Talk:Pancho Gonzales/Archive 1

Changements

I've changed your "Semi-retirement" article and I have added some information about the Australian-New Zealander tours in 1950, 1951 and 1954.

Carlo Colussi 16:20, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

I do think Pancho Gonzales was among the great tennis players, but this article is not very NPOV.

---

What does NPOV mean?

---

Neutral point of view.

---

Oh.

Well, why should it be neutral? I think Gonzales was one of the greatest tennis players who ever lived, and quite probably the greatest. I also have a lot of facts to back up my opinion. If anyone can demonstrate to me -- using facts -- that Roy Emerson was a better player than Pancho Gonzales, I will be happy to rewrite my article. Emerson was, for anyone who knows anything about the history of tennis, a distinctly secondary player when compared to the truly great ones.

If anyone in 1968 had ever expressed the opinion that Roy Emerson, 12-time Grand Slam winner, was a better player than Pancho Gonzales, he or she would have been laughed out of the room.

Time changes everything....

---

It's OK to talk about Pancho's greatness but this article is for an encyclopedia. As it stands it sounds more like a forum comparing between Emerson and Gonzales.

A discussion on Emerson will do better to be at Emerson own entry, no? Mandel 11:56, 2 Jun 2004 (UTC)

---

Emerson frequently shows up on lists of the greatest players of all time, based exclusively on the fact that he won 12 Grand Slams against secondary competition. Gonzales, on the other hand, has been almost totally forgotten, even though he was considered for perhaps a dozen years or so to have been quite possibly the greatest player of all time. I think it's certainly legitimate to compare Emerson to Gonzales in terms of their record against one another. Gonzales, a much older, semi-retired player, beat Emerson like a drum, never losing to him. This ought to make people reconsider the relative greatness of these two players. We say that one boxer is better than another because he beat the other man; the same ought to be true for tennis players.

Surname

I've stripped an LoPbN entry down from this:

• Gonzalez, Pancho (1928-1995), tennis player (actual surname was Gonzales, but often spelled Gonzalez)

but the article implies the opposite. Verification needed.
--Jerzy•t 04:14, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Gonzales Vs. González

Why is it spelled -throughout the article- "Gonzales", and then, in the section "Personal and Family life" "González", and then, for the rest of the article, again "Gonzales". This inconsistency is striking. 200.55.118.233 03:24, 5 September 2006 (UTC) Nahuel

Gonzales had decided for a certain time to change the last s to z because one says that Pancho considered Gonzalez more "noble" than Gonzales but the two spellings seem to be right :

Richard (or Ricardo) Alonso "Pancho" Gonzales (or Gonzalez)

Carlo Colussi 15:06, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Because different editors have worked on it, drawing from different sources, and they have different agendas, sad to say. One of these days I will try to standardize it. Also, some of the "z" spellings are direct quotes, I believe. If you have an article about "Aaron Burr", but you put in a quote from Thomas Jefferson about "Aaron Bure", you spell it "Bure" in that quote. But you could find a thousand Wiki articles with the same sort of minor inconsistencies.... Hayford Peirce 04:19, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

He is Richard Gonzalez in the Social Security Death Index, so why the hell is that a redlink? Gene Nygaard 04:12, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

You got me.... Hayford Peirce 04:59, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Here's the entry from one of several sources of the SSDI.[1]

RICHARD GONZALEZ 09 May 1928 03 Jul 1995 89119 (Las Vegas, Clark, NV) 89121 (Las Vegas, Clark, NV) 553-36-1684 California

I created the redirect, for now, leaving the best spelling for the one slot for the name in accordance with Wikipedia:Naming conventions unresolved. Gene Nygaard 12:29, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

a) U.S. Pro or World Pro, b) BBC2-event at Wembley in spring

Jack March promoted a tournament in Cleveland (at different venues) from 1950 through 1964 that he called at the time the World Professional Championship. Many times it didn't deserve that label. In fact it seems that at the time this tournament was not labelled as United States Professional Championship (U.S. Pro) but later the majority considered the Cleveland tournament as also the U.S. Pro in 1950 and from 1952 through 1962. Therefore the Cleveland tournaments held in 1951, 1963 and 1964 were not at all the U.S. Pro (this one was held respectively at Forest Hills, Forest Hills again and Longwood Cricket Club outside Boston). So it would seem that Gonzales has never won the U.S. Pro but that he would have won 9 supposed "World Pro tournaments" at Cleveland. The 1953-1959 and 1961 editions won by Gonzales were (possibly at the time) later considered as U.S. Pro tournaments but his 1964 win was never considered as a U.S. Pro victory : this is why in the article there is a section

