Pancho Gonzales-better than Laver?

Dan Lobb · Sep 30, 2018

pc1 said:
Gonzalez and Kramer are generally thought of historically by experts to be GOAT contenders. For example Vic Braden (just a few months because he passed away) told me that he believe Jack Kramer was the best player he had ever seen and he felt that he would have been number one in today's game, with of course a few adjustments I would assume. He went into it with me and I found it fascinating. Braden forgot more about tennis than any of us would ever know. He was logical and very intelligent. Others who thought Kramer was the GOAT was Budge (who really believed Budge was the GOAT), Sedgman, Hoad, Bromwich, Segura (that's huge because Segura saw everyone play), Riggs, Metzler. Gonzalez thought Kramer was number two after Hoad but I believe Gonzalez said Hoad was the best when he want to play (or words to that effect) so I do wonder if he thought Kramer was number one for average level. Vines ranked Kramer number two of players after WWII but I believe Vines ranked Kramer number three overall behind Tilden and Budge.

The World Championship Tours have to be included in the great resumes of these players. It is idiotic to ignore events in tennis of this magnitude!

People and many experts think that the majors are the only important events in tennis, currently and in the past. Of course that is wrong. There are so many flaws to that type of thinking that it would take forever (exaggeration of course by not by much) to go over it in detail.

Events change and we have to look deeply into history to get the true picture. There is no doubt the World Championship Tours were the biggest event on the Old Pro Tour. Wembley, the US Pro and the French Pro weren't on the same level of importance. Gonzalez has as his main concern most years to win the World Championship Tour. This would of course give him a lot of money (which helps with prestige in any event) but also that it assured him of being World Champion for another year which would again put money on the table. We cannot forget that the Pros in those days weren't the zillionaires they are now. If Gonzalez lost he would have because a has been. Kramer in his World Championship Tour with Riggs knew he had to win or he wouldn't get another chance. Gonzalez was lucky he got the second chance when Kramer had to retire early due to arthritis.

I agree that the world tours were probably the most important events on the old pro calendar...however, they were only one event, not 100 events.

They were ostensibly (though not really) about determining the better of two (usually) players for that year.

That could have been accomplished in much shorter series, perhaps in ten or twenty matches.
In fact, the world series became much shortened, with the later ones in 1961 and 1963 being for short durations.

So, whether you determine the winner of two players over a span of 100 matches or a span of twenty matches, the end result is the same, one winner and one loser.

I would not give greater weight to those marathon over-100 match series of the early fifties, just because they were long.
The length was not about competitive calculation, but about making money in small town locations.

In the end, the world series accomplishes only one thing, the better of two players.

So that is just one event, not 100 events.

I would give the WS tours the status of one major, remembering that in some years there were a good number of top pros, and it might be tough to win the top pro tournaments.

pc1 · Sep 30, 2018

Sport said:
Hell no. Pancho only won 14 Majors (2 GS + 12 Pro Slams), none of them on clay. Laver won 19 Majors (8 GS + 11 Pro Slams) both on grass and clay.

19 >>>>>> 14.

xFedal said:
H2H should be of little consequence for you then.... I see you don't believe in "to be the best you got to beat the best." Besides Pancho Gonzalez spent double the weeks at No.1 than your main boy Rafael Nadal.

We of course have to include the many other important tournaments that Gonzalez won like the Tournament of Champions, the LA Masters, Geneva Gold etc.

To repeat just counting majors is a very poor method to grade accomplishments. Some are amateur majors, some are the "Pro Majors" and what is a Pro Major anyway? Is a Pro Major someone in the armed forces? The Open Majors are clearly bigger than "Pro Majors" or amateur majors. I would argue that Gonzalez two tournament wins in the Howard Hughes of 1969 and 1970 may be bigger than any Pro Major but no one thinks of that! Gonzalez beat Newcombe, Rosewall, Stan Smith and Ashe to win the 1969 Howard Hughes and won the 1969 Pacific Southwest over players like Rosewall, Smith and Richey.

Gonzalez won many tournaments in his career plus he won a ton of Tours on the Old Pro Tour. Was he number one for close to a decade because he didn't accomplish anything? Of course he accomplished a lot but some of his greatest accomplishments are even considered in his resume which is so stupid.

xFedal · Sep 30, 2018

pc1 said:
That's debatable. Why did Gonzalez in 1960 defeat Rosewall on tour 19 matches to 5? The reason is from what I've heard is that Gonzalez worked extremely hard to get in the best shape ever for a World Championship Tour. I would say the head to head was okay for both.

Slight correction, the h2h was 20-5 not 19-5.... Source wikipedia.

pc1 · Sep 30, 2018

Dan Lobb said:
I agree that the world tours were probably the most important events on the old pro calendar...however, they were only one event, not 100 events.

They were ostensibly (though not really) about determining the better of two (usually) players for that year.

That could have been accomplished in much shorter series, perhaps in ten or twenty matches.
In fact, the world series became much shortened, with the later ones in 1961 and 1963 being for short durations.

So, whether you determine the winner of two players over a span of 100 matches or a span of twenty matches, the end result is the same, one winner and one loser.

I would not give greater weight to those marathon over-100 match series of the early fifties, just because they were long.
The length was not about competitive calculation, but about making money in small town locations.

In the end, the world series accomplishes only one thing, the better of two players.

So that is just one event, not 100 events.

I would give the WS tours the status of one major, remembering that in some years there were a good number of top pros, and it might be tough to win the top pro tournaments.

Dan,

I would say that The World Tours were often for many months. Yes it's one event but so is the Super Bowl and a World Heavyweight Championship fight. A major doesn't mean you're the World Champion but the World Championship Tour does.

Dan Lobb · Sep 30, 2018

xFedal said:
Slight correction, the h2h was 20-5 not 19-5.... Source wikipedia.

I will now have to change my calculation of the respective performances of Hoad and Rosewall on the world tours....it looks like Rosewall fared even less well than I was granting him.

Dan Lobb · Sep 30, 2018

pc1 said:
Dan,

I would say that The World Tours were often for many months. Yes it's one event but so is the Super Bowl and a World Heavyweight Championship fight. A major doesn't mean you're the World Champion but the World Championship Tour does.

True, I am inclined to agree.

