Who do you rank higher between Pancho Gonzalez? Ken Rosewall? Novak Djokovic

Greater Player between 3: Nole, Gonzalez, Rosewall


  • Total voters
    64

DSH

Hall of Fame
Gonzalez was great on all surfaces. Let's put it this way, even though Rosewall had the edge in their clay matchups, Gonzalez still beat Rosewall 10 times on clay and Rosewall was 6 years younger.

Gonzalez would have beaten any size field on all surfaces at his peak and certainly during his prime. It really didn't matter who you put in front of him.
So, in your opinion, you believe that he could have won RG if he had participated in his prime, is not it?
 
Gonzales is a legit GOAT candidate as it is, Djokovic still has work to do. Respect to the greatest clutchbot in history with the second greatest ATG longevity after Rosewall.
 

mightyrick

Legend
So, in your opinion, you believe that he could have won RG if he had participated in his prime, is not it?
Absolutely. And possibly even dominated RG in his peak years and probably split his early prime with Rosewall. Although, understandably your question is weird in a historical context because it just wasn't constructed that way back then.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DSH

DSH

Hall of Fame
Absolutely. And possibly even dominated RG in his peak years and probably split his early prime with Rosewall. Although, understandably your question is weird in a historical context because it just wasn't constructed that way back then.
And why do some point out many similarities with Sampras in that both excelled on fast surfaces but not on slow courts?
 

Gary Duane

G.O.A.T.
how good was Gonzales on clay?
Do you think he could have won in RG if he had not gone over to professionalism?
It was likely his weakest surface. He had by far the most dominant serve in his time. The the other players actually tried to change the rules to handicap that serve, but without success. Too bad we don't have the stats we have today. I'd love to know what his % of games were on serve and return during his prime.

He was probably best on HC, though with experience he got really good on grass. As I understand it he cut his teeth on fast HC in CA, then learned to play on other surfaces later.

Those old pros could not afford to be weak on any surface because on any given day they might play on any surface, in any weather, under any conditions, and they all played a lot of doubles. I don't think there has ever been a less spoiled, more match-tough group of players, and you can see that by how they dominated in the early Open Era.
 

RaulRamirez

Hall of Fame
I don't really rate one above the other, because it gets into the whole GOAT thing. I just voted for one so I could see the results. ;)

But I think Pancho was the best of his era, hands down. What he did in the Open era, over the age of 40, is downright scary. Also, in his time he was the equivalent of 6'4" or 6'5" today, because for those born in 1928 being over 6 feet tall was much more of an anomaly. He really was a freak talent. He was much more self-taught than another other champion, I think.
Agree that it's so hard to compare accomplishments between eras, but from what I've seen and read about Pancho, he strikes me as, possibly, an even more athletic Sampras. (like Connie Hawkins to Dr. J, for other hoops fans)
 

mightyrick

Legend
And why do some point out many similarities with Sampras in that both excelled on fast surfaces but not on slow courts?
I think that some are historically just not informed. Gonzalez was way better on slow surfaces than Sampras.

Also, keeping in mind that grass back then could also play very slow depending on the venue and the weather conditions. The court maintenance wasn't as good back then and the grass used was less resilient than today. Laver wrote about how they'd frequently be playing in mud a lot of time. (Keep in mind, they had to wear spikes often times. Laver wore spikes a lot.). The US Open could be a complete mud-pit by the final.
 

xFedal

Legend
If he does any one of these 3
- Win another RG
- Beat the #1 record, or get a 6th YE#1
- Pass Nadal in the Slam count
Finishing No.1 this year for 6th year in total should seal it for u then.

It was likely his weakest surface. He had by far the most dominant serve in his time. The the other players actually tried to change the rules to handicap that serve, but without success. Too bad we don't have the stats we have today. I'd love to know what his % of games were on serve and return during his prime.

He was probably best on HC, though with experience he got really good on grass. As I understand it he cut his teeth on fast HC in CA, then learned to play on other surfaces later.

Those old pros could not afford to be weak on any surface because on any given day they might play on any surface, in any weather, under any conditions, and they all played a lot of doubles. I don't think there has ever been a less spoiled, more match-tough group of players, and you can see that by how they dominated in the early Open Era.
Gonzalez had better serve than Kramer?
 

