Originally Posted by Phoenix1983
I don't hate you, this is an internet forum and I disagree with your opinion, especially on Rosewall. That is all.
And yet he won 12 amateur majors, including at least 2 at every venue. Very impressive, albeit that competition may not have been strong.
I already said I give Gimeno credit for that one major victory but it's not enough to overcome Emerson's 12 amateur slams.
Who disproved me? I've still not seen a valid reason for putting a man with a 0-5 Wimbledon finals record ahead of the likes of Federer and Laver. Frankly it's an insult to tennis that such a man could be ranked as GOAT. In the real world of course no-one thinks Rosewall is GOAT so at least people generally hold sensible opinions.
It doesn't matter how good Laver and Rosewall were, if Gimeno was truly a great like you claim, he would have won at least a few pro slams. In reality he was just a nearly man.
Phoenix, Gimeno's French Open win does of course not overcome Emerson's 12 amateur titles but you should consider it as a hint that Gimeno was generally stronger than Emerson, as also the 6:1 hth of 1968 indicate.
It does not matter how good Laver and Rosewall were???? A very stupid and illogic statement. Of course it's deciding HOW good L and R were. If they were practically "out of the world" they are virually not beatable even by very strong players. Remember that also Gonzalez and Hoad did not win against the two Aussies.
Insulting are only you. I'm not sure that in the "real world" no-one is ranking Rosewall the GOAT. Is this forum not a part of the real world? At least here I'm not the only person who considers it that way.
The real world, f. i. Tennis Channel ranks Emerson ahead of Rosewall and Gonzalez only at 22nd place. Is it that what you want???