Pancho Gonzales-better than Laver?

[King No1e]

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

I'm talking about Rosewall. Also attempting to evaluate Pancho based on his Slams is like evaluating Federer based on his RG record

 

[xFedal]

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

Pancho>Fed>Laver>Nadal>Pete>Nole>Rosewall.

 

[King No1e]

Pancho>Fed>Laver>Nadal>Pete>Nole>Rosewall.

Pete is not above Rosewall or Djokovic. Rosewall won 15 Pro majors and 8 regular Slams (well into the 70's, in his late 30s) for a grand total of 23 majors. Djokovic has every big title in existence, absolutely dominates his main rivals, and has Pete's 14.
Laver>Fed>Pancho>Nole>Rosewall>Nadal>Pete>Connors/Borg/Lendl/etc.

 

[KG1965]

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.

Your total data may be correct (210 v 200).
For the moment there are confirmations for Abdujan 67, Prague 65, Belfast 66 and Solihull 66.
In addition I paid 200 of Wiki. So we're 204 confirmed.
Work in progress.

 

[thrust]

Pete is not above Rosewall or Djokovic. Rosewall won 15 Pro majors and 8 regular Slams (well into the 70's, in his late 30s) for a grand total of 23 majors. Djokovic has every big title in existence, absolutely dominates his main rivals, and has Pete's 14.
Laver>Fed>Pancho>Nole>Rosewall>Nadal>Pete>Connors/Borg/Lendl/etc.

Excellent post, fair and accurate!

 

[NatF]

Pete is not above Rosewall or Djokovic. Rosewall won 15 Pro majors and 8 regular Slams (well into the 70's, in his late 30s) for a grand total of 23 majors. Djokovic has every big title in existence, absolutely dominates his main rivals, and has Pete's 14.
Laver>Fed>Pancho>Nole>Rosewall>Nadal>Pete>Connors/Borg/Lendl/etc.

Djokovic has narrow leads over Fedal in the h2h, that's not absolute dominance.

In terms of career I'd probably go with Rosewall > Djokovic > Sampras right now. Put all three in the same era and I do think Djokovic and Sampras would outperform Rosewall peak for peak.

 

[thrust]

Djokovic has narrow leads over Fedal in the h2h, that's not absolute dominance.

In terms of career I'd probably go with Rosewall > Djokovic > Sampras right now. Put all three in the same era and I do think Djokovic and Sampras would outperform Rosewall peak for peak.

Being only 5-7, today, Rosewall would have a very tough time in today's game. Perhaps If he was born 50 years later, he may have been about 5-10, played as a natural lefty which may have given him a better serve and more power? The same is true of Laver, instead of being 5-9 today he could be 5-11 or 6 ft.. He, therefore, would be even more powerful than he was in his prime. Gonzalez would probably be a monster if he was in his prime today-LOL! All of which makes it difficult and unfair to compare peak play of players from vastly distant eras.

 

[NatF]

Being only 5-7, today, Rosewall would have a very tough time in today's game. Perhaps If he was born 50 years later, he may have been about 5-10, played as a natural lefty which may have given him a better serve and more power? The same is true of Laver, instead of being 5-9 today he could be 5-11 or 6 ft.. He, therefore, would be even more powerful than he was in his prime. Gonzalez would probably be a monster if he was in his prime today-LOL! All of which makes it difficult and unfair to compare peak play of players from vastly distant eras.

I think Gonzalez may be the best of all time, definitely think with modern training and tech he'd be insane.

I'm not willing to give Rosewall and Laver an extra 3-4 inches though lol - that's taking hypotheticals too far . Most definitely he'd be a lefty though, how his game would change because of it I don't know. It does seem insane that he could achieve his success using his non-dominant hand. He started learning to play tennis at three with two hands on both sides, the brain has a lot of plasticity at a young age so it's hard to know how much learning to play with his left hand affected his game.

 

[King No1e]

Djokovic has narrow leads over Fedal in the h2h, that's not absolute dominance.

In terms of career I'd probably go with Rosewall > Djokovic > Sampras right now. Put all three in the same era and I do think Djokovic and Sampras would outperform Rosewall peak for peak.

