Bobby Riggs and Jack Kramer: Part 1

[johnyandell]

Stotty,
Very interesting! I just acquired the rights to publish excerpts from it!

[stotty]

Perry Jones was a racist who excluded Richard from the club for many years for transparent reasons.

My wife is Italian and been a victim of racism. We had a car with Italian registration plates which got vandalised when Italy beat England in a world cup soccer match.

Brexit brought out racism...almost legitimised it in some areas; the core reason for Brexit being immigration control.

Racism is darn ugly when you're on the other end of it.

Read Little Pancho if you get the chance. There are two ways a person might deal with racism as the victim; like Segura or like Gonzales. Segura rode it out with a smile and went with the flow while Gonzales fought it with resentment. Segura was by far the happier man, but it takes a Gonzales to make headway in defeating racism. I can tell you it is extremely interesting to compare the two men in a 'racial' regard. Segura had by far the worst of it, and if he hadn't had gone with the flow he would never, never have made it as a player. Segura is by far the most exceptional player to have made it from a disadvantaged start and the racism he suffered. The man is simply outstanding in every way in my view.

[johnyandell]

Perry Jones was a racist who excluded Richard from the club for many years for transparent reasons.

[don_budge]

I think jealousy may have been a core reason. I think there is always a reason for disliking someone, sometimes a hard to define one or one that is tough to admit to - but there has to be a reason.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7wo9v33t6xI

I love this movie coupled with the article...when you blend the two together we get a pretty realistic picture of the "inner Gonzales". He certainly was in touch with himself and true to himself by instinct...self preservation. His inner warrior. There's a wild streak in this humble man and life was going to be on his terms. Whether you or I like it or not. This is the charm of the man...easily misconstrued as some sort of renegade or "lone wolf". The darkness of the exterior and the brooding, simmering personality belie the fact that it was life that was always looking for a fight with him. Not the other way around. But once you see that the cards are stacked against you...once you realize you are playing a game and you don't see a sucker at the table...you know you are it. He decided not to be the unwitting sucker.

This is the "charm" of the man. A rarity nowadays. It's called courage. The belief in yourself so strong that odds of a million to one mean nothing. He stuck with the hand that was dealt him. He stuck to his guns. My dear old tennis coach used to call me "Pancho". My high school coach called me "Cochise". The kids were less affectionate in some instances. I grew up loving John McEnroe. For me Tony Montanna isn't the only bad guy in town or even the worst.

Gonzales wasn't giving too many people a reason to love him. But a few got close. Those that could play it on his terms. Allen Fox. Ray Moore. Jack Kramer? It comes down to chemistry and backgrounds sometimes. Gonzales didn't exactly endear himself to Percy Jones, Jack Kramer and the rest of the Southern California tennis elite. Joke 'em if they can't take a fuck. What did he care? You get tired of a game that is stacked against you. A wild animal in tennis whites. Nobody cut a more striking figure...the dark skin against the virgin white cotton.

I've walked a mile or two in his shoes. Never complain...never explain. Another quote from "The Deuce". Henry Ford II. My father's name is Henry Ford Navarro...named back in 1928 by a couple of Columbian immigrants. Louis and Josephine. Legal immigrants that is. We have our pride.

[stotty]

"Ramanathan Krishnan, the ace Indian player who was offered a three-year contract for $150,000 in 1959 says, “He was a great player, a critic, commentator, and above all, a wonderful human being who cared for fellow players. Open Tennis, as we see today, is the legacy of the great Jack.”"

This comment from Ramanathan Krishna in the article below. Perhaps it wasn't racism that fueled Kramer's dislike for Gonzales. Maybe it was jealousy. Some sort of resentment. Like the Deuce said of Iacocca..."sometimes you just don't like a guy".

http://bleacherreport.com/articles/2...ificant-figure

I think jealousy may have been a core reason. I think there is always a reason for disliking someone, sometimes a hard to define one or one that is tough to admit to - but there has to be a reason.

[don_budge]

"Ramanathan Krishnan, the ace Indian player who was offered a three-year contract for $150,000 in 1959 says, “He was a great player, a critic, commentator, and above all, a wonderful human being who cared for fellow players. Open Tennis, as we see today, is the legacy of the great Jack.”"

