yes, the main difference is coming from the first 1957 tour (-24) and 1958.
Pancho Gonzalez career stats
- Thread starter krosero
- Start date
Drob
Hall of Fame
Dan - can you send a source on this? Quite extraordinary if Jake would stoop so low (ethically, not competitively).
Kramer's book "The Game" has some info on Kramer's plans.
After he beat Sedgman in 1953, there were no other top amateurs to tour with. Hoad and Rosewall were too young, and Trabert was still building a reputation. So Kramer took a year off just to promote the 1954 pro tour in a mini-tournament format. The tour proved Gonzales was still the top challenger for him (page 223).
By the summer of 1955 Hoad, Rosewall and Trabert had a much better reputation. Trabert signed his pro contract, and Hoad and Rosewall also signed during the Pacific Southwest. They were set to open a tour with Kramer in December. But the two Aussies changed their minds a few weeks later. Kramer than contemplated touring with Trabert, but in the end let Gonzales to have a chance (page 208, 224).
Drob
Hall of Fame
Thanks, I was going to check Kramer's book but figured he would not mention such a thing. I do recall the 1955 attempt, now that you remind me. In late 1955, that is not so bad as 1953, which Dan reported. But it still shows lack of minimal regard for the boys' tennis development. He was an operator to put it in neutral language.
dwightcharles
Rookie
What a fascinating stat!
dwightcharles
Rookie
Please forgive my ignorance... is there a place where the number 1 (or best) player of the year is discussed for each year?
Drob
Hall of Fame
jussumman
Hall of Fame
Anyone can explain the discrepancy. Says he won 2 U.S Championships + 13 Pro Grand Slam titles, BUT if you look at the table, it's 2 + 12.
"He won 15 major singles titles, including 2 U.S. National Singles Championships in 1948 and 1949 and 13 Professional Grand Slam titles. "
en.wikipedia.org
"He won 15 major singles titles, including 2 U.S. National Singles Championships in 1948 and 1949 and 13 Professional Grand Slam titles. "
Pancho Gonzales - Wikipedia
Third Serve
Talk Tennis Guru
Fascinating thread, this. Can’t believe someone actually put in the effort to detail Pancho’s career stats here, hats off to the OP. Really helps later viewers of the sport like myself get some bearing on what these old greats were like.
Both figures about the pro majors are wrong. In the last years it was proven that the tournaments held in Cleveland from 1952 to 1962 were not billed US pro but World pro. The tournaments since 1955 were not majors. For Pancho these were 6 titles.Anyone can explain the discrepancy. Says he won 2 U.S Championships + 13 Pro Grand Slam titles, BUT if you look at the table, it's 2 + 12.
"He won 15 major singles titles, including 2 U.S. National Singles Championships in 1948 and 1949 and 13 Professional Grand Slam titles. "
Pancho Gonzales - Wikipedia
At the same time I consider Forest Hills 1957 and LA 1957 majors. They and Wembley were the top pro events for 1957.
So my count for Pancho's majors is 10 - 2 amat + 8 pro.
jussumman
Hall of Fame
Thanks for this clarification. Very helpful.
And what is your count for majors for Rosewell and Laver?
Or if you can provide a link here already explained that covered this already.
I count 23 for Rosewall. Some people consider WCT Finals in 1971 and 1972 also majors. So they could be 25.
I count 21 for Laver. Some people consider TCC in 1970 and 1971 also majors. So they could be 23.
Please have in mind that these old big guys have won multiple tours which are more than majors upon the normal tennis standards.
jussumman
Hall of Fame
Thanks! One more - Emerson - 12?
Emerson's were far from the normal competition standards.
jussumman
Hall of Fame
Someone here (in another thread) is boldly claiming that Rosewall is the GOAT (seemingly due to the most amount of majors)..
But, going by this H2H statistic. It argues both Gonzalez and Lavar being better than him.
