonzales" although that was clearly not true, Hoad won that Ampol tour in 1959.

McCauley definitely knew that Ampol points ran through the end of the '59 season. On page 99 he talks about the Ampol series ending with the Melbourne event of January '60, and he specifically uses the name Ampol. That's when he gives the totals, with Hoad finishing first with 51 points, Gonzalez with 43, etc.

Heldman's explanation is unclear, especially the reference to "day by day play." But possibly he just means that Hoad won the tournament points that were made available to win while Gonzalez had a better record when including everything, that is, every day of the year. Still, "day by day play" is just too vague to know what he means.

I agree that the American audiences didn't know much about the Ampol series.

btw I've found Mal Anderson's explanation of the '59 points system, which we had been looking for. The reason I didn't find it before is that it wasn't an article written by Anderson; it was just something Anderson said in a group interview.

June '60 issue of World Tennis (“The Pros In New Zealand,” by Mike Robson):

Reporter: Each year amateur players in the various countries are ranked according to their performances in the past 12 months. What would be your rankings in the professional field?

Sedgman: I think that you still have to give the No. 1 spot to Gonzales, even though Lew beat him on personal appearances last year. Lew on his day is certainly a better player, but on overall, day-to-day basis, Gonzales is the more consistent competitor. Lew is No. 2 and Kenny Rosewall No. 3. After that it is fairly even.

Cooper: You would have to rank yourself No. 4, Sedg.

Sedgman: Mind you, even Lew and Gorgo get tossed now and again. They are not unbeatable.

Anderson: Last year Kramer established a point system to decide the best players in the world. We played 14 tournaments and got seven points for first, four for second, three for third, two for fourth and one for fifth and sixth place. After the year’s play, Lew finished ahead of Pancho. The final ranking was Lew, 1; Pancho, 2; Kenny Rosewall, 3; Sedg, 4; Trab, 5; myself, 6; Segoo, 7; and Coop, 8….

Reporter: Fabulous money is reputed to be earned in pro tennis. Is it true?

Cooper: If you win matches you earn good money. Jack has introduced a bonus system whereby the winner gets half as much again, so you can understand that when there is $300 on a match we try pretty hard.

Sedgman: The big money is not as big as it used to be. On my first American tour I made $1,000 a match.

Reporter: You played about 100 matches on that tour, didn’t you?

Sedgman: Yes. Lew and Muscles would have made the same. The American tour used to be the best but lately it’s been going off. I think it’s because a lot of people aren’t true tennis fans but just go along to see the headliners.

Cooper: The main reason the big money is not in the game is that Jack now has to split the profits with 10 players. When you played Jack, Frank, you had a two-way split.

WT had made a brief reference to the Ampol points in its report on the 1959 Tournament of Champions at Forest Hills:

Pancho was the winner in his tour against Hoad but was seeded 2 on the basis of “Ampol Points,” which are based on direct wins and losses.

BobbyOne · Apr 26, 2017

krosero said:
McCauley definitely knew that Ampol points ran through the end of the '59 season. On page 99 he talks about the Ampol series ending with the Melbourne event of January '60, and he specifically uses the name Ampol. That's when he gives the totals, with Hoad finishing first with 51 points, Gonzalez with 43, etc.

Heldman's explanation is unclear, especially the reference to "day by day play." But possibly he just means that Hoad won the tournament points that were made available to win while Gonzalez had a better record when including everything, that is, every day of the year. Still, "day by day play" is just too vague to know what he means.

I agree that the American audiences didn't know much about the Ampol series.

btw I've found Mal Anderson's explanation of the '59 points system, which we had been looking for. The reason I didn't find it before is that it wasn't an article written by Anderson; it was just something Anderson said in a group interview.

June '60 issue of World Tennis (“The Pros In New Zealand,” by Mike Robson):

Reporter: Each year amateur players in the various countries are ranked according to their performances in the past 12 months. What would be your rankings in the professional field?

Sedgman: I think that you still have to give the No. 1 spot to Gonzales, even though Lew beat him on personal appearances last year. Lew on his day is certainly a better player, but on overall, day-to-day basis, Gonzales is the more consistent competitor. Lew is No. 2 and Kenny Rosewall No. 3. After that it is fairly even.

Cooper: You would have to rank yourself No. 4, Sedg.

Sedgman: Mind you, even Lew and Gorgo get tossed now and again. They are not unbeatable.

Anderson: Last year Kramer established a point system to decide the best players in the world. We played 14 tournaments and got seven points for first, four for second, three for third, two for fourth and one for fifth and sixth place. After the year’s play, Lew finished ahead of Pancho. The final ranking was Lew, 1; Pancho, 2; Kenny Rosewall, 3; Sedg, 4; Trab, 5; myself, 6; Segoo, 7; and Coop, 8….

Reporter: Fabulous money is reputed to be earned in pro tennis. Is it true?

Cooper: If you win matches you earn good money. Jack has introduced a bonus system whereby the winner gets half as much again, so you can understand that when there is $300 on a match we try pretty hard.

Sedgman: The big money is not as big as it used to be. On my first American tour I made $1,000 a match.

Reporter: You played about 100 matches on that tour, didn’t you?

Sedgman: Yes. Lew and Muscles would have made the same. The American tour used to be the best but lately it’s been going off. I think it’s because a lot of people aren’t true tennis fans but just go along to see the headliners.

Cooper: The main reason the big money is not in the game is that Jack now has to split the profits with 10 players. When you played Jack, Frank, you had a two-way split.

WT had made a brief reference to the Ampol points in its report on the 1959 Tournament of Champions at Forest Hills:

Pancho was the winner in his tour against Hoad but was seeded 2 on the basis of “Ampol Points,” which are based on direct wins and losses.

krosero, I like it every time when you are able to disprove other posters by providing original sources and quotings.

