Emmo’s Competition—how tough was it?

[hoodjem]

Originally Posted by BTURNER

I did find this clip
http://www.ina.fr/sport/tennis/video...-laver.fr.html

Nice find: 1962 French Championship finals. Both were amateurs.

[borg number one]

Now that I am looking at Emerson's opponents more closely, even if he wasn't facing "all the top pros" at the same time he was facing the amateurs, his competition was tough. So, I wouldn't say he won against very weak fields by any stretch. The fields he competed against were quite tough, at the top of the amateur ranks. Depth was lacking somewhat most likely, but that didn't make winning in the SF-F "easy". He did beat who he faced.

Yet, of course, the competition at the top would have been even tougher had he played the pro pre-1968. So, I think Hoodjem's take on him is quite accurate (though Emerson was well before my time in terms of me watching him play in his prime).

We should keep in mind that Emerson's achievements are more impressive than it may appear "on the surface" if you just think amateurs vs. professionals in the 60's. He also had 16 doubles majors! The guy could definitely play.

[hoodjem]

I have also heard that he was very, very fast--by any standards.

[urban]

He once said, that only kangoroos (is it the right spelling?) were faster than him, but that he could play better tennis. Maybe his best record was, that he never lost a living rubber in Davis Cup (only a dead one to Santana). And this streak extends to 9 finals.

[jeffreyneave]

emerson was not generally ranked in the top 10 in 1968. He failed to reach the sf of the 4 major events (french, wimbedon us open and PSW). He had losing records against Gimeno and Gonzales, the players who he was competing against for the last spots in the top 10. He won only 2 touraments, not very good. His 5-5 split with laver is his only good stat for 1968; the rest of his stats are not very good and is why he was generally excluded from the top 10 players by journalists of the time.

jeffrey

[timnz]

Originally Posted by jeffreyneave

emerson was not generally ranked in the top 10 in 1968. He failed to reach the sf of the 4 major events (french, wimbedon us open and PSW). He had losing records against Gimeno and Gonzales, the players who he was competing against for the last spots in the top 10. He won only 2 touraments, not very good. His 5-5 split with laver is his only good stat for 1968; the rest of his stats are not very good and is why he was generally excluded from the top 10 players by journalists of the time.

jeffrey

I guess though - the 5-5 split speaks of his basic ability. To beat a peak Laver in straight sets 5 times in one year - you have to be good. The fact that he was inconsistent in other ways points to the age factor kicking in. My belief is that his ability to beat a peak laver points to the fact that if he had turned Pro with Laver in 1963 he would have done a lot better than people suspect in that 1963 to 1967 period.

[kiki]

Originally Posted by urban

Stolle had a big serve for his day, a good volley and a good backhand, his was tall and lanky, and despite always looking a bit stiff, quite fast. His style reminds me a bit on that of Michael Stich. These qualities made him an exemplary doubles player, being successful with Hewitt, Emerson and later Rosewall. As a singles player, he stood always in he shadow of Emerson, losing 3 Wimbledon finals (as von Cramm) against Emmo and Chuck McKinley. His finest hours came in Davis Cup, and against Ralston and McKinley in 1964, and Santana in 1965, he helped to win the Cup. In 1965, he won RG (without the champ Santana),and in 1966, as an unseeded hacker, he won the US over Newcombe and was ranked Nr. 1 amateur by many experts. Then he turned pro, and ended 1967 as Nr.6 pro, behind Laver, Rosewall, Gimeno, Gonzales and Ralston. Emerson, his doubles partner, had a psychological advantage over him (as Smith had over Lutz, or Newcombe over Roche), they were great friends, who made breakfast for each other, before the Wim finals. Overall not on the same level as Laver, Rosewall, Newcombe and Emerson, but on his day dangerous for anybody, especially on grass. In 1972, well past his prime, he beat favorite Newcombe at Forest Hills, without breaking serve. His serve was unreturnable on this day.