What do you think, how would you rank these (just out of these 3 no other players).
Those lists of pro majors depend heavily on arbitrary decisions, made by individual tennis "experts". I don't get why the Cleveland indoor event, even if called World Championships and not US Championships, wasn't one of the most important and lucrative pro tournaments in the mid to late 1950s. It had some of the best finals, especially in 1958, between the two most prominent pros of the day, Gonzalez and Hoad. The 1958 final, a 5 set thriller, is ranked among the best matches of all time by Steve Flink. With 2, 8 or 15 majors, call it what you want, Gonzalez was the top pro 1954-1961, with the best overall win-loss record. In 1959 he was closely challenged by Hoad, and in the second half of 1960, he retired for a half year, after dominating the Workd Series of 1960.
Those lists of pro majors depend heavily on arbitrary decisions, made by individual tennis "experts". I don't get why the Cleveland indoor event, even if called World Championships and not US Championships, wasn't one of the most important and lucrative pro tournaments in the mid to late 1950s. It had some of the best finals, especially in 1958, between the two most prominent pros of the day, Gonzalez and Hoad. The 1958 final, a 5 set thriller, is ranked among the best matches of all time by Steve Flink. With 2, 8 or 15 majors, call it what you want, Gonzalez was the top pro 1954-1961, with the best overall win-loss record. In 1959 he was closely challenged by Hoad, and in the second half of 1960, he retired for a half year, after dominating the Workd Series of 1960.
Rosewall is the GOAT because of his overall career performance. The titles are just part of this but not the only one.Someone here (in another thread) is boldly claiming that Rosewall is the GOAT (seemingly due to the most amount of majors)..
But, going by this H2H statistic. It argues both Gonzalez and Lavar being better than him.
What do you think, how would you rank these (just out of these 3 no other players).
h2h needs to be analysed carefully. It is not always the representative element for the strength of a player. For example the negative balance vs Gonzales (90-117) is due mostly to the first h2h tour in 1957 (-24) when Rosewall was a rookie pro for the tour.
Another example - Gonzales has a big negative balance vs Kramer (due to their first tour in 1950). But this doesn't mean that Kramer's career was better than Pancho's.
Everything should be analysed and correctly evaluated.
Nah, maybe you missed the info from another thread about Cleveland.
In the late 50s Wembley, French, Forest Hills, Melbourne were the top tournaments with much more money than the declining Cleveland. Good tournament but not a major.
Most prominent Pro tournament events in 1957: Melbourne (won by Segura), Cleveland (won by Gonzalez), Forest Hills (won by Gonzalez), Los Angeles (won by Gonzalez), Wembley (won by Rosewall), plus World Series won by Gonzalez. Now someone may decide, what is a major and what isn't. It remains, as i said, an arbitrary decision by some "experts". I can name from top of my head alot of books and internet sources, which call Cleveland a major pro tournament. I am not interested in nomenclatura (there were no French pros in 1950, 1953 or 1957 for instance, and Wembley London pro only started in 1950 and did not happen in 1954 and 1955), and for me the whole pro majors concept is arbitrary. What is for me really telling, is that Gonzalez was the dominant force in the pro game at that period, given World Series, tournaments and match win-loss records. Only one, who played toe to toe with him, was Hoad in 1959.
No, urban. You are from the people which still believe in long presented dogma not reading the new official info. For 40-50 years "your magical experts" were telling us that this was the US pro and by default considered a major. This long-held theory was smashed a few years ago, even by your friend.
My advice - go back to the new discoveries and read, read, read! Don't read only the old books of the "good old experts"!
Arbitrary decisions can be made by people who have the correct info. It seemed that your "experts" didn't have it. As usual having in mind their thousands mistakes discovered in the last 10 years.
P.S. The theme of the conversation was Cleveland but not Pancho's career.
