The Case for Pancho Gonzales as GOAT

The Case for Pancho Gonzales  -  9 Apr 2013

Some tennis fans think Ricardo Alonso “Pancho” Gonzales was the greatest of all time (GOAT).  A lot more fans say, “Who?”  Lots of people have heard of Rod Laver, winner of two grand slams.  They may even have heard of Don Budge, winner of the first grand slam.  But Pancho Gonzales??

Looking down the slam tournament records, we see that Gonzales won the US Championships in 1948 and 1949.  Nice, but not very impressive – and he never won Wimbledon.  So how could he be the greatest ever?

It’s important to understand that the best players in the world were not playing the slam events between the 1930’s and 1968.  Instead, they had turned ‘pro’ and played the barn-storming tours of their era – travelling from city to city to stage exhibitions.  And they also played the few pro tournaments (mostly low-paying) that were in existence.  Once players had made a name for themselves on the amateur circuit – by winning the US Open or Wimbledon and establishing themselves as the #1 amateur – they could turn pro and try to make some money from the profession they had put so many hours into.

Generally only one or two players per year could turn pro, and only one in 5 made any money at it.  With a hundred or more players vying for the slam titles, and such poor odds of making money from tennis, it is understandable that the talent pool in tennis was not nearly so deep then as it is today, when thousands of players vie for millions of dollars.

Gonazales won his second try at the US Championships in 1948 at the age of 20.  The following year he played Wimbledon for the first time but lost in the 4^th round.  He recovered by winning another US title and was clearly the world’s #1 amateur, and just past his 21^st birthday.

Bobby Riggs was running the pro tour then and signed Gonzales to play reigning pro champ Jack Kramer on the 1950 tour.  They barnstormed around the country.  At first Kramer dominated and the final tally of matches was 96-27 for Kramer.  But the last 32 were closer 17-15 for Kramer.

Gonzales was not invited back for the barnstorming tour of 1951 and had little option but to semi-retire (at age 23), playing a few pro tournaments, but improving his game.  By 1953, it was evident that Gonzales had become a formidable contender.  He had won the Wembley Pro (one of the 3 ‘professional slams’) in 1950-52, and the US Pro (maybe the biggest of the pro slams) in 1953.

He was invited back for the 1954 barnstorming tour and dominated it, with winning records over Kramer, Frank Sedgman, and Pancho Segura – the leading players of the day.  He was generally regarded as the best player in the world for 1954, a position he held through 1960 – or 7 consecutive years (some give the edge to Rosewall in 1960).  There was also speculation that he was #1 in 1952 while Kramer was semi-retired.  It was very close between Gonzales and Segura that year.  The Professional Lawn Tennis Association rated Segura #1, but there was no consensus among other observers.

Seven consecutive years as world #1 is unprecedented in the game and has not been equalled by anyone since.  This is one of the strongest arguments for Gonzales’ GOAT status.

During this time he beat all the up and coming amateurs who turned pro.  The most significant challenges came from Tony Trabert, Ken Rosewall, Lew Hoad, and Ashley Cooper.  Hoad especially was a brilliant player who had come within one match of the grand slam before losing to Rosewall in the 1956 US final.  The rivalry between Hoad and Gonzales was close at first, but Gonzales eventually figured him out and won consistently.

Eventually it had to end, and Gonzales was finally overcome in 1961 at the age of 33 when Ken Rosewall (then 27) became world #1, with Gonzales ranked 2^nd by most estimations.  After that Gonzales played only occasionally, until open tennis dawned in 1968. 

Open tennis meant that events that were formerly open to amateurs only, could now be played by professionals (people who accepted money for playing).  A lot of national championships like the Canadian Open or city championships – like the Nice Open could now be played by the pros.  This meant legitimization of a money-paying circuit for tennis and meant that a lot of players could make a living at tennis.  Up to this point, only a handful of pros could make enough money to survive in any given year.

So the dawn of Open tennis in 1968 meant that a lot of old pros who had long retired from the game picked up a racket and tried to make some money back from the sport they had spent so much time at, including Pancho Gonzales.  He came on strong in the first ever Open slam event, the 1968 French, making the semis at the amazing age of 40.  He also won a tournament final from Laver that year in Los Angeles, a year in which Laver was regarded as #1 in the world. 

Although he did not consistently play at a top 5 level in 1968 or in the Open era, he showed that he could still rise to that level occasionally during his 40’s including another final victory over Laver in 1970 at a tournament of champions in Las Vegas.

With his victory at the US Open at age 20 he showed that he could win early, with his play in his 40’s he showed that he could win late, and with 7 years at the top of the game he showed a high level consistently for a long time.  This all argues strongly for his consideration as GOAT.  The unequaled length of his 7-year period at #1 is perhaps the strongest argument that he is the greatest ever.

But what are the tempering arguments against his being the greatest?

The major argument against him is that the fields he faced were not deep.  Many of the 12 ‘pro slams’ he won had fields of only 8 or less players.  Granted these included the best players of the day, but because of the limited funds to go around, not many players could turn pro, and even fewer could make a living at it.  Some of the players in the draws might not be practising much.  In general the crucible of competition was not as deep or as varied as existed at even the start of the Open era, and was much less than it is today.  To be #1 for seven consecutive years now would be a much more significant accomplishment today against thousands of contenders than against a few top pros in the 1950’s.

Another argument against is that he did not rule #1 with the dominance of a Roger Federer, Bill Tilden, or Bjorn Borg, who passed many years with very few defeats.  Gonzales was more like Sampras in this regard.  He hung on to #1 for a long time but he could be beaten a fair number of times in a year.  So his dominance was not as profound.  He was better than his contemporaries but perhaps did not tower over them as lordfully as Federer or Tilden.

The opinions of other top players of the era are also a consideration.  Some opinions (Hoad, Sedgman) are that Laver would have been no match for a Gonzales in his prime, and others (like Kramer) are that earlier players like Don Budge, Ellsworth Vines, and Bill Tilden were superior.  It seems to me that the opinions of contemporaries are often unreliable.  My observation is that people tend to lionize the heroes of their youth and poo-poo the accomplishments of their contemporaries or direct rivals.  Then they begin to marvel again at those much younger than themselves.  So not much can be gained perhaps from playing the this-player-would-have-beaten-that-player game.

Overall then, Gonzales is a strong candidate for GOAT.  His early success and his longevity set the stage for greatest ever status, and his 7 years holding #1 may clinch the deal.  But the lack of depth he faced and the number of yearly losses he suffered even at his peak, leave the door open for others to take the role of absolute prime.