We are talking about something irrelevant to the main topic. What i want to say, in short, are:
1) Pre-open era is an immature stage of tennis history.
2) Tennis world was not well organized till late of 80s. Tennis evolved gradually decade by decade.
3) You can not mention the dominant players in the pre-open era in the same breath with modern greats.
I think in the next 20 years, modern tennis which started from 1968 will be considered mainstream of tennis history, and everything happened before that mark will be treated as a myth.
Originally Posted by Mustard
It is not a myth at all. Look at the world pro tours that Gonzales won, as well as the big pro tournaments that he won. Even Kramer, who wasn't exactly the best friend of Gonzales, always rooting for Gonzales' opponents, said that Gonzales was the best player who walked on the court from 1954 to 1961. Some people even make a case for Gonzales being the best player of 1952, although I give that year narrowly to Segura.
Once again, it is not a fact but an opinion. Kramer has his opinion, Hoodjem has his opinion (he give 1960 and 1961 to Rosewall, by the way), you has your opinion, and so are the others (L'Équipe give 1961 to Rosewall). That disagreement just show how difficult to know exactly what happened at that time, we do not have any way to know for sure, and because of that it is a myth. I will stop argue with you about Gonzales.
How have I ignored it? As I've said, Laver won tournaments of all sizes, from small tournaments to the biggest tournaments, and 200 in all. Laver's 42 titles you mention, are ATP titles. Like how the ATP says that Connors won 109 titles, when it's really 149 once you include non-ATP titles.
the discussion about "200" is more than enough. I made my point clear. Dozen of Laver title are small tournament which had only 4-8 participants. You can not cite it to argue against Federer. His 200 is not meaning much. So are his 19 "majors".