Richard "Pancho" Gonzales GOAT
tennis
Ricardo Alonso González (May 9, 1928 – July 3, 1995), generally known
as Richard "Pancho" Gonzales (or, less often, as Pancho Gonzalez) was
an American tennis player. He was the World No. 1 professional tennis
player for an unequalled eight years in the 1950s and early 1960s. He
won two Major titles and twelve Pro Slam titles.
Largely self-taught, Gonzales was a successful amateur player in the
late-1940s, twice winning the United States Championships. He is still
widely considered to be one of the greatest players in the history of
the game.[1] A 1999 Sports Illustrated article about the magazine's 20
"favorite athletes" of the 20th century said about Gonzales (their
number 15 pick): "If earth was on the line in a tennis match, the man
you want serving to save humankind would be Ricardo Alonso Gonzalez."
The American tennis commentator Bud Collins echoed this in an August
2006 article for MSNBC.com: "If I had to choose someone to play for my
life, it would be Pancho Gonzalez."
felangey
"All the Federales say
They could have had him any day
They only let him slip away
Out of kindness I suppose"
;)
DavidW
Two USOs = 10 points.
Not even one Wimbledon. He's right back among the also-rans of tennis.
Joe Ramirez
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pancho_Gonzales
>
> Ricardo Alonso González (May 9, 1928 – July 3, 1995), generally known
> as Richard "Pancho" Gonzales (or, less often, as Pancho Gonzalez) was
> an American tennis player. He was the World No. 1 professional tennis
> player for an unequalled eight years in the 1950s and early 1960s. He
> won two Major titles and twelve Pro Slam titles.
The 1961 U.S. Pro "slam" apparently had a four-man draw. Four!
tennis
> tennis wrote:
> >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pancho_Gonzales
>
What an outstanding record, he beat the best at an "old age". He is
the GOAT.
http://www.allenfoxtennis.net/richard-pancho-gonzales-possibly-the-greatest-of-them-all/
Although Pancho’s game was on the way down by his early thirties (most
players peak out in their late twenties), his late results give us an
idea of how great he must have been at his zenith.
At the age of 43 he won his last Open tournament at Des Moines. In
1968 at the age of 40 he reached the quarter-finals of the US Open,
defeating second-seeded Tony Roche (a finalist at Wimbledon).
The next year he beat Charlie Pasarell (ranked #1 in the US in 1967)
at Wimbledon in an incredible five-hour match played over two days,
saving seven match points in the fifth set. That same year he beat
John Newcombe, Ken Rosewall, Stan Smith and Arthur Ashe (6-0, 6-2,
6-4) at Las Vegas, the second most lucrative tournament of the year.
In early 1970, at nearly 42 years of age, the old man beat the world’s
number one, Rod Laver, in a $10,000 winner-take-all match at Madison
Square Garden, to the delight of a crowd of 14,761.
- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
DavidW
Tennis is all about titles. The big titles are really all the players are after.
They determine your place in history. Pancho just doesn't measure up.
tennis
>
> > Although Pancho s game was on the way down by his early thirties (most
> > players peak out in their late twenties), his late results give us an
> > idea of how great he must have been at his zenith.
>
> > At the age of 43 he won his last Open tournament at Des Moines. In
> > 1968 at the age of 40 he reached the quarter-finals of the US Open,
> > defeating second-seeded Tony Roche (a finalist at Wimbledon).
>
> > The next year he beat Charlie Pasarell (ranked #1 in the US in 1967)
> > at Wimbledon in an incredible five-hour match played over two days,
> > saving seven match points in the fifth set. That same year he beat
> > John Newcombe, Ken Rosewall, Stan Smith and Arthur Ashe (6-0, 6-2,
> > 6-4) at Las Vegas, the second most lucrative tournament of the year.
>
> > In early 1970, at nearly 42 years of age, the old man beat the world s
> > number one, Rod Laver, in a $10,000 winner-take-all match at Madison
> > Square Garden, to the delight of a crowd of 14,761.
>
> Tennis is all about titles.
Federer has 16 slams, but can not be considered for GOAT ever, due to
Nadal dominance over him.
> The big titles are really all the players are after.
> They determine your place in history. Pancho just doesn't measure up.
Yes he does "measure up", he beat the best and at an old age. If
there was anyone who could rightfully be considered GOAT at this
point, it
would be Pancho.
