Talk:Pancho Gonzales

message: Gonzales is not an "Anglicized" version of González, in the Americas, many names ending in -ez became -es, as they have the same pronunciation in the Americas (not in Spain). The change to -es also eliminates the need for an accent mark. Before the emergence of modern identification, especially Social Security numbers, many Mexican Americans used variant spellings of the same name (one variant may appear in government records, another in Catholic parish archives).Many priests were Spaniards, and rendered names like González as Gonzales to match the "local" pronunciation70.115.171.96 (talk)   — Preceding undated comment added 12:05, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Name

message: I think that Lewis Hoad have win only four Slams, not five. I'm not going to change anything because I don't know very much about tennis or english, but in the page of Lewis hoad, you can see than he have win only 4 majors, and you can see that in the lists of winners too, so maybe the one who writes this article can repair the mistake.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.221.38.194 (talk) 01:55, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: Why not 18?
Gonzales won Madison Square Garden Pro.
Why is TOC a major and this one isn't?
wikipedia article lists both tournaments as pro majors.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.188.196.216 (talk) 03:20, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: You are both correct and wrong. It is about the same thing as TOC. The thing is,,, the TOC was not an official pro major either and must be removed. It was important to be sure, but there were only three Pro Majors... even per the wikipedia article on the subject. Fyunck(click) (talk) 04:49, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: In terms of prestige, media coverage, and money, the three "pro majors" were not always the top tournaments, especially in the late fifties. In fact, there were years when the "pro majors" were not even held. Often ad hoc, one-year events like the 1966 Forest Hills, even burdened by its strange scoring format, offered the most money and television coverage,Tennisedu (talk) 21:00, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  17 majors 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Pancho Gonzales. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/multimedia/photo_gallery/1009/top.ten.tennis/content.5.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071015082302/http://hispaniconline.com/magazine/2006/November/ltn_frm/film_tv.html to http://www.hispaniconline.com/magazine/2006/November/ltn_frm/film_tv.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:26, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: I'll track this done in the Kramer book and put in an actual reference. Hayford Peirce (talk) 22:35, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Segura quote about Gorgo and his wives 

message: I think Kramer says that in his book but I'm too lazy to look through dozens of pages to try to track it down. I've read Gonzales's old autobiography, and I don't remember whether he mentions this or not. Hayford Peirce (talk) 15:01, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Speaking Spanish 

message: There has been much discussion and controversy about the 1963 U.S. Pro at Forest Hills.
First, was it approved by the USPLTA?  The USPLTA had withdrawn recognition of Cleveland as the U.S. Pro in 1951 when Riggs and Kramer had arranged a U.S. Pro event for Forest Hills, obtained the title from the USPLTA, and Cleveland, which still held the Benrus Cup to award for the anticipated 1951 U.S. Pro, found itself without an authorized title, choosing instead to bill itself as "The Cleveland International Professional Championships", switching to "World Pro" in 1954 when the venue was moved to the Cleveland Arena.
Kramer obtained USPLTA approval for the 1954 L.A. U.S. Pro, had a good working relationship with the USPLTA, and presumably arranged some understanding with the USPLTA for use of the "U.S. Pro" title for 1963 Forest Hills, and probably also for Longwood 1964. (documentary evidence remains undiscovered)
Money losses, no prize money?  Hoad and Rosewall were the proprietors of the pro tour in 1963, and perhaps received a share of the gate, although there is no documentary evidence for this, beyond Gonzales' statements in 1963 that the prize money did not reflect the money received by the tour's proprietors.64.229.32.48 (talk)TennisFan  —Preceding undated comment added 17:27, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  1963 Forest Hills U.S. Pro 