NonP
Legend
Leave it to the bean peddlers to miss the forest for the trees every single time. As you correctly point out it doesn't mean jack crap what the tournaments were called. What does matter: the strength of the draw, and more importantly how the pros approached the event at the time. Whether it counts as a "major" is a silly parsing game best left to the simpletons who think history can be reduced to a bunch of numbers.
The wise people have said: "If someone doesn't want to know something he just says nothing.". Very very true.
NonP
Legend
You can't even get folk aphorisms right, which makes perfect sense because you're wrong about everything.
Here's a most appropriate one for you, if one somewhat misquoted and misattributed to Lincoln: "Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak and to remove all doubt."
Ha-ha. The sentence is NOT a folk aphorism. It's an ancient philosophy saying. But how can you know it? It's much easier for you to misinterpret it.
Anyway, listen to Lincoln and remain silent. It's better for you when you don't know something - either tennis history or philosophy or anything else.
Bye byeP.S. There is another philosophy saying about "you're wrong about everything" people but you wont get it.
NonP
Legend
Ha-ha. The sentence is NOT a folk aphorism. It's an ancient philosophy saying. But how can you know it? It's much easier for you to misinterpret it.
Anyway, listen to Lincoln and remain silent. It's better for you when you don't know something - either tennis history or philosophy or anything else.
P.S. There is another philosophy saying about "you're wrong about everything" people but you wont get it.
An ancient saying is by definition a folk aphorism, genius. And you don't get to blame your sophomoric English for this, because nobody in his right mind would mistake you even for a third-rate pundit.
I'll leave you with your own typically adolescent "advice":
Time to hit dem books, boy!
NonP
Legend
LOL that was really more in response to his juvenile behavior, but point taken. Will modify my invective accordingly.
Drob
Hall of Fame
Drob
Hall of Fame
½
Re. Rosewall v Laver: Although there is no doubt some disagreement at the margins, if you look at their most important 20 matches I think you'll find they are effectively even. Just look at Pro Slam finals, the 1964 playoff match in South Africa, their two French Open finals, the 1970 TCC final and the finals of the 1971 and '72 WCT Finals, and I bet it is essentially even.
Re. v Gonzalez: that says a lot about Gonzalez. Here, though, it is interesting that after their initial World Tour Series when Rosewall was a rookie, the record is practically even. On the other hand, Gonzalez stayed dangerous into his early 40s and could still win important matches against both Kenny and Rod, though maybe not the very biggest. He had 6 ½ years on Muscles and 10 on Rocket.
Someone here (in another thread) is boldly claiming that Rosewall is the GOAT (seemingly due to the most amount of majors)..
But, going by this H2H statistic. It argues both Gonzalez and Lavar being better than him.
What do you think, how would you rank these (just out of these 3 no other players).
Re. Rosewall v Laver: Although there is no doubt some disagreement at the margins, if you look at their most important 20 matches I think you'll find they are effectively even. Just look at Pro Slam finals, the 1964 playoff match in South Africa, their two French Open finals, the 1970 TCC final and the finals of the 1971 and '72 WCT Finals, and I bet it is essentially even.
Re. v Gonzalez: that says a lot about Gonzalez. Here, though, it is interesting that after their initial World Tour Series when Rosewall was a rookie, the record is practically even. On the other hand, Gonzalez stayed dangerous into his early 40s and could still win important matches against both Kenny and Rod, though maybe not the very biggest. He had 6 ½ years on Muscles and 10 on Rocket.
Last edited:
Gonzalez is one of the few players, who had a long, 6 plus years, at the top of the pro game, like Tilden, Laver, Sampras, Federer and Djokovic. The internet side The Tennis Base, which has the largest data base mit many recent findings, on which some posters here heavily rely, has made a list of weeks at Nr. 1, which Non P recently provided here on this forum on another thread. Its not the Gosple to me (especially for pre WW 1 and combinded pro ams rankings, but it is a methodically planned and executed research, and can at least give an impression on Nr. 1 time spans. Gonzalez has there 291 weeks in his career, he is behind Tilden (over 600) and Laver (over 400), but is leading all the other players, he played as main rivals, by a big margin: Budge (232), Riggs (166), Rosewall (143), Kramer (119), Segura (105), Sedgman (104), Trabert (62).
