[GOAT] Which kind of domination?

Discussion in 'Former Pro Player Talk' started by Nickognito, Nov 19, 2007.

  1. hoodjem

    hoodjem G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2007
    Messages:
    14,641
    Location:
    Bierlandt
    I do wonder if we can come up with a grand total of slam equivalents for Gonzales?
     
    Last edited: Sep 28, 2013
  2. xFedal

    xFedal Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2014
    Messages:
    4,754
    I am also interested in Gonzales slam count.
     
  3. pc1

    pc1 G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2008
    Messages:
    15,755
    Location:
    Space/Time continuum alternative reality
    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.
     
  4. Dan Lobb

    Dan Lobb Legend

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2011
    Messages:
    6,967
    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: Oct 11, 2015
  5. hoodjem

    hoodjem G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2007
    Messages:
    14,641
    Location:
    Bierlandt
    I remember this, thinking it was very interesting indeed.

    Provoking thought and consideration.
     
  6. thrust

    thrust Professional

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2016
    Messages:
    1,292
    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.
     
    BobbyOne likes this.
  7. Dan Lobb

    Dan Lobb Legend

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2011
    Messages:
    6,967
    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.
     
    Last edited: Oct 12, 2017
    Limpinhitter and treblings like this.
  8. treblings

    treblings Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Mar 24, 2008
    Messages:
    3,364
    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?
     
  9. Limpinhitter

    Limpinhitter G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2010
    Messages:
    15,607
    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: Oct 12, 2017
    Dan Lobb likes this.
  10. Limpinhitter

    Limpinhitter G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2010
    Messages:
    15,607
    Nick expresses ideas largely (and unfortunarely), missing from more recent GOAT debates.
     
  11. Dan Lobb

    Dan Lobb Legend

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2011
    Messages:
    6,967
    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: Oct 12, 2017
  12. BobbyOne

    BobbyOne G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2012
    Messages:
    14,451
    Dan Lobb, Again three wrong claims!

    1962 US Pro: 6 players. 1963 Cleveland: Not a major. 1964 Challenge: not a major. Get serious!
     
  13. BobbyOne

    BobbyOne G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2012
    Messages:
    14,451
    treblings: Lobb gave wrong information in all three cases.
     
    krosero and treblings like this.
  14. BobbyOne

    BobbyOne G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2012
    Messages:
    14,451
    Lobb, Again wrong conclusion!
     
  15. Dan Lobb

    Dan Lobb Legend

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2011
    Messages:
    6,967
    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: Oct 12, 2017
  16. thrust

    thrust Professional

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2016
    Messages:
    1,292
    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.
     
    BobbyOne and Dan Lobb like this.
  17. treblings

    treblings Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Mar 24, 2008
    Messages:
    3,364
    if you or @NoMercy want to call that significant match in South Africa in 64 a "tournament" i don´t mind, though i disagree.
    i don´t think anybody in his right mind might call it a "major pro championship"
     
    BobbyOne and NatF like this.
  18. treblings

    treblings Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Mar 24, 2008
    Messages:
    3,364
    i know
     
    BobbyOne likes this.
  19. Dan Lobb

    Dan Lobb Legend

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2011
    Messages:
    6,967
    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".
     
  20. Dan Lobb

    Dan Lobb Legend

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2011
    Messages:
    6,967
    I understood that Krosero regarded it as a major event.
    That is what I gather from his posts...if he disagrees with that, fine.
     
  21. BobbyOne

    BobbyOne G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2012
    Messages:
    14,451
    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!
     
    krosero likes this.
  22. Dan Lobb

    Dan Lobb Legend

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2011
    Messages:
    6,967
    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.
     
  23. treblings

    treblings Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Mar 24, 2008
    Messages:
    3,364
    No reason to bring @krosero into this. There's a difference between being a major event and being a major pro tournament
     
  24. Dan Lobb

    Dan Lobb Legend

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2011
    Messages:
    6,967
    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.
     
  25. treblings

    treblings Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Mar 24, 2008
    Messages:
    3,364
    What you call failing to qualify is normally called losing in the first round ;)
     
    krosero and NoMercy like this.
  26. NoMercy

    NoMercy Professional

    Joined:
    Sep 17, 2017
    Messages:
    1,251
    It was not a tournament.
    I never said that
     
    krosero, BobbyOne and treblings like this.
  27. NoMercy

    NoMercy Professional

    Joined:
    Sep 17, 2017
    Messages:
    1,251
    Correct
     
    BobbyOne likes this.
  28. Dan Lobb

    Dan Lobb Legend

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2011
    Messages:
    6,967
    You found the press coverage referring to just about any pro match as a "tournament" unlike today's usage of the term.
     
