Originally Posted by Phoenix1983
No amount of posts would make me rank Gimeno ahead of Emerson. The very thought is just absurd to me. Basically in your view a guy could dominate the amateurs as much as he wanted but he would still not be greater than a guy who never won an amateur or pro major. This is all part of your agenda to make Rosewall's competition look incredibly tough and thus raise his status.
Why would it be absurd when people like Jack Kramer and the Wimbledon seeding committee thought Gimeno was the superior player when Open Tennis started, at least on grass? Gimeno was seeded third at the first Open Wimbledon and Emerson fifth. Kramer thought for much of the 1960's that Gimeno was the third best player in the world behind Laver and Rosewall.
The point is that you may be correct (and you may be incorrect) but the notion that BobbyOne puts forth is not ridiculous. Facts are that Gimeno had a better head to head against Emerson and fact is the during the Open Era Gimeno won a major and Emerson did not.
Emerson was an excellent player but we all know (and I use the word know not believe) that there is no way Emerson would have won 12 majors during a truly Open Era in the 1960's. Gimeno often defeated Laver and Rosewall during the same tournament to win a tournament. You could not have much tougher than that for competition.
Many may say Emerson was the superior player but the notion was that Gimeno was a better player than Roy Emerson is not a notion that only BobbyOne had but many knowledgeable experts in the game. I pointed out just a few earlier in the post.
Here's the seedings for the 1968 Wimbledon below.
At the 1968 US Open Gimeno was dropped to tenth seed but Emerson was dropped to fourteenth seed.
Either way the people at the time who did the seedings thought Gimeno was at least for grass superior to Emerson.