Originally Posted by TMF
Tilden was the best player on the amateur tour but Emerson was also the best player in the amateur. Tilden turned pro only a few years after the pro tour was established, and there's only a handful of players in the 30s. There isn't much to brag about him being #1 during the pro because there wasn't much competition(lol). Whereas Emerson would have a much tougher time had he turned pro when the field was much deeper/stronger in the 60s.
I normally don't agree with Dan but this time he's 100% correct. Listing number of titles doesn't say about the weight of individual achievement. Because in that case, (Connors, Lendl) > (Federer, Sampras, Borg, Nadal) simply because they have more single titles. Makes no sense.
I would say the difference between Tilden and Emerson is that Tilden was the best in the world (all categories) because all the top players were amateurs while Emerson dominated only the amateurs.
Furthermore Tilden dominated clearly for 6 years while Emmo dominated only in 1964 and 1965.