> >> In other words, professional tennis had _zero_ prestige, whereas the
> >> slams maintained their prestige. That ought to put an end to the
> >> ridiculous proposition that Pancho Gonzales was the GOAT, or even a
> >> GOAT candidate. He won two USOs and that's all.

> > How many slams did Hoad win? How many years did he stay at the top of
> > the heap?

> > Are you really that simple, or just young and unread?

> I don't know what you are getting at there. The quotes I posted prove how pro
> tennis was seen at the time - it was nothing more than a series of meaningless
> exos.

> Here's another quote:
> JOHN NEWCOMBE: In those days there were two distinct ranks of players: there
> were the amateurs and the professionals. As an amateur you could play in all the
> Grand Slam tournaments and Davis Cup of course. And if you were really good you
> could just eke a living out of it. The glamour of course was on the amateur
> side, because with Davis Cup you got that great recognition within your country.
> And if you could win Wimbledon or do well there you got international
> recognition. The professionals had their own circuit and they had eight to 16
> guys that used to travel around and play their own little tournaments and play
> exhibition matches against one another. It was a hard life, and often it was
> night after night, town after town. But they made good money.

> So, eight to 16 players. It was like one Kooyong after another, and just as
> important. That's my point. There was no legacy value. Players like Pancho
> exchanged their historical significance and importance for money.