United States Professional Championship (also called World Professional Championship when held at Cleveland) Singles champion - 1953, 1954, 1955, 1956, 1957, 1958, 1959, 1961 Singles runner-up - 1951, 1952, 1964

and another section

World Professional Championship (held at Cleveland) Singles champion - 1964

I recognize that this is very complicated and that the expression "World Professional Championship" has been too often misused.

Finally I think that the BBC2-event at Wembley held in spring has never been titled "World Professional Championship".

All that explains the minor corrections I've done in the article on May 30, 2007.

Carlo Colussi 14:25, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

• • • • I know the BBC2 event never deserved the title World Professional Championship. However, The Tingay/Barrett World of tennis yearbook refers to the 1969 event in its results section as the "World Professional Championship". Betty Laver's biography of Laver refers to the 1968 event as the "World Professional Championship". I have also read the London Times' coverage of Gonzales' and Rosewall's wins. I am pretty certain that they called the event the BBC2 World Professional Championship. In 1964 the "Golden Racquet" was also used as a description (the trophy was a golden racket). In subsequent years this moniker was dropped.

As you point out the term world professional championship is one very loosely used in tennis by promoters. Its use should always be qualified by a an accurate description of the event's true status in that year's competition. The ATP use the term world Championship for the end of season play-offs throughout the 90's . Nobody regared it as such and usually called it the Masters; the title it has gone back to currently.

I have also seen some of the BBC's coverage of the 1967 Wimbledon event and they too called the event the "World Professional Champioship". This might be one of the few times the term was accurately used given how important the event was to pro tennis and the begining of open tennis the following year.

As to Cleveland the event never justified that description in the 1960s. In 1963 and 1964 the US pro was clearly the most important tournament in the USA for those years. McCauley is particularly scathing about the 1963 edition and Marsh's pretensions. In 1964 of the 8 events On the US summer tour it had the weakest field with Rosewall and Hoad not bothering to enter. In the 60's neither Rosewall or Hoad placed any significance on Cleveland and these two are the the most important pros of the early 60s given Gonxales' fickle participation in pro tennis at the time.

I don't regard Gonzales win in '64 as one of his major achievements. In the '63 to '67 pro era I would regard his defeat Of Rosewall and Laver in one evening in two very tight matches at the 1966 BBC2 event as his best. Rosewall said he liked playing at Wembley in the pro era. He said they use to put paint on the wood to slow it down a bit so that attackers and more defensive players had a fair chance. He said he did not like the fast Nygrass carpet used in the open era years of '69 to '71. He also stated that in Europe they usually played with a heavier ball than the light fast American one; just as Wimbledon today slows the play down on grass with a heavier ball. Given these circumstances winning at Wembley for Gonzales is a much better achievement than winning in the fast indoor conditions of the US, where nearly all his significant wins occurred after his comeback to the tour in '63.

jeffreyneave 2 june 2007

• • • • Hello jeffreyneave

Thank you for the informations about the surface of the Wembley tournaments.

Sure 1964 Cleveland win wasn't a very great one nevertheless Gonzales defeated Gimeno.

So if you are right there was therefore another World Championship with the BBC2 event. Unbelievable.