However, the media coverage of exactly who was entitled to be "world pro champion" was less clear.

In 1953, we had three different players claiming to be "world pro champion" at year's end, Kramer, Gonzales, and Sedgman.
Kramer won the world tour, Gonzales won the International Pro Championship at Cleveland, and Sedgman won the World Professional Championship at Wembley.

In 1958, the newsreels claimed that Gonzales won the world championship when he won at Forest Hills, presumably Rosewall would have been acclaimed world champion if he had won his match at that event over Gonzales.

It was not a well-defined term, and logically, the WS tours were not necessarily between the top 2 players in the world, and therefore a genuine determination of the world number one.

The identity of the two players was not determined by logic, but by commercial realism.

So I think that we should make our current rankings of top pros in those decades, which may or may not put the winner of the world tour at number one.

I agree that winning the WS gave the winner the title of World Pro Champion, but not necessarily the title of "number one".

KG1965 · Sep 30, 2018

pc1 said:
Gonzalez and Kramer are generally thought of historically by experts to be GOAT contenders. For example Vic Braden (just a few months because he passed away) told me that he believe Jack Kramer was the best player he had ever seen and he felt that he would have been number one in today's game, with of course a few adjustments I would assume. He went into it with me and I found it fascinating. Braden forgot more about tennis than any of us would ever know. He was logical and very intelligent. Others who thought Kramer was the GOAT was Budge (who really believed Budge was the GOAT), Sedgman, Hoad, Bromwich, Segura (that's huge because Segura saw everyone play), Riggs, Metzler. Gonzalez thought Kramer was number two after Hoad but I believe Gonzalez said Hoad was the best when he want to play (or words to that effect) so I do wonder if he thought Kramer was number one for average level. Vines ranked Kramer number two of players after WWII but I believe Vines ranked Kramer number three overall behind Tilden and Budge.

The World Championship Tours have to be included in the great resumes of these players. It is idiotic to ignore events in tennis of this magnitude!

People and many experts think that the majors are the only important events in tennis, currently and in the past. Of course that is wrong. There are so many flaws to that type of thinking that it would take forever (exaggeration of course by not by much) to go over it in detail.

Events change and we have to look deeply into history to get the true picture. There is no doubt the World Championship Tours were the biggest event on the Old Pro Tour. Wembley, the US Pro and the French Pro weren't on the same level of importance. Gonzalez has as his main concern most years to win the World Championship Tour. This would of course give him a lot of money (which helps with prestige in any event) but also that it assured him of being World Champion for another year which would again put money on the table. We cannot forget that the Pros in those days weren't the zillionaires they are now. If Gonzalez lost he would have because a has been. Kramer in his World Championship Tour with Riggs knew he had to win or he wouldn't get another chance. Gonzalez was lucky he got the second chance when Kramer had to retire early due to arthritis.

"Gonzalez and Kramer are generally considered historically by experts as GOAT competitors". I do not agree on this point, pc.
I think that Vic Braden and a few other old and old experts consider the two old GOAT contenders champions but most of the experts (almost all Europeans) do not include Kramer & Gonzalez.

I agree on all the rest of the post.

The evaluation of the World Championship Tour leads to insert Kramer & Gonzalez in the right ranking, but it has never been done.

My feeling is that...
up to 70s:
- in the USA Kramer & Pancho were icons
- in Europe and in the rest of the world Kramer & Gonzalez are not known.

in 2018
- all over the world (USA, Europe and the rest of the world) Kramer & Gonzalez are not known.

Why are they not known? Because media and fans do not know WT.

pc1 · Sep 30, 2018

KG1965 said:
"Gonzalez and Kramer are generally considered historically by experts as GOAT competitors". I do not agree on this point, pc.
I think that Vic Braden and a few other old and old experts consider the two old GOAT contenders champions but most of the experts (almost all Europeans) do not include Kramer & Gonzalez.

I agree on all the rest of the post.

The evaluation of the World Championship Tour leads to insert Kramer & Gonzalez in the right ranking, but it has never been done.

My feeling is that...
up to 70s:
- in the USA Kramer & Pancho were icons
- in Europe and in the rest of the world Kramer & Gonzalez are not known.

in 2018
- all over the world (USA, Europe and the rest of the world) Kramer & Gonzalez are not known.

Why are they not known? Because media and fans do not know WT.

Kramer and Gonzalez aren’t well known NOW!

Many experts through history ranked Kramer among the top five ever, many ranking him right at the top. I don’t want to go into every aspect of Kramer’s career but suffice to say his record was imo awesome. I believe ranking him at the top (not that I agree) is reasonable.

Gonzalez imo has arguably the greatest record of any player that ever lived.

I think the BIG PROBLEM is the rigid system of counting majors without looking at the historical circumstances at the time. They look and see both didn’t have so many majors and discount them. Simply speaking they are ignorant.

It’s laughable that some players like Emerson are ranked ahead of both just before he had more classic majors. Now Emerson was an excellent player but he wasn’t on the level of Gonzalez or Kramer.

They were among the top few players of all time.

KG1965 · Sep 30, 2018

pc1 said:
Kramer and Gonzalez aren’t well known NOW!

Many experts through history ranked Kramer among the top five ever, many ranking him right at the top. I don’t want to go into every aspect of Kramer’s career but suffice to say his record was imo awesome. I believe ranking him at the top (not that I agree) is reasonable.

Gonzalez imo has arguably the greatest record of any player that ever lived.

I think the BIG PROBLEM is the rigid system of counting majors without looking at the historical circumstances at the time. They look and see both didn’t have so many majors and discount them. Simply speaking they are ignorant.

It’s laughable that some players like Emerson are ranked ahead of both just before he had more classic majors. Now Emerson was an excellent player but he wasn’t on the level of Gonzalez or Kramer.

They were among the top few players of all time.

I agree.

DMP · Oct 1, 2018

KG1965 said:
"Gonzalez and Kramer are generally considered historically by experts as GOAT competitors". I do not agree on this point, pc.
I think that Vic Braden and a few other old and old experts consider the two old GOAT contenders champions but most of the experts (almost all Europeans) do not include Kramer & Gonzalez.

I agree on all the rest of the post.

