[The Federest]

Emerson is an ATG with 12 slams to his name and a hugely illustrious career. So why is his H2H against Laver a staggering 3 wins to 22 losses? After two important early victories for Emerson in 1961, Laver owned him pretty completely.

Also, is there any other similarly extreme H2H involving two ATGs (where the players have met at least, say, 20 times)?

(And obviously Roger-Rafa @ 40%:60% is not comparable to Emerson-Laver @ 12%:88%)

 

[swissmaestro92]

Roy Emerson was not in the same league as Laver, he attained his slams in the amateur period during a time when most of the greats of the time had joined the Pro Tour including Laver himself, Rosewall, Hoad, Gonzalez etc. by the Open era you see the difference between Laver and emerson clearly, particularly in 1969.

Emerson would not make my top 20 of all time probably at least in singles alone.

 

[Budadiii]

Because you don't know history.

Emerson was far inferior to all the top players of the pro tour. He vultured slams.

 

[Phillo]

No wonder it wasn’t such a big deal when Novak broke his record & it was Grass then anyway. Of course, highly unlikely anybody in our lifetime breaks his record esp. if he wins another.

 

[Supercell]

Because you don't know history.

This is interesting. The Federest must have some supernatural ability to affect rivalries 50 years back.

As for the actual facts, I agree. Emerson won 10 out of 12 slams in 1963-1967 when both Laver and Rosewall were competing for pro-slams. Obviously this devaluates his slam count.

 

[The Federest]

Because you don't know history.

Emerson was far inferior to all the top players of the pro tour. He vultured slams.

I'm always interested in learning more about the history of the game, especially from knowledgeable posters and older heads.

If you try a little harder, you may even go beyond the easy posturing of "far inferior" and "vultured" and account for the fact that Emerson won 110 singles titles, beat Laver twice in slam finals and has a respectable H2H against all the other great Aussies of the day. That would be genuinely instructive.

 

[swissmaestro92]

its always difficult to judge players in the pre open era but i think we can safely say there was a gap between those who barely played in the Pro tier and those who played there prominently and were successful there.

Basically Grand Slam counts back then were very much something to note but not necessarily to consider as the biggest events for the very very best, in some ways the Pro Slams were arguably more important in judging greatness. The legacy of tennis players certainly changes over the years and also of course the Grand Slams themselves were not equally weighted for a long time. Wimbledon was definitely the most prestigous followed by the US and French and the Australian right at the bottom, since so few top players competed there even until the mid eighties really.

Arguments for GOAT will always be complex and especially when you factor in the pre-Open days.

 

[Raiden]

Emmerson didn't go pro like everyone around him who all went pro after being successful as amateurs (which back then means going "rogue" and no longer be eligible for the conventional slams).

 

[Phillo]

So this makes the achievement of Novak & to a lesser degree Fed at AO (which i consider in these times to b the ‘genuine’ HC major) even more impressive.

 

[Johnny Groove]

Emerson beat Laver before he was Laver and did not go pro when all the other guys did. He was also excellent in doubles but we have to put Emerson much below Rosewall and Laver

 

[Yukimura]

He was a beast among the amateurs. Goat level players, namely Gonzalez, Rosewall and Laver were playing pro championships. His numbers don't really reflect his level. To some extent, Margaret Court numbers are a bit exaggerated too, not so much as Emerson, as she were number one for a while when she went against the women's great pros.

 

[Slasher1985]

Going pro was not a decision taken lightly by players back in that day. It was not like you could snap your fingers and tomorrow there you were. Pro player life was sometimes a burden too, you would become the sponsor's "slave", go where they wanted, play where they want it. You would get money, and you faced some of the best players, but many much preferred the free life of being an amateur.

Whoever brought vulture into this discussion has made a weird claim about a time much different to today's tennis.

 

[The Federest]

He was a beast among the amateurs. Goat level players, namely Gonzalez, Rosewall and Laver were playing pro championships. His numbers don't really reflect his level. To some extent, Margaret Court numbers are a bit exaggerated too, not so much as Emerson, as she were number one for a while when she went against the women's great pros.