About Gonzales's win at the 1966 BBC2 event, Kramer said in "World Tennis" that he couldn't believe that Gonzales was able to do such a performance, the American being still able, at 38, to beat the Australians on indoor wood in best-of-3-set matches (the Rosewall match being only a pro set match finished 18 minutes (the duration of the BBC2 news) before the final against Laver). Carlo Colussi 11:55, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

• • • • Hello jeffreyneave : I've re-read the Budge's article about Wembley 1953 in World Tennis : he wrote in particular that they played on a SLOW wood comparable to canvas and that Segura had "forgotten" his first serve when he faced Gonzales in the semis (I am not sure but I think that he wrote the same thing about the doubles opposing Sedgman-Budge and the Panchos). So that week Segura had great problems with his first service. Carlo Colussi 07:18, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

• • • • hello: I suppose this confirms that Wembley was rather slow for an indoor wood court, even in the period before Rosewall played. I suppose your Segura point is to argue that Segura had particularly bad day against Gonzales and that Gonzales did not have to perform to the standards he reached in 1952 when he beat Segura every time they met indoors. My argument would be that Segura beat Gonzales next timed they played on indoor clay. The change of surface is all important. Gonzales, probably feeling confidant after winning so easily at Wembley, won an easy first set but still lost the match. I would compare to the French final in 2006, where the attacking player Federer, feeling confident, won an easy first set. However, in the first set Nadal's backhand hit far too many balls short around the 'T', allowing Federer many easy opportunties for his big forehand ; Nadal also failed with his backand passing shot. After this tentative start, Nadal improved his background hitting it deep into Federer's backhand corner or somtimes hitting wide and deep to Federer's forehand which helps to stop Federer running round his backhand to play forehands; he also started to make some backhand passing shots. With this improvement Federer found that rallies became longer and there were fewer opportunties to get his big forehand into play off short balls. Not suprisingly Federer became less confident and started to make more errors. The better clay court player Nadal won the match when he started playing to his normal standards. I suppose that Segura realised after a tentative start that he was the better player on clay and played up to his normal standard in the 2nd and 3rd sets and duly won the match. Gonzales had a similar experience when he lost to Rosewall in the French pro in 1961. His attacking style won him an easy first set , but he was worn down by Rosewall's superior clay court game over the next 3 sets.

This all goes back to the standard Gonzales played in late '53 and whether he was playing at a lower level than in '52. My feeling is that Gonzales in the first set , which was competitive, confirmed his usual indoor level and superiority over segura. After that Segura became discouraged and mentally threw in the towel in the next 2 sets; hence the poor serving. In the interview Sedgeman gave in late '53 did he say that he was playing a lot better than he had at the start of the year when he played Kramer evenly ? Sedgeman seemed to have lost this tour because his shoulder went in the middle of the tour. This rather contradicts the argument that Kramer was the weak one physically despite all his assertions that he had chronic problems in the early 50's; when it really mattered Kramer proved fitter than the younger in his prime Sedgeman. I suspect as an amateur, Sedgeman just was not use to playing nearly 100 highly comptetitive matches in 4 to 5 months. I doubt sedgeman played 100 singles in a year as an amateur.

jeffreyneave 21 August 2007

ive —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jeffreyneave (talk • contribs) 16:29, August 21, 2007 (UTC). 

• • • Hello. I entirely agree with your first part (in particular Nadal played very bad (compared to his usual standard) in the 1st set of the RG final in 2006). About the last part I have two questions : a) I don't really find your answer to the comparison of Gonzales's levels between '52 and '53 (if I remember what you've written months ago these levels were comparable in your opinion), b) where have you read Sedgman's interview you are evoking ? World Tennis or elsewhere ? Thank you for the answers. Carlo Colussi 10:47, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

• • • • hello. I made an error in the 2nd paragraph. I assumed Gonzales beat Segura 7-5, 6-0, 6-1 in '53 Wembley SF. In fact that's the score Sedgman beat Budge in the other SF. Gonzales actually beat Segura 6-1 ,9-7, 7-5 which refutes my argument that Segura threw in the towel after the 1st set. Segura played poorly in the singles and doubles (the 2 Panchos were thrashed in the doubles final) and just had a bad week at Wembley. My basic point is that Gonzales always had an edge over Segura indoors (In '51 he beat Segura at Philadelphia and Wembley: the two biggest indoor events of the period: and in'52 he repeated those wins at the same events). I don't think Segura had a mental hang-up about Gonzales; he just knew it was always going to be very tough against a server like Gonzales; just as he found it difficult against Kramer And Sedgman indoors (in'53 I think he won every outdoor match and the clay indoor aginst Sedgman but lost the majority of the normal indoor matches.) On clay he knew his chances were much better and justified it by beating both Gonzales and Sedgman at the indoor clay event.