The evaluation of the World Championship Tour leads to insert Kramer & Gonzalez in the right ranking, but it has never been done.

My feeling is that...
up to 70s:
- in the USA Kramer & Pancho were icons
- in Europe and in the rest of the world Kramer & Gonzalez are not known.

in 2018
- all over the world (USA, Europe and the rest of the world) Kramer & Gonzalez are not known.

Why are they not known? Because media and fans do not know WT.

I certainly think Gonzalez was well known in the UK. I can't speak for the rest of Europe.

KG1965 · Oct 1, 2018

DMP said:
I certainly think Gonzalez was well known in the UK. I can't speak for the rest of Europe.

Is Pancho considered among the top 5 (or 10) all time in the UK?
I'm very happy.

And Kramer?

pc1 · Oct 1, 2018

KG1965 said:
Is Pancho considered among the top 5 (or 10) all time in the UK?
I'm very happy.

And Kramer?

I still often the rankings depends on how far back we go and also publicity for the player. For example, while Laver deserving of all the publicity due to his two Grand Slams, the Grand Slams are what makes him stand out above all.

Gonzalez and Kramer (and many of the greats) played in the hidden world of the Old Pro Tour where their was little fanfare and very little coverage. Many records are lost if they were even kept at all. So who really knows the greatness of Kramer and Gonzalez? Very few.

The idea of counting majors hurts them also because they weren’t allowed to enter the majors for years.

Gonzalez couldn’t enter a major from 1950 to 1967! He was dominant for many of those years! Yet he still won strong tournaments when he was over age 40!

KG1965 · Oct 1, 2018

pc1 said:
I still often the rankings depends on how far back we go and also publicity for the player. For example, while Laver deserving of all the publicity due to his two Grand Slams, the Grand Slams are what makes him stand out above all.

Gonzalez and Kramer (and many of the greats) played in the hidden world of the Old Pro Tour where their was little fanfare and very little coverage. Many records are lost if they were even kept at all. So who really knows the greatness of Kramer and Gonzalez? Very few.

The idea of counting majors hurts them also because they weren’t allowed to enter the majors.

Gonzalez couldn’t enter a major from 1950 to 1967! He was dominant for many of those years! Yet he still won strong tournaments when he was over age 40!

This is the point. I expect some more comments on this point.

Phoenix1983 · Oct 1, 2018

KG1965 said:
Is Pancho considered among the top 5 (or 10) all time in the UK?
I'm very happy.

And Kramer?

Well, I'm British and I consider Pancho one of the top 5 all time.

Kramer is borderline top 10 IMHO.

DMP · Oct 3, 2018

KG1965 said:
Is Pancho considered among the top 5 (or 10) all time in the UK?
I'm very happy.

And Kramer?

Right now I doubt if either Gonzalez or Kramer are considered at all, in general, but that is because these days tennis has no-one writing or talking in the popular media who has any knowledge of tennis history. The best information about tennis history these days is right here, on this forum.

That is true everywhere I think. I was shocked when Kramer died how little publicity that got - one of the most important figures ever in the history of tennis. The same when Bueno died recently, although obviously not as important as Kramer she was a huge star when I was younger. It will happen too to Federer/Nadal/etc if they have long lives.

By the time they die they will have been forgotten by the general public. I know it will be hard for their fans on the main forum to believe, but that is how it goes.

I was referring to your comment that Gonzalez was not considered important outside the US in the period up to the 70s. I can definitely say that at least here in the UK in the late 50s and 60s when I started watching tennis Gonzalez was certainly known and respected as a great player here in the UK.

AnOctorokForDinner · Oct 3, 2018

DMP said:
It will happen too to Federer/Nadal/etc if they have long lives.
By the time they die they will have been forgotten by the general public. I know it will be hard for their fans on the main forum to believe, but that is how it goes.

Don't think so, in the same way it's not happening to Laver because the Grand Slam (aka CYGS these days not to be confused with "a Grand Slam") is a very respected concept to this day, and he repeated it in the Open era, which is important since pre-Open is terra incognita to the public.

Fedalovic accomplishments are easy to understand for the modern fan and they are marketed constantly. I'm sure that, decades from now, Federer will continue to be strongly associated with his 04-07 dominance (winning 11 of 12 non-clay majors!), Nadal with his clay kingship (to a lesser extent Wim 08 final, overhyped as it is), Djokovic with the NCYGS / 4 in a row.

Open era greats don't seem to be forgotten, really. Underrated, but still in memory, helped by most of them doing work in tennis (coaching or commentating).

DMP · Oct 3, 2018

AnOctorokForDinner said:
Don't think so, in the same way it's not happening to Laver because the Grand Slam (aka CYGS these days not to be confused with "a Grand Slam") is a very respected concept to this day, and he repeated it in the Open era, which is important since pre-Open is terra incognita to the public.

Fedalovic accomplishments are easy to understand for the modern fan and they are marketed constantly. I'm sure that, decades from now, Federer will continue to be strongly associated with his 04-07 dominance (winning 11 of 12 non-clay majors!), Nadal with his clay kingship (to a lesser extent Wim 08 final, overhyped as it is), Djokovic with the NCYGS / 4 in a row.

Open era greats don't seem to be forgotten, really. Underrated, but still in memory, helped by most of them doing work in tennis (coaching or commentating).

You might be correct, but I have my doubts. What seems a major accomplishment now will in 50 years be seen as ancient history, and the achievements of NOW (in 2068) will be seen as important, and Federer/Nadal as ancient history. Laver survives because he was lucky to just straddle the Open Era and his achievement has not yet been matched and is a useful weapon in fan wars. If ever it is equalled he will vanish in a puff of smoke, and all his other achievements - how many of them are well known?

AnOctorokForDinner · Oct 3, 2018

DMP said:
You might be correct, but I have my doubts. What seems a major accomplishment now will in 50 years be seen as ancient history, and the achievements of NOW (in 2068) will be seen as important, and Federer/Nadal as ancient history. Laver survives because he was lucky to just straddle the Open Era and his achievement has not yet been matched and is a useful weapon in fan wars. If ever it is equalled he will vanish in a puff of smoke, and all his other achievements - how many of them are well known?