DSH

Hall of Fame
If he does any one of these 3
- Win another RG
- Beat the #1 record, or get a 6th YE#1
- Pass Nadal in the Slam count
Very difficult with Nadal and Thiem around. I do not think Djokovic can win another French Open.
The second point he is very close to achieving it.
The third, it is possible but if Nadal equals the 20 Majors of Federer, the Serbian will have to win 5 more GS to surpass both.
 

xFedal

Legend
Very difficult with Nadal and Thiem around. I do not think Djokovic can win another French Open.
The second point he is very close to achieving it.
The third, it is possible but if Nadal equals the 20 Majors of Federer, the Serbian will have to win 5 more GS to surpass both.
The Serbian Maestro will be ahead of Nadal in most peoples eyes if he wins USO19.
 
I think that some are historically just not informed. Gonzalez was way better on slow surfaces than Sampras.
Both have zero majors on the surface, and there is little evidence that Pancho would ever have been dominant on clay vs. the likes of Trabert, Rosewall, Drobny etc. who were the slow court titans of that era. Maybe he was marginally better than Pete on clay, but not by enough of a distance to supposedly make one a GOAT contender and the other a 'mere' Tier 1 great. I see the two of them as historical equivalents.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DSH
Do you personally bother people who say something you don't like IRL? Do you continue to do so even after they ask you not to?
Huh?

Edit: I wasn't trying to "bother" you, just expressing a differing opinion to yours. I also wasn't aware that you had asked me not to reply to you.

Edit 2: As long as people keep claiming Gonzales is the GOAT, I'll keep writing comments arguing otherwise. This forum is (one hopes) a democracy.
 
Last edited:

mightyrick

Legend
Both have zero majors on the surface, and there is little evidence that Pancho would ever have been dominant on clay vs. the likes of Trabert, Rosewall, Drobny etc. who were the slow court titans of that era. Maybe he was marginally better than Pete on clay, but not by enough of a distance to supposedly make one a GOAT contender and the other a 'mere' Tier 1 great. I see the two of them as historical equivalents.
Well, that depends on your criteria. You see it one way. I see it another. Fair enough.
 

xFedal

Legend
In Elliot Berry’s Topspin (1996), Rosewall expresses his respect for Gonzalez’s great-ness: "I am an admirer of the Gonzalez game . . . Pancho is the toughest opponent I have ever faced [not excluding his long-time rival Laver]. . . . He is difficult to play because of his big serve and his all-around ability. . . . Pancho is not only a great athlete but a great retriever as well. I have to class him a notch above Hoad."
 
Huh?

Edit: I wasn't trying to "bother" you, just expressing a differing opinion to yours. I also wasn't aware that you had asked me not to reply to you.

Edit 2: As long as people keep claiming Gonzales is the GOAT, I'll keep writing comments arguing otherwise. This forum is (one hopes) a democracy.
I haven't, but now I do. Enough is enough, would you please not reply to me anymore. I hope you don't continue talking to people if asked not to IRL.
 

chimneysweep

Semi-Pro
I think the reason Gonzales is seen as a GOAT candidate is he was the #1 player (generally recognized) 8 years in a row. That is more than anyone in history. For comparision sake Federer who many pick as the GOAT was only 5 years.

As for his weakness on clay, he is better on clay than Sampras, and Sampras was picked by some as the GOAT over Laver before Federer eclipsed almost all his marks, and 3 guys cruised past his slam mark, so the importance of that is debateable.
 

KG1965

Legend
It depends on the age of the interlocutor.
If he is fairly young (he has not played with wood) he chooses 100% Nole.
If he is old but does not know who Pancho is, he probably chooses Novak, but many choose Rosewall.
If he is old and knows a little Pancho chooses Pancho.
Deadman would choose Pancho.:-D
 

Born_to_slice

Semi-Pro
It's hard enough to compare '80 and '90 generation with post '00 guys. Gets even more futile comparing them to pre-open era champions. Equipment and competition are that different that it's almost not the same sport. Just rank champions in their own time with their contemporaries. Until we can clone all these guys or figure out time travel at least.
 

xFedal

Legend
Pretty much.
I don't really rate one above the other, because it gets into the whole GOAT thing. I just voted for one so I could see the results. ;)

But I think Pancho was the best of his era, hands down. What he did in the Open era, over the age of 40, is downright scary. Also, in his time he was the equivalent of 6'4" or 6'5" today, because for those born in 1928 being over 6 feet tall was much more of an anomaly. He really was a freak talent. He was much more self-taught than another other champion, I think.
1. Federer
2. Laver
3= Djokovic and Nadal
5= Gonzales and Sampras
7 Rosewall
8 Borg
9 Tilden
10 Budge
My GOAT criteria is pretty straightforward. Whoever was the best in the world for the most seasons is the GOAT.