My question about the Sedgman interview concerns the one he gave to Chatrier where he gave comments on playing in Paris and gave a contribution to new magazine Tennis de France. You quoted from this interview in which Sedgman said that Kramer was still the best indoor player but his lack of stamina would hurt Kramer outdoors. I have not read the interview and was just asking for information about Sedgman's standard of play over the year.

jeffreyneave 22 August 2007 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jeffreyneave (talk • contribs) 15:42, August 22, 2007 (UTC).

• • Hello. I've completely forgortten the good results but now yes you are indeed right. About Sedgman I thought that you've recently read an interview during/or just after Wembley. What he said to Chatrier and Haedens (the latter having asked the questionS to Sedgman about his progress and Kramer's level) was that effectively he was a much better tennis player after one year of touring with the pros : Sedgman thought that the pros were really tougher than the amateurs. He then thought having improved his shots except perhaps his forehand. Nevertheless the global question is still the same : has Gonzales declined or not between '52 and '53 ? Carlo Colussi 08:53, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Gonzales's victories

I have just begun to list in the article all Gonzales's singles titles that I've found in Sutter's and McCauley's books. I will continue when I have the complete list at hand.

Carlo Colussi 11:35, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Thank you Carlo!!!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.1.116.14 (talk) 18:58, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

1952 Philadelphia Inquirer Masters tournament (new results)

I've looked at the Google Archives and at first sight I didn't understand because those archives aren't easy to "translate" because very often characters are erased and columns are mixed so many times the phrases don't mean anything. Moreover in the introduction you've got comments that aren't written in the shown document.

About the Philadelphia Masters tournament held in 1952 the World Pro Top4 of 1951 competed : Kramer, Segura, Gonzales and Kovacs together in only one group playing in a round-robin event. But the different sources seemed at first sight very odd for me. I don't remember each word of the comments but they look like that : "Segura won his third of four matches" "Kramer has lost 3 of 4" and "Kovacs has lost 4 straight matches" : Why had they played four matches in the course of the tournament when in principle only three matches by player are needed in a 4-man round robin event ? Other strange comments : "Segura beats Kramer again" (but in another source though it isn't clear apparently Kramer beat Segura) or "Gonzales again whips Kramer" or more disturbing "Gonzales downed Kovacs" and in another source "Gonzales upset by Kovacs". Finally I've seen that this tournament was a DOUBLE round robin competition and the four players had met each other twice. So here is the conclusion of my researches :

March 21, 1952 : Kramer d. Kovacs 75 60; Gonzales d. Segura 62 64

March 22 : Segura d. Kramer 60 1513; Gonzales d. Kovacs 62 63 (score not sure)

March 24 : Gonzales d. Kramer 63 64; Segura d. Kovacs 62 62

this was supposed to be the third round of the event : in fact it was the 3rd day of the competition and the conclusion of the first round robin affair when all the players had met each other once.

Then the dates, the results and the scores are less sure :

March 26 : Gonzales d. Kramer 64 64 ("Gonzales again whips Kramer"); Segura d. Kovacs 62 63

March (27 ??) : Kramer d. Kovacs 86 63

March 28 : Kovacs d. Gonzales 06 64 64 (score not sure ??); Kramer d. Segura 46 86 63 (result uncertain given that in another source "Segura b. Kramer again")

March 29 : Gonzales d. Segura 63 62 ("Gonzales takes title")

Conclusion : Gonzales ended 1st with 5 wins and 1 loss, Segura 2nd (3-3) tied with Kramer, Kovacs last with 1-5.

So if I have rightly understood the archives (given that they are difficult to decipher) then Gonzales had beaten Segura and Kramer both twice in the Philadelphia Inquirer Masters tournament (and he was even with Kovacs 1-1) and that his overall 1952 record was 5-2 against Segura and 3-0 against Kramer.

