Manuel Santana vs. Dennis Ralston, W final 1966

[Dan Lobb]

Originally Posted by Limpinhitter

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?

The official line was that Emmo was loyal to the Aussie Davis Cup team.
I am trying to remember the source for the more believable story, that Emmo rejected an $80,000 guarantee from Laver and Rosewall, telling them that he could do better than that as an amateur.
I read it recently.

[BobbyOne]

Originally Posted by Dan Lobb

The official line was that Emmo was loyal to the Aussie Davis Cup team.
I am trying to remember the source for the more believable story, that Emmo rejected an $80,000 guarantee from Laver and Rosewall, telling them that he could do better than that as an amateur.
I read it recently.

I have read that once in World Tennis

[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)

Following your logic, your "king", Laver is much worse than Federer and Sampras because Rod only won four Wimbledons while F. and S. won seven...

[Dan Lobb]

Originally Posted by BobbyOne

I have read that once in World Tennis

I may have read a blog somewhere quoting the World Tennis story.

[Limpinhitter]

Originally Posted by BobbyOne

I have read that once in World Tennis

That Emmo made more money to remain an amateur?

[Limpinhitter]

Originally Posted by BobbyOne

Following your logic, your "king", Laver is much worse than Federer and Sampras because Rod only won four Wimbledons while F. and S. won seven...

Having had the privilege of seeing all 3 of them play, live, it's my opinion that Laver was the greater player. I'm not saying that Laver would beat them with a wood racquet. But, Laver was the greatest athlete to ever step on a tennis court, IMO, and, more than anyone of his era, had very modern strokes with heavy topspin on both sides, and would benefit from modern racquets to their fullest extent.

[Dan Lobb]

Originally Posted by Limpinhitter

That Emmo made more money to remain an amateur?

That Emmo believed that his income would be higher as an amateur. This would be in 1964, at the height of Emmo's celebrity, and by 1968 when he turned pro his celebrity had declined as he aged. He was 30 years old before he turned pro.

[Pete M.]

Originally Posted by Dan Lobb

That Emmo believed that his income would be higher as an amateur. This would be in 1964, at the height of Emmo's celebrity, and by 1968 when he turned pro his celebrity had declined as he aged. He was 30 years old before he turned pro.

But is this plausible? Well, I mean I always thought Laver, for example, became pro because he could earn more money and that’s what I read in some interviews that he gave.
If you could find the source, that would be the ideal. Thank you.

[urban]

Maybe there was more than one cause, that explains Emmo's decision. Certainly the pros made more money than the amateurs, who were paid under the table for appearing in minor tournaments over the world. Laver got 110000 $ as a guarantee for signing his pro contract in 1963, as an amateur he got maybe 5000 $ for his 1962 Grand Slam. But the amateur circuit wasn't as hard as the pro tour. I have read a comment of a poster here - Andrew D.- who knew some Queenslanders like Mal Anderson and Ashley Cooper. Apparently those fellow Queenslanders told Emmo about the harsh rigors of the pro tour, the constant travelling and the constant pressure to play head to head tours against the best. Even Hoad remained in his heart more an amateur. So Emmo remained loyal to Hopman and the DC squad, and joined the McCall group only in 1968.

[kiki]

Originally Posted by 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?

Well, it was a need for Franco to have international outstanding sportsmen, specially in the modernization of the regime, from 1960.Nopt that Santana was a pro Franco guy, he in fact was linked with anybody at the power, including the Socialist Party.

[kiki]

Originally Posted by pc1

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.

Yes, He is in my second top tier.He would have won it at least twice and most likely 3 or 4 times.

[kiki]

Originally Posted by Dan Lobb

The official line was that Emmo was loyal to the Aussie Davis Cup team.
I am trying to remember the source for the more believable story, that Emmo rejected an $80,000 guarantee from Laver and Rosewall, telling them that he could do better than that as an amateur.
I read it recently.

Top amateurs like Emerson,Santana and youngs Newcombe,Roche and Ashe were paid a lot of money under the table at any event they entered, except for the majors.That is why it is calles shamateurism.Similar to Jorda,Ewing,Sampson and many other athletes when they were at College.

[kiki]

Originally Posted by BobbyOne

Following your logic, your "king", Laver is much worse than Federer and Sampras because Rod only won four Wimbledons while F. and S. won seven...

4 in a row, yes, but he was not allowed to play from 1963 to 1967, so he could have the all time record by now.

[kiki]

Originally Posted by Pete M.

But is this plausible? Well, I mean I always thought Laver, for example, became pro because he could earn more money and that’s what I read in some interviews that he gave.
If you could find the source, that would be the ideal. Thank you.

he is absolutley right.Santana has also affirmed it, when he was the other big name in the amateur ranks during the middle 60´s.Heard about shamateurism? money under the table?

[Pete M.]

Originally Posted by kiki

he is absolutley right.Santana has also affirmed it, when he was the other big name in the amateur ranks during the middle 60´s.Heard about shamateurism? money under the table?

Yes, I read what you and Dan Lobb wrote and I am grateful for your answers and patience . I didn't say it was a lie but I was just asking for sources to read more about this, especially about Emerson earn more money as an amateur.

[BobbyOne]

Originally Posted by kiki

4 in a row, yes, but he was not allowed to play from 1963 to 1967, so he could have the all time record by now.

In my speculation Rod would have won three Wimbledons in that period (Rosewall the two remaining). So we would get also 7 for him...

[Dan Lobb]

Originally Posted by Pete M.

But is this plausible? Well, I mean I always thought Laver, for example, became pro because he could earn more money and that’s what I read in some interviews that he gave.
If you could find the source, that would be the ideal. Thank you.

Bobby quotes World Tennis magazine. Perhaps I read a quote from there.

[Dan Lobb]

Originally Posted by urban

Maybe there was more than one cause, that explains Emmo's decision. Certainly the pros made more money than the amateurs, who were paid under the table for appearing in minor tournaments over the world. Laver got 110000 $ as a guarantee for signing his pro contract in 1963, as an amateur he got maybe 5000 $ for his 1962 Grand Slam. But the amateur circuit wasn't as hard as the pro tour. I have read a comment of a poster here - Andrew D.- who knew some Queenslanders like Mal Anderson and Ashley Cooper. Apparently those fellow Queenslanders told Emmo about the harsh rigors of the pro tour, the constant travelling and the constant pressure to play head to head tours against the best. Even Hoad remained in his heart more an amateur. So Emmo remained loyal to Hopman and the DC squad, and joined the McCall group only in 1968.

Mal Anderson was Emerson's brother-in-law, so he would coach Emmo on his decisions.
Certainly, $80,000 is substantially more than the amounts you are suggesting for amateur play, so why would Emmo turn this down?
The answer has to be that the top amateur of 1964, Emmo, who was a dominant player, could command more than that on the amateur circuit.
The Australian Tennis team began offering large sums to keep the Davis Cup team together after Laver left the team to turn pro. The "stipend" offered the Aussies was much more than American players received, and quite luxurious (and confidential).

[kiki]

Originally Posted by BobbyOne

In my speculation Rod would have won three Wimbledons in that period (Rosewall the two remaining). So we would get also 7 for him...

I agree.But I´d say Rosewall one and Gonzales, the other.

[BobbyOne]

Originally Posted by kiki

I agree.But I´d say Rosewall one and Gonzales, the other.

Quite possible.