Originally Posted by KAndersonFan
Yes, I think Laver's pro majors should be tallied to his record...but what about his Grand Slams before 1963?? He didn't have to play the three best players in the world, and that certainly made a difference because he was dominated by all three in '63. His amateur Slams are almost comparable to what Brian Teacher and Johan Kriek did. Sure, there were a couple of really good players in the draw (like Newcombe for Laver and Vilas, Tanner, and Lendl for Teacher/Kriek) but they didn't have to face the best in world at the time (Rosewall, Hoad, Gonzalez / Borg, McEnroe, Connors). Does Teacher ever get legitimate credit for his win? Laver's wins are more credible as displayed by his wins in the pro and Open era, but I don't think his amateur Slams should be given the same weight as his other majors IMO.
Yeah, but this isn't supported by the advent of Open tennis. When Open tennis hit, the top "amateurs" of the day were in the QF's and above. For instance, in the 1968 Wimbledon, Arthur Ashe lost to his idol Rod Laver in the semis, Dennis Ralston made the QF's to lose against Laver, Gonzalez lost in the 2nd round.
In the US Open Arthur Ashe defeated Tom Okker. Both these guys were amateurs prior to. John Newcombe was an amateur and the last amateur to win Wimbledon in 1967. He did well as a pro.
IMO, Laver's 1962 Slam may not have had the depth his 1969 Slam did but to say it's not legit just isn't right. The top players in the amateur ranks held their own with the pros when they combined.