Gonzalez was best in world 8 times. Djokovic wasn't. So that ends it for me.
Just to elaborate

How can you win the biggest prizes when they don't exist? There were no French Pro's on clay until 1956 in his tennis life time (1950 and 1953 were on cement). Still in his prime but it meant that he missed being able to compete in it a lot of times.

These were the years that Pancho Gonzales did not get the opportunity to compete in the French Pro on clay (either because there was no tournament or it was not on clay):

1950, 1951, 1952, 1953, 1954, 1955, 1957, 1963, 1964, 1965, 1966, 1967

The US pro in 1950 was on clay however. I don’t know if he competed in it

@NatF @timnz @Phoenix1983 @Gary Duane @mightyrick

Here is a more reasonable account of his career:

1948: Wins Forest Hills, is in the top 3 amateur, top 10 on the whole.
1949: Dominant amateur year (at least on US soil), top 5 on the whole.
1950: Crushed by Kramer in the tour but good wins in tournaments (Philadelphia, (depleted) Wembley). #3 after Kramer and Segura
1951: The same. #3 again.
1952: Dominant pro #1, but there was hardly a pro circuit that year. Still, wins a big match against Kramer at Wembley. Sedgman dominates the amateurs and they're really hard to compare. Gonzales is co-#1
1953: #4 after Sedgman, Kramer and Segura...Is it "his fault"? Kramer doesn't contract him for the big events he plays and Pancho plays against old Riggs and Budge for 6 months. When he comes back, with little 'true' match play, he's crushed by Sedgman at Wembley. Whatever the circumstances, he's far from the top spot.
1954: Dominant year: loses only twice in tournaments and clearly wins every tour played (US 'World Series', Far East, Australia).
1955: Dominant year again: he's 17-1 in tournaments and wins the short tour he played. This dominance is a little tarnished by the small number of pro events that year and the decreasing quality of competition (Sedgman has physical problems, Kramer is retired, aging Segura is the only true rival for Gonzales)
1956:Another dominant year: he wins the first Wembley tournament to be held since 1953, the US Pro, the main tour, etc.
1957: Pancho is still a clear #1 but is not dominant anymore: for the first time since 1954, he doesn't win the main events and loses at Wembley and the Australian Pro.
1958: Gonzales has a serious rival: Sedgman who beats him twice in best-of-5 matches in Wembley and the Australian, and has a 4-4 win-loss record against him. There is a serious case to be made about a #1 Sedgman.
1959: This time his main foe is Hoad: he beats Gonzales in their tour (even if he loses the tour overall), wins at Forest Hills, and has a good year. Again, Gonzales is for me at best a co-#1.
1960: He plays a world tour including Rosewall and wins clearly...but he doesn't play for the rest of the year, and lets Rosewall dominate the tournament circuit, winning Wembley and the French. In 1960 criteria, Gonzales is the champion, in 2008 criteria, it is Rosewall. I'd say they're co-#1.
1961: Gonzales wins a world tour and is then hailed as the champion by his fellow pro, but the tour doesn't include Rosewall so it's a minor event. Gonzales loses in both majors (Wembley and the French). In spite of impressive tournament wins in Copenhagen, Vienna, Geneva, etc., he's only #2.
1962-3: "Retirement"
1964-1971: Gonzales comes back to the tour in 1964 and wins the US Pro indoors. In the following year he will always be a threat to any player, even though he wouldn't get near the top 2 again. Among his memorable wins: Wembley BBC2 event 1966, Los Angeles 1969, Las Vegas 1970, Los Angeles 1970, Las Vegas 1971

As you can see, Gonzales's record is extremely impressive, but it has nothing superhuman and he's not above some of his fellow GOAT-candidates.