Carlo Colussi (talk) 09:17, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Melbourne 1967

Melbourne, ended on February 19, 1967 wasn't a tournament as stated by Joe McCauley but a two-day meeting between the USA and Australia (as were all the Australian tour events in early 1967). Here are the full results of the Melbourne matches where you can note that Joe McCauley made an error because he wrote that Laver defeated Ralston but this is indeed the reverse and moreover Gonzales didn't win a tournament but "only" his matches against Stolle and Laver :

February 18-19 1967

Professional Tour Matches, Melbourne

1st Day

MS D Ralston (USA) d. R Laver 86 26 64

MS R Gonzales (USA) d. F Stolle 86 64

MD Laver/ Stolle d. Gonzales/ Ralston 16-14

2nd Day

MS Ralston d. Stolle 97 63

MS Gonzales d. Laver 62 64

MD Stolle d. Gonzales/ Ralston 46 1210 62

Carlo Colussi (talk) 11:51, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Where have you got the information that McCauley made two errors in his presentation of the results ?

Jeffreyneave 8 feb 2008

• • • Hello Jeffrey.

I've got it from Andrew Tasiopoulos who has collected innumerable results in Australia (he is an Australian citizen and he is living there). For instance he sent me all Rosewall's matches in Australia from 1949 (and even before if we include his boy and junior results) to early 1966. He examines every Australian paper and naturally he is very interested by his country players. This is the person who help me to list the 1963 matches between Rosewall and Laver in the 1963 US tour. Here is the mail he sent me about the 1967 Australian tour where he even added some doubles results absent from McCauley's book :

Andrew Tasiopoulos Envoyé : mardi 5 février 2008 07:35 À : COLUSSI Carlo Objet : couple of results

Hello Carlo

Just a couple of new items.

I am going through 1967 at the moment in the newspapers and I spotted that the Melbourne Pro tournament in McCauley's book played in Melbourne on 18-19 February 1967 was not a tournament. The event, like all pro events in Australia that year, was a round-robin between Australian and US professionals with no "winner". Also Ralston defeated Laver 86 26 64 on the first day. Here is all the results with new doubles matches.

Fred Stolle and Dennis Ralston (USA) both became professionals at the start of the year and were to make their debuts in Brisbane on January 28 1967 but rain cancelled matches. The two with Richard Gonzales (USA), Rod Laver and Ken Rosewall travelled through Australia playing a professional Australia vs. USA series. USA won the series winning 19 of the 32 matches. There is a doubles match missing within the results documented. January 31 1967 Professional Tour Matches, Toowoomba MS F Stolle d. D Ralston (USA) 63 108 MS R Laver d. R Gonzales (USA) 46 63 64

---

February 4-5 1967 Professional Tour Matches, Sydney 1st Day MS D Ralston (USA) d. F Stolle 79 63 62 MS R Gonzales (USA) d. K Rosewall 36 64 64 MD D Ralston/ R Gonzales d. K Rosewall/ F Stolle 62 1513 2nd Day MS Ralston d. Rosewall 63 86 MS Gonzales d. Stolle 63 86 MD Rosewall/ Stolle d. Ralston/ Gonzales 63 64

---

February 6 1967 Professional Tour Matches, Rockhampton MS D Ralston (USA) d. Stolle 63 57 97 MS R Laver d. R Gonzales (USA) 63 810 75 Results not confirmed

---

February 7-8 1967 Professional Tour Matches, Brisbane 1st Day MS R Laver d. D Ralston (USA) 1210 06 62 MS R Gonzales (USA) d. F Stolle 64 68 63 MD Laver/ Stolle d. Gonzales/ Ralston 11-9 2nd Day MS Stolle d. Ralston 63 68 86 MS Laver d. Gonzales 62 57 97 MD Gonzales/ Ralston d. Laver/ Stolle 8-5

---

February 10-11 1967 Professional Tour Matches, Adelaide 1st Day MS D Ralston (USA) d. K Rosewall 1311 61 MS R Gonzales (USA) d. F Stolle 108 64 MD D Ralston/ R Gonzales d. K Rosewall/ F Stolle 119 64 2nd Day MS Ralston d. Stolle 64 62 MS Rosewall d. Gonzales 64 86 MD Rosewall/ Stolle d. Ralston/ Gonzales 97 97

---

February 14 1967 Professional Tour Matches, Shepparton MS F Stolle d. D Ralston (USA) 75 16 61 MS R Gonzales (USA) d. K Rosewall 64 46 64 MD Ralston/ Gonzales d. Rosewall/ Stolle 106 Results not confirmed

