Pancho Gonzalez career stats

Ivan69 said:

Thanks, as I count your figures the number is 139. Where is 1 missing?

Here is my count:

1956 -
Adelaide
Bastad
Deauville
Melbourne
Newport
Sydney - Cumberland
Sydney - NSW
Travemuende
US Open
Wagga Wagga
Maybe you have Toowomba too, for me this is too weak; but what is the 12th missing

1958 -
Eastbourne Pro
French Pro
Madrid Pro
I have 2 missing.

1959 -
Brisbane Pro
Brisbane Pro-2
Maybe you have Palermo as 3rd. I think it is a part of the European tour. Or it is something else?

1962 -
Adelaide Pro
French Pro
Geneva Pro
Melbourne Pro
Milan Pro
Stockholm Pro
Wembley Pro
I have 2 missing. If these are Auckland and Wellington I have them as part of the New Zealand tour.

1967 -
Belfast Pro
Berkeley Pro
Cape Town Pro
Durban Pro
Los Angeles Pro
Newport Beach Pro
St. Louis Pro
Wembley-2 Pro
I have 1 missing.

1975, 1976, 1977 - I have 5 tournaments of all 11 as invitational.

Click to expand...

Ivan69 said:

Excellent info. For me it is interesting - how do you think why TB publishes the Cleveland event in 1951 as "World Pro Ch." and categorizes the event as type C (similar to ATP 500). At the same time the other event is called "US Pro Ch." and categorized as type A (major). And only this year they value Cleveland lower? Is this up to you a mistake of TB? If you already have explained this issue somewhere else please link me, I was not able to read all of your posts.

Click to expand...

krosero said:

I'll try to address this; I don't have a single place that I could link to. I do have a lot of posts about it, but you're new here so I'll try to address it later.

Click to expand...

BobbyOne said:

Ivan, Thanks, I will answer tomorrow.

Thanks for pointing to my counting error: I forgot one tournament in 1955. It should read "6". I have corrected it in my previous post.

Click to expand...

Ivan69 said:

Thanks, then for 1955 I miss 1 tournament. I have only these:
Australian Open
Brisbane
Launceston
London / Queen's Club
Sydney - Manly seaside

Click to expand...

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.

Click to expand...

Ivan69 said:

Dan, TB publishes the ranking per a respective date not exclusively for a calendar year. And the TB ranking is continuous, i.e. the January achievements of the players are added to the end-December results. There is no movable ranking as you meant. As at the end of December 1959 TB has Gonzalez as No. 1. Hoad gets No. 1 in January 1960.

Click to expand...

Dan Lobb said:

But the term is a moving 12 month rating, right...only a 12 month period, which moves along.
Not a 13 month term.

Click to expand...

Ivan69 said:

The term is not moving. There is not a term as I said. The ranking is published by date, not for a period. You have to choose a date and TB gives you the ranking per this date. Please enter TB and see it exactly. As at the end of December Pancho is ranked #1, which is correct. Hoad is getting the first place in January short after Melbourne, Pancho didn't played there.

Click to expand...

Dan Lobb said:

I saw it, it was not just January.
It was not a monthly series, but a 3 or 4 month period. You should have noticed that.
It seems to me that those rankings move along with an annual period. They do not make sense otherwise.

Click to expand...

Ivan69 said:

The TB ranking is the same as the current ranking - as per date. The difference is that currently we have a weekly ranking. The TB ranking for the pre-OE is less frequently - 2 weeks or monthly or bimonthly depending on the availability of tournaments, but it is always on a basis of a chosen date.

Click to expand...

Ivan69 said:

Excellent info. For me it is interesting - how do you think why TB publishes the Cleveland event in 1951 as "World Pro Ch." and categorizes the event as type C (similar to ATP 500). At the same time the other event is called "US Pro Ch." and categorized as type A (major). And only this year they value Cleveland lower? Is this up to you a mistake of TB? If you already have explained this issue somewhere else please link me, I was not able to read all of your posts.

Click to expand...

Ivan69 said:

Thanks, just don't loose much time. I like to have your vision on this TB's info. For me it is strange that Segura played in both events having in mind the players were in a way "split" between March and Riggs/Kramer as promoters.