Out of those 3,
Peak for peak = BOAT
Career vs Career = GOAT

 

[KG1965]

GONZALEZ TITLES

Amateurs Era + Open Era

28 Wikipedia (17 Am. + 11 Open)
+ Coronado 1947
+ Seattle 1947
+ Seattle 1948
---------------------------
31

 

[redrover]

Pete is not above Rosewall or Djokovic. Rosewall won 15 Pro majors and 8 regular Slams (well into the 70's, in his late 30s) for a grand total of 23 majors. Djokovic has every big title in existence, absolutely dominates his main rivals, and has Pete's 14.
Laver>Fed>Pancho>Nole>Rosewall>Nadal>Pete>Connors/Borg/Lendl/etc.

Pete is clearly behind Djokovic at this point and only a delusional fool would say otherwise. However he should be over Rosewall. I am not even sure Rosewall should be above Lendl or Connors, no way he is over Nadal or Borg either.

 

[timnz]

This thread is good work

 

[KG1965]

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.

For the moment there are confirmations for Abdujan 67, Prague 65, Belfast 66 and Solihull 66.
So we're 204 confirmed.

There could be 5 or 10 other titles (especially in Italy) but need confirmation.

 

[WestboroChe]

I've always said Pancho was in the all time top 5. But I think the author here is guilty of the same sin that many people are, they always think the guys they grew up watching are the best ever, when in reality the game evolves and the players get better and better. Rarely do you have an athlete who is so superior that he can transcend time (Jordan and Wilt Chamberlin for example). I thought that the actor who was going to play Gonzalez was Benjamin Brat or something like that....

Well said. Everyone thinks their childhood idol was better than your childhood idol. That said, I will readily admit that my boyhood tennis idol; Courier is definitely not the greatest or even in the top 10 (maybe top 20? probably not) Either way it is definitely hard to compare eras, especially when the pre-Open pro tour was so small and the GS fields were stocked with amateurs (read part-time players). I always have a bias against pre-Open players. The game just wasn't as competitive. So while Pancho played at a high level into his late 30s he also didn't have to play against an eastern european teenager who's been training full time at an academy for 5 years in the first round of a tournament. That sort of thing matters.

I never saw Pancho play (except for a few clips here and there) but just based on his achievements and what his contemporaries said about him I think he would have excelled in era. Not just because of his talent but because he was a total jerk who loved beating people and hated losing and had a serve that would have rivaled Sampras's with modern racquets.

I've often thought of Sampras as a sort of latter-day Pancho. Their style of play seems similar and they have similar body types.

 

[Ivan69]

Well said. Everyone thinks their childhood idol was better than your childhood idol. That said, I will readily admit that my boyhood tennis idol; Courier is definitely not the greatest or even in the top 10 (maybe top 20? probably not) Either way it is definitely hard to compare eras, especially when the pre-Open pro tour was so small and the GS fields were stocked with amateurs (read part-time players). I always have a bias against pre-Open players. The game just wasn't as competitive. So while Pancho played at a high level into his late 30s he also didn't have to play against an eastern european teenager who's been training full time at an academy for 5 years in the first round of a tournament. That sort of thing matters.

I never saw Pancho play (except for a few clips here and there) but just based on his achievements and what his contemporaries said about him I think he would have excelled in era. Not just because of his talent but because he was a total jerk who loved beating people and hated losing and had a serve that would have rivaled Sampras's with modern racquets.

I've often thought of Sampras as a sort of latter-day Pancho. Their style of play seems similar and they have similar body types.

You don't need to have a bias against pre-Open players. If you try to get deep into the pre-OE you will understand what it was.
BTW the pro tour wasn't so small as you think. The elite pro players played 130-150 matches per year, something incredible and not achievable in all sports.

 

[WestboroChe]

You don't need to have a bias against pre-Open players. If you try to get deep into the pre-OE you will understand what it was.
BTW the pro tour wasn't so small as you think. The elite pro players played 130-150 matches per year, something incredible and not achievable in all sports.

Don't assume I don't know about the pre-Open tour just because I don't think it compares to today's pro tour. I read "Forgotten Battles", I know plenty. And playing 130-150 matches a year is a lot for sure, but that doesn't mean much when you play the same four guys over and over.