Dan Lobb · Apr 26, 2017

krosero said:
McCauley definitely knew that Ampol points ran through the end of the '59 season. On page 99 he talks about the Ampol series ending with the Melbourne event of January '60, and he specifically uses the name Ampol. That's when he gives the totals, with Hoad finishing first with 51 points, Gonzalez with 43, etc.

Heldman's explanation is unclear, especially the reference to "day by day play." But possibly he just means that Hoad won the tournament points that were made available to win while Gonzalez had a better record when including everything, that is, every day of the year. Still, "day by day play" is just too vague to know what he means.

I agree that the American audiences didn't know much about the Ampol series.

btw I've found Mal Anderson's explanation of the '59 points system, which we had been looking for. The reason I didn't find it before is that it wasn't an article written by Anderson; it was just something Anderson said in a group interview.

June '60 issue of World Tennis (“The Pros In New Zealand,” by Mike Robson):

Reporter: Each year amateur players in the various countries are ranked according to their performances in the past 12 months. What would be your rankings in the professional field?

Sedgman: I think that you still have to give the No. 1 spot to Gonzales, even though Lew beat him on personal appearances last year. Lew on his day is certainly a better player, but on overall, day-to-day basis, Gonzales is the more consistent competitor. Lew is No. 2 and Kenny Rosewall No. 3. After that it is fairly even.

Cooper: You would have to rank yourself No. 4, Sedg.

Sedgman: Mind you, even Lew and Gorgo get tossed now and again. They are not unbeatable.

Anderson: Last year Kramer established a point system to decide the best players in the world. We played 14 tournaments and got seven points for first, four for second, three for third, two for fourth and one for fifth and sixth place. After the year’s play, Lew finished ahead of Pancho. The final ranking was Lew, 1; Pancho, 2; Kenny Rosewall, 3; Sedg, 4; Trab, 5; myself, 6; Segoo, 7; and Coop, 8….

Reporter: Fabulous money is reputed to be earned in pro tennis. Is it true?

Cooper: If you win matches you earn good money. Jack has introduced a bonus system whereby the winner gets half as much again, so you can understand that when there is $300 on a match we try pretty hard.

Sedgman: The big money is not as big as it used to be. On my first American tour I made $1,000 a match.

Reporter: You played about 100 matches on that tour, didn’t you?

Sedgman: Yes. Lew and Muscles would have made the same. The American tour used to be the best but lately it’s been going off. I think it’s because a lot of people aren’t true tennis fans but just go along to see the headliners.

Cooper: The main reason the big money is not in the game is that Jack now has to split the profits with 10 players. When you played Jack, Frank, you had a two-way split.

WT had made a brief reference to the Ampol points in its report on the 1959 Tournament of Champions at Forest Hills:

Pancho was the winner in his tour against Hoad but was seeded 2 on the basis of “Ampol Points,” which are based on direct wins and losses.

Yes, that Anderson statement does not give the detail we were looking for, and as you discovered, there were variable points awarded depending upon the event.

But it appears that Heldman believed that the Ampol was part of the four-man, and that the points from Ampol were included in the four man results.

Definitely wrong.

McCauley does not mention Ampol after the summer in his appendix, only through the spring series. He states on page 99 that there were only five tournaments in the Ampol series, so he is not looking at a 12 month tour.
That WT report on Forest Hills is also confused about Ampol, "direct wins and losses" is not it, Ampol was a series of tournaments.

Drob · Apr 28, 2017

krosero said:
Drob, just a few statistical disagreements, to start. I have Gonzalez beating Rosewall 19-5 in the '60WS, and Rosewall winning 7 of 10 tourneys that year. I have Gorgo winning 12 of 30 tournaments, starting with the '58 Tournament of Champions at Forest Hills and through the '61 season (if I've counted correctly, McCauley has 12 of 26).

I certainly agree that Gonzalez has a strong case to be #1 or co No. 1 all the way through '61, and that one of the arguments that could be used is that no one took away his crown. But that particular argument -- if it's based on the World Series -- makes it impossible to give him a number one place in 1952. Kramer had not lost a World Series at that point, and in fact he won another over Sedgman in '53. Gonzalez won a big round-robin tour over other pros in '54 and he certainly had the best pro record that year; but again he didn't beat Kramer or knock him off in a world championship. As far as I'm aware, Gonzalez was not proclaimed world champion when he won the '54 round-robin tour. Back in the 50s and 60s he was sometimes referred to as the world's number one player starting in '53 or '54; but sometimes he's described as "world champion" since '56 -- and that was the year he won a world series over Trabert that was publicly described as a world championship.

I think the whole concept of "world champion" is a debatable one; it was not universally agreed, at the time, that the world series staged by Kramer produced the world champion.

I've been looking through the pages of World Tennis, and here's a letter from a fan, in the October 1959 issue:

One of the most partial and biased articles ever published in your wonderful magazine appeared in the August issue under the heading “Hoad Crushes Gonzales At Forest Hills” by Bobby Riggs. I doubt if it is a question of ignorance, for Mr. Riggs has been around too much and certainly knows better. Bobby said that “The match signified the end of an era. The great Gonzales who has dominated pro tennis for four years was beaten decisively by a young man.” In the first place, a defeat in four sets is never a crushing one; secondly, Gonzales has dominated pro tennis not for four years but for seven.

The Forest Hills tournament had no more significance than the Toronto or the Los Angeles tournaments, which were both won by Gonzales. In Toronto Sedgman defeated Hoad “crushingly,” as Riggs would put it, 6-0 in the fourth; in the final, Gonzales beat Sedgman 6-1, 6-4, 6-1! In Los Angeles Hoad was beaten by Pancho. Gonzales won the pro tour this year, receiving prize money of $29,150 as against Hoad’s $28,250. The win-loss record was Gonzales 47-15, Hoad 42-20. In direct matches, Hoad came out two matches ahead. Above all, the most important tournament in pro ranks, emblematic of world supremacy, is and has been the “World Pro Championships” in Cleveland. It was won by Gonzales again. He defeated Hoad in the final in straight sets, 6-4, 6-2, 6-4!