Here are some comparison elements (very subjective of course, especially the 'dominance' label)

Gonzales: 3 dominant year, 1 'ordinary' #1 year, 4 "co-#1", 12 years in the top 3 overall

HL Doherty: 4 dominant, 1 #1, 7 top3
Tilden:3 dominant, 3 #1, 1 co-#1, 12 top3
Rosewall: 2 dominant, 1 #1, 2 co-#1, 15 top3
Laver: 2 dominant, 3 #1, 2 co-#1, 8 top3
 

Navdeep Srivastava

Hall of Fame
Pancho and not even close, Pancho was Sampras better version.
If Fed 5 year no. 1 can bring 20 slam, Novak around 6 year no. 1 16 slam, Rafa 4 year 18 slam then think about Pancho, he was no. 1 for 7 or 8 years.
 

xFedal

Legend
Pancho and not even close, Pancho was Sampras better version.
If Fed 5 year no. 1 can bring 20 slam, Novak around 6 year no. 1 16 slam, Rafa 4 year 18 slam then think about Pancho, he was no. 1 for 7 or 8 years.
Its not undisputed though......

@NatF @timnz @Phoenix1983 @Gary Duane @mightyrick


pancho gonzales

I agrre that Gonzales was a great player. He has great longevity. Even in 1964-5 at the age of 36-37 he was probably the 3rd best player in the world behind Laver and Rosewall.

Howver, I also agree that gonzales was only a definite no1 in 1954-7. I would also probably give him 1952 as he beat Kramer 3 times out of three and won 5 out of 6 tournaments. Comparing him with the top amateur Sedgman is difficult. In early '53 Sedgman played Kramer even except when he was injured which resulted in him losing 54-41. On that basis Gonzales might well be regarded as possibly better than Sedg in '52 given gonzales clear edge over kramer that year . However later in '53 sedg clearly beat Gonzales 3 times out of 3, including the biggest tournament at Wembly. Therfore a compromise of joint ranking is probably right.

In 1958 I clearly think Sedgman was no1. He had 4-2 edge over Gonzales (I discount one set matches played to 8 which gonzales won.), including 2 all important 5 set matches at Wembly (the most important event) and the Aussie pro. Gonzales won one important event the Forest hills pro which was a round robin with all the best players but only best of vthree sets. The Aussie pro was also played at grand slam venue (kooyang), had the top 5, and was played as best of 5 ,which gives it a slight edge over forest hills.

In 1959, I would give the edge to Gonzales over Hoad. Gonzales won the main tour over hoad by a small margin, even though hoad had a head to head advqantage over him (15-130. Gonzales never lost to the 2 rookie pros Anderson or copper, while Hoad did lose a small number of matches to them. Ther were also 14 eight man events that year; gonzales won 5 and Hoad only 3. Gonzales' wins included the prestigious US pro beating Hoad in the final. Hoad played more than Gonzales but this lead to extra poor results. He only came 3rd behind Rosewall and Sedgman in a 27 match round-robin tour. He also entered (which Gonzales did not play) the 2 most prestigious tournaments at Wembley and the french pro but failed to reach the final of either. Gonzales's greater consistency give him the edge for the year.

I agree that gonzales was co1 with Rosewall in 1960. In 1961 he would be no2 behind rosewall.
That gives Gonzales 5 world no1 rankings and 2 shared with Sedgman and gonzales.

In comparing him with rod laver, I would give Laver the world no1 spot for 7 seven years: 1964-70. Laver's no1 is undisputed 65-69.

In 1964, comparing with his rival Rosewall:

Laver won 11 tournaments to 10
Laver had a 12-3 head to head advantage
Laver won the 2 most prestigious events Wemblely And US pro (beating Rosewall at both events)
Rosewall won one prestige title the French pro
These stats show a clear edge to Laver

In 1970 again his rival was Rosewall.
Rosewall had big year in the 2 important touraments winning Forest hills and being runner -up. He also won 5 other events which would fall in the category of the 35 to 50 point category in the present ATP points system.

Laver failed at wimbledon and forest hills only reaching the L16. However, he won 13 tournaments and one 4 man round-robin.

Laver's wins were all against strong fields reflected in the fact that he scored at least 2 wins against every player in the top 12. 5 of his wins were super 9 equivalents at Philadelhia, Syndey, PSW, Wembley and the South african open ( a prestige event in late 1960s like the Italian and german opens).
Rosewall failed to win any of these super 9. his best being a runner-upto Laver at Sydney. Laver also won the big money event of 1970 the Champions
Tennis classic. He beat Rosewall in the final. Laver earned 70,000 and Rosewall 45,000 from this event. Overall he eanerd 200,000 and rosewall was 2nd with 140,000

Laver had a 5-0 edge over Rosewall; 3-0 edge over Necombe the other contender, who won Wimbledon.