Click to expand...

krosero said:

TB considers '51 to be borderline, they said "B" would be fine. Their explanation of the A-B-C tiers: "A" tourneys are the 4 Slams and 3 pro majors, but other events go into "A" if it is VERY better than all the others (based on money, format, historic importance); two examples they gave were Wimbledon Pro and Barcelona '66.

Click to expand...

Ivan69 said:

I know their categorization and I think they are logically wrong about some tournaments. I have asked them 2 times per e-mail for some explanations but they obviously didn't want to respond to me.
Anyway, did they gave their explanation why they consider Cleveland '51 as not pro major in contrast of what you found as proof?

Click to expand...

Ivan69 said:

Thanks, as I count your figures the number is 139. Where is 1 missing?

Here is my count:

1956 -
Adelaide
Bastad
Deauville
Melbourne
Newport
Sydney - Cumberland
Sydney - NSW
Travemuende
US Open
Wagga Wagga
Maybe you have Toowomba too, for me this is too weak; but what is the 12th missing

1958 -
Eastbourne Pro
French Pro
Madrid Pro
I have 2 missing.

1959 -
Brisbane Pro
Brisbane Pro-2
Maybe you have Palermo as 3rd. I think it is a part of the European tour. Or it is something else?

1962 -
Adelaide Pro
French Pro
Geneva Pro
Melbourne Pro
Milan Pro
Stockholm Pro
Wembley Pro
I have 2 missing. If these are Auckland and Wellington I have them as part of the New Zealand tour.

1967 -
Belfast Pro
Berkeley Pro
Cape Town Pro
Durban Pro
Los Angeles Pro
Newport Beach Pro
St. Louis Pro
Wembley-2 Pro
I have 1 missing.

1975, 1976, 1977 - I have 5 tournaments of all 11 as invitational.

Click to expand...

BobbyOne said:

Ivan, I have for 1955: Eastern Suburbs. Final: Rosewall d Candy

1956: Toowoomba: Rosewall d Gaydon
Oskarsham: Rosewall d Fraser.

1958: Hamburg/Berlin: Rosewall d Trabert

Nizza and Oran are doubtful. So I only have four tournament wins (and only 139 altogether).

More tomorrow.

Click to expand...

Ivan69 said:

Thanks, do you have some details on Eastern suburbs, Toowoomba and Oskarsham (dates, how many players have played)?

I have this Hamburg/Berlin event as a part of the European tour (Rosewall is the winner). Do you have more info that it was a separate tournament?

Click to expand...

Ivan69 said:

Thanks, do you have some details on Eastern suburbs, Toowoomba and Oskarsham (dates, how many players have played)?

I have this Hamburg/Berlin event as a part of the European tour (Rosewall is the winner). Do you have more info that it was a separate tournament?

Click to expand...

BobbyOne said:

Ivan, Unfortunately I only have little information you wanted.

Toowoomba 1956 was played on grass; Rosewall d Gaydon 6-1, 6-4.

Oskarsham was held in July, 1956.

No specific information about Hamburg/Berlin 1958.

Click to expand...

NoMercy said:

-Palermo 1959 was not a tournament, only part of the European Grand Prix.
-Oskarshamns 1956 was not a tournament, but only an amateur exhibition between the two Australians and two Swedish players. They played the two singles and the double. They did the same in Slagelse (Denmark, vs two Danish players) two days later.
-Toowoomba 1956 was played on Australian clay
-Toowoomba 1954 was not a tournament, just a one day exhibition with many amateurs players involved, playing one-set match
-Hamburg/Berlin 1958 was not a tournament, but it's part of a four cities swing in Germany, including also Nurnberg and Hanover

Click to expand...

Ivan69 said:

Thanks, NoMercy! I think the same. Aren't Wellington and Auckland a part of the New Zealand tour in 1962?

Click to expand...

NoMercy said:

-Palermo 1959 was not a tournament, only part of the European Grand Prix.
-Oskarshamns 1956 was not a tournament, but only an amateur exhibition between the two Australians and two Swedish players. They played the two singles and the double. They did the same in Slagelse (Denmark, vs two Danish players) two days later.
-Toowoomba 1956 was played on Australian clay
-Toowoomba 1954 was not a tournament, just a one day exhibition with many amateurs players involved, playing one-set match
-Hamburg/Berlin 1958 was not a tournament, but it's part of a four cities swing in Germany, including also Nurnberg and Hanover

Click to expand...