In my book, Richard “Pancho” Gonzales is the world’s greatest living tennis player and one of the top all time greats. He has proved it, not only as a professional but even as an amateur, winning Forest Hills twice. All of it was accomplished despite his well-known lack of training, his difficulties with Kramer and his domestic troubles. Until he actually loses the title, let’s have the courtesy of calling him “Champ.” Riggs is not the only one who sins in the coverage of tournaments concerning Gonzales. If he wins, the other guy didn’t play well or was “feeling sick.”

R. Keenan

San Rafael, Calif.

Now this fan gives Gonzalez 7 years as number one, which would mean starting with the 1953 season -- the year that he first won the US/World Pro in Cleveland. The fan (I'll call him RK) has the concept of the "Champ" holding a title that must be taken away. But RK doesn't call the '59 tour specifically a world championship tour and in fact he seems to identify Cleveland, more than any other single event, as the event where that "title" is conferred.

Riggs, based on his '59 article practically proclaiming the Gonzalez era as over, seems to have the same concept of the "Champ" holding a title that must be directly taken away -- but he seems to regard the title of Champ as something that could be won or lost at a tournament, like Forest Hills.

Of course the world championship series was a genuine world championship, but it was not the only one. Pro tennis just wasn't organized enough to have a single, universally accepted way of designating a champion -- and "champion" is a nebulous term anyway, though of course an important and powerful one.

Thanks very much for this response. And you were right-on about tenniscollectibles and I was able to buy Geist's Nusslein biography.

krosero · May 1, 2017

I think when Heldman wrote that Gonzalez edged past Hoad on "day-by-day play" in 1959, he may very well have been drawing on Sedgman's statement in the group interview, also published in World Tennis.

Look how similar Heldman's wording --

He barely edged past Hoad last year, losing in Ampol (tournament) points but winning out on day-by-day play.

-- is to the language in the WT piece, “The Pros In New Zealand”:

Reporter: Each year amateur players in the various countries are ranked according to their performances in the past 12 months. What would be your rankings in the professional field?

Sedgman: I think that you still have to give the No. 1 spot to Gonzales, even though Lew beat him on personal appearances last year. Lew on his day is certainly a better player, but on overall, day-to-day basis, Gonzales is the more consistent competitor. Lew is No. 2 and Kenny Rosewall No. 3. After that it is fairly even.

Cooper: You would have to rank yourself No. 4, Sedg.

Sedgman: Mind you, even Lew and Gorgo get tossed now and again. They are not unbeatable.

Anderson: Last year Kramer established a point system to decide the best players in the world. We played 14 tournaments and got seven points for first, four for second, three for third, two for fourth and one for fifth and sixth place. After the year’s play, Lew finished ahead of Pancho. The final ranking was Lew, 1; Pancho, 2; Kenny Rosewall, 3; Sedg, 4; Trab, 5; myself, 6; Segoo, 7; and Coop, 8….

Heldman's essay and the group interview appeared in two separate articles in the June 1960 edition of World Tennis. Obviously Heldman was not working with the published version of the interview. But Heldman had been writing the "Styles of the Greats" series for World Tennis for some time, when he penned his Gonzalez essay. If he was in regular contact with World Tennis and relied on them for any information he didn't have, I don't think it's unlikely that he saw the group interview in draft form, or was provided with quotes/information from it, by WT staff--possibly when the editorial staff was reviewing his essay for publication.

The language is very close and it offers an explanation for what Heldman means by day-by-day play. Also, the group interview provides him with the knowledge -- better known in Australia than in the US -- that Gonzalez lost out to Hoad in tournament points.

Incidentally, Dan, I've found the score of Hoad's win over Gonzalez in Memphis (July 1, 1959). It was 7-9, 6-2, 8-6.

Dan Lobb · May 1, 2017

krosero said:
I think when Heldman wrote that Gonzalez edged past Hoad on "day-by-day play" in 1959, he may very well have been drawing on Sedgman's statement in the group interview, also published in World Tennis.

Look how similar Heldman's wording --

He barely edged past Hoad last year, losing in Ampol (tournament) points but winning out on day-by-day play.

-- is to the language in the WT piece, “The Pros In New Zealand”:

Reporter: Each year amateur players in the various countries are ranked according to their performances in the past 12 months. What would be your rankings in the professional field?

Sedgman: I think that you still have to give the No. 1 spot to Gonzales, even though Lew beat him on personal appearances last year. Lew on his day is certainly a better player, but on overall, day-to-day basis, Gonzales is the more consistent competitor. Lew is No. 2 and Kenny Rosewall No. 3. After that it is fairly even.

Cooper: You would have to rank yourself No. 4, Sedg.

Sedgman: Mind you, even Lew and Gorgo get tossed now and again. They are not unbeatable.

Anderson: Last year Kramer established a point system to decide the best players in the world. We played 14 tournaments and got seven points for first, four for second, three for third, two for fourth and one for fifth and sixth place. After the year’s play, Lew finished ahead of Pancho. The final ranking was Lew, 1; Pancho, 2; Kenny Rosewall, 3; Sedg, 4; Trab, 5; myself, 6; Segoo, 7; and Coop, 8….

Heldman's essay and the group interview appeared in two separate articles in the June 1960 edition of World Tennis. Obviously Heldman was not working with the published version of the interview. But Heldman had been writing the "Styles of the Greats" series for World Tennis for some time, when he penned his Gonzalez essay. If he was in regular contact with World Tennis and relied on them for any information he didn't have, I don't think it's unlikely that he saw the group interview in draft form, or was provided with quotes/information from it, by WT staff--possibly when the editorial staff was reviewing his essay for publication.

The language is very close and it offers an explanation for what Heldman means by day-by-day play. Also, the group interview provides him with the knowledge -- better known in Australia than in the US -- that Gonzalez lost out to Hoad in tournament points.

Incidentally, Dan, I've found the score of Hoad's win over Gonzalez in Memphis (July 1, 1959). It was 7-9, 6-2, 8-6.