The same is true of every sport. Every sport has become globalized and professionalized to a point unimaginable in the past. In the past talented players could rack up and pad their stats against players who wouldn't even be in the sport today. For example in baseball Cy Young has 511 career wins (almost 100 more than the next guy) But he didn't have to play against black or hispanic players, and didn't have to throw nearly as hard as players do today. Would he be a great player today? Maybe. Would he rack up the mind numbing stats he has if he played today? No, no he would not. So as you can see this bias can be extended to all sports if you really think about it.

I may not need to have a bias, but I want one!

 

[Ivan69]

Don't assume I don't know about the pre-Open tour just because I don't think it compares to today's pro tour. I read "Forgotten Battles", I know plenty. And playing 130-150 matches a year is a lot for sure, but that doesn't mean much when you play the same four guys over and over.

The same is true of every sport. Every sport has become globalized and professionalized to a point unimaginable in the past. In the past talented players could rack up and pad their stats against players who wouldn't even be in the sport today. For example in baseball Cy Young has 511 career wins (almost 100 more than the next guy) But he didn't have to play against black or hispanic players, and didn't have to throw nearly as hard as players do today. Would he be a great player today? Maybe. Would he rack up the mind numbing stats he has if he played today? No, no he would not. So as you can see this bias can be extended to all sports if you really think about it.

I may not need to have a bias, but I want one!

Imagine it is currently an yearly pro tour with only 4 guys - Nadal, Djokovic, Federer and Delpo (Murray if in top form). This would be a miracle for the tennis fans. Only top matches all the year.
Well, this miracle happened in the pre-OE. It can't happen now.

Unfortunately I think that the global sport became currently less professional, commercialized more than needed and full of steroids and drugs. I am a great pessimist about tennis after the big 3 quit. Except Delpo nothing on the big stage. Big talents like Zverev, Thiem, Cilic, Wawrinka are inconsistent.

I can't say anything about baseball. But re tennis it's my only advise to you - go deep into the pre-OE. It's very interesting.

 

[WestboroChe]

Imagine it is currently an yearly pro tour with only 4 guys - Nadal, Djokovic, Federer and Delpo (Murray if in top form). This would be a miracle for the tennis fans. Only top matches all the year.
Well, this miracle happened in the pre-OE. It can't happen now.

Unfortunately I think that the global sport became currently less professional, commercialized more than needed and full of steroids and drugs. I am a great pessimist about tennis after the big 3 quit. Except Delpo nothing on the big stage. Big talents like Zverev, Thiem, Cilic, Wawrinka are inconsistent.

I can't say anything about baseball. But re tennis it's my only advise to you - go deep into the pre-OE. It's very interesting.

I agree it is interesting. But I’ve learned enough about it for me. As for having a tour of only four or so guys. I dunno. Seems kind of boring to me. I like watching the lesser ranked players battle it out and I also like watching the top guys get beat by the lower ranked players.

Regarding the future of the tour. Someone will become the next star. I seem to recall people saying the same thing about Connors and Mac. Then Agassi and Sampras and so on. Circle of life.

 

[KG1965]

GONZALEZ TITLES

Amateurs Era + Pro Era + Open Era.
Wikipedia 113
The following (15) titles must be added (as written by other posters over time)
+ Coronado 1947
+ Seattle 1947
+ Seattle 1948
+ Portland 1951
+ Salt Lake City 1951
+ Geneva 1952
+ Oostende 1952
+ Los Angeles 1952
+ Sydney 1956
+ Geneva 1956
+ Rome 1958
+ Mexico City 1961
+ Orlando 1 1965
+ Orlando 2 1965
+ Atlanta 1966

 

[Ivan69]

GONZALEZ TITLES

Amateurs Era + Pro Era + Open Era.
Wikipedia 113
The following (16) titles must be added (as written by other posters over time)
+ Coronado 1947
+ Seattle 1947
+ Seattle 1948
+ Portland 1951
+ Salt Lake City 1951
+ Geneva 1952
+ Oostende 1952
+ Los Angeles 1952
+ Sydney 1956
+ Geneva 1956
+ Rome 1958
+ Vancouver 1959
+ Mexico City 1961
+ Orlando 1 1965
+ Orlando 2 1965
+ Atlanta 1966

And other 20+ "titles" should be removed.