Slam-related records will always be a big deal unless the tennis calendar ends up capitally reformed (unlikely imo, historical precedence is valued at least nominally). Federer will have the Wimbledon record, Nadal the RG record, Djokovic the AO record (assuming he wins more and Federer doesn't, which is the logical expectation), one of them will have the total record - that's enough to keep them relevant in any case. I think those records are big enough that they are more likely to last fifty years than not.

KG1965 · Oct 3, 2018

DMP said:
Right now I doubt if either Gonzalez or Kramer are considered at all, in general, but that is because these days tennis has no-one writing or talking in the popular media who has any knowledge of tennis history. The best information about tennis history these days is right here, on this forum.

That is true everywhere I think. I was shocked when Kramer died how little publicity that got - one of the most important figures ever in the history of tennis. The same when Bueno died recently, although obviously not as important as Kramer she was a huge star when I was younger. It will happen too to Federer/Nadal/etc if they have long lives.

By the time they die they will have been forgotten by the general public. I know it will be hard for their fans on the main forum to believe, but that is how it goes.

I was referring to your comment that Gonzalez was not considered important outside the US in the period up to the 70s. I can definitely say that at least here in the UK in the late 50s and 60s when I started watching tennis Gonzalez was certainly known and respected as a great player here in the UK.

I agree, nice post.
Only on the last line of Fedr I do not agree.

KG1965 · Oct 3, 2018

AnOctorokForDinner said:
Slam-related records will always be a big deal unless the tennis calendar ends up capitally reformed (unlikely imo, historical precedence is valued at least nominally). Federer will have the Wimbledon record, Nadal the RG record, Djokovic the AO record (assuming he wins more and Federer doesn't, which is the logical expectation), one of them will have the total record - that's enough to keep them relevant in any case. I think those records are big enough that they are more likely to last fifty years than not.

I agree, it is very difficult to make a revolution that ends slams (as was the case for competitions such as World Tour, Pro majors, Pro Tour, WCT).
I hope it does not happen. So Fed Nad and Nole have obviously been advantaged compared to the old ones. And this IMO must be considered. Always.
I do not want to argue that Fedalovic was lucky, but that the old ones were unlucky ... in the end they were advantaged.

urban · Oct 3, 2018

I also see, that in the future things will even change much faster than today, and that it could well be - in say 50 years from now -, that players like Federer, Djokovic or Nadal will be largely forgotten. Some will probably say: Ok, there once was a threesome of some old hackers, who had good records at that time, but the new generation of bigger, faster, more athletic players with their hybrid, astrophysical tested material, would take them to the cleaners. Or maybe tennis will be longer a second rate sport like it is today, compared to soccer and other sports, but a minor sport among multiple others. Look how fast that horrible cage fight circus had overwhelmed that good old sport of boxing with its ancient roots.

The french philosopher Paul Virilio describes speed as the main theme of the modern times, and the trend to forget things will be even faster in the future. Look what happened to Sampras, just 10 years ago, many if not most hailed him as the best ever, and now he has difficulty to be even ranked in the top tier of 5 or 6 top players. His best record, the 6 years at Nr. 1 at years end, was never the most popular record, and nobody is talking about it. And in reality, his record, game and style is still the same, as it was 10 years ago. So the perspective, predisposition and parameters of people, who will do the evaluation, can change dramatically within a short time. And what changes will generate 50 years?.

xFedal · Oct 3, 2018

urban said:
I also see, that in the future things will even change much faster than today, and that it could well be - in say 50 years from now -, that players like Federer, Djokovic or Nadal will be largely forgotten. Some will probably say: Ok, there once was a threesome of some old hackers, who had good records at that time, but the new generation of bigger, faster, more athletic players with their hybrid, astrophysical tested material, would take them to the cleaners. Or maybe tennis will be longer a second rate sport like it is today, compared to soccer and other sports, but a minor sport among multiple others. Look how fast that horrible cage fight circus had overwhelmed that good old sport of boxing with its ancient roots.

The french philosopher Paul Virilio describes speed as the main theme of the modern times, and the trend to forget things will be even faster in the future. Look what happened to Sampras, just 10 years ago, many if not most hailed him as the best ever, and now he has difficulty to be even ranked in the top tier of 5 or 6 top players. His best record, the 6 years at Nr. 1 at years end, was never the most popular record, and nobody is talking about it. And in reality, his record, game and style is still the same, as it was 10 years ago. So the perspective, predisposition and parameters of people, who will do the evaluation, can change dramatically within a short time. And what changes will generate 50 years?.

The big 3 won't be forgotten the same way as the players of the past because they weren't banned from the biggest events....

pc1 · Oct 3, 2018

urban said:
I also see, that in the future things will even change much faster than today, and that it could well be - in say 50 years from now -, that players like Federer, Djokovic or Nadal will be largely forgotten. Some will probably say: Ok, there once was a threesome of some old hackers, who had good records at that time, but the new generation of bigger, faster, more athletic players with their hybrid, astrophysical tested material, would take them to the cleaners. Or maybe tennis will be longer a second rate sport like it is today, compared to soccer and other sports, but a minor sport among multiple others. Look how fast that horrible cage fight circus had overwhelmed that good old sport of boxing with its ancient roots.

The french philosopher Paul Virilio describes speed as the main theme of the modern times, and the trend to forget things will be even faster in the future. Look what happened to Sampras, just 10 years ago, many if not most hailed him as the best ever, and now he has difficulty to be even ranked in the top tier of 5 or 6 top players. His best record, the 6 years at Nr. 1 at years end, was never the most popular record, and nobody is talking about it. And in reality, his record, game and style is still the same, as it was 10 years ago. So the perspective, predisposition and parameters of people, who will do the evaluation, can change dramatically within a short time. And what changes will generate 50 years?.

I never really even considered that Sampras was number one all time when he was playing. It was so ridiculous that even though he was a great player that he was called the GOAT. He just plain lost too much!

The record that he had of 14 was I thought at the time extremely vulnerable because of the Open Environment in which the top players basically now HAVE to play all the majors where in the past they didn't have to nor often did they even care about some majors. Sampras won 14 majors which was excellent but I thought under normal circumstances and by that I mean that tennis would have had an Open Era all the time that the record would have been in the 20s like it is now currently with the women. Wills for example was just awesome in majors in winning 19 of 24. How would she have done if there was decent airplane travel in her time? I think Tilden could have set some unbelievable records considering how dominant he was at his best. I would fully expect more and more players to pass the number 14 in majors in the future.

