Talk:Pancho Gonzales

Article is incomprehensible

No disrespect but reading this you can't understand it at all.

"He won 15 major singles titles, including 2 U.S. National Singles Championships in 1948 and 1949 and 13 Professional Grand Slam titles".

So 15 majors = 2 US titles + 13 pro slams.

So which 13 are those? The article lists his pro slam titles and there are 12 if you abide by 3 pro majors, and there are 15 if you abide by counting TOC.

Professional majors US Pro W (1953, 1954, 1955, 1956, 1957, 1958, 1959, 1961) Wembley Pro W (1950, 1951, 1952, 1956) French Pro F (1956, 1961) TOC W (1957, 1958, 1959)

So shouldn't article say he won 17 majors or if you don't count TOC, then it's 14.

I am not even arguing what is a slam, what is a major here, I'm simply trying to say the article is confusing.

If he has won 2 amateur slams + 12 "main" pro majors + 3 TOC majors, then his record is either: 2 (very strict), or 14 (counting pro majors), or 17 (counting even TOC).

It simply can't be 15.

You are absolutely correct. It should be 14 majors. The TOC is a separate entity from the Grand Slam tournaments and the Pro Slam tournaments. The TOC is actually in the wrong place in our infoboxes, but it's in the process of being corrected. Fyunck(click) (talk) 22:35, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

He won two U.S. Pro's in 1954, the info box should mention that.Tennisedu (talk) 08:07, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

1965 Money List

Tennishistory1877, this recent citation is not linked so that we could see the contents, but I doubt that the end of year tour money list included the Dallas win worth $8,000. That Dallas money was not included in the totals for the U.S. tour, so I doubt that they would include it for the year tally. Adding in the Dallas money might make a difference.Tennisedu (talk) 04:46, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

https://www.newspapers.com/image/463382037/ It says the prize money figures for 1965 were: Rod Laver $65,495, Rosewall $51,650, Gimeno £42,350, Buchholz $37,800, Gonzales $20,000. Adding $8,000 to Gonzales' total for the Dallas made for TV event makes $28,000, still way off Buchholz let alone Laver. And you, without any citation to back up your argument, said Gonzales was probably the top money winner in 1965. The facts speak for themselves (as always). Tennishistory1877 (talk) 08:48, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

That is not an official list, it comes from an off-the-cuff interview from "Jack Kramer, former player and present promoter," (?), Kramer was no longer promoter as of 1962. Exactly $20,000? So that means Gonzales made -$7,000, a negative amount of money, in Europe. You think those are accurate numbers? Some joke.Tennisedu (talk) 16:13, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

This latest post from you Tennisedu is so delusional and full of such basic errors, I struggle to know how to respond to it. Firstly, Gonzales did not play in Europe in 1965 (Laver, Rosewall, Gimeno and Buchholz did). Secondly the two figures for Gonzales' prize money: on 20 July the article stated he had earned $18,945 and by the end of year $20,000. He played little after the 20 July. -$7,000 is a complete work of fiction. Tennishistory1877 (talk) 20:37, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

Fiction? Now, who is being delusional. The figure of $26,945 represents his total winnings as of the U.S. circuit, including the Dallas CBS event, the largest prize money in pro tennis. Yes, the Dallas was played in 1965.Tennisedu (talk) 22:56, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

Obviously if the earlier figure excludes the CBS Pro at Dallas, so does the later figure!!! Hence $18,945 on 20 July and $20,000 at the end of the year. -$7,000 is a work of fiction that you have concocted. Tennishistory1877 (talk) 09:46, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

No concoction, just reading the newspapers. The official money list excluded Gonzales' $8,000 from Dallas.Tennisedu (talk) 16:55, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

Rankings

In the lead someone has changed the statement from "he was the world number one ranked male tennis player professional between 1952 and 1961 in some rankings" by removing the last phrase "in some rankings". There was no official ranking showng Gonzales as No. 1 and in some years he was not ranked No 1.