 

[KG1965]

These titles (23) have to be removed because they are played inside a World Series.

- January 4 New York (M.S.G.) Pro (United States) Wood Pancho Segura 7–9 6–4 6–4
- January 12 Norfolk Pro Championships (United States) ? Pancho Segura 8–5 (pro set)
- January 13 Charlottesville Pro Championships (United States) ? Pancho Segura (2nd) 11–9 (pro set)
- January 15 New Haven Pro Championships (United States) ? Pancho Segura 9–7 (pro set)
- January 17 Buffalo Pro Championships (United States) ? Frank Sedgman 11–9 (pro set)
- January 19 Toronto Canadian Pro Championships (Canada) ? Pancho Segura 8–5 (pro set)
- January 25 Saint-Louis Pro Championships (United States) ? Frank Sedgman 10–8 (pro set)
- January 27 Cincinnati Pro Championships (United States) ? Pancho Segura 9–7 (pro set)
- January 30 White Plains Pro Championships (United States) ? Pancho Segura 8–2 (pro set)
- February 2 Rochester Pro Championships (United States) ? Pancho Segura 10–8 (pro set)
- February 3 Albany Pro Championships (United States) ? Pancho Segura 10–8 (pro set)
- February 4 Boston Pro Indoor Championships (United States) ? Pancho Segura 9–7 (pro set)
- February 8 Ottawa Pro Championships (Canada) ? Pancho Segura 8–6 (pro set)
- February 9 Ithaca Pro Championships (United States) ? Pancho Segura 8–4 (pro set)
- February 12 Fort Wayne Pro Championships (United States) ? Frank Sedgman 28–26 (pro set)
- February 14 Kansas Pro Championships (United States) ? Pancho Segura 8–4 (pro set)
- February 23 Sacramento Pro Championships (United States) ? Pancho Segura 8–4 (pro set)
- March 3 San Antonio Pro Championships (United States) ? Pancho Segura ?
- March 5 Dallas Pro Championships (United States) ? Pancho Segura 8–3 (pro set)
- March 20 New York Pro Championships (United States) ? Pancho Segura 8–5 (pro set)
- March 29 El Paso Pro Championships (United States) ? Pancho Segura 10–8 (pro set)
- April 4 Mexico Pro Championships (Mexico) ? Frank Sedgman 9–7 6–4
- April 7 Oklahoma City Pro Championships (United States) ? Pancho Segura 8–6 (pro set)
- May 25 Palo Alto Pro Championships (United States) ? Frank Sedgman 8–4 (pro set)

 

[KG1965]

GONZALEZ TITLES

Amateurs Era + Pro Era + Open Era.
Wikipedia 112 (113 is wrong)
112 +15 - 24 = 103

+ Tours

 

[KG1965]

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.

You are right, Ivan.

I counted 103 (+ tours) for Pancho and 204 for Laver, but probably miss some other Laver titles (in Italy most).
The research continues, but your numbers seem right.

 

[Ivan69]

Pete is clearly behind Djokovic at this point and only a delusional fool would say otherwise. However he should be over Rosewall. I am not even sure Rosewall should be above Lendl or Connors, no way he is over Nadal or Borg either.

Do you really know Rosewall's career?

 

[Ivan69]

You are right, Ivan.

I counted 103 (+ tours) for Pancho and 204 for Laver, but probably miss some other Laver titles (in Italy most).
The research continues, but your numbers seem right.

As I told you I have a couple of small Laver titles from krosero's posts and other posts. If they like they can confirm them. I want to help you but I am not the prime source.

 

[KG1965]

As I told you I have a couple of small Laver titles from krosero's posts and other posts. If they like they can confirm them. I want to help you but I am not the prime source.

If the posters who had written "other titles" don't write anymore, ... I try to find the other titles.
In the meantime, now I wanted to deal with the Tours.

 

[urban]

KG, according to No Mercy and Krosero, i found 3 further titles for Laver in the "Gonzalez, career stats" thread, posts Nr. 693, 823, 826.
Rome 1965 (8 men event), Catania Pro 1965, Venice pro 1965.