Drob
Hall of Fame
Look, Gonzalez had an arguable claim to WORLD NO. 1 for 10 straight years. Some are squishy, maybe 1952, '53, '61, so be it. 1954-58, solid. 1959, solid IMO. 1960, weird, but he plastered Kenny, and no one else was in view (no fabulous amateur).
Weeks? I don't know by weeks. Richard is undisputed No. 1. six years, and arguable No 1 three years.
Weeks? I don't know by weeks. Richard is undisputed No. 1. six years, and arguable No 1 three years.
Last edited:
Drob
Hall of Fame
Thanks Urban. And thanks to @NonP. It was a good idea of his to bring in the TB opinions/analysis. TB's take on Gonzalez might be closer to accurate than the one I am going to propose. However, our respective estimates are so far apart that I trust you will dismiss TB's figure as impossibly low.
I, of course, rely heavily on the "facts" from TB. TB is tops in factual recording of matches, tournaments & c.
But the TB rankings are more than a mite strange. Just look at its All-Time Ranking.
As for their "snapshot" rankings through the eras, I have used those rankings in order to try to get some idea of relative strength of the overall draw of certain tournaments of the pre-Open years - but just to get a rough idea.
Also, the TB weekly rankings are far from weekly, by which I mean they are very occasional, hardly week-by-week. At least as I recall, TB might give a half-dozen or 10 or so rankings "snapshots" throughout a given season.
Look at TB's All-Time and Open Era Rankings and decide for yourself how much confidence to put into these during-the-season rankings TB proposes throughout the years.
I write about Gonzalez's weeks at No. 1. But, an aside:
there is just no way on earth that Tilden can have 600 weeks at No. 1. That he might have several more than Gonzalez I would entertain. I think their figure of 600 for Tilden is just another example of how fantastical TB's opinions, or analysis, can be.
As to Gonzalez:
I would say that w his Wembley victory over Kramer, Gonzalez becomes world No. 1 and holds the ranking the rest of 1952. Let's call this 12 weeks. (Or call it zero weeks and say Sedgman, the amateur, is No. 1, I won't quibble).
Then Richard is frozen out of the 1953 season because there really is no 1953 season. (Or any chance he had of claiming No. 1 he lost in losing to Sedgman at Wembley final). But he started out as No. 1 (in my scenario) and must have kept it until Kramer claimed final victory over Sedgman on the tour, which it would have been May 15 at the earliest. So, another approximately 20 weeks as No. 1 in early 1953
Surely before mid-year 1954, Gonzalez establishes himself as World No. 1. Let's call 1954 30 weeks.
1955 - 52 weeks
1956 - 52 weeks
1957 - 52 weeks
1958 - 52 weeks
1959 - 52 weeks
Or, maybe not. By boycotting the French Pro and Wembley does he lose No. 1? If so, to whom? To Trabert the French Pro champ? Not. To Mal Anderson, the Wembley champ? Not. To Lew Hoad, losing quarter-finalist and semifinalist at Wembley and RG, respectively? If you like. Do you like?
So, maybe it is 1959 - 40 weeks. Or maybe 1959 - 43 weeks, for there is something big in Sydney in early December. i get confused as to which and what were or were not T.O.C.'s, but it is a big tournament down there in Sydney and Gonzalez wins it.
I am already at 365 weeks: 12+20+30+52+52+52+52+52+43 = 365 (I hope).
Comes now, 1960. He spends the first 20 weeks or so of this season doing what he is supposed to do - defend his Pro Crown. You might say he knocks the stuffing out of World No. 3 Kenny Rosewall, except Kenny hasn't a milligram of stuffing. For good measure, he knocks out Pancho Segura's 1.5 pounds of stuffing. If Gonzalez is No. 1 going into 1960, no one can say he is not still No. 1 in May 1960.
