His longevity was greater, but it's not as if those extra years really added much to his legacy - he wasn't winning major titles in his 30s like Federer and Rosewall were, for instance.
oh yes, they did.
Sampras won his 2nd last title in Wim 2000 at ~29 years of age.
Making 2 USO finals and winning USO in the end were his significant achievements after that. No Masters 1000, no YEC final.
In his 30s (counting only from 59 onwards when he was 30.5), Gonzales :
Won World series 59, US Pro 59, Sydney 59, LA Masters Pro, world #1
Dominated World series 60, world #1
Dominated World series 61, won (depleted) US Pro in 61.
Won White Plains 64 (arguably the most important tournament of 64 after the 3 pro majors), US Pro final in 64.
Won CBS Pro TV series 65
LA Pro Ch. 68
Pacific Southwest Open, Las Vegas in 69
Las Vegas 70
Pacific Southwest Open 71
All of these are 1000 level or above.
59, he managed to hold off Hoad in the World series
60 , he dominated prime Rosewall in the World series
The fact that he did that are really important parts of his legacy.
Also, the players admired Gonzales for his longevity for sticking through at such an old age and still doing well, including playing phenomenal in some matches. Read Laver's book to see examples of that.
Federer's 2014-2015 added to his legacy. As did Agassi's 04-05. So did Gonzales' later years.
Gonzales' 8 years as No 1 in a split field is no more impressive than Sampras's 6 years as No 1 in an Open field, IMHO. (Of course, they are both extremely impressive - but the point is that Gonzales' feat isn't on a higher plane than Sampras's).
The best players in the world were in the pros. So its unlikely any of the amateur guys would've unseated/helped unseat Gonzales from #1 spot.
Its one thing for amateurs to cut into some tournaments by winning some of them, but that wouldn't likely take away Gonzales from #1 spot.
Oh lord, you've gone into digging up my old posts - no surprise given your obsessive and dogged nature. However, you shouldn't state hypotheticals to elevate another player ("he'd very likely have won at least 1 clay court major") - that's the sign of a poor analyst.
no, its not. It needs to be mentioned when comparing them on a surface when its not an apples to apples comparision. (even considering split fields, the difference in # titles for Gonzales/Sampras is too much)
Also notice I first stated the clear difference in their actual claycourt achievements ....then only went to the hypothetical.