hoodjem
G.O.A.T.
I do wonder if we can come up with a grand total of slam equivalents for Gonzales?
Last edited:
[GOAT] Which kind of domination?
- Thread starter Nickognito
- Start date
xFedal
Legend
I am also interested in Gonzales slam count.
pc1
G.O.A.T.
I can give you major equivalents in the pros and regular majors won for Pancho Gonzalez.
Two United States Championships
Eight United States Pro Championships
Four Wembley Titles
Three Tournament of Champions
Gonzalez also won the far more important seven World Championship head to head tours which guaranteed the World Championship to anyone who won it. I would roughly estimate that one World Championship Tour win is the equivalent of two majors. Consider that in theory someone else could win all the Pro Majors for the year and yet not be World Champion because someone else won the World Championship tour. Gonzalez also often played over 100 matches on these World Championship tour.
I would say if you treat the Pro Majors as the same as the classic majors that would be about the same as 31 majors.
I would say that winning an amateur Wimbledon would have been more of a challenge than winning many of the Pro majors. You often would have several challenges in an amateur slam like Wimbledon, but only one or two significant challenges in a pro major.
For example, Gonzales beat an ancient Budge to win the U.S. Pro in 1953, whereas at least four or five tough players were competing that year for the amateur slams.
Gonzales beat no one of significance to win Wembley in 1950, whereas Patty had to beat several tough players to win Wimbledon that year.
It makes more sense to isolate those pro majors which had strong fields as well as being prominent events, and give them major status.
For example, I would award major status to Gonzales' victories at Philadelphia in 1950 and 1952, because he had to beat a tough Kramer to win them. Also, for the 1954 U.S. Pro Hardcourt, where he won over tough players like Sedgman and Segura.
Last edited:
hoodjem
G.O.A.T.
I remember this, thinking it was very interesting indeed.
Provoking thought and consideration.
In one of the lists Laver is given credit for winning the French pro in 68, but Rosewall is not given credit for his 68 Wembley win. In another list Ken is not given credit for his FO win in 68. Also, in 68, the British HC was an important tournament in that it was the First open tournament of the OE. Rosewall beat Laver in that final.
Okay, here is an interim report.
Seems McCauley gave only semis and finals for some supposed majors, so there were probably more than 4 players in the main draw.
But here we have what look like 4-man main draws in supposed pro majors.
1962 Cleveland World Pro: Buchholz, Segura, Arkinstall, MacKay, 2 others failed to qualify
1963 Cleveland World Pro: Buchholz, Laver, Rosewall ,Gimeno, 2 others failed to qualify
In 1964, a world pro championship in S Africa between Rosewall and Laver , a 2-man draw.
Seems McCauley gave only semis and finals for some supposed majors, so there were probably more than 4 players in the main draw.
But here we have what look like 4-man main draws in supposed pro majors.
1962 Cleveland World Pro: Buchholz, Segura, Arkinstall, MacKay, 2 others failed to qualify
1963 Cleveland World Pro: Buchholz, Laver, Rosewall ,Gimeno, 2 others failed to qualify
In 1964, a world pro championship in S Africa between Rosewall and Laver , a 2-man draw.
Last edited:
treblings
Hall of Fame
just a few comments at this stage. first of all, thanks for making the effort.
i look forward to read your final report. obviously you just started.
quick question. the match between Rosewall and Laver that you mention happened in 1964, no?
Limpinhitter
G.O.A.T.
I agree with this view which I think is consistent with my view that peak level of play, if maintained for at least a few years, is the best measure of a GOAT candidate.
Last edited:
Limpinhitter
G.O.A.T.
Nick expresses ideas largely (and unfortunarely), missing from more recent GOAT debates.
Right you are, 1964. Made the change.
I should give credit to NoMercy for finding the press reports showing that the term "tournament" could be applied to any pro event.
Last edited:
Dan Lobb, Again three wrong claims!
1962 US Pro: 6 players. 1963 Cleveland: Not a major. 1964 Challenge: not a major. Get serious!
treblings: Lobb gave wrong information in all three cases.
Lobb, Again wrong conclusion!
It is very strange that some posters here still cling to the idea that Cleveland could be a pro major, or that a 2-man tournament could be a major....
Last edited:
It is true that the Cleveland event, considered by some experts to be the US Pro, was the weakest of the pro majors. Wembley and the French were usually much more impressive due to the quality of players competing. The French was on clay till 63 which made it special because it provided a different surface from Wembley and Cleveland. When the US Pro went to FH, on grass, it became more important due to the different surface and quality of competition. The 64 event in South Africa was not considered a tournament but a play off to supposedly determine the number one ranking for 1964, which had already been achieved by Mr Rosewall.
treblings
Hall of Fame
i know
We actually agree on a few things...
I would only add that I agree with Wikipedia, that there were often tournaments in the pro tour which were more important than the so-called "pro majors".
I understood that Krosero regarded it as a major event.
That is what I gather from his posts...if he disagrees with that, fine.