This comment from Ramanathan Krishna in the article below. Perhaps it wasn't racism that fueled Kramer's dislike for Gonzales. Maybe it was jealousy. Some sort of resentment. Like the Deuce said of Iacocca..."sometimes you just don't like a guy".

http://bleacherreport.com/articles/260150-remembering-jack-kramer-tennis-most-significant-figure

[don_budge]

There is no doubt Kramer was a man of his day and the prevailing sentiments were racist. He didn't pay him fairly, often taunted Gonzales, and liked to give him a few cans of coke on the changeovers knowing Richard has a weakness for sugar...It was what it was. And yes Pancho had a chip on his shoulder. In the admiring words of John McEnroe, "when he walked on the court you got the feeling that something was really, really wrong..." Read Allen Fox's article on playing him--think it gives the picture...

https://www.tennisplayer.net/members/champions/allen_fox/AF_Playing_Greats_Pancho_Gonzalez/AF_Playing_Greats_Pancho_Gonzalez.html

GREAT article!

[don_budge]

Pancho (Gonzales) a film by Gino Tanasescu

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7wo9v33t6xI

A beautiful ode to a beautiful man. In all his anger...in all his histrionics. In all his fits...he found the decency to be a man. A thoughtful man. A family man. He displayed everything on the court. The injustice...the hurt. The pain. But when it was all said and done...he was only a man. He was also...a great tennis player. He somehow put it in perspective...to the point he could live with it. Manage it. God Bless him.

Racism? He was too proud to admit it. He was too stubborn to give in to it. He was too fucking wild to be defeated by it. He was above it because he never once shared those feelings himself about others. In this way he was an innocent. But the world? It works its magic on your soul and sometimes it is your destiny...to be the King of Pain. It ain't pretty. But you find a way.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B3l0kpl5tA4

There's a little black spot on the sun today
It's the same old thing as yesterday...

[johnyandell]

There is no doubt Kramer was a man of his day and the prevailing sentiments were racist. He didn't pay him fairly, often taunted Gonzales, and liked to give him a few cans of coke on the changeovers knowing Richard has a weakness for sugar...It was what it was. And yes Pancho had a chip on his shoulder. In the admiring words of John McEnroe, "when he walked on the court you got the feeling that something was really, really wrong..." Read Allen Fox's article on playing him--think it gives the picture...

https://www.tennisplayer.net/members/champions/allen_fox/AF_Playing_Greats_Pancho_Gonzalez/AF_Playing_Greats_Pancho_Gonzalez.html

[stotty]

Jack Kramer KNEW...he didn't include himself in the rankings of great strokes even though his serve and forehand were arguably up there with the best.

True. But not even Kramer could get away with glorifying himself. Still when you are great you are great and there is no need to say anything. Federer could compile his own modern list and not include his forehand....but we all know it is one of the greatest ever.

Racist? What is a racist? Hmmm...every one has their bias. At least they should. I hope they do. Otherwise we are looking at such a brain washed blob of waste material it isn't going to be worth showing up at all. Sometimes you just don't like a guy. Lee Iacocca said this of Henry Ford II. Or was it vice versa? The Deuce...he axed Iacocca and then Lee went on to reassemble Chrysler into a more competitive company to compete with Ford. The only revenge in life...is success. It's dog eat dog. Maybe it should be that way.

Kramer wasn't such a bad sort. He was a man...that comes with its own inherent baggage. Don't be fooled in giving the human race too much credit. There is a sharp decline after the top ten percent and that is being incredibly liberal. Take a look at Kramer's first tour against Gonzales.

You are right, of course. Who am I to judge a man I have never known or met. All I have ever done is read the opinions of others, who doubtless flirt their own bias. I guess this is why historians only trust facts, events they know to be true, rather than writings and opinions of others of a given era. Historians can only surmise from collective opinions. It's hard for them to know what someone was really like.

One thing that does repeatedly come across is that other players initially wanted to like and get on with Pancho, but Pancho had developed into a loner and seemed to reject advances for friendship. Another thing to consider is Pancho had a way with women. He could treat them mean but they would still be keen. I had a friend like that. Who needs male companions when you can have a beautiful woman to spend time with just by clicking your fingers.

[don_budge]

I think it's because the game hadn't changed that much by then. It's strange Kramer didn't rank Connors alongside Budge on return of serve as it was such a standout feature of the Connors game, and by 1979 Kramer had had enough time to digest that.

