Originally Posted by Phoenix1983
I'm sorry but this is taking it too far.
Obviously Emerson's 12 slams look far more impressive than they actually are and guys like Gonzales, Rosewall, probably even Hoad should be ahead of him.
But Gimeno? A guy who didn't win a single amateur era slam (or even make a final), or a pro major? No way would Gimeno have won more than 12 amateur slams if he had stayed in those ranks. We can't rank him ahead of Emerson by any means.
I think we have to be careful not to go too far and underrate Emerson i.e. assume he would have won no slams. He's probably worthy of a Courier/Vilas type level IMHO.
If you check the first Open Wimbledon in 1968 Gimeno was highly regarded and seeded ahead of Emerson. Many thought for a good part of the 1960's that Gimeno was the third best player of the 1960's behind Laver and Rosewall. I think there's an excellent chance that Gimeno was superior to Emerson. The pro/amateur divide is a problem but guys like Hoad didn't have as many majors as Emerson but very few would rank Emerson over Hoad for example. Gimeno was seeded third behind Laver and Rosewall and ahead of Emerson who was fifth seed.