Originally Posted by ARFED
Ok, so we all can agree here that Laver didn`t win 200 titles, 19 majors and the 1962 Grand Slam has no merit at all. Thing is you can`t downgrade Emerson`s numbers without donwgrading Laver in the process. By the way, i give both full credit for their achievements in the amateur tour. Of course they don`t hold the same importance as pro wins and are far behind open era standards, but they have their value nonetheless
ARFED, Laver won so much that he does not lose much of his reputation if we omit his amateur achievements. I'm sure he would still remain the tournaments' most prolific winner if we don't count the amateur titles (or at least the No.2 behind Tilden).
Why Laver's or Emerson's achievements have no merit at all? That's an extreme point of view. Emerson's feats deserve credit but only a limited one.