Ivan69 said:

Thanks, NoMercy! I think the same. Aren't Wellington and Auckland a part of the New Zealand tour in 1962?

Click to expand...

BobbyOne said:

NoMercy, You seem to be an interesting and well-informed person. May I ask you where you have got that specific additional information that was not known before?

But I don't understand your statement about Oskarshamns. If there were only exhibitions between Aussies and Swedish players why then played Rosewall Neale Fraser as far as I know?

I still believe that Palermo 1959 was a tournament. An event being part of a tour does not exclude the possibility of tournaments. We do know about several 4-man tournaments, sometimes typically as a highlight of the tour. That event seems to having been the only event in Italy. Thus it looks like a tournament. McCauley has it as tournament.

I'm also not convinced that Hamburg/Berlin were tour matches. Again the same problem: Can an event of a longer tour be a small tournament? I say yes.

Click to expand...

NoMercy said:

1) Fraser and Rosewall did not played against. It is just a wikipedia legend.
Have you ever found a result of that match?
2) Palermo 59 was not a tournament for sure because on "Il giornale di Sicilia" there is the program of the two days, with the match ups already scheduled
3) Hamburg and Berlin same thing.
It was part of the European tour with match ups already decided (every player had to play the same amount of matches versus all the other ones)

Click to expand...

BobbyOne said:

Ivan, As told a tour can include small tournaments such as Wellington and Auckland. It's telling that these two cities are the two biggest in New Zealand.

Click to expand...

Ivan69 said:

I asked you to give me some details (if you have) about some tournaments.
About Oskarshamn and Toowoomba I have a similar info as NoMercy - invitational. The same case is with some titles in 75, 76, 77. The inv and exh matches are interesting for the statistics, but not countable as official titles. Example - if we count the inv / exh tournaments of Connors we should have about 150 titles. Nobody counts 150 titles for Connors, but 109.

About Palermo and Hamburg / Berlin - till now I haven't seen any proof (official or non-official) that those events were tournaments.

About Wellington and Auckland - the same - no proof; in addition I don't see a logic to count a title of a tournament which is part of a tour which I also count a title for.

I still miss a info for another title in 1967.

Till I have more info about the above mentioned or anything new I can't count them as titles.

Click to expand...

BobbyOne said:

Ivan, So rigid?

Invitational tournaments are also tournaments. Yes, Connors has won about 150 tourneys.

I told you that I don't more about that 1967 Rosewall title but I do know he won at least one such title in that summer tour of Italy.

I trust McCauley that the Wellington and Auckland titles were tournaments. It's your problem that you count tours as titles. I don't.

You told me that TB has counted 145 Rosewall titles. That's only possible if they include the New Zealand titles (not tours), as I think.

Of course I count the Gunze tournaments. They were hard fought events as Nastase confirmed indirectly when he praised Rosewall's shots after the 1977 final.

Click to expand...

Ivan69 said:

I asked you to give me some details (if you have) about some tournaments.
About Oskarshamn and Toowoomba I have a similar info as NoMercy - invitational. The same case is with some titles in 75, 76, 77. The inv and exh matches are interesting for the statistics, but not countable as official titles. Example - if we count the inv / exh tournaments of Connors we should have about 150 titles. Nobody counts 150 titles for Connors, but 109.

About Palermo and Hamburg / Berlin - till now I haven't seen any proof (official or non-official) that those events were tournaments.

About Wellington and Auckland - the same - no proof; in addition I don't see a logic to count a title of a tournament which is part of a tour which I also count a title for.

I still miss a info for another title in 1967.

Till I have more info about the above mentioned or anything new I can't count them as titles.

Click to expand...

BobbyOne said:

NoMercy, You really deserve your nickname ;-)

Your explanations are convincing.

Could it be that the events in the four German cities were a RR tournament?

Click to expand...

NoMercy said:

Wellington and Auckland could have been tournament.
A 4man tournament is when the second day depends on the first one.
I don't know for sure what happened there.
Taormina, Venice and San Remo 1964 are tournaments, because second day depends on first day (and there was a cup on the line) but they belongs to Trofeo Facis too.
I don't understand why these two possibilities can't co-exist.