message: I think it VERY interesting that two of the very greatest players of all time both had to revamp their backhands at certain points in their careers in order to either achieve dominance or to retain it -- some experts know this about Tilden, very few about Gonzalez. I think it would interesting to ANYone reading this deep into this article to see the comparison. I will object strongly if this sentence is removed. But thanks for at least bringing the topic up WITHOUT removing it. If there is a consensus from the other editors that you are correct and I am wrong, I will, of course, go along with it. Hayford Peirce (talk) 22:21, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Federer also had to work on his backhand late in his career. Chris Evert had to work on her fitness. Pros have to adjust to new players and challenges from time to time. Fyunck(click) (talk) 23:44, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't see any mention of Vines at all in the Gonzales book. And if Vines HAD worked with Gorgo in the late 50s, you'd think he would have mentioned it in HIS book. My own feeling about the Vines book is that it was written 99% by the co-writer from the Los Angeles Times, a VERY minor sportswriter who, in MY opinion, was putting his own thoughts about tennis into the book supposedly written by Vines. And that Vines may have had no input at all. The Gonzales book ("as told to Cy Rice") is even MORE ridiculous. Pancho sounds like a Harvard professor giving a lecture most of the time -- I doubt if there could be any greater disparity in sports writing than Pancho's "voice" in the book and his voice in real life. Hayford Peirce (talk) 00:09, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

text: Gorgo MENTIONS Tilden a couple of times in his book, but fleetingly. He certainly doesn't mention him as an inspiration or a role model in any way. So I doubt if there is any direct connection between Tilden's backhand revamp and Gorgo's. As you CORRECTLY say, all tennis players make adaptations from time to time. I certainly did in MY 60 years of playing. Hayford Peirce (talk) 01:03, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  I don't think the mention of Tilden's backhand in 1920 is irrelevant 

message: As stated above, the legend that Gonzales defeated ten Wimbledon champions in a row is not possible, but it carried a lot of momentum and added weight to the Legend of Gonzales.
We have now removed it from this article.
Another legend is the famous "112.88 mph forehand drive", which McCauley accepted...however, did McCauley perhaps misread his source?
There is no mention of "forehand drives", only "drives", and apparently these were service drives, comparing to Tilden's 1931 measured service speeds, which were timed from a film with a stopwatch at 151 mph.
Sports Illustrated in 1959 referred to the Philadelphia measurements as service speeds. So did other tennis writers in the 1950's, such as Tingay.
So this is another legend which needs updating and correcting.  I have already started the process, and will go also to Segura's page.Tennisedu (talk) 03:23, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Tennisedu (talk) 02:03, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Legends of Gonzales, True or False? 

message: This claim does not have a citation...why is that?
It is the sort of statement which begs for a source. It might be very difficult to find a source.
The claim is now linked to the Wikipedia article on men's rankings.
However, I understand that the Wikipedia article on rankings is not acceptable as a source, even though it shows 8 years  at number one for Gonzales.Tennisedu (talk) 02:13, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: You've got me, mate. I was the guy who basically wrote the Gorgo article 15 years ago and put in most of the info. Then I moved to Citizendium and worked for a long time on *their* #1 rankings. With a lot of sources and details. A lot of that got ported over to WP, and vice-versa, and there were arguments about whether Gorgo should be ranked #1 in 1960 or co-ranked, or ranked #2, and at some point I just shrugged my shoulders and said the hell with it. I suppose you can FIND people who say Gorgo should only be ranked #1 for *seven* years. But you can also find people who say he should be ranked #1 for *ten* years. So I'll leave it to you and others to sort out. Cheers! (And the best of British luck to ya!) Hayford Peirce (talk) 03:38, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: It was actually not difficult to find at all. I just went to the Hall of Fame. Fyunck(click) (talk) 04:38, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: However, the Hall of Fame is not a source for the rankings, it merely refers to the fact that Gonzales was supposedly ranked first eight times...the HOF does not provide a ranking list. So I think that still leaves us looking for a source.And the eight years are not specified, we can only guess which years they might be.  I think that if you scratched the surface, the HOF might simply say that they found the statement in Wikipedia, the HOF itself is not really a source for the work. I have no problem with the eight years at number one, but this is really vague, we don't even know which eight years are being referred to. Also, the statement is qualified by "possibly" and "probably", which does not support the bald certainty of the claim.Tennisedu (talk) 05:24, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
replies: text:  The statement that Gonzales was ranked No. 1 in the world for 8 years does indeed require a reliable source. The Hall of Fame is, as such, a reliable source which can be used but I have noticed several times in the past that they use info from Wikipedia on their website which is problematic. They once mentioned on Lendl's page that he had won 29 or so Super Series titles which could only have come from the Wikipedia article (the info was incorrect and was later removed). Another example is mentioning world No. 1 status for players pre-1913, e.g. Laurie Doherty, which is simply historically inaccurate as there were no world rankings pre 1913, only national ones. The big problem with this circular referencing is that editors in turn use the Hall of Fame as a reliable source for Wikipedia articles which in these instances is not valid. In short, caution must be taken when using the Hall of Fame as a source.--Wolbo (talk) 09:41, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

