Originally Posted by NGM
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.
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.
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".
A player who wins 8 man tournaments against the best players in the world is most likely also able to win tournamenst with 32 to 128 players where he faces lesser players in the rounds before QFs. Laver and Rosewall have often proved that they were able to win big tournaments with many participants.