Then comes a long break. Some tournaments come, but Gorgo does no go to them. So, he must lose the No. 1 ranking eventually. When?
He misses the US Pro. Alex Olmedo wins the title. The less said the better.
He misses the Masters RR in June. An M1000 or so. Rosewall takes the title. Rosewall has just lost 21 of 25 matches to Gonzalez in the World Championship Series. Rosewall is hardly going to claim No. 1.
Our next significant tournament is the French Pro, in September. Rosewall wins the championship.
Immediately follows Wembley. Rosewall again champion.
Okay, okay. Richard has failed his royal duty in a sense, and Kenny is there to usurp w dispatch. So, Kenny No. 1 as of late September 1960. I won't quibble. Yet that is still approximately 35 weeks at No. 1 in 1960 for the King who stepped aside.
That = 400 weeks.
1961. Interesting year. King Richard had been absent. He did not abdicate. He yet wears the crown and does what he is supposed to do by winning the WCS and keeping the crown. Rosewall does not compete at the WCS. Richard wins the US Pro. Kenny is home with his family. Has Pancho regained the No. 1 ranking? I don't know fo sure, but think so. Meanwhile, Little Pancho is mopping up the rest of the pros on the courts of Europe in high summer of 1961. Big Pancho and Kenny are both absent until August. In August, Big Pancho wins the Geneva clay-court tournament, defeating Kenny in the final.
Ah-Ha! But it is the Petit Maître who vanquishes Big Pancho at the final of the clay-court Slam at RG. Huge win for Kenny, huge disappointment for Richard. Things are up-in-the-air, but not for long. Kenny catches the baton, catches the wind, catches history almost . . . he follows up the French w the London Pro Indoor.
Kenneth Robert Rosewall is now world No. 1 and will remain so until late 1964 or early 1965, depending upon your point of view - that is neither here nor there. Ricardo Alonso Gonzalez finishes up 1961 w three straight championships at strong tournaments: Scandinavian Pro Indoors, Milan Pro, and Austrian Pro Indoors on 12 straight match wins. The new No. 1 falters at each of the these three tournaments, wins at Durban, but loses to Trabert at Capetown. The three Gonzalez titles are worth 1,500 present-day points surely. Enough to regain the No. 1 at year's end? No, I don't think so.
Yet, by March 1961 it was clear that Gonzalez was winning the WCS, and in April he won the US Pro Slam. By then he must have regained the No. 1. He holds it until Rosewall wins Wembley in mid- or late September. I'd call it about 24 weeks at No. 1.
That makes 424 weeks at No. 1 for Richard Gonzalez, give or take. It is, withal, many more than Novak Djokovic will attain.
Last edited:
Reasonable estimations, Drob. I wrote above, that Gonzalez was Pro Champion in the 1954-1961 period, as McCauley and other experts like Talbert stated. Tennis Base has, as i wrote, combined pro am rankings (which i don't like) and they prefer activity, and so they gave Sedgman, Trabert and Segura a share of weeks. Tilden is certainly too high with over 600 weeks, despite Tennis Base giving him credit for activity. I looked into his pro activity in 1933 for instance, and many of the competition was really weak. At Berlin 1933, only 4 players were not local semi-pros (like the unknown Germans Kummer, Benz and Messerschmitt), and that were Tilden, Kozeluh, Najuch and Nüsslein, and the first three of these were around or over 40. As Pro Champion, Gonzalez could have well around 400 weeks. Also Kramer was longer heralded as champion, than he has weeks in Tennis Base. But he had long streaks of inactivity in the early 1950s, nevertheless remained the King of the Pros, like Dempsey stayed boxing champion in the 1920s with years without any fight. To me Kramer was the Nr. 1 player in 1947 as amateur as well, better than the Nr. 1 pro Riggs.