Based on the ATP points race of today system he was clear winner about 1100 points to 750 for Rosewall. <<<<ORIGNAL COMMENT
******EDIT TIME***** In the 1970 atp points race I underestimated Rosewall's total . He has 865 points compared to Laver's 1095: stiil a big win for laver.

Newcombe would end with about 640 points.

Newvcombe is not nearly in the race. He only won 3 other events. None of them super 9 status. 2 of wins were against weak fields at hoylak and casablanca. He won the Victorian open as well which was fairly strong and would be worth 50 points. nBesides losing all his matches to Laver, he was beaten 5-1 by rosewall.



Credit for this information - jeffrey neave
 
Last edited:

itrium84

Semi-Pro
@NatF @timnz @Phoenix1983 @Gary Duane @mightyrick

Here is a more reasonable account of his career:

1948: Wins Forest Hills, is in the top 3 amateur, top 10 on the whole.
1949: Dominant amateur year (at least on US soil), top 5 on the whole.
1950: Crushed by Kramer in the tour but good wins in tournaments (Philadelphia, (depleted) Wembley). #3 after Kramer and Segura
1951: The same. #3 again.
1952: Dominant pro #1, but there was hardly a pro circuit that year. Still, wins a big match against Kramer at Wembley. Sedgman dominates the amateurs and they're really hard to compare. Gonzales is co-#1
1953: #4 after Sedgman, Kramer and Segura...Is it "his fault"? Kramer doesn't contract him for the big events he plays and Pancho plays against old Riggs and Budge for 6 months. When he comes back, with little 'true' match play, he's crushed by Sedgman at Wembley. Whatever the circumstances, he's far from the top spot.
1954: Dominant year: loses only twice in tournaments and clearly wins every tour played (US 'World Series', Far East, Australia).
1955: Dominant year again: he's 17-1 in tournaments and wins the short tour he played. This dominance is a little tarnished by the small number of pro events that year and the decreasing quality of competition (Sedgman has physical problems, Kramer is retired, aging Segura is the only true rival for Gonzales)
1956:Another dominant year: he wins the first Wembley tournament to be held since 1953, the US Pro, the main tour, etc.
1957: Pancho is still a clear #1 but is not dominant anymore: for the first time since 1954, he doesn't win the main events and loses at Wembley and the Australian Pro.
1958: Gonzales has a serious rival: Sedgman who beats him twice in best-of-5 matches in Wembley and the Australian, and has a 4-4 win-loss record against him. There is a serious case to be made about a #1 Sedgman.
1959: This time his main foe is Hoad: he beats Gonzales in their tour (even if he loses the tour overall), wins at Forest Hills, and has a good year. Again, Gonzales is for me at best a co-#1.
1960: He plays a world tour including Rosewall and wins clearly...but he doesn't play for the rest of the year, and lets Rosewall dominate the tournament circuit, winning Wembley and the French. In 1960 criteria, Gonzales is the champion, in 2008 criteria, it is Rosewall. I'd say they're co-#1.
1961: Gonzales wins a world tour and is then hailed as the champion by his fellow pro, but the tour doesn't include Rosewall so it's a minor event. Gonzales loses in both majors (Wembley and the French). In spite of impressive tournament wins in Copenhagen, Vienna, Geneva, etc., he's only #2.
1962-3: "Retirement"
1964-1971: Gonzales comes back to the tour in 1964 and wins the US Pro indoors. In the following year he will always be a threat to any player, even though he wouldn't get near the top 2 again. Among his memorable wins: Wembley BBC2 event 1966, Los Angeles 1969, Las Vegas 1970, Los Angeles 1970, Las Vegas 1971

As you can see, Gonzales's record is extremely impressive, but it has nothing superhuman and he's not above some of his fellow GOAT-candidates.

Here are some comparison elements (very subjective of course, especially the 'dominance' label)

Gonzales: 3 dominant year, 1 'ordinary' #1 year, 4 "co-#1", 12 years in the top 3 overall

HL Doherty: 4 dominant, 1 #1, 7 top3
Tilden:3 dominant, 3 #1, 1 co-#1, 12 top3
Rosewall: 2 dominant, 1 #1, 2 co-#1, 15 top3
Laver: 2 dominant, 3 #1, 2 co-#1, 8 top3
Great post, thank you.

Sent from my Redmi Note 4 using Tapatalk
 

thrust

Hall of Fame
Its not undisputed though......

@NatF @timnz @Phoenix1983 @Gary Duane @mightyrick


pancho gonzales

I agrre that Gonzales was a great player. He has great longevity. Even in 1964-5 at the age of 36-37 he was probably the 3rd best player in the world behind Laver and Rosewall.