Krosero, that looks right about the "day-by-day play" reference. Same language there.
However, it seems that Heldman was still unaware of a 12 month Ampol tour, or at least he did not accept Anderson's claim of a formal 14 tournament tour. He goes with Sedgman's rather vague statement, which ignores the Ampol tour.
And in that same year, 1960, Heldman would claim that "Hoad never won a tour over Gonzales", in his article on Hoad, clearly implying that Heldman was not aware of that Ampol tour.

That Memphis final looks like a great match...if I could get into a time machine, and set the dial at July 1, 1959.....

krosero · May 1, 2017

Dan Lobb said:
Krosero, that looks right about the "day-by-day play" reference. Same language there.
However, it seems that Heldman was still unaware of a 12 month Ampol tour, or at least he did not accept Anderson's claim of a formal 14 tournament tour. He goes with Sedgman's rather vague statement, which ignores the Ampol tour.
And in that same year, 1960, Heldman would claim that "Hoad never won a tour over Gonzales", in his article on Hoad, clearly implying that Heldman was not aware of that Ampol tour.

That Memphis final looks like a great match...if I could get into a time machine, and set the dial at July 1, 1959.....

Heldman did know of the Ampol series, though he did not refer to it as a "tour". He thought of the Ampol series simply as the pros' tournaments, distinct from the H2H tours.

This is the passage you're referring to, in Heldman's Hoad essay, from WT edition of Feb. '61:

I saw Hoad immediately after he had defeated Pancho Gonzales at Forest Hills in 1959 in one of the all-time great matches. Everything was working for him that day. He was hitting winner first volleys from mid-court, hard angled ground strokes on the rise, and he consistently outguessed his opponent. Hoad wore Gonzales down: Pancho was drawn and puffing, but Lew was still the young bull at the close of the match. Lew and Jenny spent the evening with us. The match was completely gone from his mind. It might have been a practice set from his point of view, even though to many it was the final proof that he had arrived as the world’s premier player.

Hoad never won a tour from Gonzales, although he was up on him in “Ampol points” (tournament competition). Lew on any day was by far the best player in the world, although in consistency Gonzales could still edge him. He had always had a spotty record. The year he won the Big Three, he was beaten in almost every minor event.

To me this just looks like Heldman uses the word "tour" to mean the H2H tours (made up one one-night stands), against which he contrasts tournament play (characterized in '59 by a points system). It's the same tour/tournament distinction I've been using in this thread.

Obviously he knows that Hoad was #1 in the points system, above Gonzalez. But for Heldman that's not the same as Hoad "winning a tour from Gonzalez," and I think he's right. We're talking about a points system (Ampol) set up across a series of tournaments in which several players (10?) participated, all competing to be #1. That's not a H2H system but more like a modern points system (though of course still rudimentary and of small size).

So we can say that Nadal was #1 in 2008, and Federer #2, but we wouldn't say that "Nadal won a tour from Federer." Nadal won "the tour" over the whole field, and that's how I'm sure Heldman understands Hoad's victory in the points system of '59.

Dan Lobb · May 1, 2017

krosero said:
Heldman did know of the Ampol series, though he did not refer to it as a "tour". He thought of the Ampol series simply as the pros' tournaments, distinct from the H2H tours.

This is the passage you're referring to, in Heldman's Hoad essay, from WT edition of Feb. '61:

I saw Hoad immediately after he had defeated Pancho Gonzales at Forest Hills in 1959 in one of the all-time great matches. Everything was working for him that day. He was hitting winner first volleys from mid-court, hard angled ground strokes on the rise, and he consistently outguessed his opponent. Hoad wore Gonzales down: Pancho was drawn and puffing, but Lew was still the young bull at the close of the match. Lew and Jenny spent the evening with us. The match was completely gone from his mind. It might have been a practice set from his point of view, even though to many it was the final proof that he had arrived as the world’s premier player.

Hoad never won a tour from Gonzales, although he was up on him in “Ampol points” (tournament competition). Lew on any day was by far the best player in the world, although in consistency Gonzales could still edge him. He had always had a spotty record. The year he won the Big Three, he was beaten in almost every minor event.

To me this just looks like Heldman uses the word "tour" to mean the H2H tours (made up one one-night stands), against which he contrasts tournament play (characterized in '59 by a points system). It's the same tour/tournament distinction I've been using in this thread.

Obviously he knows that Hoad was #1 in the points system, above Gonzalez. But for Heldman that's not the same as Hoad "winning a tour from Gonzalez," and I think he's right. We're talking about a points system (Ampol) set up across a series of tournaments in which several players (10?) participated, all competing to be #1. That's not a H2H system but more like a modern points system (though of course still rudimentary and of small size).

So we can say that Nadal was #1 in 2008, and Federer #2, but we wouldn't say that "Nadal won a tour from Federer." Nadal won "the tour" over the whole field, and that's how I'm sure Heldman understands Hoad's victory in the points system of '59.

Yes, I think that is how Heldman was thinking here, but he was not using the same language that the press used for the Ampol series, which was clearly "tour". The press coverage you found used the term "tour" for the Ampol series.
And, of course, the tournament series for 1964 used the term "tour" for that year also.

70sHollywood · May 2, 2017

krosero said:
Hoad never won a tour from Gonzales, although he was up on him in “Ampol points” (tournament competition). Lew on any day was by far the best player in the world, although in consistency Gonzales could still edge him. He had always had a spotty record. The year he won the Big Three, he was beaten in almost every minor event.

What does he mean by "Big Three"? I assume he is talking about Hoad.

pc1 · May 2, 2017

70sHollywood said:
What does he mean by "Big Three"? I assume he is talking about Hoad.

I think he meant the Australian, French and Wimbledon.

pc1 · May 2, 2017

krosero said:
Quote by Julius Heldman-Lew on any day was by far the best player in the world, although in consistency Gonzales could still edge him. He had always had a spotty record. The year he won the Big Three, he was beaten in almost every minor event.