Gonzalez held the pro top position certainly until 1958. the following years, as You explained, are difficult to evaluate. I would cut 1960 into two halves, Gonzalez was clearly dominant until he retired, but could the ranking be frozen in. I would never beleive such a thing, up until 2020, this exact thing happened. In 1961, Rosewall was inactive for the first half, ok Rosewall won London and RG, but Gorgo did finish, as You pointed out, pretty strong at Milan, Stockholm and Vienna. I do give credit for the win loss stats: Following the Krosero numbers from 2017, Gonzalez was 88-33 for 1961, while Rosewall was 34-10. Rosewall's percentage is a bit higher (77% to 72%), but i give more weight to the win-loss difference, and Gonzalez plus 52 is twice better than Rosewalls plus 24 in 1961. In 1960, despite playing the whole year, Rosewall was 63-30 (plus 33 and 67%), Gonzalez with less activity 52-9 (plus 43 and 85%). So, on numbers, Gonzalez looks pretty strong in both years.
1959 pro ranking is for me still a problem, because i have not the newest win-loss stats for Hoad, who had obviously over 100 match wins, but also 60 or so losses. Gonzalez had 84-33 (quite the same as 1961). Its awfully close between Gorgo and Lew, who battled toe to toe all year. For the hth i read sometimes 23-22 for the one, or 24-23 for the other, a virtual draw. I think, Tennis Base give some weeks for Hoad as Nr. 1 at the begin of 1960.
Gonzalez held the pro top position certainly until 1958. the following years, as You explained, are difficult to evaluate. I would cut 1960 into two halves, Gonzalez was clearly dominant until he retired, but could the ranking be frozen in. I would never beleive such a thing, up until 2020, this exact thing happened. In 1961, Rosewall was inactive for the first half, ok Rosewall won London and RG, but Gorgo did finish, as You pointed out, pretty strong at Milan, Stockholm and Vienna. I do give credit for the win loss stats: Following the Krosero numbers from 2017, Gonzalez was 88-33 for 1961, while Rosewall was 34-10. Rosewall's percentage is a bit higher (77% to 72%), but i give more weight to the win-loss difference, and Gonzalez plus 52 is twice better than Rosewalls plus 24 in 1961. In 1960, despite playing the whole year, Rosewall was 63-30 (plus 33 and 67%), Gonzalez with less activity 52-9 (plus 43 and 85%). So, on numbers, Gonzalez looks pretty strong in both years.
1959 pro ranking is for me still a problem, because i have not the newest win-loss stats for Hoad, who had obviously over 100 match wins, but also 60 or so losses. Gonzalez had 84-33 (quite the same as 1961). Its awfully close between Gorgo and Lew, who battled toe to toe all year. For the hth i read sometimes 23-22 for the one, or 24-23 for the other, a virtual draw. I think, Tennis Base give some weeks for Hoad as Nr. 1 at the begin of 1960.
Last edited:
Drob
Hall of Fame
Excellent, helpful points.
I am still working out this 1959-61, or, re-working out. About five years ago i determined 1959 and 1960 for Gonzalez and 1961 as co-No. 1 bet. the two.
As you recommend, it is really two distinct inquiries. 1959 question is much different. I am re-looking at 1959, but I have to say that the only reason I can possibly find to dissent from the consensus view that Gonzalez was No. 1 is his boycott of RG and Wembley.
Incidentally, your post raises a question that perhaps you can answer:
The high numbers you cite I have never seen until your post. This is like 20 matches or more higher than the highest I have ever seen, which was Hoad 24-23.
But, and this is a BIG "BUT", to my knowledge the two most recent, reliable published figures show either an absolute draw, or a Gonzalez edge.
at thetennisbase.com, go to Gonzalez's "Rivalries" section. If you count up all the matches for 1959, it shows Gonzalez 23-21. If I can, I will try to copy and paste that TB tally into a separate post immediately after this. But it might not take.