Howver, I also agree that gonzales was only a definite no1 in 1954-7. I would also probably give him 1952 as he beat Kramer 3 times out of three and won 5 out of 6 tournaments. Comparing him with the top amateur Sedgman is difficult. In early '53 Sedgman played Kramer even except when he was injured which resulted in him losing 54-41. On that basis Gonzales might well be regarded as possibly better than Sedg in '52 given gonzales clear edge over kramer that year . However later in '53 sedg clearly beat Gonzales 3 times out of 3, including the biggest tournament at Wembly. Therfore a compromise of joint ranking is probably right.

In 1958 I clearly think Sedgman was no1. He had 4-2 edge over Gonzales (I discount one set matches played to 8 which gonzales won.), including 2 all important 5 set matches at Wembly (the most important event) and the Aussie pro. Gonzales won one important event the Forest hills pro which was a round robin with all the best players but only best of vthree sets. The Aussie pro was also played at grand slam venue (kooyang), had the top 5, and was played as best of 5 ,which gives it a slight edge over forest hills.

In 1959, I would give the edge to Gonzales over Hoad. Gonzales won the main tour over hoad by a small margin, even though hoad had a head to head advqantage over him (15-130. Gonzales never lost to the 2 rookie pros Anderson or copper, while Hoad did lose a small number of matches to them. Ther were also 14 eight man events that year; gonzales won 5 and Hoad only 3. Gonzales' wins included the prestigious US pro beating Hoad in the final. Hoad played more than Gonzales but this lead to extra poor results. He only came 3rd behind Rosewall and Sedgman in a 27 match round-robin tour. He also entered (which Gonzales did not play) the 2 most prestigious tournaments at Wembley and the french pro but failed to reach the final of either. Gonzales's greater consistency give him the edge for the year.

I agree that gonzales was co1 with Rosewall in 1960. In 1961 he would be no2 behind rosewall.
That gives Gonzales 5 world no1 rankings and 2 shared with Sedgman and gonzales.

In comparing him with rod laver, I would give Laver the world no1 spot for 7 seven years: 1964-70. Laver's no1 is undisputed 65-69.

In 1964, comparing with his rival Rosewall:

Laver won 11 tournaments to 10
Laver had a 12-3 head to head advantage
Laver won the 2 most prestigious events Wemblely And US pro (beating Rosewall at both events)
Rosewall won one prestige title the French pro
These stats show a clear edge to Laver

In 1970 again his rival was Rosewall.
Rosewall had big year in the 2 important touraments winning Forest hills and being runner -up. He also won 5 other events which would fall in the category of the 35 to 50 point category in the present ATP points system.

Laver failed at wimbledon and forest hills only reaching the L16. However, he won 13 tournaments and one 4 man round-robin.

Laver's wins were all against strong fields reflected in the fact that he scored at least 2 wins against every player in the top 12. 5 of his wins were super 9 equivalents at Philadelhia, Syndey, PSW, Wembley and the South african open ( a prestige event in late 1960s like the Italian and german opens).
Rosewall failed to win any of these super 9. his best being a runner-upto Laver at Sydney. Laver also won the big money event of 1970 the Champions
Tennis classic. He beat Rosewall in the final. Laver earned 70,000 and Rosewall 45,000 from this event. Overall he eanerd 200,000 and rosewall was 2nd with 140,000

Laver had a 5-0 edge over Rosewall; 3-0 edge over Necombe the other contender, who won Wimbledon.

Based on the ATP points race of today system he was clear winner about 1100 points to 750 for Rosewall.

Newvcombe is not nearly in the race. He only won 3 other events. None of them super 9 status. 2 of wins were against weak fields at hoylak and casablanca. He won the Victorian open as well which was fairly strong and would be worth 50 points. nBesides losing all his matches to Laver, he was beaten 5-1 by rosewall.