If I recall from Vainquers Lew Hoad won 13 tournaments that year so how could he lose in every minor tournaments?!

The thing about whether Hoad was invincible when on his game is so tough to know. Did Hoad looked great because his opponent allowed him to look great or perhaps no matter what Hoad would be invincible? It's hard to be invincible if a guy is your opponent and serving rockets like some could.

krosero · May 2, 2017

70sHollywood said:
What does he mean by "Big Three"? I assume he is talking about Hoad.

That's an odd reference, because I've seen the term "Big Three" used back then, but in reference to France/Wimb/US. Hoad in '56 won Australia/France/Wimb.

This is from earlier in Heldman's essay:

Before he left the amateur ranks he had won three of the four major titles—Australia, France and Wimbledon. He reached the finals of Forest Hills the same year, only to lose to his rival, Rosewall. He took his defeat, which kept him from becoming the second player of all time to make the Grand Slam, with the same stolid and phlegmatic countenance as he took his victories.

I saw Hoad immediately after...

Heldman might have just made a mistake, recalling generally that Hoad had won 3 and failed at a fourth. But championships were obviously viewed differently in different parts of the world and I don't think it's impossible that an Aussie could have valued Australia/France/Wimb more than the US Championships. (But Heldman was American.) Can't really speak to that personally.

I've seen the term "Big Three" and "Big Four" used back then.

Hoad was quoted in World Tennis' edition of July 1956:

Says Lew Hoad: “Even if I won the three big tournaments, even if Kramer raised his offer, I still wouldn’t turn pro for at least two or three seasons.”

It's unclear when exactly he said that, but it was in the same edition that reported his victory at the French.

krosero · May 2, 2017

pc1 said:
If I recall from Vainquers Lew Hoad won 13 tournaments that year so how could he lose in every minor tournaments?!

The thing about whether Hoad was invincible when on his game is so tough to know. Did Hoad looked great because his opponent allowed him to look great or perhaps no matter what Hoad would be invincible? It's hard to be invincible if a guy is your opponent and serving rockets like some could

That's a good point. I think Hoad's spotty record was actually in '57, before winning Wimbledon.

Heldman may have confused the two years.

BobbyOne · May 2, 2017

Dan Lobb said:
Yes, I think that is how Heldman was thinking here, but he was not using the same language that the press used for the Ampol series, which was clearly "tour". The press coverage you found used the term "tour" for the Ampol series.
And, of course, the tournament series for 1964 used the term "tour" for that year also.

Dan, There is a big difference between the 1959 tournament tour and the 1964 tournament tour: The former was in conflict with the world series championship tour while the latter was identic with the world professional championship tour. In other words, in 1959 there were two tours while in 1964 there was only one tour. Thus the 1964 tour has more weight than the 1959 AMPOL tour and possibly also more than the 1959 4 man tour.

Dan Lobb · May 3, 2017

krosero said:
Heldman did know of the Ampol series, though he did not refer to it as a "tour". He thought of the Ampol series simply as the pros' tournaments, distinct from the H2H tours.

This is the passage you're referring to, in Heldman's Hoad essay, from WT edition of Feb. '61:

I saw Hoad immediately after he had defeated Pancho Gonzales at Forest Hills in 1959 in one of the all-time great matches. Everything was working for him that day. He was hitting winner first volleys from mid-court, hard angled ground strokes on the rise, and he consistently outguessed his opponent. Hoad wore Gonzales down: Pancho was drawn and puffing, but Lew was still the young bull at the close of the match. Lew and Jenny spent the evening with us. The match was completely gone from his mind. It might have been a practice set from his point of view, even though to many it was the final proof that he had arrived as the world’s premier player.

Hoad never won a tour from Gonzales, although he was up on him in “Ampol points” (tournament competition). Lew on any day was by far the best player in the world, although in consistency Gonzales could still edge him. He had always had a spotty record. The year he won the Big Three, he was beaten in almost every minor event.

To me this just looks like Heldman uses the word "tour" to mean the H2H tours (made up one one-night stands), against which he contrasts tournament play (characterized in '59 by a points system). It's the same tour/tournament distinction I've been using in this thread.

Obviously he knows that Hoad was #1 in the points system, above Gonzalez. But for Heldman that's not the same as Hoad "winning a tour from Gonzalez," and I think he's right. We're talking about a points system (Ampol) set up across a series of tournaments in which several players (10?) participated, all competing to be #1. That's not a H2H system but more like a modern points system (though of course still rudimentary and of small size).

So we can say that Nadal was #1 in 2008, and Federer #2, but we wouldn't say that "Nadal won a tour from Federer." Nadal won "the tour" over the whole field, and that's how I'm sure Heldman understands Hoad's victory in the points system of '59.

Another point is that Heldman indicated that Gonzales always had the edge on Hoad in terms of consistency, but that was clearly not the case for the Ampol series.
I get the feeling here that Heldman does not understand the scope of that Ampol tour, and perhaps does not realize that the major tournaments of the year were included, such as Forest Hills, Roland Garros, L.A. Masters, Kooyong, Wembley.
Heldman may have been thinking in terms of a very limited tour, as did McCauley.
He completely ignored Anderson's statement about 14 events.

BobbyOne · May 3, 2017

Dan Lobb said:
Another point is that Heldman indicated that Gonzales always had the edge on Hoad in terms of consistency, but that was clearly not the case for the Ampol series.
I get the feeling here that Heldman does not understand the scope of that Ampol tour, and perhaps does not realize that the major tournaments of the year were included, such as Forest Hills, Roland Garros, L.A. Masters, Kooyong, Wembley.
Heldman may have been thinking in terms of a very limited tour, as did McCauley.
He completely ignored Anderson's statement about 14 events.