  29. Dan Lobb

    Dan Lobb Legend

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2011
    Messages:
    6,967
    No, it's called a qualifying round, with not all players involved.

    NOT a main draw.

    The main draws had 4 players.
     
  30. NoMercy

    NoMercy Professional

    Joined:
    Sep 17, 2017
    Messages:
    1,251
    So??
    I found also articles where the games were called matches.
    It was just a different way of expression.
     
    BobbyOne and treblings like this.
  31. Dan Lobb

    Dan Lobb Legend

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2011
    Messages:
    6,967
    That is the point, it was how they used the terms then.
     
  32. NoMercy

    NoMercy Professional

    Joined:
    Sep 17, 2017
    Messages:
    1,251
    But they were not tournaments.
    You can use the meaning of "day of competition".
     
    BobbyOne likes this.
  33. NoMercy

    NoMercy Professional

    Joined:
    Sep 17, 2017
    Messages:
    1,251
    Haha.
    They were draw6 tournaments.
    Like the super big event in Sydney 1958.
    Same format (just a weaker field)
     
    BobbyOne and treblings like this.
  34. NoMercy

    NoMercy Professional

    Joined:
    Sep 17, 2017
    Messages:
    1,251
    Oh, about Cleveland.
    It was televised too ;)
     
    BobbyOne likes this.
  35. Dan Lobb

    Dan Lobb Legend

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2011
    Messages:
    6,967
    They were tournaments in the parlance of the time.
     
  36. Dan Lobb

    Dan Lobb Legend

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2011
    Messages:
    6,967
    Locally?
     
  37. Dan Lobb

    Dan Lobb Legend

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2011
    Messages:
    6,967
    Main draw was 4-man.
     
  38. NoMercy

    NoMercy Professional

    Joined:
    Sep 17, 2017
    Messages:
    1,251
    Main draw was 6.
    3 days of playing, no qualifications rounds.
     
    treblings and BobbyOne like this.
  39. NoMercy

    NoMercy Professional

    Joined:
    Sep 17, 2017
    Messages:
    1,251
    On KYW TV.
    Recap on first two days,
    Both men's and women's finals televised.
    Don Budge and Jim Graner at the commentary.
     
    BobbyOne and treblings like this.
  40. BobbyOne

    BobbyOne G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2012
    Messages:
    14,451
    Stop your wrong claims! Please!

    Lobb, You are a first class troll. Even krosero has realized it recently (who defended you earlier).
     
  41. Dan Lobb

    Dan Lobb Legend

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2011
    Messages:
    6,967
    Two rounds, four players in the main draw...and a qualification round with only four players, not six.
    Not hard to count...
     
  42. Dan Lobb

    Dan Lobb Legend

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2011
    Messages:
    6,967
    KYW TV? Out of New York, right? No?
    Like this was a local Cleveland station?
    Not national, right?
    The key word is LOCAL.
     
  43. NoMercy

    NoMercy Professional

    Joined:
    Sep 17, 2017
    Messages:
    1,251
    The key word is televised.
    Something very common in those days in pro tournaments
     
  44. NoMercy

    NoMercy Professional

    Joined:
    Sep 17, 2017
    Messages:
    1,251
    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.....
     
    krosero, BobbyOne and treblings like this.
  45. Dan Lobb

    Dan Lobb Legend

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2011
    Messages:
    6,967
    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: Oct 17, 2017
  46. Dan Lobb

    Dan Lobb Legend

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2011
    Messages:
    6,967
    The main draw was obviously 4 players.
     
  47. NoMercy

    NoMercy Professional

    Joined:
    Sep 17, 2017
    Messages:
    1,251
    So I guess Sydney 1958 was the same, right?
     
  48. BobbyOne

    BobbyOne G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2012
    Messages:
    14,451
    NoMercy, For Dan (a troll) will never be anything clear as he has proved for years week after week...
     
  49. Dan Lobb

    Dan Lobb Legend

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2011
    Messages:
    6,967
    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.
     
  50. Dan Lobb

    Dan Lobb Legend

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2011
    Messages:
    6,967
    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.
     

Share This Page