Strange abmk, It was YOU who did not give evidence for your strange opinions. You make me tired! It's as though you would claim that a teepot orbits around the earth and I must disprove that thesis! Rosewall was equaly tired after their long match because he played exactly the same time. Laver (as Rosewall) was famous for have great stamina! Your argument reminds me to Dan's thesis that Hoad lost to Rosewall at Wembley three times because Lew was taller and thus suffered from smoke in the air!! It is not disputable that Laver after almost a year was as accustomed to the pro game as Rosewall? Why??? Yes, it's my strong opinion that Emerson, just like Cooper or Olmedo, would not have improved significantly. Emerson was not as talented as Laver, Gonzalez, Rosewall, Hoad, Santana. Please show me some articles written about the old pros. It's me who claims that only a genius player can improve significantly after being 26 (Emmo's theoretical turn to pros). Emerson had reached his full potential in 1961, 1962. If you go through McCauley's book and the years 1963 till 1965 you will not find my claim ridiculous that Buchholz was as good as Emerson. I want to stop now our discussion about Emerson vs. the pros. Give me a break!