Emmo’s Competition—how tough was it?

[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?

[Wuornos]

Originally Posted by hoodjem

Roy Emerson won 12 GS singles titles. Almost everyone on here believes he was not that great a player, because during his pre-open era (’61-68 ) his 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?

I'm with you hoodjem. I think it's right to devalue Emerson's achievements based on his limited competition bit, I think people over play the card to too great an extent.

Having said that I do see Federer's competition as being superior to Emerson's mainly in the form of Rafael Nadal and Novak Djokovic, but no weaker than some other periods during the open era, e.g. the mid - late 1990's and the opposition faced by Sampras.

It's all just opinion though so we'll never all come to an agreement on it.

Take care

Regards

Tim

[AndrewD]

Originally Posted by Wuornos

Having said that I do see Federer's competition as being superior to Emerson's mainly in the form of Rafael Nadal and Novak Djokovic, but no weaker than some other periods during the open era, e.g. the mid - late 1990's and the opposition faced by Sampras.

I think that something we must take into account. when comparing Federer's (or anyone's) oppostion to Emerson's, is who each played on what surface. On grass Nadal, Roddick and Philippoussis are not in the same class (not even in the same stratosphere) as Stolle, Ashe, Roche and Laver. Unlike Federer and others, Emerson didn't get the chance to play at least one event where his opponents weren't masters of that particular surface.

[treblings]

I would think it had to be much easier in the 60´s for a top player like Emerson to reach the second week of a slam. That should be taken into account.

[urban]

In most of the 60s, only 8 players were seeded. Emerson himself pointed to that problem. You could get a top ten player in the very first round. Stolle won Forest Hills 1966 unseeded, although being a top tenner. In 1949 later Wimbledon champ "Lucky" Schroeder had to play Gardnar Mulloy, Nr. 5 at that time, in the first round. Schroeder himself made the draw.

[treblings]

Good point. So you could have a very tough opponent in the first rounds. Overall i would still believe, that nowadays there is more depth in mens tennis.
Making it more difficult for the top seeds to get through to the final stages of a tournament. Correct me if i´m wrong.

[hoodjem]

We all know how great Laver was, and what he could and would do post-1962.

It would appear that a lot depends on how one regards Fred Stolle. How good was he?

How good a player do you believe Stolle was?

[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.

[superman1]

Let's also compare QF and SF opponents.

Federer's competition is vastly greater.

[AndrewD]

Originally Posted by superman1

Let's also compare QF and SF opponents.

Federer's competition is vastly greater.

Outside of Nadal, name one of Federer's current opponents who qualifies as a 'Great'. Djokovic isn't there yet, Safin hasn't been a challenger for quite some time, neither have Roddick or Hewitt.

Simple fact is that while the overall draw might be stronger today (and that has nothing to do with talent or athleticism) the top of the draw is immeasurably weaker than it used to be.

Wuornos,

Quite simply, you can't devalue Emerson's achievements and it reflects very poorly on anyone attempting to do so. The most you can do is attempt to put his wins into some sort of perspective, however, that most definitely does not mean you can lessen their value.

[hoodjem]

Originally Posted by AndrewD

Outside of Nadal, name one of Federer's current opponents who qualifies as a 'Great'. Djokovic isn't there yet, Safin hasn't been a challenger for quite some time, neither have Roddick or Hewitt.

Simple fact is that while the overall draw might be stronger today (and that has nothing to do with talent or athleticism) the top of the draw is immeasurably weaker than it used to be.

Wuornos,

Quite simply, you can't devalue Emerson's achievements and it reflects very poorly on anyone attempting to do so. The most you can do is attempt to put his wins into some sort of perspective, however, that most definitely does not mean you can lessen their value.

I am inclined to agree with all of the above post. Yes, we should put a record in perspective by noting the competition, but in the end 12 slams is 12 slams. If I can devalue Emmo, you can devalue Fed. An infinite cycle.

The tough part is comparing Emmo's competition in the 12 slam victories to Federer's 12 slams competition--particularly when the record book on Fed's competition is not closed yet. But I don't think I regard Hewitt, Roddick, Safin, etc as comparably tough.

Nadal's getting there, and Djokovic maybe . . .

[christo]

you guys are crazy, Emmo got away with murder, he stayed amateur and cleaned up, the depth today is 10 times better

[CyBorg]

Originally Posted by hoodjem

but in the end 12 slams is 12 slams.

This kind of stuff is painful to read.

Yes, majors meant something to amateurs in before 1968. But few of these guys would win much against the pros. Emerson probably was at Gimeno's level at best. Stolle far below that.

[CyBorg]

Originally Posted by christo

you guys are crazy, Emmo got away with murder, he stayed amateur and cleaned up, the depth today is 10 times better

And his final opponents look better than they really are.

Yes, he played Laver a bunch of times, but that was younger Laver. Not the really great Laver we would come to know from 65-69.

[hoodjem]

Originally Posted by CyBorg

This kind of stuff is painful to read.

What I mean by this statement is that Emmo's 12 slams are in the record books, and there is not much I can do about it one way or the other.

Just as Connors is listed as the no. 1 player for the year of 1977, even though I believe it should be Vilas, and CyB (apparently) thinks it should be Borg.

[davey25]

This is an interesting thread.

[robow7]

Comparing apples to oranges, Fed (like most every open winner since the early to mid 70's) has beaten the very best players available in the world, Emerson didn't. The accomplishments are not equal but Emmo couldn't do anything about that, btw, helluva nice guy, met at Indy long time ago.

[davey25]

Originally Posted by robow7

Comparing apples to oranges, Fed (like most every open winner since the early to mid 70's) has beaten the very best players available in the world, Emerson didn't. The accomplishments are not equal but Emmo couldn't do anything about that, btw, helluva nice guy, met at Indy long time ago.

While that is probably true the OP makes a good point. Emerson is often lowballed due to supposed lack of competition. That seems to make sense. However Federer gets a free pass for his lack of competition, people saying that it isnt his fault, you cant control who you face on the other side of the net, it is speculative anyway, etc...Federer's competition at times was argaubly worse than Emerson's, even with nearly all the best players pro and away at the time.

[robow7]

I don't feel I'm lowballing his efforts and again, I feel it's almost impossible to compare player A to player B mano a mano with such a large generational difference, but you can compare how they dominated their contemporaries and their accomplishments in that light. If Emmo had collected those 12 by beating a prime Laver, Rosewall, and Gonzales he could surely be considered as the best of all time, but he didn't. How many might he have won, you can only speculate but if he won two, that would have been something against three of those greats.

[davey25]

Originally Posted by robow7

I don't feel I'm lowballing his efforts and again, I feel it's almost impossible to compare player A to player B mano a mano with such a large generational difference, but you can compare how they dominated their contemporaries and their accomplishments in that light. If Emmo had collected those 12 by beating a prime Laver, Rosewall, and Gonzales he could surely be considered as the best of all time, but he didn't. How many might he have won, you can only speculate but if he won two, that would have been something against three of those greats.

I am not saying Emerson is even close to the best of all time. I agree he is far from it and isnt even one of the 3 best of his own era. I am just comparing him to Federer. When one thinks about it Federer's competition often was even worse than Emerson if we compare it straight up.