Originally Posted by Action Jackson
Got to look at the calibre of players he was playing against, then they were the Pro years, considering he did it 7 years apart. There are a lot of factors that need to be taken into account, it's never always about numbers when there is no application to the data.
The main problem is the field, it was so small. No way to tell if his competition was that good. There's no way to say how good was the competition, they only played each other. The other way is to look at films, I have and it's not anywhere near modern tennis.
You take the best player in the state(a small field) and a player looks good, but open up all the players in the world and then results will be not so good.
Even with this small field he had 6 losses, great numbers but not for a #1 ranking.
Tennis was at it's infancy back then, a long way from where it's moved now.
Laver may have been the best back then but compared to todays players and the skills they have today, well it's just another sport that is completely different.