 

[KG1965]

For the moment there are confirmations for Abdujan 67, Prague 65, Belfast 66 and Solihull 66.
So we're 204 confirmed.

There could be 5 or 10 other titles (especially in Italy) but need confirmation.

Rome 65, Catania 65, Venice 65.
Thanks Urban, Nomercy & krosero.

+ Baton Rouge 1971
- Brisbane 1956 (lost the final to Neal Fraser 6-4 12-10)
- Poertschach 1955 ... an exhibition match.

204 + 3 + 1 - 2 = 206

 

[redrover]

Gonzales was better in terms of peak level play on medium to fast courts and intimidation factor at his best. Laver was more consistent and more versatile though, he was top level on all surfaces which Gonzales definitely was not on clay for instance. Both had amazing lonevity.

 

[KG1965]

GONZALEZ TITLES

Amateurs Era + Pro Era + Open Era.
Wikipedia 112 (113 is wrong)
112 +15 - 24 = 103

+ Tours

10 Tours Wikipedia
+ European Tour 1956
10 +1 = 11

 

[KG1965]

Rome 65, Catania 65, Venice 65.
Thanks Urban, Nomercy & krosero.

+ Baton Rouge 1971
- Brisbane 1956 (lost the final to Neal Fraser 6-4 12-10)
- Poertschach 1955 ... an exhibition match.

204 + 3 + 1 - 2 = 206

206 titles
+ 1 Tour (European Tour - Facis Trophy 1963)

 

[urban]

KG, Laver certainly won more than one tour. He was - following new stats by Krosero - in matchplay 92-35 for 1964, 100-21 for 1965, 111-27 for 1966, 100-29 for 1967, and more than half of those matches, ca. 60 matches and more per year were played in tour matches.

 

[KG1965]

KG, Laver certainly won more than one tour. He was - following new stats by Krosero - in matchplay 92-35 for 1964, 100-21 for 1965, 111-27 for 1966, 100-29 for 1967, and more than half of those matches, ca. 60 matches and more per year were played in tour matches.

I'm just trying to "put together" data and results that I found in the threads with your help (Nomercy, kroseroand, your and others research and Ivan's contribution).
What I wrote about Pancho and Rod is a working in progress.
It is absolutely not a finished work.
When someone has more information he can add them.

 

[timnz]

KG, Laver certainly won more than one tour. He was - following new stats by Krosero - in matchplay 92-35 for 1964, 100-21 for 1965, 111-27 for 1966, 100-29 for 1967, and more than half of those matches, ca. 60 matches and more per year were played in tour matches.

But except for 1963 and perhaps in 1964 there never was a head-to-head tour to establish the World Professional Champion as there was in place since 1931, correct? Aren't you merely giving is stats for the year. That is different than a specific head to head to establish World Pro Champion.

 

[urban]

Cannot get the argument. I have never stated (how could i), that after 1963 World Series was organized. The last in spring 1963 consisted of 6 players, and was played in the US and Canada. In 1964 a tournament series of ca. 17 selected 8 men tournaments was played, which Rosewall won. This Tournament Series of 20 selected 8 men tournament was also played in 1965, 1966 and 1966, where Laver finished at points leader. I only say, that Laver played (and won) a lot of tour matches outside all tournaments (8 men events and 4 men events). We speak of ca. 160 matches for 4 years 1964-1967, could be less, could be more. These were not exhibitions, but match series and tours for prize money, in Australia, Britain, France and Italy and other European countries for instance, integrated in the World Wide Pro Tour. McCauley for instance identifies a European match tour in spring 1966, which Laver won.

 

[Ivan69]

206 titles
+ 1 Tour (European Tour - Facis Trophy 1963)

KG, I forgot to mention another interesting title for Laver which is currently not awarded to him by some websites.
Hilton Head Classic in 1975 had a combined format with men's single, women's single, doubles men, doubles women and mixed doubles matches. Strange format but such were the rules. The player with most wins is the winner. And the winner was Laver not Nastase.
The websites wrongly count only the men's single matches - 3 matches.