I'm sure you're right. I see, though, that when the Tennis Channel did their 100 Greatest of all Time list, Emerson (17) was ranked ahead of Rosewall (20), Newcombe (31) and Gonzalez (35). Is that ranking in any way justifiable, or is it grotesque nonsense?

See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/100_Greatest_of_All_Time

 

[swissmaestro92]

I'm sure you're right. I see, though, that when the Tennis Channel did their 100 Greatest of all Time list, Emerson (17) was ranked ahead of Rosewall (20), Newcombe (31) and Gonzalez (35). Is that ranking in any way justifiable, or is it grotesque nonsense?

See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/100_Greatest_of_All_Time

Gonzalez and Rosewall are far far too low here, both in my top ten, of course this list includes female players as well, but the point remains. Emerson does deserve credit for his all round achievements in doubles as well, he was certainly one of the best in the 60s but underneath the very best.

 

[Johnny Groove]

I'm sure you're right. I see, though, that when the Tennis Channel did their 100 Greatest of all Time list, Emerson (17) was ranked ahead of Rosewall (20), Newcombe (31) and Gonzalez (35). Is that ranking in any way justifiable, or is it grotesque nonsense?

See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/100_Greatest_of_All_Time

lol, disgusting

Real list, I have Emerson barely top 20

1. Laver- 19 slams, 6 YE #1, 2 CYGS, 200 titles
2. Federer- 20 slams, 5 YE #1, Career Slam, 103 titles
3. Nadal- 19 slams, 5 YE #1, Career Slam, 84 titles
4. Djokovic- 16 slams, 5 YE #1, 1 NCYGS, 77 titles
5. Rosewall- 23 slams, 5 YE #1, won grass slams, never won Wimbledon, 4 finals, 133 titles
6. Gonzales- 17 slams, 6 YE #1, never won RG, 4 SF, 111 titles
7. Tilden- 15 slams, 7 YE #1, won clay slam, never won RG, 2 finals, 138 titles
8. Sampras- 14 slams, 6 YE #1, never won RG, 1 SF, 64 titles
9. Budge- 10 slams, 4 YE #1, CYGS, 43 titles
10. Perry- 10 slams, 3 YE #1, Career Slam, 55 titles
11. Borg- 11 slams, 3 YE #1, 64 titles
12. Cochet- 11 slams, 3 YE #1, 90 titles
13. Kramer- 5 slams, 5 YE #1, 35 titles
14. Connors- 8 slams, 3 YE #1, 109 titles
15. Lendl- 8 slams, 3 YE #1, 94 titles
16. McEnroe- 7 slams, 3 YE #1, 77 titles
17. Vines- 7 slams, 3 YE #1, 36 titles
18. Riggs- 6 slams, 3 YE #1, 99 titles
19. Emerson- 12 slams, 0 YE #1, only Amateur #1, 110 titles

 

[Bella&Mirka]

1. Laver- 19 slams, 6 YE #1, 2 CYGS, 200 titles

I love The Rocket but to give equal weight to his pro titles compared to modern totals is ridiculous.

As for Emerson, he did dominate amateur ranks equally as convincingly as previous greats, so might have competed successfully at pro level also. Maybe it was just a bad match up v Laver; it has happened numerous times in tennis where Player A beats Player B and Player B beats Player C, but Player A does not necessarily beat Player C. Emerson was an ATG in my book.

 

[DinnerWarrior]

Emerson was a pretty great player of course, certainly slam-winning material in an open field, but nowhere near GOAT level Laver was. Unfortunately, he was lured by the Aussie tennis chef to stay amateur in exchange for covert payment, a sort of bribe really, enough that only the best pros (read: Rosewall and Laver) made more, and Emerson evidently doubted his ability to overcome them, so he preferred to dominate the amateur field without those giants. Imagine Murray without the Big 3, he could've probably equalled Sampras's major count but in reality we know Andy is leagues below Pete. So I think Emerson is likely Murray level, a strong player capable of snatching a couple fully competitive slams but vastly inferior to the GOATs overall.