This should be corrected. Tennisedu (talk) 17:56, 30 March 2025 (UTC)

I notice an unregistered id altered that a couple of years ago. The lead should be altered to "Gonzales was ranked world number one professional in some sources in 1952, 1953, 1959 and 1961 and in all sources from 1954 to 1958 and in 1960". There are several other alterations that should be made to other pages also. The claim that Lew Hoad did not know what the Grand Slam is should be removed from the Lew Hoad page (1956). This has been proved to be wrong. https://trove.nla.gov.au/newspaper/article/71810404 Also on the Tennis pro tours and tournament ranking series page, in the tournament ranking series section, the Madison Square Garden events of 1968 and 1969 are described as end of year events. This is wrong, as they were not held at the end of year. They were events containing players from both tours (and had big prize money), but it is highly dubious that they should be listed along with tournament ranking series. They were not a series of tournaments like the series of 1946, 1959 and 1964-67. Tennishistory1877 (talk) 22:08, 30 March 2025 (UTC)

Agree with the proposed changes to the Gonzales page, although the claim from the HOF biography that Gonzales "rose to the world number one ranking" in 1952 is not substantiated with any source and appears to be mistaken. There are some other proposed changes to update some citations on the pages related to "Hoad" and "Tournament of Champions". We should find some way to update material that is subject to changes in the citations.

With respect to your other comments, I think that we have clear evidence that Hoad regarded the Grand Slam as related to the Big Three as late as the French title in 1956, and Hoad later claimed that he did not know of the four tournament GS until he read the Sports illustrated article in New York.

The MSG events of 1968 and 1969 were the biggest money events of those years and brought together the top 8 professional players, four from each tour, into an overall pro championship. They were not year-end events but season-end championship events.

Here is one description of the 1969 WCT season, "The 1969 World Championship Tennis (WCT) circuit was the second edition of the WCT, a rival professional male tennis tour, which began on February 3 in Philadelphia and concluded on April 29 in Midland, Texas." It was the culmination of the season, often referred to as "the year". The 1968 MSG event was held in late November/early December 1968, while the 1969 MSG event was held in May 15-17 in 1969 following the end of the WCT season.Tennisedu (talk) 20:40, 31 March 2025 (UTC)

If you have a problem with the Hall of fame ranking Gonzales number 1 for 1952, then I suggest you email them and ask them to change it, laying out your argument. Regarding Hoad, the Hoad article 1956 section mentions the big three tournaments. This in no way contradicts what the Grand Slam was. The idea players didn't know what the Grand Slam was in the 1950s is ridiculous. The statement "Hoad himself claimed that he never thought about the Grand Slam and did not hear of it before he arrived in New York" is wrong. The article I posted proves it is wrong and directly contradicts the statement written in the 1956 section of the Hoad page. That statement should be removed. My main objection to listing the MSG events is they are not a tournament ranking series, they are single tournaments and also this is a pre-open era page. It's a bit like having a list of Grand Slam winners with a couple of European pro tour winners in the middle of it. Very random and it makes the page look amateurish. Tennishistory1877 (talk) 22:05, 31 March 2025 (UTC)

There is no need to change what is in the HOF blurb, just use our own powers of observation to make comment and put into context.

There was much use of the term "Grand Slam" in other contexts, for example Gonzalez attempting to add the 1949 French and Wimbledon titles to his 1948 US title for a grand slam in an AP report in multiple newspapers.

April 6, 1949 (AP)- "...Gonzales will fly to Paris to play in the French National championships in May. This will be followed by atrip to England to seek the world's tennis crown at Wimbledon in his campaign for a "grand slam" of the courts."

Or Dick Savitt aiming for a Grand Slam in 1951 in an AP report in multiple newspapers, reporting of the Wimbledon final between Savitt and McGregor. Notice the use of the term "Big Three" which Hoad also used in 1956.

July 2, 1951 AP- "Now the pair come face-to-face again in the second of the big three of world amateur tennis tournaments. Australia, Wimbledon, and the U.S. Championships form the grand slam."

Also, a United Press report at the the U.S. Championships at Forest Hills from August 1951.(UP)- "Dick Savitt's hopes for a grand slam of the world's three greatest tennis crowns were threatened today...", "The Orange, N.J. giant has won the Australian and Wimbledon titles this year."

So it was far from clear what exactly the Big Three consisted of, or the term Grand Slam, prior to 1956, which adds credibiity to Hoad's story.

Yes, the MSG was not a series of tournaments, but it was the culmination of the tournament season, it required enough tournament success to qualify for the final 8 spots in the event, and therefore provided a formal No. 1 for the two professional tours.

I think that we should provide for some method to update the lapsed citations which you and I have added to the tennis articles.Tennisedu (talk) 18:51, 1 April 2025 (UTC)