DavidW
Not so. Like many people, you confuse BOAT with GOAT. Like any player, Fed wants
slam titles above all else. H2H is a sidelight. You also place undue emphasis on
a poor match-up on clay - high-top LHFH, DHBH vs SHBH.
>> The big titles are really all the players are after.
>> They determine your place in history. Pancho just doesn't measure up.
>
> Yes he does "measure up", he beat the best and at an old age. If
> there was anyone who could rightfully be considered GOAT at this
> point, it would be Pancho.
You can argue for BOAT, but not GOAT. His trophy cabinet is just too bare.
Whisper
Yeah Pancho, Hoad, Laver, McEnroe, Sampras or Nadal.
I suspect 1 of these 6 is the all time 'best at best' player. None of
them had a rival better than them at peak.
Whisper
In terms of greatness yes - but he does have some claim to 'best at best'.
Whisper
Tell it to TT
Whisper
Sampras did something similar when he beat Federer a couple yrs ago in
those exxos.
Whisper
No, as David says goat = slam titles.
He does have claim to 'best ever', but too bad he lacks many slams to
judge it better.
TT
Not only that...Pancho was also a very important figure in Mexican
revolution...
Superdave
yeah pre-open era is such a can of worms. no way to compare that to itself year
to year let alone post-open era.
Superdave
That and 10 pesos will get him some refried beans no?
TT
So only 11 of his pro slam titles should be counted?
Pedro Dias
> On 9/06/2011 2:22 PM, tennis wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jun 8, 8:56 pm, "DavidW"<n...@email.provided> wrote:
> >> tennis wrote:
> >>>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pancho_Gonzales
>
> >>> Ricardo Alonso Gonz lez (May 9, 1928 July 3, 1995), generally known
> >>> as Richard "Pancho" Gonzales (or, less often, as Pancho Gonzalez) was
> >>> an American tennis player. He was the World No. 1 professional tennis
> >>> player for an unequalled eight years in the 1950s and early 1960s. He
> >>> won two Major titles and twelve Pro Slam titles.
>
> >>> Largely self-taught, Gonzales was a successful amateur player in the
> >>> late-1940s, twice winning the United States Championships. He is still
> >>> widely considered to be one of the greatest players in the history of
> >>> the game.[1] A 1999 Sports Illustrated article about the magazine's 20
> >>> "favorite athletes" of the 20th century said about Gonzales (their
> >>> number 15 pick): "If earth was on the line in a tennis match, the man
> >>> you want serving to save humankind would be Ricardo Alonso Gonzalez."
> >>> The American tennis commentator Bud Collins echoed this in an August
> >>> 2006 article for MSNBC.com: "If I had to choose someone to play for my
> >>> life, it would be Pancho Gonzalez."
>
> >> Two USOs = 10 points.
>
> >> Not even one Wimbledon. He's right back among the also-rans of tennis.
>
> > What an outstanding record, he beat the best at an "old age". He is
> > the GOAT.
>
>
> > Although Pancho s game was on the way down by his early thirties (most
> > players peak out in their late twenties), his late results give us an
> > idea of how great he must have been at his zenith.
>
> > At the age of 43 he won his last Open tournament at Des Moines. In
> > 1968 at the age of 40 he reached the quarter-finals of the US Open,
> > defeating second-seeded Tony Roche (a finalist at Wimbledon).
>
> > The next year he beat Charlie Pasarell (ranked #1 in the US in 1967)
> > at Wimbledon in an incredible five-hour match played over two days,
> > saving seven match points in the fifth set. That same year he beat
> > John Newcombe, Ken Rosewall, Stan Smith and Arthur Ashe (6-0, 6-2,
> > 6-4) at Las Vegas, the second most lucrative tournament of the year.
>
> > In early 1970, at nearly 42 years of age, the old man beat the world s
> > number one, Rod Laver, in a $10,000 winner-take-all match at Madison
> > Square Garden, to the delight of a crowd of 14,761.
>
> Sampras did something similar when he beat Federer a couple yrs ago in
> those exxos.
Gonzales and Laver actually cared about, and needed, the money.
Joe Ramirez
All of his titles should be counted, as markers of his excellence.