Connors won 147 titles, 109 is just the ATP number, that is not even official, because for example Manchester 74 is a mistake.
It was included without any reason : it didn't belong to any circuit, prize money like the tournament of my church, garbage players.
Among the 38 non ATP tournaments there are some really good, with big money and big players

Click to expand...

Ivan69 said:

I said the same - they could be tournaments, but we don't have enough data at the time.

About Connors you are wrong - it is not only ATP counting 109. TB, Wiki, Hall of Fame count also 109.

I am not talking of the non-ATP tournaments in general. Still there were independent tournaments in 70's and 80's. I am talking of some of them which were invitational or exhibition (where specific players were individually invited for some events). Of course the invited players are highly paid, but those are not regular events where all the players could play.

Click to expand...

Ivan69 said:

I said the same - they could be tournaments, but we don't have enough data at the time.

About Connors you are wrong - it is not only ATP counting 109. TB, Wiki, Hall of Fame count also 109.

I am not talking of the non-ATP tournaments in general. Still there were independent tournaments in 70's and 80's. I am talking of some of them which were invitational or exhibition (where specific players were individually invited for some events). Of course the invited players are highly paid, but those are not regular events where all the players could play.

Click to expand...

NoMercy said:

Because it's a conventional number right now.
Everybody thinks 109 when they thinks about Jimbo because it's what ATP has.
But it's wrong. Like many numbers on ATP. Like Karlovic as the ace leader, when Ivanisevic has more aces than him.
Like surfaces, venues, dates....
They have tournaments listed in wrong years and you take ATP as an example!?!

Wikipedia counts like zero: it's written by persons like me and you.
If you look carefully, TB has Connors with 109 ATP titles and 148 overall (and it's good, ATP tournaments is a good definition).

Click to expand...

Ivan69 said:

You become little aggressive. Where did I mention that ATP is my source and the only source? Please don't put wrong words in my mouth.

ATP has many mistakes, especially in the past. But whether we like it or not currently it is the only official tennis organisation together with ITF. We can blame ATP for the past, but in the presence and in the future it is the one which defines everything - the calendar, the ranking points, the ranking, the rules, the penalties etc.

If you also look carefully TB has 109 titles with a value of the tournament based on the category and the other 39 are with a zero value. And these 39 don't affect the ranking at all, they are just statistical and interesting for the fans.

Please answer, also krosero who liked your post, are Mubadala, Laver Cup, Hopman cup or last year's Milan exh giving ranking points, are the winner's titles recognized to the players' resume?

The invitational and exhibition matches have totally different purpose, ideology and organisation. They are not competitive, because the players are invited not seeded based on ranking or players' wish to participate. These tournaments have purely advertising and commercial effect. In some very rare cases like the Laver cup it has a very good purpose dedicated to a great player.

It's not only tennis, in all sports the invitational, exhibition and friendly matches are NOT COUNTED AS OFFICIAL.

Click to expand...

BobbyOne said:

Ivan, Did you know that even at some GS tournaments ((US amateur championships) players were invited and other players not? They still were true tournaments and true majors!

Click to expand...

NoMercy said:

Manchester was not awarding any ATP points. Like many other tournaments listed in the ATP website.
On the other hand, ATP forgot to include in its database tournaments that were official at the time and were awarding ATP points, like Istanbul73, Palmettp73, Acapulco74, Dusseldorf75, Aviles76 and more.
109 is just a mistake.
But it looks you don't know very well this subject, so it's better to skip it and go on.
Have a good day

Click to expand...

Ivan69 said:

Obviously you want to continue with your arrogant attitude. You didn't answer my question about Mubadala, Laver Cup etc., of course, it's not nice for you. Anyway, not surprising!

It's not you, all the serious tennis fans know that ATP database is not full. You are not discovering the hot water. If you don't know except these 5 tournaments there are another hundreds of tournaments not sanctioned by ATP. And I count all those tournaments.

Instead of being so arrogant explain why 109 is a mistake. It's normal you want to skip it because you can blame not having enough arguments.

Click to expand...

NoMercy said:

As I said before, my conversation with you is over.
It's getting boring.
Take care

Click to expand...

Dan Lobb said:

McCauley mentions Hoad winning it in 1962.

