Originally Posted by Mustard
Laver was number 2 on the list because of his 2 Grand Slams, which serendipitiously, happens to mean a lot with today's criteria, as does Laver's 11 mainstream majors. Gonzales only has 2 mainstream majors (too low by today's criteria), having turned pro at the age of 21 and the open era not arriving until he was just about 40. Gonzales dominating the old pro tours and winning those big pro tournaments, as he did in his prime, does not fit in with today's criteria. Emerson winning 12 mainstream majors, however, is much bigger in today's criteria, hence why he was higher ranked.
And anyone who ranks Emerson ahead of Gonzalez does NOT know tennis history. Ranking players by a fixed number of majors won is too simplistic and superficial.
Gonzalez in his prime would have destroyed Emerson in his prime as he would have just about anyone on that Tennis Channel List.