The Professional Tennis Archive by @Pro tennis historian also lists a total of 44 matches for 1959. In that book, you have to bounce around over three sections of the Archive to find all the matches, and you may need magnifying glasses. In the end, it is an overall tally of 22-22, according to The Professional Tennis Archive, which was published in 2019 and must represent practically all the known matches. (Specifically, this dead-even record consists of a Hoad 15-13 in the WCS, wh Gorgo won rather comfortably, 1-0 Gonzalez on the "Australian Tour", 3-3 on the "US Tour", and Gonzalez 6-4 at tournaments).
Were the tallies you gave a typo, and you meant 22-22 or 23-22? If not a typo, who has the records of all these other matches and how is it TB and The Professional Tennis Archive do not have this information?
If it is a typo, then I would say it appears the most recent records certainly do not give Hoad an one-match edge. If anything, on TB, Gonzalez has the edge. But I would go w the Archive in this particular instance, and am planning to. Think they were, in fact, dead-even for the season.
I am still working out this 1959-61, or, re-working out. About five years ago i determined 1959 and 1960 for Gonzalez and 1961 as co-No. 1 bet. the two.
As you recommend, it is really two distinct inquiries. 1959 question is much different. I am re-looking at 1959, but I have to say that the only reason I can possibly find to dissent from the consensus view that Gonzalez was No. 1 is his boycott of RG and Wembley.
Incidentally, your post raises a question that perhaps you can answer:
The high numbers you cite I have never seen until your post. This is like 20 matches or more higher than the highest I have ever seen, which was Hoad 24-23.
But, and this is a BIG "BUT", to my knowledge the two most recent, reliable published figures show either an absolute draw, or a Gonzalez edge.
at thetennisbase.com, go to Gonzalez's "Rivalries" section. If you count up all the matches for 1959, it shows Gonzalez 23-21. If I can, I will try to copy and paste that TB tally into a separate post immediately after this. But it might not take.
The Professional Tennis Archive by @Pro tennis historian also lists a total of 44 matches for 1959. In that book, you have to bounce around over three sections of the Archive to find all the matches, and you may need magnifying glasses. In the end, it is an overall tally of 22-22, according to The Professional Tennis Archive, which was published in 2019 and must represent practically all the known matches. (Specifically, this dead-even record consists of a Hoad 15-13 in the WCS, wh Gorgo won rather comfortably, 1-0 Gonzalez on the "Australian Tour", 3-3 on the "US Tour", and Gonzalez 6-4 at tournaments).
Were the tallies you gave a typo, and you meant 22-22 or 23-22? If not a typo, who has the records of all these other matches and how is it TB and The Professional Tennis Archive do not have this information?
If it is a typo, then I would say it appears the most recent records certainly do not give Hoad an one-match edge. If anything, on TB, Gonzalez has the edge. But I would go w the Archive in this particular instance, and am planning to. Think they were, in fact, dead-even for the season.
Drob
Hall of Fame
Thanks, good deal. There may be a few out there that have not found their way to TB and were missed by Jordan, although I know his precise objective was to get all the known matches and tourneys recorded and published and did original research to that end, as well as relying on probably the two best historical investigators. I'm going w 22-22 for now.
Last edited:
Pro tennis historian
Rookie
The 24-23 figure is an overall figure quoted in newspapers. Documented matches are slightly less than this figure. I deliberately did not include a statistical section in my book, The Professional Tennis Archive, because there is a difference between total documented matches and the total matches that took place (every statistical database on the pre-open era pro tour should have a large asterix on it along with the words "based on documented matches"). People talk about tennis base stats as if every match that has ever taken place is listed in them and as if match reports have been found for every match that has ever taken place. This is impossible, because some matches were not reported anywhere. Actually for Gonzales and Hoad 1959 matches a very high proportion have been found. For a recent tour I have been researching, three matches 100% took place, but were not reported anywhere, plus there were several more that were scheduled to take place, but no results were reported (some of these may have taken place but the results were not reported, others may have been weather affected). Also, I have come to regard published totals with a degree of scepticism as they are sometimes wrong. What are reliable are the match reports containing results written the day the matches took place (or a day or two later) and published in newspapers. A large proportion of match reports have been found by myself, NoMercy, Krosero, AndrewTas, McCauley, Geist etc. over the years.