Pancho was clearly one of the greats of his era -- the midcentury,
somewhat haphazard pro tour era. And his results as a veteran in the
early open era showed that his skills really were at the all-time,
elite level. However, his top pro titles should not be called "slams"
because they were not slams. Some of them were high-caliber events
with strong and reasonably deep fields; others were glorified
exhibitions. (The 1961 U.S. Pro was not the only event on Pancho's
resume with a tiny field.) None were slams in the commonly understood
sense of the term. They were tournaments in their own category.
felangey
> those exxos<
BwahahHahahHAHAHAHAHAHAHAhahahah.....hooooowweeeee!! :D
Label this stuff WhisperianGold.
reilloc
At his best he could beat anybody in the world at the time. He was the
Nadal of his generation and both will be remembered the same way.
LNC
Pedro Dias
> On 6/9/2011 1:29 AM, Whisper wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On 9/06/2011 12:40 PM, tennis wrote:
> >>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pancho_Gonzales
>
Hope not: Gonzales is woefully underrated, rare encomiums aside. Nadal
deserves, and should get, better treatment. Joe's post above
encapsulates Gonzales' problem: while I understand he means no slight,
that is, nonetheless, the result of the "separate but equal" argument
- it's separate alright, but rarely equal.
Joe Ramirez
If you were designing a system to identify the greatest tennis players
from a century's worth of athletes, you certainly wouldn't implement
one with discrete eras, clear chronological boundaries, and radical
shifts in the basic structure of the sport from one era to the next.
It would be terribly ineffective, as well as unfair to the great
players stranded in superseded eras, their metrics obsolete and their
accomplishments hazy. But that's what the evolution of tennis has
bestowed on us. I can't help it that the present -- using the term as
broadly as possible -- will always be nearer and more intelligible to
us than the past. Is an orca a better aquatic killing machine than,
say, a mosasaur? No one can answer that question definitively either.
But at least we have museums.
Pedro Dias
Orcas in packs would make tuna out of mosasaurs.
;-P
Why did you pick that opponent? Hardly the most impressive-looking
extinct marine predator.
But you're right, of course: the problem is not of your making, but
built into the history and the rhetoric. We cannot change the history,
so I'm suggesting we need to be especially careful with the rhetoric.
To the extent anyone cares, which is of course minuscule.
Joe Ramirez
No fair -- this is a singles tournament! But generally, it's tough to
underestimate the fitness advantage of extra intelligence (not to
mention echolocation).
> Why did you pick that opponent? Hardly the most impressive-looking
> extinct marine predator.
Say that again after checking out some images of Tylosaurus, either
fossil skeletons or artists' reconstructions.
Pedro Dias
I did, not that much of a polymath. And there are some cute sites out
there actually discussing the possible hypothetical match-ups. One
that seemed credible (http://en.allexperts.com/q/Interspecies-
Conflict-3754/2010/10/Prehistoric-marine-predators.htm) appeared to
believe that mosasaurs' jaw structure put them at a disadvantage
against similarly-sized opponents. Other overviews of the order had
them as ambush predators rather than hunters because of that and a
couple of other anatomical characteristics, and they all struck me as
disadvantages in an open-water fight. Megalodon was the big favorite
in that tournament, reading the analyses of the various match-ups.
But none of them could return Pancho's serve worth a spit, so you
gotta like his chances on faster, drier surfaces.
Joe Ramirez
Megalodon is too big to make for an interesting matchup in most
circumstances. However, the main reason I didn't choose it is that
it's from the same era as the orca (literally -- Cenozoic). I wanted
an opponent from the previous era. :)
There used to be a cable TV show (on something like Animal Planet, the
History Channel, or the Science Channel) that featured animated
battles between different animals, complete with the construction of
mechanical models for testing by fanboy scientists ("The Australian
saltwater croc will make mincemeat outta your shark!"). Usually they
used extant species, but I remember one fight between the North
American lion and the short-faced bear. No extinct marine species that
I can recall.
*skriptis
"tennis" <jsm...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:e62aa0f2-0ba3-4614...@g12g2000yqd.googlegroups.com...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pancho_Gonzales
>Ricardo Alonso González (May 9, 1928 – July 3, 1995), generally known
>as Richard "Pancho" Gonzales (or, less often, as Pancho Gonzalez) was
>an American tennis player. He was the World No. 1 professional tennis
>player for an unequalled eight years in the 1950s and early 1960s. He
>won two Major titles and twelve Pro Slam titles.