Anyway, the era is fascinating. Read as much of it as you can...some of the books can be found free online.

The Book is Bill Tilden. Richard Gonzales is the model with the Don Budge backhand. Harry Hopman is the coach. Roger Federer is the Living Proof.

That's right Stotty...read as much as you can and contemplate the black and white videos as objectively as possible. They say that the camera don't lie...but it does. The large racquets give the illusion of superior technique, more power...blah, blah, blah.

Jack Kramer KNEW...he didn't include himself in the rankings of great strokes even though his serve and forehand were arguably up there with the best. Kramer was acknowledged by many at various times to be the "Greatest Of All Time". At the time he was the consumate attacking tennis player. All out aggression with percentage play. That was his claim to fame. Great..great player.

As a human being you bring into a couple of questions that are probably left as skeletons in the closet. How can you judge a man? You can judge him by his times. Kramer was a man of his times. I know how Richard Gonzales felt...and I know that "Pancho" knew that the only revenge in life is success. Gonzales was some kind of underprivileged sort compared to the silver spoon fed boys that were playing tennis at the time. Although most of the champions came from less than privileged upbringing. I believe Kramer came from the working class.

Racist? What is a racist? Hmmm...every one has their bias. At least they should. I hope they do. Otherwise we are looking at such a brain washed blob of waste material it isn't going to be worth showing up at all. Sometimes you just don't like a guy. Lee Iacocca said this of Henry Ford II. Or was it vice versa? The Deuce...he axed Iacocca and then Lee went on to reassemble Chrysler into a more competitive company to compete with Ford. The only revenge in life...is success. It's dog eat dog. Maybe it should be that way.

Kramer wasn't such a bad sort. He was a man...that comes with its own inherent baggage. Don't be fooled in giving the human race too much credit. There is a sharp decline after the top ten percent and that is being incredibly liberal. Take a look at Kramer's first tour against Gonzales.

https://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/index.php?threads/kramer-vs-gonzales-1949-1950-pro-tour.516259/

I liked reading through the scores and dates and places line by line trying to recreate the thing in my mind. The final tally sounds as if Kramer handed Gonzales his ass but closer scrutiny reveals that Gonzales was still wet behind the years at twenty one years old. His humble beginnings further set him back a couple of years as well. He may well have been only 18 or 19 in tennis years on account of his inexperience. It wasn't only Kramer that was holding him back in those days. It was the machine.

But night after night Gonzales showed up to play. Tough, tough matches. Look at some of those set scores. Long sets...pre tiebreaker days. Very few straight set matches for Kramer. They played in one city then on to the next. Was there a discrepancy in the lodgings and accommodations? Was Kramer receiving better treatment? Without a doubt. But this all just honed the competitive nature of the man with the Aztec eyes. He didn't back down an inch. Not at 21 years old against his wily and cagey WASP opponent who knew all of the in's and out's of getting the advantage in any given situation. Jack Kramer was in his prime at 29 years old and he was using all of his experience and weight to push young Richard Gonzales back into "his place".

More than judging Kramer we admire the will and tenacity of Gonzales. This is a large reason for his being the model in my teaching paradigm. It is the will that enables a mere man to look the machine in the eye and give it everything. Gonzales learned from this experience and all of the rest that life taught him. Much as I have. There is no sense in wasting energy in revenge...success has a much sweeter taste. It comes in different flavors as well.

[stotty]

Fascinating...isn't it? Jack Kramer was totally on top of the pro game in 1979 yet he doesn't rank any of the current players with the best tennis shots. Very interesting. It seems that in his judgement things were not getting any more superior than they were in the earlier years of the game. Surprising for instance that he ranks Don Budge with the best return of serve. Over Connors and Borg. Interesting that he ranks Gonzales with the best half-volley (with Ken Rosewall). With Gonzales' reputation of the power game ranked so high with such a touchy-feely shot. Pancho Segura with the best forehand...fabulous. Fascinating stuff.

I think it's because the game hadn't changed that much by then. Borg was still using a wooden racket and players prior to him had had bigger forehands and backhands and better all round games. What Borg brought was greater topspin and with it a consistency the game hadn't yet seen. It's strange Kramer didn't rank Connors alongside Budge on return of serve as it was such a standout feature of the Connors game, and by 1979 Kramer had had enough time to digest that.