Dan, McCauley wrote (page 97) about the 14 tournaments tour (albeit not calling it the AMPOL tour) and gives the final order.

krosero · May 18, 2017

I've been working with both Tennis Base and Andrew on the career records of Gonzalez, Rosewall and Laver. I have some important new results that I can post here, at least in summary form. This is not a comprehensive list of all new data (some of which comes from Andrew and myself, a lot from Tennis Base), but here are some of the big findings.

___________________________________________________________

Laver won the Trofeo Facis in '63. TB found a brief report mentioning this result, but individual matches are hard to find. TB found a preview of matches to be played by Laver, Ayala, Hoad and Haillet in Sorrento on July 25, results unknown.

___________________________________________________________

Rosewall won the European Cup in '64, Cooper in '62 (Gimeno finishing second in '62).

The Cup was also held in '63 and '65 (at least), with unknown winners.

"European Cup" is not strictly a new event; but there was a points system encompassing European matches -- both tournaments and one-night stands -- and each year it was called the "European Cup." The Barcelona newspaper, La Vanguardia, mentioned the Cup every year when the players came to visit, and reported each year that their matches would award points toward the Cup. In '65 they gave these details: $5,000 to the overall winner, $1,500 every match with 60% to the winner and 40% to the loser.

The following results are new finds, all in Spain, and they all counted toward the '63 European Cup:

August 28 in Cadiz
Gimeno d. Rosewall 75 61
Ayala d. Nielsen 86 61

August 29 in Palma de Mallorca
Unknown results but Gimeno plays Rosewall

August 31 in Font Romeu
Unknown results but Gimeno plays Rosewall

Sept 1 in S.Agaro'
Unknown results but Gimeno plays Rosewall

In '64 Rosewall was reported to have won the Cup when he won the Hannover tournament in late September, shortly after Wembley. But no details are available.

___________________________________________________________

Laver has a new tournament title, in 1971.

August 24-25
Bocage International Tournament, Baton Rouge Louisiana
SF Laver d. Drysdale 64 60
SF Emerson d. Newcombe 62 62
F Laver d. Emerson 67 75 61

___________________________________________________________

Some new findings in Italy in '65:

August
Palermo tour match
Unknown results

Milan tourney
3rd place match
Laver d. Buchholz 10-8, 6-3 (Oct. 3)

Oct. 4 in Padua
Palacio de Deportes
Buchholz d. Anderson 6-2, 4-6, 6-4
Gimeno d. Segura 10-8, 6-4
Gimeno/Buchholz beat Segura/Anderson 6-1, 7-5

Oct. 5 in Turin
On indoor clay at Sports Palace
Buchholz d. Anderson 7-5, 6-3
Gimeno d. Segura 7-5, 6-3
Gimeno/Buchholz beat Segura/Anderson 6-2, 6-2

Oct. 6 in Turin
On indoor clay at Sports Palace
Rosewall d. Laver 9-7, 6-2
Ayala d. Sedgman 6-4, 6-4

Rome tourney
Oct. 7-9
QF results unknown
SF Laver d. Buchholz 12-10, 6-4
SF Gimeno d. Rosewall 6-4, 6-8, 6-3
F result unknown

___________________________________________________________

New findings from '67

November 2
Luxembourg Pro Match
RR Gimeno d. Laver 62 64

November 4
Angers Pro Matches
Laver d. Gimeno 64 62
Barthes d. MacKay

November 5
Nantes Pro Matches
Laver d. Gimeno 63 86
Barthes d. MacKay 61 64

November
Abidjan Pro Champs
RR Laver d. Gimeno 26 86 63

November
Dakar Pro Champs
SF Laver d. Barthes 68 61 62
F Gimeno d. Laver 75 16 63

___________________________________________________________

New events from '68

April 21 in Bordeaux
On indoor boards
Rosewall d. Gonzalez 6-4, 2-6, 6-3
Emerson d. Laver 6-4, 6-4

Laver/Emerson beat Gonzalez/Rosewall 4-6, 8-6, 6-4

April 22 in Toulouse
On “hard court” per The Guardian
Laver d. Gonzalez 4-6, 9-7, 7-5

August 3-4 in Honolulu
Emerson d. Laver 6-4, 4-6, 6-4
Laver d. Emerson 6-3, 1-6, 14-12
(Rod and Emmo were the only two players involved)

November 11
Metz, France (tour match)
Gonzalez d. Rosewall 6-3, 6-4

(McCauley documented two other matches between Pancho and Ken on this French tour but his dates were slightly off: Marseilles was on Nov. 6, Lyon on Nov. 7)

BobbyOne · May 18, 2017

krosero said:
I've been working with both Tennis Base and Andrew on the career records of Gonzalez, Rosewall and Laver. I have some important new results that I can post here, at least in summary form. This is not a comprehensive list of all new data (some of which comes from Andrew and myself, a lot from Tennis Base), but here are some of the big findings.

___________________________________________________________

Laver won the Trofeo Facis in '63. TB found a brief report mentioning this result, but individual matches are hard to find. TB found a preview of matches to be played by Laver, Ayala, Hoad and Haillet in Sorrento on July 25, results unknown.

___________________________________________________________

Rosewall won the European Cup in '64, Cooper in '62 (Gimeno finishing second in '62).

The Cup was also held in '63 and '65 (at least), with unknown winners.

"European Cup" is not strictly a new event; but there was a points system encompassing European matches -- both tournaments and one-night stands -- and each year it was called the "European Cup." The Barcelona newspaper, La Vanguardia, mentioned the Cup every year when the players came to visit, and reported each year that their matches would award points toward the Cup. In '65 they gave these details: $5,000 to the overall winner, $1,500 every match with 60% to the winner and 40% to the loser.

The following results are new finds, all in Spain, and they all counted toward the '63 European Cup:

August 28 in Cadiz
Gimeno d. Rosewall 75 61
Ayala d. Nielsen 86 61

August 29 in Palma de Mallorca
Unknown results but Gimeno plays Rosewall

August 31 in Font Romeu
Unknown results but Gimeno plays Rosewall

Sept 1 in S.Agaro'
Unknown results but Gimeno plays Rosewall

In '64 Rosewall was reported to have won the Cup when he won the Hannover tournament in late September, shortly after Wembley. But no details are available.