text: We don't know the exact years, true, but the Tennis Hall of Fame is an excellent source nonetheless. "On the pro circuit he won 15 major championships, including the U.S. Pro Championship eight times – 1953–1959 and 1961 – and rose to the world No. 1 ranking, holding that lofty perch for a record eight years from 1952 to 1960."  Fyunck(click) (talk) 05:32, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Fine, but it also states "the status of a few of the early years is not clear", as I recall.  That may be a suitable qualifier. Segura was actually the formally ranked number one for 1952. 05:39, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: But there was nothing really official back then other than magazines and retired pros. Budge ranked Gonzales number one in part because of a 5–2 head to head, plta had Segura. Wikipedia simply took those rankings and posted them as co-No. 1. The Hall of Fame obviously has Gonzales as No. 1 in 1952. Fyunck(click) (talk) 06:03, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, there is nothing wrong in making that 8 year claim, even though some of the years are questionable. Rankings are usually vague and unclear.Tennisedu (talk) 07:05, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: This is all too true. Fyunck(click) (talk) 08:10, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Why not simply look at this article at Citizendium – scroll down a bit to the 1950s and you will find ALL the information you want, along with citations from relatively reliable sources. http://en.citizendium.org/wiki/Tennis/Catalogs/World_No._1_male_players Hayford Peirce (talk) 15:19, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Can't use it as it's simply a copy of Wikipedia. Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:26, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: A slight correction: Wikipedia is a copy of the Citizendium article. Not that it matters as long as all the same facts are there. Hayford Peirce (talk) 18:30, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Just did some research. I created this article for WP back in April '06 and for a long time I did most of the research and writing. In July of '07 I began to replicate it at Citizendium, but Larry Sanger was having a spasm about using "Catalogs" for this sort of thing, so it got moved into a Catalog category. But I continued working on it for years. Some of that info then got ported back to WP's article. Essentially they're the same. Hayford Peirce (talk) 20:55, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