Credit for this information - jeffrey neave
TRUE, but Rosewall was 35 in 1970 and nearly 30 when he first played Rod in 63. He also beat Laver in 2 WCT finals in 71-72 at age 37 and nearly 38.
 

xFedal

Legend
TRUE, but Rosewall was 35 in 1970 and nearly 30 when he first played Rod in 63. He also beat Laver in 2 WCT finals in 71-72 at age 37 and nearly 38.
Rosewall has superior longevity to Laver nobody is disputing that. Even Djokovic probably has more longevity than Laver.......
 

xFedal

Legend
Novak is close, but not quite there yet. Gonzalez, Laver, Federer very close as All Time GOAT.
Did you read post no.82? Gonzalez no.1 years are heavily disputed..... while Djokovic has 6 which won't be disputed at all..
 

mightyrick

Legend
Did you read post no.82? Gonzalez no.1 years are heavily disputed..... while Djokovic has 6 which won't be disputed at all..
Actually, they aren't. Read enough by Collins, McCauley and others... and you'll see. They really aren't. They didn't have a point system back then. Ranking was much more based on compiled results and expressed by extremely knowledgeable and esteemed tennis journalists (mainly Bud Collins and Joe McCauley).

In any system, some of anybody's number one years are going to be "disputed" (if you can even call it that). For example, Nadal's #1 in 2013 is "disputed" because even though he won the ATP, the ITF would not grant him #1. They gave it to Djokovic. It's just a factor of the system.

You also can't cherry pick "rivalries", you have to look at overall results and factors surrounding specific tournaments. Gonzalez was substantially older than other ATGs (6 years older than Rosewall, 10 years older than Laver). Let's keep in mind that 10 years back in the 50s was like 20 years today. They did not have the healthcare, the knowledge, the science, the technology, or the training. Think about it, back then, cigarette manufacturers used to advertise the healthiness of their cigarettes. Then we talk about travel and how impossibly difficult it was. But Gonzalez still has key tournament wins against all of these guys in all of his #1 years.

The things that are constant in any sport -- any era : 1) The cream always rises to the top, and 2) All you can do in your peak and prime is play the people put in front of you. Gonzalez was the overall best player for more years. In the Former Pro section, we've been through all of this (probably several times over the years). All of us in Former Pro have discussed the situations, read things, argued with each other about certain things. But in the end, almost all of us agree that Gonzalez garners the GOAT spot.

I think it is good that you are looking to history to understand its context relative to today. You need to try to check any fanboy-ness at the door when you do it. When you look at tennis history (or any kind of history for that matter), you begin to realize that the GPPD forum (which is primarily for the young) has it backwards. The moniker of "True Greatness" isn't assigned because of accumulation of staggering numbers. Rather, accumulation of staggering numbers is a by-product of "True Greatness".
 

xFedal

Legend
Actually, they aren't. Read enough by Collins, McCauley and others... and you'll see. They really aren't. They didn't have a point system back then. Ranking was much more based on compiled results and expressed by extremely knowledgeable and esteemed tennis journalists (mainly Bud Collins and Joe McCauley).

In any system, some of anybody's number one years are going to be "disputed" (if you can even call it that). For example, Nadal's #1 in 2013 is "disputed" because even though he won the ATP, the ITF would not grant him #1. They gave it to Djokovic. It's just a factor of the system.

You also can't cherry pick "rivalries", you have to look at overall results and factors surrounding specific tournaments. Gonzalez was substantially older than other ATGs (6 years older than Rosewall, 10 years older than Laver). Let's keep in mind that 10 years back in the 50s was like 20 years today. They did not have the healthcare, the knowledge, the science, the technology, or the training. Think about it, back then, cigarette manufacturers used to advertise the healthiness of their cigarettes. Then we talk about travel and how impossibly difficult it was. But Gonzalez still has key tournament wins against all of these guys in all of his #1 years.

The things that are constant in any sport -- any era : 1) The cream always rises to the top, and 2) All you can do in your peak and prime is play the people put in front of you. Gonzalez was the overall best player for more years. In the Former Pro section, we've been through all of this (probably several times over the years). All of us in Former Pro have discussed the situations, read things, argued with each other about certain things. But in the end, almost all of us agree that Gonzalez garners the GOAT spot.

I think it is good that you are looking to history to understand its context relative to today. You need to try to check any fanboy-ness at the door when you do it. When you look at tennis history (or any kind of history for that matter), you begin to realize that the GPPD forum (which is primarily for the young) has it backwards. The moniker of "True Greatness" isn't assigned because of accumulation of staggering numbers. Rather, accumulation of staggering numbers is a by-product of "True Greatness".
So you think he Gonzalez was the true numberi 1 for 8 years, in 1952 and from 1954 to 1960. ??? What about Lavers No.1 years from 1964-1971 he matches Gonzalez ?
 