 

[KG1965]

KG, I forgot to mention another interesting title for Laver which is currently not awarded to him by some websites.
Hilton Head Classic in 1975 had a combined format with men's single, women's single, doubles men, doubles women and mixed doubles matches. Strange format but such were the rules. The player with most wins is the winner. And the winner was Laver not Nastase.
The websites wrongly count only the men's single matches - 3 matches.

I found this article on Sport illustrated. It seems hard to consider it a title, it seems more like a mixed tournament, a sort of Laver Cup including women players.

I roped that at Hilton Head he only challenged men in a 4-men tournament in the years 1973-77.

I do not understand if it's another tournament or only in 1975 they organized the tournament with this format.

TENNIS: ROD LAVER won first prize at the World Invitational Tennis Classic winning four games in the five-day tournament at Hilton Head, SC ILIE NASTASE beat Laver 5-7, 7-6, 6-4 to win the singles title and CHRIS EVERT, who finished second overall, won his 19th consecutive single clay title, crushing Evonne Goolagong 6-1, 6-1.

 

[Ivan69]

I found this article on Sport illustrated. It seems hard to consider it a title, it seems more like a mixed tournament, a sort of Laver Cup including women players.

I roped that at Hilton Head he only challenged men in a 4-men tournament in the years 1973-77.

I do not understand if it's another tournament or only in 1975 they organized the tournament with this format.

TENNIS: ROD LAVER won first prize at the World Invitational Tennis Classic winning four games in the five-day tournament at Hilton Head, SC ILIE NASTASE beat Laver 5-7, 7-6, 6-4 to win the singles title and CHRIS EVERT, who finished second overall, won his 19th consecutive single clay title, crushing Evonne Goolagong 6-1, 6-1.

Exactly. It was a mixed tournament not men's singles only. No singles title. Laver won 4 out of 5 matches and took the top spot. Second in the tournament is Nastase. Third and fourth should be Goolagong and Evert.

 

[KG1965]

Exactly. It was a mixed tournament not men's singles only. No singles title. Laver won 4 out of 5 matches and took the top spot. Second in the tournament is Nastase. Third and fourth should be Goolagong and Evert.

+ Hilton Head 1975

207 titles
+ 1 Tour (European Tour - Facis Trophy 1963)

 

[Adriano Panatta]

Yes Pancho and in mixed minor Rosewall are underrated because played in pre Open Era instead Rod Laver won a lot of slam.
But Pancho was 1,88 m while Laver was 1,73 m…in the modern game one is Sampras and the other is Schartzman….

 

[Dan Lobb]

GONZALEZ TITLES

Amateurs Era + Pro Era + Open Era.
Wikipedia 113
The following (15) titles must be added (as written by other posters over time)
+ Coronado 1947
+ Seattle 1947
+ Seattle 1948
+ Portland 1951
+ Salt Lake City 1951
+ Geneva 1952
+ Oostende 1952
+ Los Angeles 1952
+ Sydney 1956
+ Geneva 1956
+ Rome 1958
+ Mexico City 1961
+ Orlando 1 1965
+ Orlando 2 1965
+ Atlanta 1966

How many of these were majors?

 

[TheSlicer]

I watched pancho live and i never seen a bigger forehand , It must have been something like 10000 rpms, rallies always ended when the ball reached that wing, problem for pancho were the mujeres, he liked too much the mujeres and vino, a real vividor

 

[thrust]

Great article, should be required reading for those that think that all GOAT debates begin & end with Sampras or Federer.

"Remembering Big Pancho"
By Joseph B. Stahl
Tennis Week Curator & Editor At Large Joseph B. Stahl has served as an analyst for Radio Wimbledon since 1995.

The announcement, in connection with a series of events celebrating Latino Tennis, of the showing of a documentary film on the life and tennis-playing career of the great Richard Alonzo "Pancho" Gonzales (I don’t use the final-z spelling to which Pancho legally changed his name late in life at the silly insistence of one of his petulant wives) on August 16 in the Bronx during the 2006 GHI Bronx Tennis Classic in New York, again at the 2006 U.S. Open on September 3, and again on PBS television on the evening of November 23 (Thanksgiving), prompts in me the following thoughts about this titanic competitor whom I saw playing in the 1950s.