text: TGo return to the issue at hand, we need some identification of what exactly the record is....which rankings are being referred to. Just dancing around citations which may all trace back to Wikipedia gets us no further ahead. And who actually proposed this record? They should be able to direct us to the source material.Tennisedu (talk) 23:29, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: What's interesting is you are the one who put in the term "some rankings" and then asked for clarification of what "some rankings" are? That's a bit strange. Fyunck(click) (talk) 23:36, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, it's not strange, because it highlights the problem here, which is locating the rankings which are supposedly being referred to.  It is strange to me that this problem is not clear to everyone, that when we refer to rankings, those rankings are not to be located anywhere...that is strange.  I notice that my notice of need for clarification has been removed again without any more light being shed on the rankings which supposedly support this record. Did you find the rankings being referred to, Fyunck? Otherwise we are no further ahead, we are still looking for the rankings which are supposedly supporting the claim. And we still need clarification. If there is no ranking support for the claim, the record does not exist.Tennisedu (talk) 00:51, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: It is very strange indeed. It was removed because the wording was changed to fit the sources. It reads "he was the world No. 1 tennis player for eight years per the Tennis Hall of Fame and other tennis historians." That is sourced to the Tennis Hall of Fame and tennis historians. I see no reason for more clarification, but obviously you do. My guess is the clarification template will now be there for years. Fyunck(click) (talk) 01:53, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: It should not be there long, because I think that this is a supportable claim in some form, but not as it stands.You could probably find eight number ones for Gonzales from SOME combination of rankings, but probably not from a single ranking source.  For example, the USPLTA had annual rankings of the pros, but probably not eight for Gonzales. Now, if they did, that would be the support for the claim, "Gonzales was ranked number one eight times by the USPLTA." But without knowing which ranking authority is doing the eight number ones, the record claim is UNDEFINED.  That is the problem. We don't know what that claim means. Ranked number one by whom? By Tennisedu?  By the Good Humor Man?  The record means nothing if we have no idea who did the rankings. This record cannot be compared to the achievements of other players of the time as it stands, so there is no real record demonstrated here as of now. I don't know who originally put this record on the article, but they should have had some idea where the claim came from and what it means in terms of ranking support.Perhaps we could ask that editor now what he had in mind?Tennisedu (talk) 02:27, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: We don't need the original poster because we have the sources added now. Fyunck(click) (talk) 02:37, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: I just checked the Raymond Lee source you gave, but it is very puzzling. He gives no ranking evidence at all, there is no ranking source mentioned at all. That does not advance our knowledge of what this record is supposed to mean.  Right now, no one has a clue as to what this record actually refers to.  That should give us pause. Raymond Lee says that Gonzales was considered "the top professional player for an 8 year period", but gives no mention of which years these were or which rankings would support this claim. Lee states that this was an 8 "consecutive" year period, but that does not support the claim, which I believe is for the years 1952, 1954, 1956, 1957, 1958, 1959, 1960, 1961. Not consecutive.  So Lee does not seem to give us anything to support the claim.Tennisedu (talk) 02:44, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: If I might suggest a solution, both the USPLTA and Lance Tingay published annual rankings in the 1950's and 1960's.  Those two ranking series were widely read at the time, were contemporaneous with the play and events we are concerned with, and should supply whatever is needed to give a ranking support to a reasonable claim.  I would suggest that we start with those two series.Tennisedu (talk) 05:02, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: I have no issue with adding those rankings to make the article even better sourced. Those added to the new sources I added will make the article even better. Fyunck(click) (talk) 06:46, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

text: Some of the new sources being cited are from many years after-the-fact, and are not contemporary to the events.  For rankings we need contemporary rankings, not ones which were derived many years later. I think that the consensus was that only contemporary rankings are relevant. And so far, we have no rankings at all being cited, so we really have not made any progress to support the claim of eight years No. 1. Simply repeating that somebody "was ranked" by some unspecified ranking does nothing to enlighten us. The claim remains without support and without a contemporary source.The Raymond Lee source was from 2010, many years after the fact, and did not refer to any rankings.Tennisedu (talk) 06:51, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: For Gonzales to be number one for eight consecutive years, it would have to be from 1954 to 1961, which is apparently the time span for Lee.  However, in the Wikipedia rankings, Gonzales' eight years are from 1952 to 1960.  So, to be blunt, which eight years are we supposed to be looking at? The years for Lee, or the 1952–60 period?  That needs to be settled first, before we get any rankings.Tennisedu (talk) 07:07, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

text: Some people are screaming about disruption , but there is a clear need for clarification in those quotes from the HOF.   The years being referred to are not specified, and I made that crystal clear when the clarification tags were posted.  What part of that is not clear?  It seems very simple to me. 1952 to 1960 is not an eight year stretch, it is nine years...so which eight years are being claimed by the Hall of Fame statement?  That is a clear question which needs clarification.Tennisedu (talk) 22:08, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure who is screaming about disruption but I can say we disagree hugely about any need at all about clarification of the HOF quotes. I am 100% fine with it as is, and you are not. I don't care about what years are specified. If The sentence narrowed it down to a set of years then the quote better reflect that. If the sentence does not then the quote does not. It needs clarification to you, but no one else. If we had the quote of exact years we would use it. What part of that do you not understand? Your clarification/citation tags are starting to get a bit messy. If you are putting them there to try an make some sort of point, that is disruptive, so be careful about that. The whole bit about a rigid point system should be dumped. They didn't really use one till the late 1970s so no big deal, and even today it gets messy. He has sources multiple sources that say he was number one for 8 years, so that pretty much is what the article should say. No more, no less. Just what the sources say. Fyunck(click) (talk) 06:44, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ranked Number One eight years 