I saw him play live a few times.Your description fits mine perfectly.As solid a S&V as any great aussie name, had a very good and fast BH return of serve, though he was not a very consistent player and probably didn´t believe as much in himself as Santana or Emerson ( the only 2 guys who were really better than him in the mid 60´s).Nice guy, fun and with great sense of humour ( no wonder he and Emmo were all partying guys).he teamed and coached Vitas Gerulaitis, and I´m sure those 2 easy going, laid back guys must have made agreat teamwork...in 1981, he and Newc, over their 40´s almost beat Mc and Fleming at the USO SF.great way to say bye bye.

[dominikk1985]

Feds competition till 06 certainly was a little soft, but still at least equal to emersons competition.

and from 07/08 on it really becomes no comparison, since nadal/novak hit their prime by about 08. emerson never faced such a player.

so in the end feds competition was easily much harder.

[kiki]

Originally Posted by hoodjem

Roy Emerson won 12 GS singles titles. Almost everyone (not me) on here seems to believe he was not that great a player, because during his pre-open era (’61-68 ) the competition was not that tough. (All the tough pros--such as Rosewall, Hoad, Gonzales, Trabert, Cooper--were categorically excluded.)

I thought it would be interesting to compare Emerson’s GS titles opponents to, say, Federer’s GS finals opponents. (Fed has the exact same number of GS singles titles at this moment).

You decide . . .

Emerson’s GS finals opponents
1. 1961 Aus— Rod Laver
2. 1961 US— Rod Laver
3. 1963 Aus— Ken Fletcher
4. 1963 French— Pierre Damon
5. 1964 Aus — Fred Stolle
6. 1964 Wimb— Fred Stolle
7. 1964 US— Fred Stolle
8. 1965 Aus— Fred Stolle
9. 1965 Wimb— Fred Stolle
10. 1966 Aus— Arthur Ashe
11. 1967 Aus— Arthur Ashe
12. 1967 French— Tony Roche

Federer’s GS finals opponents
1. 2003 Wimb— Mark Philippoussis
2. 2004 Aus— Marat Safin
3. 2004 Wimb— Andy Roddick
4. 2004 US — Lleyton Hewitt
5. 2005 Wimb— Andy Roddick
6. 2005 US— Andre Agassi
7. 2006 Aus— Marcos Baghdatis
8. 2006 Wimb— Rafael Nadal
9. 2006 US— Andre Agassi
10. 2007 Aus— Fernando Gonzales
11. 2007 Wimb— Rafael Nadal
12. 2007 US— Novak Djokovic


You decide: who had the tougher competition?

You already said it.Laver,Roche,Stolle,Fraser,Santana and young Ashe,Newk or Rochey compared to Bagdathis¡¡¡ Gonzales¡¡¡ Roddick¡¡¡ Nalbandian¡¡¡ Philipussis¡¡¡

You have a great sense of humour

[kiki]

Originally Posted by borg number one

Now that I am looking at Emerson's opponents more closely, even if he wasn't facing "all the top pros" at the same time he was facing the amateurs, his competition was tough. So, I wouldn't say he won against very weak fields by any stretch. The fields he competed against were quite tough, at the top of the amateur ranks. Depth was lacking somewhat most likely, but that didn't make winning in the SF-F "easy". He did beat who he faced.

Yet, of course, the competition at the top would have been even tougher had he played the pro pre-1968. So, I think Hoodjem's take on him is quite accurate (though Emerson was well before my time in terms of me watching him play in his prime).

We should keep in mind that Emerson's achievements are more impressive than it may appear "on the surface" if you just think amateurs vs. professionals in the 60's. He also had 16 doubles majors! The guy could definitely play.

Most of the amateurs Emmo fought are better than the pros Fed´s fought...now imagine how the pros in emmo´s ages were¡¡¡

[kiki]

Seen him play live a few times, he was Iron man, an uncredible natural athlete with solid shots and no weakness - altough he hadn´t a big winning shot like peers Laver,Rosewall,Newcombe,Gonzales- still was good enough to be better than the rest