The important record that Sampras has is his years at number one. Six years at number one is superb.

Tilden for example didn't often bother to go overseas to compete in majors. Let them come and challenge him was his mindset. Others didn't want to take the weeks ago trip overseas by boat in those days. The Australian was often skipped by top players like Borg and other majors were often boycotted.

KG1965 · Oct 4, 2018

ROD LAVER

46 ATP

6 SPECIAL EVENTS

14 PROFESSIONALS

5 NTL
3 INDEPENDENT
--------------------------------
74 OE

+ 54 AMATEURS
+ 72 PRO

-------------------------------
200

PANCHO GONZALEZ
11 OE
+ 17 AMATEURS
+ 85 PRO

-------------------------------
113

+ 8 WORLD TOURS
+ 1 SOUTH AFRICAN TOUR
+ 2 AUSTRALIAN TOURS

KG1965 · Oct 4, 2018

KG1965 said:
ROD LAVER

46 ATP
6 SPECIAL EVENTS
14 PROFESSIONALS
5 NTL
3 INDEPENDENT
--------------------------------
74 OE

+ 54 AMATEURS
+ 72 PRO
-------------------------------
200

PANCHO GONZALEZ
11 OE
+ 17 AMATEURS
+ 85 PRO
-------------------------------
113

+ 8 WORLD TOURS
+ 1 SOUTH AFRICAN TOUR
+ 2 AUSTRALIAN TOURS

To try to identify the greatness of Pancho I leave (as I did a while ago for Rosewall & Laver) from the numbers.
I have available and I rely on Wikipedia.
1) I do not count the tournaments amateurs (even the 2 slam won that for me not they count ... like those of the two aussies, ... as I have always written it does not even count Laver's GS).
2) as for me only the "Big titles" count (as now slam, Masters 100 and ATP Finals) to understand which of the tournaments that Pancho won are to be considered "Big titles".

KG1965 · Oct 4, 2018

In Open Era, I think Big Titles are

the 2 successes at Las Vegas (Howard Hughes) ... 1000 points
and the two at PSW (Los Angeles)... 1400 points.

I'm not sure of the two tournaments won in Midland and Los Angeles (organized by NTL). But I would tend to include them.

There are 4 therefore sun a total of 11 wins in OE.

KG1965 · Oct 4, 2018

PANCHO PRO ERA

14 (1500 Points):
4 Wembley
8 US Pro
2 Tournament of Ch.

12 (1000 Points):
3 Sydney
2 Scarborough
3 Los Angeles
1 Madison Square Garden
2 US Pro Hard
1 US Pro indoor

18 (750 Points)
1 Buenos Aires
2 Ostenda
1 Hamolton
1 Quebec
1 Toronto
1 Berlin
1 Dallas
1 Charlottesville
1 Chicago
1 Orlando
1 Seattle
1 Hollywood
1 Cleveland
2 Philadelphia
1 Geneve

KG1965 · Oct 4, 2018

KG1965 said:
ROD LAVER

46 ATP
6 SPECIAL EVENTS
14 PROFESSIONALS
5 NTL
3 INDEPENDENT
--------------------------------
74 OE

+ 54 AMATEURS
+ 72 PRO
-------------------------------
200

PANCHO GONZALEZ
11 OE
+ 17 AMATEURS
+ 85 PRO
-------------------------------
113

+ 8 WORLD TOURS
+ 1 SOUTH AFRICAN TOUR
+ 2 AUSTRALIAN TOURS

OE: 74-11
AMATEURS 54-17
PRO: 72-85
TOURS: 0-11

In a very simplistic way it can be said that the Pro tournaments career of both was exceptional and very similar in the results.
in Pro Era Laver clearly of another category because Pancho was too old.
The big difference is the Tours that Pancho dominated while when Laver arrived in the Pro Circuit the Tours were in fact gone.

urban · Oct 4, 2018

Agree for most parts, that in the 1960s the pro played more a tournament circuit, which make the comparison with the World Series of the 1950s difficult. But still Laver did win several tours, he won the world wide tournament tour at least in 1965, 1966 and 1967, and a lot of smaller hth tours, for instance in Britain in 1965 (15-0 match score), Italy 1963 and 1965 and a European spring tour in 1966, and maybe a French tour in 1967.

KG1965 · Oct 4, 2018

urban said:
Agree for most parts, that in the 1960s the pro played more a tournament circuit, which make the comparison with the World Series of the 1950s difficult. But still Laver did win several tours, he won the world wide tournament tour at least in 1965, 1966 and 1967, and a lot of smaller hth tours, for instance in Britain in 1965 (15-0 match score), Italy 1963 and 1965 and a European spring tour in 1966, and maybe a French tour in 1967.

urban, I have to make two clarifications:
1) my approach here is very soft (like walking on eggs) and very tight;
2) I am not aware of many things of that period, certainly not the Laver tours that you show me.

KG1965 · Oct 5, 2018

ROD LAVER

PRO ERA

1500 Points:
9 titles: 4 Wembley, 1 French Pro, 3 US Pro, 1 Wimbledon Pro

1000 Points:
9 titles: 2 US Pro Indoor, 1 Los Angeles, 1 Madison Square Garden, 1 Paris, 4 Johannesburg

750 Points:
37 titles: 1 San Diego, 1 San Raphael, 1 Miami, 1 Brisbane, 3 Salisbury, 1 San Juan Puerto Rico, 1 Monterey, 1 Montreal, 1 Nairobi,
1 Durban, 2 Newport, 2 Melbourne, 3 Perth, 3 Cape Town, 1 Oklahoma City, 1 Oporto, 1 Orlando, 2 Binghampton, 1 Boston, 1 Forth Worth
1 Dutch, 1 Port Elisabeth, 1 Forest Hills, 1 Geneva, 1 Kitzbuhel, 1 Buenos Aires, 1 Adelaide, 1 Lake Tahoe.