message: No, Tennishistory1877, it was reported in the Philadelphia Sunday Standard, and also in a California newspaper at about the same time.
That is where I found those reports, which finally solved this mystery, which has been dogging the discussion of Gonzales for decades.
Philadelphia Sunday Standard 1 April 1951, P.12
Although I notice that it also refers to March 1 (? for some reason), perhaps quoting an article from March 1.Tennisedu (talk) 02:45, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: If the source gives a date for March 29, we have to cite that. I suspect that the Sunday Standard may have recycled the report. But we have to cite the date given by the source, not second-guess the source date.Tennisedu (talk) 18:19, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, that is the probable explanation for McCauley's confusion. But no one, until I did recently, bothered to check the source which did not mention "forehand", it appears that McCauley added "forehand" as an explanation, but he seems to have attributed "forehand" to the source.Tennisedu (talk) 08:08, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Gonzales serves at 112.88 mph at Philadelphia in 1951 

message: I see this is becoming an issue on these pages because of one editor's opinions on this subject, so let me lay out some facts on the issue. 
Firstly USPLTA authorisation.  The PLTA were an organisation of teaching pros.  How important was their authorisation in the 1950s?  In an ideal world it would be good to have all US pro organisations' affiliation when organising a US national championships, but in the early post-war years when the teaching pros participated, they lost to the touring pros in the early rounds of the event.  The reason the major pro events are considered important is because the top touring pros played in them.  How important were the USPLTA tournaments in the 1960s won by Bartzen, Giammalva etc.?  Not very important at all, because the top pros did not enter. Tournament of Champions at Forest Hills was a top class event from 1957-59 and these draws contained the top touring pros and draws were not filled out with teaching pros.
In a few years the US Pro draws were less strong than others.  But as a comparison, let us compare a list of champions at the Australian amateur championships to the US Pro champions.  After the war in the 1946-67 period, US Pro winners were Riggs, Kramer, Segura, Gonzales, Olmedo, Buchholz (a poor quality draw that year), Rosewall and Laver.  The Australian champions of this period were Bromwich, Pails, Quist, Sedgman, Savitt, McGregor, Rosewall, Rose, Hoad, Cooper, Olmedo, Laver and Emerson (some great players winning before their prime years and some one or two slam winners).  I did a stat listing the number of top eight amateur players (as listed on the rankings published in Collins) that entered the slams each year and saw the number entering the Australian in most years was low, so the Australian was not even attracting the top amateurs (plus the pros were all barred from entering). Yet these Australian champions are listed as Grand Slam champions.
Now the issue of the World Pro / US Pro.  Jack March was the promoter who ran the World Pro.  His event ran from 1951 right through to the mid 1960s.  No one disputes that this event was billed as the World Pro.  McCauley lists it as World Pro in his book published in 2000.  However, in some years it was also designated the US Pro.  There was some confusion over which event was the US Pro in 1951, as the pros hosted their own tournament at Forest Hills and March held his event.  Kramer, during his decade in charge of the pros (1952-62) only once held his own version of the US Pro, at Los Angeles in 1954.  Segura may have been the defending champion of the Benrus Cup US Pro in the L. A. event of 1954 (having won the title in 1951), but he was not the defending champion of the US Pro if we consider the World Pro event designated as the US Pro.  Kramer states his reasons why he was not keen on hosting his own version of the US Pro in his autobiography and in contemporary newspapers (to do with profit levels) .  The US Pro designation was not something a journalist thought up in the 1960s because they thought it would be nice if the US Pro was held continuously throughout the period at Cleveland!  There are contemporary sources that list the Cleveland event as the US Pro, and/or the Cleveland winners as US Pro champions.  Here are a selection of them.
Corpus Christi Caller Times, 12 March 1953 https://www.newspapers.com/newspage/24128017
The Philadelphia Inquirer, 4 April 1953 https://www.newspapers.com/newspage/172173553
The Tampa Tribune, 11 April 1953 https://www.newspapers.com/newspage/327692427
The Philadelphia Inquirer, 20 December 1953 https://www.newspapers.com/newspage/177721805
The Philadelphia Inquirer, 27 December 1953 https://www.newspapers.com/newspage/177683048
The Times (Shreveport) 16 February 1956 https://www.newspapers.com/newspage/211499925
Star Press (Muncie) 18 March 1957 https://www.newspapers.com/newspage/251855716
In his autobiography, Man with a racket (published in 1959), Gonzales makes several references to the US Pro being held at Cleveland, including the following
"I had blown the U. S. National Professional Championships to Segura in 1952, but took the title the next year beating Don Budge" page 111
After 1962, the Cleveland event was still held, but was no longer the US Pro.  A similar example is in womens golf.  Various events have been considered majors.  For instance, the Dinah Shore tournament was not considered a major from 1972-82, but it was from 1983 onwards (since 2015 known as the ANA Inspiration event).  Cleveland was considered the U S Pro up until 1962, but not afterwards.  Bud Collins was not inventing his own designation for Cleveland years after the event, because these World Pro events were regarded as US Pros at the time. Tennishistory1877 (talk) 10:47, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Some good points above, but there are some further issues. Gonzales and Segura in interviews called Cleveland the "U.S. National Professional", whereas at Forest Hills after WWII in the late forties the USPLTA event was referred to as "U.S. Pro". There is a slight disjoint there. I would fell better if Gonzales and Segura had come right out and called it the "U.S. Pro".  But more importantly, in 1952 Jack March applied to the USPLTA for permission and sanction for the Cleveland event to be called the official U.S. Pro, and was unsuccessful, so he was forced to use the terms "International Professional" and World Pro. That never changed, and in 1967, that later version of the U.S. Pro held by the USPLTA was labelled the "30th" version, thus excluding the Cleveland events apart from 1950.Tennisedu (talk) 19:00, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: The term "National Professional" was not the common term for the U.S. Pro, so it looks like a bit of a dance there. If USPLTA approval had not been crucial, March would not have bothered applying to them for sanction, and when refused March would have used the term "U.S. Pro" regardless.  That he did not do so shows March's acceptance of the authority of the USPLTA to decide the issue. March backed off the idea of using the term "U.S. Pro" in accord with the USPLTA refusal to sanction. And of course, the choice of "International Pro" and "World Pro" indicates that Cleveland was not a national title at all, but an international title. The title tells it all. Another problem with Cleveland is the declining stature of the event after 1957, with smaller money purses and weaker fields, not really worthy of a major status event. Cleveland was overshadowed by the truly major status of Forest Hills TOC in the late fifties, and things went further downhill in the early sixties. Not a major. Even the Longwood U.S. Pro event in 1964 had a relatively small purse of $10,000, well below many other events.Tennisedu (talk) 20:38, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: I have listed the sad facts, not the cheery facts.Tennisedu (talk) 21:23, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