Oddly enough I have been flipping through Man With a Racket, and it's amazing how badly Kramer treated Gonzales. No wonder Gonzales remained so bitter throughout his career. Imagine Roger Federer being paid less than all the opponents he played? It wouldn't stack up, would it? Gonzales thumped Rosewall over and over again yet got far less money because Kramer invested in the challenger rather than the champion...crazy, and downright unfair. Kramer's motive remains unclear. Was he racist? Or did he just fancy roping a young and naive Gonzales into a contract he couldn't get out of for business reasons? Maybe he just took a personal dislike to Gonzales? Either way my opinion is lower of Kramer than it otherwise have been.

Anyway, the era is fascinating. Read as much of it as you can...some of the books can be found free online.

[don_budge]

Speaking of Jack Kramer...all things Kramer. Connecting the dots...the three little dots.

Kramer ranked the best possessors of tennis shots as of 1979:^[11]

Kramer with two rackets

• First Serve: Ellsworth Vines had the finest serve, along with Pancho Gonzales 13 5~
• Second Serve: John Newcombe by far
• Backhand: Donald Budge, Frank Kovacs, and Ken Rosewall were the best
• Return of Serve: Don Budge the best
• Forehand Volley: Wilmer Allison and Budge Patty.
• Backhand Volley: Close among Don Budge, Frank Sedgman, and Ken Rosewall, with Sedgman having the edge
• Overhead: Ted Schroeder, the best
• Lob: Bobby Riggs, of course
• Half-Volley: Pancho Gonzales and Ken Rosewall
• Forehand: Pancho Segura and Ellsworth Vines

Fascinating...isn't it? Jack Kramer was totally on top of the pro game in 1979 yet he doesn't rank any of the current players with the best tennis shots. Very interesting. It seems that in his judgement things were not getting any more superior than they were in the earlier years of the game. Surprising for instance that he ranks Don Budge with the best return of serve. Over Connors and Borg. Interesting that he ranks Gonzales with the best half-volley (with Ken Rosewall). With Gonzales' reputation of the power game ranked so high with such a touchy-feely shot. Pancho Segura with the best forehand...fabulous. Fascinating stuff.

[don_budge]

Speaking of Jack Kramer...all things Kramer. Connecting the dots...the three little dots.

Kramer ranked the best possessors of tennis shots as of 1979:^[11]

Kramer with two rackets

• First Serve: Ellsworth Vines had the finest serve, along with Pancho Gonzales 13 5~
• Second Serve: John Newcombe by far
• Backhand: Donald Budge, Frank Kovacs, and Ken Rosewall were the best
• Return of Serve: Don Budge the best
• Forehand Volley: Wilmer Allison and Budge Patty.
• Backhand Volley: Close among Don Budge, Frank Sedgman, and Ken Rosewall, with Sedgman having the edge
• Overhead: Ted Schroeder, the best
• Lob: Bobby Riggs, of course
• Half-Volley: Pancho Gonzales and Ken Rosewall
• Forehand: Pancho Segura and Ellsworth Vines

[stotty]

Tilden...Budge...Riggs and on to Jack Kramer. So on and so forth. Connect the dots...that includes the Gonzales' and Hoad's. Laver to McEnroe and Borg.

These are the best dots....the only true dots.

Within reason - don't forget even wooden rackets underwent improvement - you can compare players on a like for like basis throughout the classic era (by classic I mean strictly wood and crude, small metal rackets). The courts, however, did undergo changes over the classic period. From predominantly grass to, by the 70's, more hard courts and clay courts. I suspect this is why the best volleyers were in the 50's, when the Big game was at its' height and most major tournament were played on grass.

After Borg and McEnroe the game altered significantly. Not all at once, however, as it took players a while to exploit what modern technology could do for them. I think Agassi was the first player the really maximise modern technology, using his large headed racket to take the ball on the rise over and over again. You could never do that with wood. It was perhaps the biggest game-changer.

It is unfathomable, however, that players today cannot volley as well as Sedgman did despite having rackets that make volleying a cinch compared to wood. It's like having a rifle instead of a peashooter yet it's no good to you if don't know how to pull the trigger.