Your remark about needing magnifying glasses may say more about your eyesight than anything. My book contains quite large type (larger than McCauley's book).
I found countless of missing matches since last time I shared my info with TB.
Drob
Hall of Fame
Not surprised.
And my ability to do simple arithmetic is becoming doubtful. 15-13; 1-0; 3-3; 6-4 adds up to Gonzalez 23-22 from The Professional Tennis Archive, not 22-22. So, Gonzalez 23-22 is my "fact" for now, "provisional", subject to learning the specifics - where, when, results - of any additional matches you found since 2019.
Bruno Santiago
Rookie
What is the total" career total (am pro)? Thanks
Dan, I don't know how I have missed your post in the past. Anyway, I have to disappoint you. Kooyong was NOT $28,000. And the mistake is not yours but NoMercy's. He count the exchange rate at 2.8 which is wrong. Now the facts.
Valid in Australia since 1910 till 1966 was the Australian pound. All this time it was fixed to the British pound at 1 GBP = 4/5 Aus pound. In 1966 they changed their currency to $AUS.
Since 1949 the british pound has been fixed to USD at $2.8, respectively the AUS pound has been fixed to USD at $2.24.
So, all the Australian tournaments' prize money held between 1949 and 1966 should be counted at $2.24 for £AUS 1. Before 1949 the rate was fixed at 3.224.
Since 1970 the $Aus began floating.
So, Kooyong in 1958 was $22,400 = £AUS 10,000.
WHO CARES, AND WHY? IT IS THE COMPETITION THAT COUNTS MOST.
The competition highly depends on the prize money. ALWAYS! The pro players played entirely for money. Historically the top players played always in high prize money tourneys except maybe only Gonzales who skipped some European events. Less money less competition.
So, if you are not interested then ok. I am.
Hard Court
Professional
WAs looking at this old thread. So much information that it makes your head spin.
One stat that got my attention: Gonzales won over 72% of his matches in 1972.... the year he turned 44! Wow.
He was off the tour for a bit in th early 1960s. However, when well past his prime, how many pros were better than him from say 1964-1967?
One stat that got my attention: Gonzales won over 72% of his matches in 1972.... the year he turned 44! Wow.
He was off the tour for a bit in th early 1960s. However, when well past his prime, how many pros were better than him from say 1964-1967?
Rosewall and Laver, though in 64, Pancho was 37, Rosewall was 30, Laver was 26 and the first time Rod played Pancho
Hard Court
Professional
Do you think he was still #3? Still better than everyone else? Which would be pretty impressive.
Gimeno was one guy I was thinking of the most.
Maybe Stolle or Ralston when they turned pro in 1967?
Was he still better than say Bucholz, Sedgman, Hoad, etc. in the mid-1960s?
From what I have pieced together, he generally was, but I didn't really know.
Gimeno was one guy I was thinking of the most.
Maybe Stolle or Ralston when they turned pro in 1967?
Was he still better than say Bucholz, Sedgman, Hoad, etc. in the mid-1960s?
From what I have pieced together, he generally was, but I didn't really know.
Yes! By the mid sixties, Hoad and Sedgman were well past their peak. He was better than Stolle, Ralson or Bucholz into his late thirties or later. Pancho reached the FO semis in 68 at 40 or 41, losing to Laver who then lost to Rosewall in the finals.
Hard Court
Professional
Better than Gimeno in all those years as well?
Similar threads