The 6-foot-3 1/2 Pancho Gonzales burst upon the tennis scene like a fireball every time he set foot on a tennis court. There was something smoldering about his behavior and his power that was overwhelming to both opponents and spectators. I feel sorry for the relatively recent newcomers to tennis who seriously believe that Rod Laver is the greatest tennis player who ever lived. They not only never saw Gonzales at his best in the middle to late 1950s, they are also ignorant of records that conclusively demonstrate that Gonzales, way past his prime in his early forties, was still a better player than Laver even though Laver was ten years his junior. Gonzales was not only beating their hero then, he was doing it in five-set matches when serious money (for that era, the early ’70s) and pride and prestige were all on the line. They are also blinded by a meaningless record, the fact that Laver won the Grand Slam — all four majors in a calendar year — twice (in 1962 as an amateur and in 1969 as a pro after open tennis began), and Gonzales never did. Reference to that record is meaningless because Gonzales was banned from trying for it from the age of twenty-one on, once he turned professional at that age in 1949 before open tennis began in 1968, by which time Gonzales was thirty-nine, a circumstance that effectively exiled him from the conventional record-books for life.

Keep in mind that I will always be in awe of the things that Rod Laver could do with racket and ball. Laver’s running shotmaking was simply fantastic and amazing, and Gonzales’s was not. Laver did things that you had to see to believe, and even then you were left with doubts, for he literally invented new ways of pulverizing tennis balls — which he did with shocking brutality, using a forearm that looked as big as a treetrunk —, and he was the first left-hander with a one handed backhand who could hit it with not only slice but also flat or with overspin. But Gonzales didn’t need to be fantastic and amazing to beat Laver, and Laver needed to be fantastic and amazing just to stay on a tennis court with Gonzales. The reason is that Gonzales’s game was just bigger, much bigger, period. When Gonzales toured head-to-head in 1955-56 against Tony Trabert, a big brute of a strongman in his own right, Trabert had to reach for the sky just to get a racket on Gonzales’s serve, that’s how high that powerhouse weapon bounced, and if Trabert was able to return it at all, Gonzales was already at the net needing no more than two shots at most to win the point. Trabert, mind you, is one of only eight men in history (besides Grand Slammers Don Budge and Laver) to have won three of the four majors in a calendar year (the others are Jack Crawford, Fred Perry, Lew Hoad, Ashley Cooper, Roy Emerson, Jimmy Connors and Mats Wilander), yet Gonzales ruthlessly humbled Trabert on their tour, 74 matches to 24, Trabert managing to do well against Gonzales only on the clay segment of that series, where Gonzales’s serve was somewhat neutralized.

Laver did do supernatural things, but he was a little guy, about 5'-7", and he didn’t have a big serve. He and Ken Rosewall, a demolition expert able to blow up much bigger games than his own — he had the technical expertise of a safecracker or a lock picker, no big shots but he could put every ball on a dime —, who astoundingly remained in the world’s top ten for twenty-five years (prompting Bud Collins to call him "the Dorian Gray of tennis," a reference to the fictional character in an Oscar Wilde novel whose portrait conveniently grew old for him while he stayed young), were competitive with each other throughout their careers, Rosewall beating Laver twice when the chips were down in the 1971 and ’72 World Championship Tennis finals, the latter of which is a famous all-time match. But Rosewall on his pro debut had been massacred on tour by Gonzales so badly, 50 matches to 26, that Kramer had offered Gonzales higher pay to go easy on him. Of course Rosewall got much better after that, even Gonzales characterizing him as some kind of freak because little Kenny was the only player he ever saw who kept improving even after he was thirty(!), for remember, Rosewall reached both the Wimbledon and U.S. finals in 1974 when he was only a few months shy of his 40th birthday!