OPEN ERA

5 Slam
2 Tennis Champions Classic

1400 Points
8 titles: 2 Pacific Southwest,4 US Pro Indoor, Dunlop Open, French Pro

1250 Points
1 title: Italian Open

1000 Points
7 titles: Canada Open, Las Vegas, US Pro, 2 Madison Square Garden Pro, 2 Wembley

750 Points
7 titles: 2 South African Open, Queens Club, 3 Hilton Head, 1 Pacific Coast - Berkeley

PANCHO GONZALEZ

PRO ERA

1500 Points:
14 titles: 4 Wembley, 8 US Pro, 2 Tournament of Ch.

1000 Points:
12 titles: 3 Sydney, 2 Scarborough, 3 Los Angeles, 1 Madison Square Garden, 2 US Pro Hard, 1 US Pro indoor

750 Points:
18 titles

OPEN ERA

1400 Points
2 titles: 2 PSW

1000 Points
2 titles: 2 Las Vegas,

KG1965 · Oct 5, 2018

ROD LAVER

PRO ERA

9 titles (1500 Points)
9 titles (1000 Points)
37 titles (750 points)

OPEN ERA

5 Slam
2 Tennis Champions Classic
8 titles (1400 Points)
1 title (1250 Points)
7 titles (1000 Points)
7 titles (750 Points)

PANCHO GONZALEZ

PRO ERA

14 titles (1500 Points)
12 titles (1000 Points)
18 titles (750 Points)

OPEN ERA
2 titles (1400 Points)
2 titles (1000 Points)

KG1965 · Oct 5, 2018

The comparison in Pro Era is very high level.

The two are very close, with Pancho that seems to prevail little.
Laver has won many Pro tournaments of lower level but that I consider Master 750 not knowing how to difference a Master 500 equivalent or Master 1000 equivalent.

In Open Era Laver still proves a monster, Gonzalez is too far over the hill but wins 4 super tournaments.

Overall Laver prevails.

But this is only the part dedicated to tournaments.
In the Tours Gonzalez is unapproachable.

To know who was the best of the two is forced to understand how much are worth his World Tours: are worth < slam? Or =? Or >?

KG1965 · Oct 5, 2018

PANCHO TOURS

1951 - Australian Pro Tour 36-6 (Pails, Parker, Budge)

1954 - World Pro Tour

Pancho Gonzales defeated to Pancho Segura 30–21 (or 20)
Pancho Gonzales defeated to Frank Sedgman 30–21 (or 20)
Pancho Gonzales defeated to Don Budge score ?

1954 Australian Pro Tour (Sedgman, Segura, McGregor)... score ?
1955 December 9 –1956 June 3 - World Pro Tour 74–27 v Trabert
1956 South African Tour 9–4 (Sedgman, Trabert, Hartwig)
1957 World Pro Tour 50–26 v Rosewall
1958 World Pro Tour 51–36 v Hoad
1959 World Pro Tour 47–15 (Hoad, Cooper, Anderson)
1960 World Pro Tour 49–8 (Rosewall, Segura, Olmedo)
1960 December -1961 World Pro Tour RR 33-14 + Finals 21-7 (Gimeno, Hoad, MacKay, Olmedo, Bucholtz, Sedgman)

KG1965 · Oct 5, 2018

KG1965 said:
PANCHO TOURS

1951 - Australian Pro Tour 36-6 (Pails, Parker, Budge)

1954 - World Pro Tour

Pancho Gonzales defeated to Pancho Segura 30–21 (or 20)

Pancho Gonzales defeated to Frank Sedgman 30–21 (or 20)

Pancho Gonzales defeated to Don Budge score ?

1954 Australian Pro Tour (Sedgman, Segura, McGregor)... score ?
1955 December 9 –1956 June 3 - World Pro Tour 74–27 v Trabert
1956 South African Tour 9–4 (Sedgman, Trabert, Hartwig)
1957 World Pro Tour 50–26 v Rosewall
1958 World Pro Tour 51–36 v Hoad
1959 World Pro Tour 47–15 (Hoad, Cooper, Anderson)
1960 World Pro Tour 49–8 (Rosewall, Segura, Olmedo)
1960 December -1961 World Pro Tour RR 33-14 + Finals 21-7 (Gimeno, Hoad, MacKay, Olmedo, Bucholtz, Sedgman)

I do not know the historical period but I am reminded of some considerations:
1) Worlds Tour seems to me the most important event of those years, much more than the other Pro tournaments even those that are called majors.
2) some tours seem little relevant (.. Australian 1951)
3) Gonzalez dominates since 1955, when Jack Kramer is gone

, ..
4) the feeling is that Kramer was stronger than Pancho.

5) I do not I know who wins the Tours of early 50s but I think Kramer and Segura.

KG1965 · Oct 6, 2018

Some ideas

1) if the World Tours are excluded .. Laver >
2) if the World Tours are included ... Pancho is very close to Laver, and it depends what value to assign to World Tours
3) Gonzalez has had many problems with only two players: Kramer (in the early years) and Hoad (in 1958 but then Hoad got injured)
4) my feeling is that Kramer was > Gonzalez and he could not prove it for career interruption

5) The amazing thing IMO is that Gonzalez could also be the GOAT (for the achievements ... even if it has only 2 slam amateurs) but Kramer and Hoad (at the peak) were probably stronger.

urban · Oct 6, 2018

Appreciate Your efforts, KG. Not that i agree with everything, for instance some tourneys like Forest Hills 1966 were fare more than 750 points affairs. Also we don't agree about the amateur parts of the respective careers. No problem for me.
For evaluation of those top pro players, we can rely now also on match records. Thanks to the fantastic work of No Mercy, Krosero, Scott Tennis, Andrew Tas and Tennis Base we have now better match records of those top pros, albeit certainly not complete records. You can find reords in the threads "Gonzalez stats" and "Structure of the old pro tour". Per Tennis Base, Kramer has overall 678-288, Gonzalez, 1250-561, Rosewall 1655-627, Laver 1473-407, maybe these numbers have already changed. I think, we cannot directly compare this figures, because the different time frames, spent in amateur tennis, pro tennis and open tennis, and because of the diffferences in between the pro tour itself. But its safe to say, that Kramers playing time was considerable shorter than those of the others, that Gonzalez took some resting periods (we have less matches for him than for Rosewall and Laver), given his ultra long career, that Rosewall played the most matches of the top pros, and Laver had a rock solid, pretty high average record over all those years.
One remark on the Kramer-Gonzalez hth: Overall it stands at around 40-100 in favour of Kramer, but its a bit misleading, because Kramer built a unassailable lead in the first World Series of 1949/50. In the years afterwards Gonzalez had - as far as i know - a more than even hth figure with Kramer, some even said, he had the "Indian Sign" over Kramer.