>Largely self-taught, Gonzales was a successful amateur player in the
>late-1940s, twice winning the United States Championships. He is still
>widely considered to be one of the greatest players in the history of
>the game.[1] A 1999 Sports Illustrated article about the magazine's 20
>"favorite athletes" of the 20th century said about Gonzales (their
>number 15 pick): "If earth was on the line in a tennis match, the man
>you want serving to save humankind would be Ricardo Alonso Gonzalez."
>The American tennis commentator Bud Collins echoed this in an August
>2006 article for MSNBC.com: "If I had to choose someone to play for my
>life, it would be Pancho Gonzalez."
Obviosly his silverware doesn't hold, so it's only whether he was BOAT or
not.
By today's standards, his BOAT claim has a major clay flaw.
He lost on clay to Trabert in 1956 Fench Pro.
And he was 28 then.
Trabert won FO-Wim-USO treble year earlier, in 1955. So a rookie on the pro
tour beat him on clay pro slam.
So that's a big minus for Gonzales.
It says us as well that amatuer level wasn't that bad, which kinda boosts
first Laver's grand slam, the one in 1962 which is often disregarded.
Gonzales also lost to Rosewall on clay in 1961 French Pro.
He was 33 then, not quite too old for that era, especially considering he
played into his 40s.
Laver lost to Rosewall on clay as well, but won as well.
Laver's record is by far "the most complete".
The only thing he didn't complete was not winning tons of open era slams,
and that was out his reach. He dominated thourghly all three eras in which
he competed, winning " 3 grand slams" ie all big tournaments in a single
season in all of those three eras, having no h2h issues to anyone, winning
equally on all surfaces, being number 1 for many years, regardless of the
way ranking was calculated.
I won't claim he was the best, or claim his competition was equally tough as
the one today, but for me, his records are the greatest records ever
achieved in tennis, and in that sense, he is the greatest tennis player.
Sampras' 7 Wimbledons, most computer year-end #1 and most weeks at #1 are
also a big testament of his greatness, something comparable to Laver.
Until Federer wins 7th Wimbledon Sampras can always in a way pop out as the
greater, because 2AOs more that Federer won and a CGS, don't make that kind
of historic difference over an all-time Wimbledon record.
Sampras's faliure on clay is a negativity, but so is Fed's inability to beat
Nadal.
And Sampras' inability to win on clay was in most ways physically induced.
We all saw what someone like Djokovic was able to do on clay, even beat clay
GOAT in two MS finals, when his health issues permited him to play fully and
freely.
Imagine if Sampras was able to discover a cure for his stamina issues that
hampered him on clay, something like Djokovic's non-gluten diet.
It would have been lights out for everyone.
bob
you're referring to syfy channel, mega snake VS giant croc starring
tiffany and debbie gibson. lmao. :-)
bob
reilloc
I'm not getting what you're saying. I was indulgent enough to overlook
the intentional Federer slight in the post to which I responded and
intended to focus on whom I might have play for my life. To be clear,
I'd really want it to be the 2006 Federer; however, in the list of guys
I'd want playing for my life and who'd do anything it took to dirty-out
a win, Gonzales would be at the top of the list and Nadal somewhere
underneath. Naturally, this is all dependent on when and where it's
played in the grand hypothetical that is where we're talking.
Nadal deserves better treatment? No, that's not right. He deserves to
have his context explained the same way all of them do. That context is
he came along and became prominent during that part of the open era when
equipment turned the game into a bashers' paradise.
LNC
TT
Well you can call those tournaments anything you like.
Somehow I suspect if Fed played mostly against his top rivals during his
career - he would not be considered in all time top 10.
Imagine tours against Nadal, Murray and Djokovic....
Pedro Dias
All I'm saying is that Gonzales is treated less well than he deserves,
because of historical issues, and that I hope Nadal is treated better
- ie with the fairness Gonzales is not accorded. Not by you - by the
world.
GOYLE
> 9.6.2011 16:06, Joe Ramirez kirjoitti:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jun 9, 4:00 am, TT<as...@usenet.org> wrote:
> >> 9.6.2011 7:14, Joe Ramirez kirjoitti:
>
> >>> On Jun 8, 10:40 pm, tennis<jsm...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >>>>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pancho_Gonzales
>
> >>>> as Richard "Pancho" Gonzales (or, less often, as Pancho Gonzalez) was
> >>>> an American tennis player. He was the World No. 1 professional tennis
> >>>> player for an unequalled eight years in the 1950s and early 1960s. He
> >>>> won two Major titles and twelve Pro Slam titles.