Last edited:

mightyrick

Legend
So you think he was the true number 1 for 8 years, in 1952 and from 1954 to 1960. ???
Yes. 1952 and 1960 are two years where it can be arguably said that Gonzalez shared the distinction with someone else, but nobody can really say with substantial confidence that Gonzalez was worse or better than the other player in those years. Nobody can really commit to that statement. But you have to do the best you can with the ranking system you have.

BTW, a lot of us have problems with the ATP ranking system because a ranking doesn't reflect current results. The only time when the ATP ranking system has a good use is at the end of the season in the YEC because that is the only time it truly covers the current calendar year season. The current points system has a lot of issues.

I don't think there is a magic bullet, though. Every system has flaws and caveats which make it challenging. This is why you can't just look at adding up numbers in these kinds of discussions.
 

xFedal

Legend
Yes. 1952 and 1960 are two years where it can be arguably said that Gonzalez shared the distinction with someone else, but nobody can really say with substantial confidence that Gonzalez was worse or better than the other player in those years. Nobody can really commit to that statement. But you have to do the best you can with the ranking system you have.

BTW, a lot of us have problems with the ATP ranking system because a ranking doesn't reflect current results. The only time when the ATP ranking system has a good use is at the end of the season in the YEC because that is the only time it truly covers the current calendar year season. The current points system has a lot of issues.

I don't think there is a magic bullet, though. Every system has flaws and caveats which make it challenging. This is why you can't just look at adding up numbers in these kinds of discussions.
What about Lavers No.1 years from 1964-1971 he matches Gonzalez ?
 

xFedal

Legend
Laver was not the best in 1971.
for 1971,which I regard as the toughest year in open tennis with about 5 players having claim to the no1.

This comes out as about:

Laver 930
Rosewall 820
smith 790
Ashe 770
Necombe 750
Natase 730

Laver does well here because all his performances are in strong fields. A fact reflected in the fact that he has many more wins over top players than any of the others.

My rankings are based on mandatary super nines plus best 5 to make best of eighteen, although in 1971 I could only identiy 6 super nines, so another best 8 were chosen.

Credit to jeffrey for rankings/points.....
 
Last edited:

mightyrick

Legend
for 1971,which I regard as the toughest year in open tennis with about 5 players having claim to the no1.

This comes out as about:

Laver 1030
Rosewall 920
Smith 890
Ashe 870
Newcombe 850
Nastase 830

Laver does well here because all his performances are in strong fields. A fact reflected in the fact that he has many more wins over top players than any of the others.

My rankings are based on mandatary super nines plus best 5 to make best of eighteen, although in 1971 I could only identiy 6 super nines, so another best 8 were chosen.

Credit to jeffrey for rankings/points.....
Stan Smith and Newcombe won the Martini-Rossi rankings in that year. (Martini-Rossi did lots of great "rankings" back in the day). It was arguably the best system given the method and individuals weighing in on it.
 

xFedal

Legend

mightyrick

Legend

xFedal

Legend
I understand. The ranking methodology you prefer to choose is a personal one. In that year, I prefer the Martini-Rossi rankings as having the best overall view, best contributors, and best judgment.
Add another Methodology AKA H2H..... LAVER WAS SUPERIOR TO THE FIELD IN 1971 AS WELL.

1971 LAVER

Opposition Breakdown

Vs Top 5 - 81.3% (13-3)
Vs Top 10 - 77.4% (24-7)

Vs Top 20 - 75.4% (43-14)

Overall
80.2% (81-20)


Speaking of Laver in 1971, did any of you ever have a thread on Laver's great victory in the Tennis Champions Classic over 13 straight excellent players like Rosewall, Newcombe, Roche, Ashe, Okker, Ralston, Taylor? It has to be the toughest field for anyone to play to win a tournament.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1971 STAN SMITH


Opposition Breakdown
Vs No. 1 - 0.0% (0-1)
Vs Top 5 - 33.3% (2-4)
Vs Top 10 - 50.0% (7-7

Vs Top 20 - 61.5% (16-10)

Overall
80.0% (64-16)

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1971 John Newcombe

Opposition Breakdown
Vs No. 1 - 33.3% (1-2)
Vs Top 5 - 70.0% (7-3)
Vs Top 10 - 56.5% (13-10)

Vs Top 20 - 56.8% (21-16)

Overall
77.0% (57-17)





@NatF @timnz @Phoenix1983 @Gary Duane @mightyrick Any mistakes^^?
 
Last edited:
Top