---

February 18-19 1967 Professional Tour Matches, Melbourne 1st Day MS D Ralston (USA) d. R Laver 86 26 64 MS R Gonzales (USA) d. F Stolle 86 64 MD Laver/ Stolle d. Gonzales/ Ralston 16-14 2nd Day MS Ralston d. Stolle 97 63 MS Gonzales d. Laver 62 64 MD Laver/ Stolle d. Gonzales/ Ralston 46 1210 62 I think that a couple of weeks ago you sent me an email about the 1948 Australian Hardcourt played in Tasmania. I had the venue as Launceston but I rechecked it and it was played in Hobart that year.

Andrew

Sorry Jeffrey for not having answered earlier but I have almost no time left for Wikipedia. Carlo Colussi (talk) 14:22, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

• • • • • HELLO CARLO.

Thanks for your answer. This might also suggest that the event in New Zealand, which stolle won, might not be a tournement because again matches were restricted to Aussies playing americans.

jeffreyneave 25 feb 2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.159.208.23 (talk) 20:25, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

• • • • Hello Jeffreyneave

Your remark about Stolle is judicious. I will ask Andrew for it. In the future weeks I will have almost no time for Wikipedia (for instance today I'm on it just for about 5 min) but I've seen some of your questions about Gonzales-Laver head-to-head matches in 1969-1970 and I will see it later : one thing I've discovered is that Gonzales probably led 3-2 in 1970 because in a South African magazine, that I own, it is written that Gonzales defeated Laver in Cape Town or Johannesbourg (it probably wasn't a tournament match but possibly a sort of challenge match) during spring (I will look at it carefully and give you the right town) and in 1969 I will look at the Laver's autobiography but I think that Laver's lead in 1969 was superior to 4-0. But please don't be hurry because I don't know when I answer you. That's all !!! I quit Wikipedia for today. Carlo Colussi (talk) 11:36, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

• • • Hello Jeffreyneave

I've quickly looked at Laver's book as well as World of Tennis '70 so I've perhaps missed some meetings in 1969 between Laver and Gonzales. I only have 4 results which seems little :

- Portland (Oregon), February 1969, one-night stand, Laver d. Gonzales 75 68 86

- Seattle, March 1969, one-night stand, Laver d. Gonzales 108 63

- Binghampton, pro tournament, final, August 1969, Laver d. Gonzales 61 62

- Baltimore, pro tournament, final, August 1969, Laver d. Gonzales 63 36 75 46 86.

About the 5th meeting in 1970 between the two players :

Cape Town, probably one-night stand, probably April 1970 (when both players toured in South Africa, with the South African Chp (Johannesburg) and Natal Chp (Durban) tournaments ended respectively on March 3 or 4 and April 12, 1970), Gonzales defeated Laver 64 64. I've picked up this result from "Lawn Tennis, May 1970" (absolutely no competition was dated in this magazine : in that edition were the results of the Dunlop Open at Sydney as well as the South African and Natal Chps evoked before).

I'd be interested in the possibly missing matches results between both players in 1969. Thank you in advance. Carlo Colussi (talk) 12:05, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

• • • • thanks carlo. Your 4-0 for 1969 confirms my initial research. The extra match I found was at Orlando on feb 10 where laver beat Gonzales 9-7, 6-2 in the sf. Since you found only 2 one-night stands in 1969, I think that 5-0 is the final total. I've seen the draws of all Laver's tournaments except the last 2 played in Barcelona and madrid in the 1st week of December played immediately after the stockholm open. Gonzales played London the week before but did not play Stockholm. He obviously went home and I can't see him coming back across the Atlantic for these 2 minor events in Spain.

jeffreyneave —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.160.205.173 (talk) 22:00, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

• • • Hello Jeffrey

All right for the 5-0 record. About the 1967 Auckland event, Andrew thinks the same as you but he can't confirm today (he's answered me : "Carlo Yes I thought that too about the Auckland tournament because it has the same format as the Melbourne tournament. I haven't looked it up though to confirm).Carlo Colussi (talk) 07:01, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Nationality

Someone ought to put his nationality somewhere - preferably in the first sentence. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.196.81.85 (talk) 04:57, 8 June 2009 (UTC)