It's impossible to discuss with you, Dan Lobb. You distort every statement of other posters! Johannesburg 1964 was a major event but nobody ever claimed it was a tournament or a pro major!
I am adding another to the list of 4-man main draws.
But here we have what look like 4-man main draws in supposed pro majors.
1962 Cleveland World Pro: Buchholz, Segura, Arkinstall, MacKay, 2 others failed to qualify
1963 Cleveland World Pro: Buchholz, Laver, Rosewall ,Gimeno, 2 others failed to qualify
In 1964, a world pro championship in S Africa between Rosewall and Laver , a 2-man draw.
It appears that the 1960 Cleveland World Pro also featured a 4-man main draw, Olmedo, Trabert, Segura, Cooper, with 2 players failing to qualify.
But here we have what look like 4-man main draws in supposed pro majors.
1962 Cleveland World Pro: Buchholz, Segura, Arkinstall, MacKay, 2 others failed to qualify
1963 Cleveland World Pro: Buchholz, Laver, Rosewall ,Gimeno, 2 others failed to qualify
In 1964, a world pro championship in S Africa between Rosewall and Laver , a 2-man draw.
It appears that the 1960 Cleveland World Pro also featured a 4-man main draw, Olmedo, Trabert, Segura, Cooper, with 2 players failing to qualify.
The list we received from Krosero showed this 1964 2-man "tournament" to be the culmination of the 1964 tour, thus a major.
The press regarded any pro event as a "tournament". We use the term differently today, but this is supposed to be a historical review.
treblings
Hall of Fame
It was not a tournament.
I never said that
Correct
You found the press coverage referring to just about any pro match as a "tournament" unlike today's usage of the term.
No, it's called a qualifying round, with not all players involved.What you call failing to qualify is normally called losing in the first round
NOT a main draw.
The main draws had 4 players.
So??
I found also articles where the games were called matches.
It was just a different way of expression.
That is the point, it was how they used the terms then.
But they were not tournaments.
You can use the meaning of "day of competition".
Haha.What you call failing to qualify is normally called losing in the first round
They were draw6 tournaments.
Like the super big event in Sydney 1958.
Same format (just a weaker field)
They were tournaments in the parlance of the time.
Locally?Oh, about Cleveland.
It was televised too
Main draw was 4-man.
Main draw was 6.
3 days of playing, no qualifications rounds.
On KYW TV.
Recap on first two days,
Both men's and women's finals televised.
Don Budge and Jim Graner at the commentary.
Stop your wrong claims! Please!
Lobb, You are a first class troll. Even krosero has realized it recently (who defended you earlier).
Two rounds, four players in the main draw...and a qualification round with only four players, not six.
Not hard to count...
KYW TV? Out of New York, right? No?
Like this was a local Cleveland station?
Not national, right?
The key word is LOCAL.
The key word is televised.
Something very common in those days in pro tournaments
WORLD PRO TENNIS OPENS IN CLEVELAND
Alex Olmedo, former US Davis Cup star and national champion, will face Sammy Giammalva, a strong armed Texan, as his first challenge Friday night as the World Pro Tennis Championships open in Cleveland Arena.
The opening match will pit Valeri Scott, former English star now teaching the game in Milwaukee, against ex-European champion Magda Rurac.
Mrs. Pauline Betz Addie meets Debbie Welsh of Bermuda, Tony Trabert opposes Frank Parker of Milwuakee and Althea Gibson meets the winner of the Scott-Rurac match.
Semifinals in the singles and doubles are scheduled fo Saturday night. Finals in all events will be played Sunday.
(26 May 1960, The Daily Times)
BUCHHOLZ IS RANKED HIGH IN PRO MEET
Barry MacKay of Dayton will battle veteran Bobby RIggs in first-round action activity in the woirld pro tennis championships which open here Friday.
MacKay has been placed in the upper bracket where Pancho Segura has been top-seeded. Segura is a two-time titlist.
Earl Buchholz, St. Louis, has been top-seeded in the lower bracket and will play the winner of the match between Gustavo Palafox of Mexico and Jack Arkinstall of Australia.
Meet director Jack March said the opening round play will be a one pro set affair, meaning a minimum of eight games will be played with the winneer needing a two-game margin.
(02 May 1962, St. Louis Post)
I can post more if it's still not clear it was a 3 rounds tournament.....
The key word is LOCAL tv for the Cleveland World Pro, as opposed to NATIONAL TV for Forest Hills...the difference between an event of local importance, and one of national importance.
Last edited:
The main draw was obviously 4 players.
So I guess Sydney 1958 was the same, right?
NoMercy, For Dan (a troll) will never be anything clear as he has proved for years week after week...
Right, according to my book. Main draw = 4 players, two players not having to qualify, Hoad and Gonzales (the #1 and #2 players).
The qualifying matches involved the "supporting cast".
A "round" involves all the players in the main draw.
Did you see reference to television for the 1958 and 1959 Forest Hills TOC?
This is big news, I did not see anything in the New York Times, perhaps because it was blocked out in the NY area.