The only man who could stay with Gonzales once the latter hit his full stride (Jack Kramer had slaughtered Gonzales on their 1949-50 tour, 96 matches to 27, but that was when Gonzales was a rookie) was Hoad. Hoad was leading Gonzales 18 matches to 9 when Hoad’s chronically bad back went out on him, and thereafter Hoad was not competitive on their tour in 1958-59, Gonzales winning it 51 matches to 36, although Hoad did have a 15-14 winning record over Gonzales as part of a round robin tour in the following year. Yet, three years later, when Laver turned pro, Hoad mercilessly beat up on Laver so badly, fourteen straight matches to none, that Laver, who had just won the first of his two Grand Slams less than a year earlier, told a reporter who asked him how he felt after that drubbing, "It’s nice to find out where you really stand in the world." Hoad, however, a modest man, later told me in his correct Australian mispronunciation that " ‘George’ [Laver’s middle name] becyme a helluva plyer awfter thet," implying that the sides had not been fair at the time and that the later Laver might have beaten him. But to this day Laver will tell you that Lew Hoad was "my idol both on and off the court." Hoad, on the other hand, when asked by me whom he thought to be the greatest ever, immediately responded, "That Mexican *****" — referring to his good pal Gonzales (they had a genuinely affectionate relationship, prompting Kramer to observe that they should put on the gravestone of the universally and immensely likable Hoad that "even [the perennially morose] Pancho Gonzales liked him").

I have my doubts as to whether Laver even at his best could have lived with heavyweight hitters like Ellsworth Vines, Budge, Kramer and Hoad, who all had huge, overpowering attacking games like Gonzales’s, and doubts as well as to where Gonzales himself stacks up against those tigers. I do give Pancho an edge over them all, as I did in a 1993 article, but only a slim one, and with misgivings. Vines and Hoad were very much up-and-down erratic geniuses who had bad days in which they could and did lose to anybody, but it was generally agreed among their peers that when they were on, "you might as well just go have tea or go home" (Budge), and Gonzales said of Hoad, "When Lew Hoad was at his peak nobody could touch him."

People ask me where I think Roger Federer would fit in with that mix of bombers. Forget about it: as hard as it had always been to compare players of different time periods within the wood-racket era, the fact that tennis with modern rackets is a completely different sport makes it impossible to compare players across the technology gap. All I can tell you is that if you gave Federer a wooden racket and told him to go out and beat Gonzales at his best, my money would be on Gonzales, though conversely if you gave the mid-1950s Gonzales a high-tech racket and told him to beat Federer today, my money would have to stay in my pocket for that one. Gonzales was a fulminating maniac on a tennis court, and it’s hard to see him losing to anyone when he was at the top of his powers, but if Gonzales had to face a shark like Federer while using a strange racket, you’d have to be mad as a hatter to count Federer’s chances out completely.

In 1965, Gonzalez was 37-38 years old having been born in 1927. Laver was 5 feet-9 inches tall, Rosewall was 5-7". Rosewall was 37. 8 when he beat Laver in the 72 WCT final.

 

[mental midget]

In 1965, Gonzalez was 37-38 years old having been born in 1927. Laver was 5 feet-9 inches tall, Rosewall was 5-7". Rosewall was 37. 8 when he beat Laver in the 72 WCT final.

that checks out. laver was before my time but watched plenty of YT matches...he wasn't...that short from what i could see. what an athlete btw, not that i'm the first to point that out...the guy was an absolute beast, just a big ball of fast-twitch muscle.

 

[Hard Court]

Some great points and you could argue for either guy. Both were certainly in the top 10 of All time maybe even #1 and #2. Gonzales on clay was briefly mentioned. I know this is just one result, but I think it is very telling: The 1968 French Open. The first Open tournament. Gonzales got all the way to the semifinals. He even beat the defending champion Roy Emerson in the quarterfinals. Gonzales was 40 at the time.

 

[Dan Lobb]

Some great points and you could argue for either guy. Both were certainly in the top 10 of All time maybe even #1 and #2. Gonzales on clay was briefly mentioned. I know this is just one result, but I think it is very telling: The 1968 French Open. The first Open tournament. Gonzales got all the way to the semifinals. He even beat the defending champion Roy Emerson in the quarterfinals. Gonzales was 40 at the time.

Gonzales had a good record on clay, winning the U.S. Clay Court Championships, the Berlin Pro, runner-up at Roland Garros in 1956 and 1961, won Toronto in 1959 on red clay, won at Dallas in 1965.
His problem was that the era was full of great clay players who stopped him, names like Patty, Segura, Trabert, Rosewall, Hoad. Hard to win a field with those guys all in attendance.