___________________________________________________________

Laver has a new tournament title, in 1971.

August 24-25
Bocage International Tournament, Baton Rouge Louisiana
SF Laver d. Drysdale 64 60
SF Emerson d. Newcombe 62 62
F Laver d. Emerson 67 75 61

___________________________________________________________

Some new findings in Italy in '65:

August
Palermo tour match
Unknown results

Milan tourney
3rd place match
Laver d. Buchholz 10-8, 6-3 (Oct. 3)

Oct. 4 in Padua
Palacio de Deportes
Buchholz d. Anderson 6-2, 4-6, 6-4
Gimeno d. Segura 10-8, 6-4
Gimeno/Buchholz beat Segura/Anderson 6-1, 7-5

Oct. 5 in Turin
On indoor clay at Sports Palace
Buchholz d. Anderson 7-5, 6-3
Gimeno d. Segura 7-5, 6-3
Gimeno/Buchholz beat Segura/Anderson 6-2, 6-2

Oct. 6 in Turin
On indoor clay at Sports Palace
Rosewall d. Laver 9-7, 6-2
Ayala d. Sedgman 6-4, 6-4

Rome tourney
Oct. 7-9
QF results unknown
SF Laver d. Buchholz 12-10, 6-4
SF Gimeno d. Rosewall 6-4, 6-8, 6-3
F result unknown

___________________________________________________________

New findings from '67

November 2
Luxembourg Pro Match
RR Gimeno d. Laver 62 64

November 4
Angers Pro Matches
Laver d. Gimeno 64 62
Barthes d. MacKay

November 5
Nantes Pro Matches
Laver d. Gimeno 63 86
Barthes d. MacKay 61 64

November
Abidjan Pro Champs
RR Laver d. Gimeno 26 86 63

November
Dakar Pro Champs
SF Laver d. Barthes 68 61 62
F Gimeno d. Laver 75 16 63

___________________________________________________________

New events from '68

April 21 in Bordeaux
On indoor boards
Rosewall d. Gonzalez 6-4, 2-6, 6-3
Emerson d. Laver 6-4, 6-4

Laver/Emerson beat Gonzalez/Rosewall 4-6, 8-6, 6-4

April 22 in Toulouse
On “hard court” per The Guardian
Laver d. Gonzalez 4-6, 9-7, 7-5

August 3-4 in Honolulu
Emerson d. Laver 6-4, 4-6, 6-4
Laver d. Emerson 6-3, 1-6, 14-12
(Rod and Emmo were the only two players involved)

November 11
Metz, France (tour match)
Gonzalez d. Rosewall 6-3, 6-4

(McCauley documented two other matches between Pancho and Ken on this French tour but his dates were slightly off: Marseilles was on Nov. 6, Lyon on Nov. 7)

krosero, Again fantastic findings from you, Andrew and Tennis Base. Very impressive. Hope you will post also the other new findings.

Do you think that Trofeo Facis was part of that European Cup?

I wonder that Cooper finished No.1 in the 1962 European Cup and Gimeno finished No.2 because it was the same case in 1960. In 1962 Gimeno was already stronger than Cooper. Hoad won the 1962 Trofeo Facis.

Great you found Laver's 201st tournament win. I'm sure Rod has won a bit more in 1964 to 1967, maybe the October, 1965 Rome tourney.

Interesting that Rosewall reduced his hth deficit against Laver at one match.

I thought (according McCauley) that the Milan tournament was held in September.

krosero · May 18, 2017

BobbyOne said:
krosero, Again fantastic findings from you, Andrew and Tennis Base. Very impressive. Hope you will post also the other new findings.

Do you think that Trofeo Facis was part of that European Cup?

I wonder that Cooper finished No.1 in the 1962 European Cup and Gimeno finished No.2 because it was the same case in 1960. In 1962 Gimeno was already stronger than Cooper. Hoad won the 1962 Trofeo Facis.

Great you found Laver's 201st tournament win. I'm sure Rod has won a bit more in 1964 to 1967, maybe the October, 1965 Rome tourney.

Interesting that Rosewall reduced his hth deficit against Laver at one match.

I thought (according McCauley) that the Milan tournament was held in September.

Bobby, McCauley was almost right about Milan, which he labeled simply as "September." It was Sept 30 through Oct. 3.

So you're thinking that the European Cup is the same as the Kramer Grand Prix that Cooper won in 1960, under a new name? I was wondering that myself, particularly with the standings given for 62, Cooper 1 and Gimeno 2. It was a report from '63 and it refers to "last year", but maybe that's an error.

I don't know if there was any overlap between the Trofeo Facis and European Cup.

We do know now that Rosewall finished #1 in all three points systems that we know of in '64: the tournament series described by Buchholz that ran for the greater part of the year and produced the world champion; the Trofeo Facis in Italy, which included both one-night stands and a pair of tourneys not counted in the big tournament series; and the European Cup, which included, at the very least, the one-night stands in Spain and the tournament in Hannover. The latter two series may have overlapped at some point, but it's impossible to say, we have so little detail about them.

The problem here is the newspaper archives of the relevant countries. French and Italian newspaper archives are very limited; we are apparently missing quite a lot of results from France and Italy, mostly one-night stands rather than tournaments; but we are missing some of the latter as well (see the Rome tourney just found by TB); and in all cases we are sorely lacking details. We have literally no details about how the point systems of the Trofeo Facis and the European Cup worked.

German newspaper archives are also very liimited, and with just a few German newspapers we could, for example, read about Rosewall's win in Hannover in '64 and pick up something about the European Cup series.

I've been talking to TB's researcher a lot and he thinks we are still missing quite a number of mostly European results.

These past few years we've had an avalanche of newspaper archives appearing online and we've learned a tremendous amount of tennis history -- but these archives have been mostly English-language, coming from North America, Britain and Australia. Those sections of tennis history are now getting covered quite well, compared to other places like South America, France, Italy, Central Europe, and Asia.