 

[masterkey]

lol, disgusting

Real list, I have Emerson barely top 20

1. Laver- 19 slams, 6 YE #1, 2 CYGS, 200 titles
2. Federer- 20 slams, 5 YE #1, Career Slam, 103 titles
3. Nadal- 19 slams, 5 YE #1, Career Slam, 84 titles
4. Djokovic- 16 slams, 5 YE #1, 1 NCYGS, 77 titles
5. Rosewall- 23 slams, 5 YE #1, won grass slams, never won Wimbledon, 4 finals, 133 titles

Johnny,

According to thetennisbase.com, Laver’s total is more around 210 titles, and that’s excluding exhibs and very minor tournaments. And Rosewall’s total is 153 titles, and more important, his total match wins is 1705, which is a more impressive record : that’s the way you win titles. In another thread, I’ve noted that Laver’s match win/title wins ratio is unexpectedly low, around 7, while Rosewall’s is at a very common 12.5, like every other ATG, past or present.

Regarding Laver career details, I’ve downloaded thetennisbase.com data and they have the paths for 195 of his titles. On average, his path to titles is only made of 3.9 victories. I still have to do the same calculation with Rosewall’s, but for instance, Federer’s road to his titles is on average 5.5 match wins. A totally different story.

On thetennisbase, they have 5 categories of titles, A to E, A being the more important ones. Rosewall´s count is better than Laver’s in categories A and B !

All that, and the very balanced H2H (around 82-69) while Rosewall’s is 4 years older and most of their encounters were played when age favoured Laver, the pro slam in 63 when competition was higher than in 67 (Laver’s pro slam), WCT important victories, all that makes me rank Rosewall highest than Laver.

 

[RocketMan70]

No wonder it wasn’t such a big deal when Novak broke his record & it was Grass then anyway. Of course, highly unlikely anybody in our lifetime breaks his record esp. if he wins another.

AO records prior to the mid 80s are pretty unimpressive, due to low attendance rates by the top players, let alone the amateur era.
Nole paid tribute to Roy Emerson purely out of respect for the history of the event, and political correctness to please AO officials and organisers, after he beat his record.
Nole's record of 7 AO's is certainly very impressive, and is still the strong favourite for a record extending 8th title next year.

 

[Johnny Groove]

Johnny,

According to thetennisbase.com, Laver’s total is more around 210 titles, and that’s excluding exhibs and very minor tournaments. And Rosewall’s total is 153 titles, and more important, his total match wins is 1705, which is a more impressive record : that’s the way you win titles. In another thread, I’ve noted that Laver’s match win/title wins ratio is unexpectedly low, around 7, while Rosewall’s is at a very common 12.5, like every other ATG, past or present.

Regarding Laver career details, I’ve downloaded thetennisbase.com data and they have the paths for 195 of his titles. On average, his path to titles is only made of 3.9 victories. I still have to do the same calculation with Rosewall’s, but for instance, Federer’s road to his titles is on average 5.5 match wins. A totally different story.

On thetennisbase, they have 5 categories of titles, A to E, A being the more important ones. Rosewall´s count is better than Laver’s in categories A and B !

All that, and the very balanced H2H (around 82-69) while Rosewall’s is 4 years older and most of their encounters were played when age favoured Laver, the pro slam in 63 when competition was higher than in 67 (Laver’s pro slam), WCT important victories, all that makes me rank Rosewall highest than Laver.

Excellent post my friend, I've used thetennisbase as my foundation for all events for many years now. I will need to look up your stats, especially average path to titles. How did you do that calculation? Also, I feel like there should be some type of weighted average on opponents with that avg path to titles. If Laver wins 4 matches to the title, but the 4 matches were vs Gonazles, Rosewall, Hoad, and Segura, that is far more impressive than Federer beating Gojo, Albot, and De Minaur