Click to expand...

krosero said:

Ok, more new results from Tennis Base – we have 3 new titles for Laver and 1 for Rosewall.


All the matches below are new discoveries except the two semis at ’64 Taormina.


August 5-6, 1965
Catania Pro (Italy)
SF Buchholz d. Gimeno 2-6, 6-3, 6-2
SF Laver d. Sedgman 10-8, 2-6, 6-4
F Laver d. Buchholz 6-3, 6-2
3rd Gimeno d. Sedgman, unknown score


September 2-3, 1965
Prague Pro
SF Laver d. Ayala 6-4, 6-2
SF Buchholz d. Sedgman 6-3, 6-3
F Laver d. Buchholz 6-3, 8-6
3rd Sedgman d. Ayala 6-2, 6-1
Laver/Sedgman beat Buchholz/Ayala 6-0, 6-3


April 27-28, 1966
Solhihull Pro (England)
SF Laver d. Barthes 6-4, 6-2
SF Gimeno d. Hoad 7-9, 6-4, 7-5
Laver/Hoad beat Gimeno/Barthes 10-7
F Laver d. Gimeno 6-4, 9-7
3rd Barthes d. Hoad 6-3, 6-4


August 2-3, 1964
Taormina Pro (Italy)
SF Rosewall d. Gimeno 8-5
SF Gonzalez d. Buchholz 8-5
F Rosewall d. Gonzalez 6-3, 2-6, 6-3


McCauley has the first day’s matches at Taormina but he lists them simply as one-night stands because he didn’t know about the second day. The final is an entirely new result.

McCauley’s dates for this part of the tour are off somehow because he’s got all four of these players in Sorrento on August 2.

Anyway Rosewall and Laver are currently tied with 11 tournament titles (8-man and 4-man) in ’64, though I’m not going to guess where that count may end up; who knows how much is still missing.

Click to expand...

Ivan69 said:

krosero, I have for Laver 11 tournament titles for 1964. But for Rosewall I have 12 as follows:
Cannes Pro
Cape Town Pro
French Pro
Hannover Pro
Johannesburg Pro (second)
Los Angeles Pro
Melbourne Pro
Milwaukee Pro
San Remo Pro
St. Louis Pro
Taormina Pro
Venice Pro

Am I somewhere wrong?

Click to expand...

Ivan69 said:

Dan, do you have some details about this tour? I have an info about 5 pro tournaments in Italy in 1962 while Hoad haven't won none of them.

Click to expand...

Ivan69 said:

krosero, I have for Laver 11 tournament titles for 1964. But for Rosewall I have 12 as follows:
Cannes Pro
Cape Town Pro
French Pro
Hannover Pro
Johannesburg Pro (second)
Los Angeles Pro
Melbourne Pro
Milwaukee Pro
San Remo Pro
St. Louis Pro
Taormina Pro
Venice Pro

Am I somewhere wrong?

Click to expand...

krosero said:

Ivan the second Johannesburg Pro is the Challenge Match on Oct. 31. It can be listed as a "title," for example at Tennis Base where titles include not just tournaments but also other events like tours. But it wasn't a tournament.

Click to expand...

Ivan69 said:

I am asking because TB lists this as one-match World pro challenge and count it as a title.

Click to expand...

NoMercy said:

I don't think so.
Check better

Click to expand...

Ivan69 said:

I am discussing the issue with crosero. I would like to discuss the tennis issues with constructive and friendly people. You started the discussions here aggressively and arrogant. No matter if you have more info or less about tennis I accept this thread as a place of tennis fans sharing their knowledge, experience, data, opinion etc. Sorry to say it, but you started with me and Bobby too heavy. Despite this I am open to discuss issues with you but only in a normal way.

Click to expand...

Ivan69 said:

I am discussing the issue with crosero. I would like to discuss the tennis issues with constructive and friendly people. You started the discussions here aggressively and arrogant. No matter if you have more info or less about tennis I accept this thread as a place of tennis fans sharing their knowledge, experience, data, opinion etc. Sorry to say it, but you started with me and Bobby too heavy. Despite this I am open to discuss issues with you but only in a normal way.

Click to expand...

NoMercy said:

I am very friendly.
I just say things as they are.

Click to expand...