>
> >>> The 1961 U.S. Pro "slam" apparently had a four-man draw. Four!
>
> >> So only 11 of his pro slam titles should be counted?
>
> > All of his titles should be counted, as markers of his excellence.
> > Pancho was clearly one of the greats of his era -- the midcentury,
> > somewhat haphazard pro tour era. And his results as a veteran in the
> > early open era showed that his skills really were at the all-time,
> > elite level. However, his top pro titles should not be called "slams"
> > because they were not slams. Some of them were high-caliber events
> > with strong and reasonably deep fields; others were glorified
> > exhibitions. (The 1961 U.S. Pro was not the only event on Pancho's
> > resume with a tiny field.) None were slams in the commonly understood
> > sense of the term. They were tournaments in their own category.
>
> Well you can call those tournaments anything you like.
>
> Somehow I suspect if Fed played mostly against his top rivals during his
> career - he would not be considered in all time top 10.
>
>
> - Show quoted text -
If earth was on the line in a tennis match, the man you want serving
to save humankind would be Ricardo Alonso Gonzalez :)
kipps
GOYLE
> I saw the match in 70 at MSG, lobbed Laver and beat him!
Really? How old are you? Anyway, I think someone posted he didn't get
the respect he deserves but he didn't win but 2 or 3 slams?
Pedro Dias
Zacly the problem.
bob
<josephm...@netzero.com> wrote:
>On Jun 8, 10:40 pm, tennis <jsm...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pancho_Gonzales
>>
>> Ricardo Alonso González (May 9, 1928 – July 3, 1995), generally known
>> as Richard "Pancho" Gonzales (or, less often, as Pancho Gonzalez) was
>> an American tennis player. He was the World No. 1 professional tennis
>> player for an unequalled eight years in the 1950s and early 1960s. He
>> won two Major titles and twelve Pro Slam titles.
>
>The 1961 U.S. Pro "slam" apparently had a four-man draw. Four!
so do last 2 yrs of present day slams, no?
bob
pltr...@xhost.org
>> Really? How old are you? Anyway, I think someone posted he didn't get
>> the respect he deserves but he didn't win but 2 or 3 slams?
>
>Zacly the problem.
Not a problem at all for those of us who saw Pancho and Kramer (and Segoo) play
-- or even a relatively elderly Don Budge and Bobby Riggs.
-- Larry
Pedro Dias
> On Fri, 10 Jun 2011 09:03:44 -0700 (PDT), Pedro Dias <pedrod...@snip.net> wrote:
> >> Really? How old are you? Anyway, I think someone posted he didn't get
> >> the respect he deserves but he didn't win but 2 or 3 slams?
>
> >Zacly the problem.
>
> Not a problem at all for those of us who saw Pancho and Kramer (and Segoo) play
> -- or even a relatively elderly Don Budge and Bobby Riggs.
>
> -- Larry
And the three of you will no doubt do all you're able to uphold his
reputation, which is nice, but the fact remains that he's gruesomely
underrated in the vast spaces outside your head. Which would be my
point.
pltr...@xhost.org
>And the three of you will no doubt do all you're able to uphold his
>reputation, which is nice, but the fact remains that he's gruesomely
>underrated in the vast spaces outside your head. Which would be my
>point.
Pedro, you've been around RST too much. You're starting to sound more and more
like the usual pond scum founb here.
-- Larry
Pedro Dias
> On Sat, 11 Jun 2011 04:08:22 -0700 (PDT), Pedro Dias <pedrod...@snip.net> wrote:
> >And the three of you will no doubt do all you're able to uphold his
> >reputation, which is nice, but the fact remains that he's gruesomely
> >underrated in the vast spaces outside your head. Which would be my
> >point.
>
> Pedro, you've been around RST too much. You're starting to sound more and more
> like the usual pond scum founb here.
>
> -- Larry
Sorry, Larry. I was trying for witty and got snarky. Not the
intention.
GOYLE
I purchased a Pancho tennis racquet today at the auction house. It's
in pretty good condition.