KG1965 · Oct 6, 2018

urban said:
Appreciate Your efforts, KG. Not that i agree with everything, for instance some tourneys like Forest Hills 1966 were fare more than 750 points affairs. Also we don't agree about the amateur parts of the respective careers. No problem for me.
For evaluation of those top pro players, we can rely now also on match records. Thanks to the fantastic work of No Mercy, Krosero, Scott Tennis, Andrew Tas and Tennis Base we have now better match records of those top pros, albeit certainly not complete records. You can find reords in the threads "Gonzalez stats" and "Structure of the old pro tour". Per Tennis Base, Kramer has overall 678-288, Gonzalez, 1250-561, Rosewall 1655-627, Laver 1473-407, maybe these numbers have already changed. I think, we cannot directly compare this figures, because the different time frames, spent in amateur tennis, pro tennis and open tennis, and because of the diffferences in between the pro tour itself. But its safe to say, that Kramers playing time was considerable shorter than those of the others, that Gonzalez took some resting periods (we have less matches for him than for Rosewall and Laver), given his ultra long career, that Rosewall played the most matches of the top pros, and Laver had a rock solid, pretty high average record over all those years.
One remark on the Kramer-Gonzalez hth: Overall it stands at around 40-100 in favour of Kramer, but its a bit misleading, because Kramer built a unassailable lead in the first World Series of 1949/50. In the years afterwards Gonzalez had - as far as i know - a more than even hth figure with Kramer, some even said, he had the "Indian Sign" over Kramer.

I have not lived those periods (as instead from half 70s onwards) so I presume that the errors of evaluation are so many. On Forest Hills in 1966 cost more than 750 points, I inform myself and if I underestimated I will change, thanks.

On the amateur parts of the respective careers we are divergent even though I think you can have many reasons, especially in the years of Laver the amateurs had approached the pros.

Thanks also for the inputs on "Gonzalez stats" and "Structure of the old pro tour" and on the Base Tennis numbers (Kramer has a total of 678-288, Gonzalez, 1250-561, Rosewall 1655-627, Laver 1473-407) and 40-100 in favor of Kramer a little misleading, because Kramer took advantage of a young Pancho.

thrust · Oct 11, 2018

pc1 said:
I never really even considered that Sampras was number one all time when he was playing. It was so ridiculous that even though he was a great player that he was called the GOAT. He just plain lost too much!

The record that he had of 14 was I thought at the time extremely vulnerable because of the Open Environment in which the top players basically now HAVE to play all the majors where in the past they didn't have to nor often did they even care about some majors. Sampras won 14 majors which was excellent but I thought under normal circumstances and by that I mean that tennis would have had an Open Era all the time that the record would have been in the 20s like it is now currently with the women. Wills for example was just awesome in majors in winning 19 of 24. How would she have done if there was decent airplane travel in her time? I think Tilden could have set some unbelievable records considering how dominant he was at his best. I would fully expect more and more players to pass the number 14 in majors in the future.

The important record that Sampras has is his years at number one. Six years at number one is superb.

Tilden for example didn't often bother to go overseas to compete in majors. Let them come and challenge him was his mindset. Others didn't want to take the weeks ago trip overseas by boat in those days. The Australian was often skipped by top players like Borg and other majors were often boycotted.

Perhaps I am misreading you, but Sampras did play in an era when all the top players, not injured or sick, competed in the Majors/Slams. Therefore, his 14 slam count is legitimate. In the end, things are what they are, so to make up hypotheticals or injury excuses is silly and unfair. If a player competes with serious injures, then he is a fool. Players very rarely do that. As for the pro world tours, they were never considered Pro Majors or tournaments.

Dan Lobb · Oct 11, 2018

thrust said:
Perhaps I am misreading you, but Sampras did play in an era when all the top players, not injured or sick, competed in the Majors/Slams. Therefore, his 14 slam count is legitimate. In the end, things are what they are, so to make up hypotheticals or injury excuses is silly and unfair. If a player competes with serious injures, then he is a fool. Players very rarely do that. As for the pro world tours, they were never considered Pro Majors or tournaments.

The Pro Majors were rarely considered Pro Majors, either.

I could agree that those pro tournaments clearly touted as world championships should be given a "major" status, but that is only a handful of old pro tournaments.

If you were to choose two or three "important" pro tournaments per year, that would make more sense.

To use injury excuses is "silly and unfair"? You seemed to suggest something else earlier, when you brought up Rosewall's hidden virus injury for his losses at the 1959 Roland Garros Pro, and his loss in the 1967 Wimbledon Pro final.

I guess only Rosewall is allowed to use injury as an excuse? That sounds "silly and unfair" to me.

Ivan69 · Oct 15, 2018

KG1965 said:
ROD LAVER

46 ATP
6 SPECIAL EVENTS
14 PROFESSIONALS
5 NTL
3 INDEPENDENT
--------------------------------
74 OE

+ 54 AMATEURS
+ 72 PRO
-------------------------------
200

PANCHO GONZALEZ
11 OE
+ 17 AMATEURS
+ 85 PRO
-------------------------------
113

+ 8 WORLD TOURS
+ 1 SOUTH AFRICAN TOUR
+ 2 AUSTRALIAN TOURS

KG, looking at the figures I suppose they are wiki figures. Till know I haven't looked at the Laver and Pancho wikipages but now I have to admit it is a total mess especially in Pancho page. I haven't checked the whole page but very briefly I saw very strange things in 1954. The so called "championships", i.e. tournaments are matches from the WS mentioned below as World tour. Other mistakes also there.
The figures for Pancho:
20 amat
72 pro
11 open
==========
103 tournament titles
+7 or 8 WS (1961 debatable if 2 world tours should be counted or 1)
+4 other tours

Laver's page is also wrong.
The correct figures:
52 amat
84 pro
74 open
==========
210 tournament titles
+1 tour

I am available for comments.