text: It was over long ago as far as I am concerned, I did not revive the issue.Tennisedu (talk) 01:26, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: And I hadn't noticed it in articles or stats. Fyunck(click) (talk) 04:47, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  US Pro / World Pro 

message: So we now have this issue arising as to what the actual head-to-head score was for outdoor matches in 1956 between Gonzales and Trabert.  I put this question to someone who had access to many contemporary media reports as well as to  Tennisbase, and here is the final breakdown:
Trabert df. Gonzales in outdoor matches for 1956 by a score of 15-11, including 1-1 on grass, 5-5 on cement, and 9-5 on clay. That ain't too shabby for a rookie pro against a prime Gonzales. Of course, Gonzales held a huge advantage on the indoor matches for 1956.Tennisedu (talk) 01:25, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Gonzales vs. Trabert: outdoor results for 1956 

message: I see nothing in wikipedia guidelines that requires "family names only" in captions. Guidelines certainly show that the family name is often all that is needed for the subject of the article, but not for others in a photograph. In later photos if a person is mentioned again it would be fine to use only the family name. Fyunck(click) (talk) 10:16, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Family name only??? 

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

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: No concoction, just reading the newspapers. The official money list excluded Gonzales' $8,000 from Dallas.Tennisedu (talk) 16:55, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  1965 Money List