Manuel Santana vs. Dennis Ralston, W final 1966

[Pete M.]

Originally Posted by BobbyOne

Both of the players you mentioned had a fantastic dropshot, they say.

Particularly Santana I believe. Pietrangeli had a very good backhand. If I remember correctly he won 2 RG and he made a wimbledon semi final in 1960 (he lost against Laver in five sets).

[kiki]

Originally Posted by Pete M.

I like Santana, specially on clay but i liked even more Pietrangeli. But it's good tennis, specially for amateurs.

As I said before, their 1961 final is considered to be one of the finest ever and, certainly, the best match played on clay during the 1960´s...

[Pete M.]

Originally Posted by kiki

As I said before, their 1961 final is considered to be one of the finest ever and, certainly, the best match played on clay during the 1960´s...

Yes, i agree with you. And what's your opinion of the 62 final (Laver-Emerson)?

[kiki]

Originally Posted by Pete M.

Yes, i agree with you. And what's your opinion of the 62 final (Laver-Emerson)?

A very tough one, which Laver rates as his most difficult final en course to his first Grad SLAM; which compares to bUDGE...

[Pete M.]

Originally Posted by kiki

A very tough one, which Laver rates as his most difficult final en course to his first Grad SLAM; which compares to bUDGE...

Yes, it was really a close match, which makes me think about the place of Emerson in history. He's overated today, I know but at the same time he was a good player and could have been better if he became pro, don't you think?

[kiki]

Originally Posted by Pete M.

Yes, it was really a close match, which makes me think about the place of Emerson in history. He's overated today, I know but at the same time he was a good player and could have been better if he became pro, don't you think?

Hard to tell.IMo, if we rank the top pros from 1963 to 1967, Emerson could have challenged Hoad or Gonzales for the nº 3 ( and Gimeno &Fraser ) but I do not think he could have surpassed Laver and Rosewall..

[BobbyOne]

Originally Posted by kiki

Hard to tell.IMo, if we rank the top pros from 1963 to 1967, Emerson could have challenged Hoad or Gonzales for the nº 3 ( and Gimeno &Fraser ) but I do not think he could have surpassed Laver and Rosewall..

To favour Emerson in comparison with the pros people tend to overrate Emmo. Maybe he could have improved when playing against the top pros but I doubt it because he did not have the same potential that Laver, Rosewall, Hoad, Gonzalez and Gimeno had.

I rank Emerson as No. 5 together with Hoad and Buchholz in his very best year, 1964.

Fraser must be a mistake here...

[kiki]

Originally Posted by BobbyOne

To favour Emerson in comparison with the pros people tend to overrate Emmo. Maybe he could have improved when playing against the top pros but I doubt it because he did not have the same potential that Laver, Rosewall, Hoad, Gonzalez and Gimeno had.

I rank Emerson as No. 5 together with Hoad and Buchholz in his very best year, 1964.

Fraser must be a mistake here...

I also rank him at 5 th, behind the big four.Hoad had severe problems, although we know that he had owned Rosewall in 2 out of 3 majors before turning pro...

[Pete M.]

I see your point. So, why some people say Emerson was a "false" amateur?

[kiki]

Originally Posted by Pete M.

I see your point. So, why some people say Emerson was a "false" amateur?

top amateurs were false, not only Roy

[Pete M.]

Please elaborate =)

[kiki]

shamateurism meant bonus and a fix fee for representing your country in the then big Dc plus Gs titles.and advertising and in Santana´s case, other thinks linked to Franco´s regime...thai is like that and that prevented well being players like Pietrangeli,Santana and Emerson to join pros.

[BobbyOne]

Originally Posted by kiki

I also rank him at 5 th, behind the big four.Hoad had severe problems, although we know that he had owned Rosewall in 2 out of 3 majors before turning pro...

You forgot Australian Champ.s 1955. In amateur GS tournaments it is 2:2 between Hoad and Rosewall.

Rosewall was higher ranked that Hoad from 1953 to 1955 plus was clearly better than Lew in the second part of 1956.

[kiki]

Originally Posted by BobbyOne

You forgot Australian Champ.s 1955. In amateur GS tournaments it is 2:2 between Hoad and Rosewall.

Rosewall was higher ranked that Hoad from 1953 to 1955 plus was clearly better than Lew in the second part of 1956.

True, but Hoad won 2 Wimbs...and that, really hurts Rosewall career ( the only objection to put him in the first 2 tiers of all time giants is he never won the biggest title)

[Dan Lobb]

Originally Posted by Pete M.

I see your point. So, why some people say Emerson was a "false" amateur?

Emerson rejected a huge pro contract offered to him by Laver and Rosewall in 1964, who needed an injection into the slumbering pro tour.
I believe that it was about $80,000 (worth about 20 times that today)
Emerson turned it down, claiming that he was making more than that as an amateur.

[Pete M.]

Thank you for the answers Kiki and Dan Lobb. About Santana and Franco's regime, what are your sources?
And Daniel, where did you read Emerson reject that contract?

[Limpinhitter]

Originally Posted by Dan Lobb

Emerson rejected a huge pro contract offered to him by Laver and Rosewall in 1964, who needed an injection into the slumbering pro tour.
I believe that it was about $80,000 (worth about 20 times that today)
Emerson turned it down, claiming that he was making more than that as an amateur.

That's conflicting with what I've read, which was that Emerson remained an amateur out of loyalty to the Aussie Davis Cup team and Harry Hopman. However, when an alleged basis for motivation is based on money, it has instant credibility, IMO. Do you have a source for that?

[Limpinhitter]

From Rod Laver's Tennis Digest, 1973




From The Book of Tennis - How to Play the Game, 1965



PS: Sorry about the dark resolution, I might try to lighten them and re-scan when I get a chance.

[BobbyOne]

Originally Posted by kiki

True, but Hoad won 2 Wimbs...and that, really hurts Rosewall career ( the only objection to put him in the first 2 tiers of all time giants is he never won the biggest title)

If you have doubts to put Rosewall in the first two tiers, I only can shake my head...

[pc1]

Originally Posted by kiki

True, but Hoad won 2 Wimbs...and that, really hurts Rosewall career ( the only objection to put him in the first 2 tiers of all time giants is he never won the biggest title)

Do you really think Rosewall wouldn't have won Wimbledon if he was allowed to play it? Most likely he would have won a number of Wimbledon. You know tennis history. You can't penalize Rosewall for that considering how long he was not allowed to play the classic majors. He was the best player in the world for a number of years.