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.
His GS elevated him to #2. Had he never won any GS, he wouldn't be #2. Like I said, these experts are aware of all Laver's achievements, so stop acting as you are the only one who knows about laver in great details. Keep in mind the top 100 included players well before Laver's time(eg William Renshaw, Norman Brookes). They do not ignore history.