KG1965 · Oct 16, 2018

Ivan69 said:
KG, looking at the figures I suppose they are wiki figures. Till know I haven't looked at the Laver and Pancho wikipages but now I have to admit it is a total mess especially in Pancho page. I haven't checked the whole page but very briefly I saw very strange things in 1954. The so called "championships", i.e. tournaments are matches from the WS mentioned below as World tour. Other mistakes also there.
The figures for Pancho:
20 amat
72 pro
11 open
==========
103 tournament titles
+7 or 8 WS (1961 debatable if 2 world tours should be counted or 1)
+4 other tours

Laver's page is also wrong.
The correct figures:
52 amat
84 pro
74 open
==========
210 tournament titles
+1 tour

I am available for comments.

Ivan, yes, my data are taken from Wiki.

I can imagine that are wrong but I have the feeling that my data not a disaster.

If you think that are wrong I would be grateful to detect errors in this thread.

And then if you want to try to comment.

Ivan69 · Oct 16, 2018

KG1965 said:
Ivan, yes, my data are taken from Wiki.

I can imagine that are wrong but I have the feeling that I am not a disaster.

If you think that are wrong I would be grateful to detect errors in this thread.

And then if you want to try to comment.

I know. I haven't said it's your fault. Of course it's not. I will write later.

King No1e · Oct 17, 2018

According to this article Pancho is GOAT
Pancho Gonzales won 2 traditional Slams
Murray won 3
MuryGOAT confirmed

thrust · Oct 20, 2018

King No1e said:
According to this article Pancho is GOAT
Pancho Gonzales won 2 traditional Slams
Murray won 3
MuryGOAT confirmed

Rosewall: 16 Pro Majors, which include 68 Wembley
4 Amateur Majors
4 OE slams, 4 other finals, after turning 33
2 WCT finals over Laver, age 37, 37.8
2 Sam finals, age 39.8 and 39.10

King No1e · Oct 20, 2018

thrust said:
Rosewall: 16 Pro Majors, which include 68 Wembley
4 Amateur Majors
4 OE slams, 4 other finals, after turning 33
2 WCT finals over Laver, age 37, 37.8
2 Sam finals, age 39.8 and 39.10

This is why Rosewall is #4 on the Open Era GOAT list (Laver and Rosewall qualify for the spot because they won Slams in the OE, unlike Gonzales)

KG1965 · Oct 20, 2018

King No1e said:
This is why Rosewall is #4 on the Open Era GOAT list (Laver and Rosewall qualify for the spot because they won Slams in the OE, unlike Gonzales)

King No1e · Oct 20, 2018

KG1965 said:

Who really is better than him except Fed, Laver, Djoker, and maybe Rafa?

thrust · Oct 20, 2018

urban said:
Appreciate Your efforts, KG. Not that i agree with everything, for instance some tourneys like Forest Hills 1966 were fare more than 750 points affairs. Also we don't agree about the amateur parts of the respective careers. No problem for me.
For evaluation of those top pro players, we can rely now also on match records. Thanks to the fantastic work of No Mercy, Krosero, Scott Tennis, Andrew Tas and Tennis Base we have now better match records of those top pros, albeit certainly not complete records. You can find reords in the threads "Gonzalez stats" and "Structure of the old pro tour". Per Tennis Base, Kramer has overall 678-288, Gonzalez, 1250-561, Rosewall 1655-627, Laver 1473-407, maybe these numbers have already changed. I think, we cannot directly compare this figures, because the different time frames, spent in amateur tennis, pro tennis and open tennis, and because of the diffferences in between the pro tour itself. But its safe to say, that Kramers playing time was considerable shorter than those of the others, that Gonzalez took some resting periods (we have less matches for him than for Rosewall and Laver), given his ultra long career, that Rosewall played the most matches of the top pros, and Laver had a rock solid, pretty high average record over all those years.
One remark on the Kramer-Gonzalez hth: Overall it stands at around 40-100 in favour of Kramer, but its a bit misleading, because Kramer built a unassailable lead in the first World Series of 1949/50. In the years afterwards Gonzalez had - as far as i know - a more than even hth figure with Kramer, some even said, he had the "Indian Sign" over Kramer.

Interesting stats, overall. Like you say Gonzalez had huge rookie tour wins over Rosewall, and to a slightly lesser extent over Hoad, primarily due to the rookies not being used to the indoor game at their beginning. The same is true with Kramer, killing Pancho on their initial tour. Hoad and Rosewall both dominated Laver in his rookie year but they did not play as many matches as Gonzalez did against his rookies. Also, Laver was 5-9 or 10 and had a huge powerful left arm, similar to Popeye, so was very powerful off the ground, on serve and overhead. He also was a great mover on court. It was Rosewall who was 5-7, and had limited muscle power, despite being called "Muscles"-LOL! I suppose one could say that Gonzalez and Laver were both a bit lucky, not having to play each other at their mutual peak, which I think would have been very close. Also, I don't think Kramer's peak competition was as strong as Rosewall and Laver's was in the early, mid and late sixties, nor was Pancho's in the early-mid fifties. As for Kramer telling Pancho to take it easy on Ken a the beginning of Ken's rookie tour, that did not if ever, last long as Pancho realized Ken was not going to be a push over off the indoor courts.

KG1965 · Oct 20, 2018

King No1e said:
Who really is better than him except Fed, Laver, Djoker, and maybe Rafa?

Djoker (14 slam) > Pancho (2 slam)?

Pancho Gonzales-better than Laver?

G.O.A.T.

G.O.A.T.

Legend

G.O.A.T.

G.O.A.T.

G.O.A.T.

Legend

G.O.A.T.

Legend

Professional

Legend

G.O.A.T.

Legend

G.O.A.T.

Professional

Talk Tennis Guru

Professional

Talk Tennis Guru

Legend

Legend

Legend

Legend

G.O.A.T.

Legend

Legend

Legend

Legend

Legend

Legend

Legend

Legend

Legend

Legend

Legend

Legend

Legend

Legend

Legend

Legend

G.O.A.T.

Hall of Fame

Legend

Hall of Fame

G.O.A.T.

Legend

G.O.A.T.

Legend

G.O.A.T.

Legend

Legend

Similar threads