But those places will be covered eventually, because there's no reason to doubt that newspapers from those areas will not be eventually uploaded.

We're lucky that we have these Spanish-language archives now of newspapers like La Vanguardia, from which we're learning so much.

BobbyOne · May 19, 2017

krosero said:
Bobby, McCauley was almost right about Milan, which he labeled simply as "September." It was Sept 30 through Oct. 3.

So you're thinking that the European Cup is the same as the Kramer Grand Prix that Cooper won in 1960, under a new name? I was wondering that myself, particularly with the standings given for 62, Cooper 1 and Gimeno 2. It was a report from '63 and it refers to "last year", but maybe that's an error.

I don't know if there was any overlap between the Trofeo Facis and European Cup.

We do know now that Rosewall finished #1 in all three points systems that we know of in '64: the tournament series described by Buchholz that ran for the greater part of the year and produced the world champion; the Trofeo Facis in Italy, which included both one-night stands and a pair of tourneys not counted in the big tournament series; and the European Cup, which included, at the very least, the one-night stands in Spain and the tournament in Hannover. The latter two series may have overlapped at some point, but it's impossible to say, we have so little detail about them.

The problem here is the newspaper archives of the relevant countries. French and Italian newspaper archives are very limited; we are apparently missing quite a lot of results from France and Italy, mostly one-night stands rather than tournaments; but we are missing some of the latter as well (see the Rome tourney just found by TB); and in all cases we are sorely lacking details. We have literally no details about how the point systems of the Trofeo Facis and the European Cup worked.

German newspaper archives are also very liimited, and with just a few German newspapers we could, for example, read about Rosewall's win in Hannover in '64 and pick up something about the European Cup series.

I've been talking to TB's researcher a lot and he thinks we are still missing quite a number of mostly European results.

These past few years we've had an avalanche of newspaper archives appearing online and we've learned a tremendous amount of tennis history -- but these archives have been mostly English-language, coming from North America, Britain and Australia. Those sections of tennis history are now getting covered quite well, compared to other places like South America, France, Italy, Central Europe, and Asia.

But those places will be covered eventually, because there's no reason to doubt that newspapers from those areas will not be eventually uploaded.

We're lucky that we have these Spanish-language archives now of newspapers like La Vanguardia, from which we're learning so much.

krosero, Thanks for the explanations.

Yes, I think that the 1959 and 1960 European Grand Prix was a predecessor of the European Cup. Did not know about the latter till your post with the results.

treblings · May 22, 2017

krosero said:
Bobby, McCauley was almost right about Milan, which he labeled simply as "September." It was Sept 30 through Oct. 3.

So you're thinking that the European Cup is the same as the Kramer Grand Prix that Cooper won in 1960, under a new name? I was wondering that myself, particularly with the standings given for 62, Cooper 1 and Gimeno 2. It was a report from '63 and it refers to "last year", but maybe that's an error.

I don't know if there was any overlap between the Trofeo Facis and European Cup.

We do know now that Rosewall finished #1 in all three points systems that we know of in '64: the tournament series described by Buchholz that ran for the greater part of the year and produced the world champion; the Trofeo Facis in Italy, which included both one-night stands and a pair of tourneys not counted in the big tournament series; and the European Cup, which included, at the very least, the one-night stands in Spain and the tournament in Hannover. The latter two series may have overlapped at some point, but it's impossible to say, we have so little detail about them.

The problem here is the newspaper archives of the relevant countries. French and Italian newspaper archives are very limited; we are apparently missing quite a lot of results from France and Italy, mostly one-night stands rather than tournaments; but we are missing some of the latter as well (see the Rome tourney just found by TB); and in all cases we are sorely lacking details. We have literally no details about how the point systems of the Trofeo Facis and the European Cup worked.

German newspaper archives are also very liimited, and with just a few German newspapers we could, for example, read about Rosewall's win in Hannover in '64 and pick up something about the European Cup series.

I've been talking to TB's researcher a lot and he thinks we are still missing quite a number of mostly European results.

These past few years we've had an avalanche of newspaper archives appearing online and we've learned a tremendous amount of tennis history -- but these archives have been mostly English-language, coming from North America, Britain and Australia. Those sections of tennis history are now getting covered quite well, compared to other places like South America, France, Italy, Central Europe, and Asia.

But those places will be covered eventually, because there's no reason to doubt that newspapers from those areas will not be eventually uploaded.

We're lucky that we have these Spanish-language archives now of newspapers like La Vanguardia, from which we're learning so much.

i´ve been trying to access German newspaper archives recently, but so far it has been a very frustrating experience.

krosero · May 22, 2017

treblings said:
i´ve been trying to access German newspaper archives recently, but so far it has been a very frustrating experience.

thanks for checking!

treblings · May 22, 2017

krosero said:
thanks for checking!

you can thank me if and when i find something

Pancho Gonzalez career stats

Legend

G.O.A.T.

G.O.A.T.

G.O.A.T.

Legend

Hall of Fame

Hall of Fame

Hall of Fame

G.O.A.T.

G.O.A.T.

Hall of Fame

G.O.A.T.

Hall of Fame

G.O.A.T.

G.O.A.T.

G.O.A.T.

Hall of Fame

G.O.A.T.

Hall of Fame

Hall of Fame

G.O.A.T.

G.O.A.T.

G.O.A.T.

G.O.A.T.

Legend

Legend

G.O.A.T.

Legend

G.O.A.T.

G.O.A.T.

Hall of Fame

Legend

G.O.A.T.

Legend

G.O.A.T.

70sHollywood

Guest

G.O.A.T.

G.O.A.T.

Legend

Legend

G.O.A.T.

G.O.A.T.

G.O.A.T.

Legend

G.O.A.T.

Legend

G.O.A.T.

Hall of Fame

Legend

Hall of Fame

Similar threads