Originally Posted by TMF
I'm sure they know Pancho's accomplishment, and I don't why you guys think they are selling him short. Is it because he was in the old days? If it is, then would they sell Laver short too because he's only 10 years younger than Pancho. Also, Budge was well before Pancho's time and they have him at #6. So I don't think there's any reason for them to be biased against Pancho because he was in the 50s/60s. The same with Evert is placed below Court who was before her time.
I am not so certain that they know that much about Pancho's record. Or anyone else's in the Pro Era.
Look at Emerson: ranked no. 17 just behind Tilden but ahead of Rosewall. What is his record? He won 12 majors, but they were all amateur majors. When he came to the Open Era, he won no majors. It makes apparently good sense if you are looking at majors only, or go here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...and_Slam_title
But it makes little sense if you know about the Pro Era records and players, and Rosewall's competition, longevity, dominance in the early 1960s in the pros, etc.
Notice on the list that Vilas is ranked exactly right behind Djokovic at 40 and 41. Vilas has four majors, Djokovic five. Makes perfect sense if that's all one knows (or cares about).
I think the depth of their research was to count majors, and maybe a little beyond. For example with Budge, they look it up and count his majors number (six), and see that he was the first to win the Grand Slam (again majors), he still holds the record for consecutive majors won (six). But that's it.
And they conclude, "Wow!" he needs to up there pretty high, but not too high.
I do concede that there are exceptions to the logic of counting majors, for instance Gonzales at no. 35 with two majors is ranked ahead of Vilas at no. 41 who has four. But placing Gonzales as low as no. 35 seems to suggest an ignorance for his prowess in the 1950s and his reign of 6 (or more) years as world-no 1.