And still, he was able to crush Laver 8-0 and to reach several Major finals.
From my point of view, if you play, you play. We can't build an alternative tennis history. Rios and Cash without injuries would have been two of the greatest players ever, but since they had a lot of injuries, they were not. Hoad was always injured, except in 1959 he had trouble pratically in every other professional season: that can't be an argument to disregard Gonzales, Sedgman or Rosewall, let's be honest please...
Just your opinion, can't see any "fact".
Emerson was simply not strong enough to win in front of a professional field competition.
Newcome and Ashe were superior to Emerson, no doubt about it.
As I've learned from you, to beat an injured opponent is no big deal.
If you're using the head-to-head with Gonzales to demonstrate anything against Rosewall, we can also use it against Laver. He had an excellent head-to-head against Laver, who was 10 years older. So maybe Laver was not so dominant...
And when they were, he was not able to win them.
Just look at who he has beaten during his 34 Pro Majors matches winning streak.
Science fiction again. Do you prefer Ballard, Dick or Gibson?
I didn't say that they are silly choices, I just said that a peak Rosewall would be up there too. Your first post was a little disrespectful to Kenny, just go back and read it...