Roy Emerson's fascinating career!

[Vamos Rafa Nadal]

I was curious about Roy Emerson - I knew he won 12 singles Grand Slams but didn't know he also won 16 Doubles (both men's and mixed) and he won those doubles (men's) slams mostly with his biggest challengers in singles! (particularly Laver and Stolle). I was really surprised to learn that he had won 110 titles in his career - many of them were before the Open Era, which is why he is never listed on that list where Connors at 104 has won the most: in the OPEN ERA! I also think all or almost all of his singles losses in Grand Slams were to Rod Laver, but he also defeated him at least 3 times too!

I really don't know a whole lot about him. Pre-open era (and yes, I know he was still playing at the beginning of the open era) has been lopped off a great deal from tennis history. He and Laver are the only pre-Open Era players with more than 10 Grand Slams on the list (however, I suspect there are others from the pre-Open Era who might have more?) that aren't the big 3, Pete Sampras and Bjorn Borg!

 

[d-quik]

Emerson started out with home appliances, then did some consumer electronics in the 90s, but now is strictly industrial/commercial grade electricals now.

 

[jorjipy]

Emerson is the only player to have more than 10 slams in the amateur era…..Laver won 5 of his in the Open era. But that all means nothing as usually players won a few slams and then the pro tennis promoters came knocking to take them away. Either they didn’t want Emerson as they didn’t feel he would sell tickets or more likely, he was happy to take the under the table money the USTA offered him and Fred Stolle to stay ‘amateur’…..

 

[Dan Lobb]

Emerson is the only player to have more than 10 slams in the amateur era…..Laver won 5 of his in the Open era. But that all means nothing as usually players won a few slams and then the pro tennis promoters came knocking to take them away. Either they didn’t want Emerson as they didn’t feel he would sell tickets or more likely, he was happy to take the under the table money the USTA offered him and Fred Stolle to stay ‘amateur’…..

Emerson was offered big money contracts to turn pro. $100,000 in 1966, but he claimed that it would mean a "pay cut" compared to what he was making as an amateur. Emerson claimed that he was already a professional player.

 

[KG1965]

I think he was a great player but playing only in the amateurs circuit he remained entangled in oblivion.

Potentially I think Emmo was solid, like Vilas for example.

It is impossible for us to understand what would have won vs Rosewall and Laver and others pros.
I think a few times.

About 30-40 titles with 3-5 slams, I suppose.

I would put him in the Nastase and Vilas group, a little below Wilander and Edberg, but just behind Becker.

 

[Dan Lobb]

I think that Emerson had a winning record against Laver in 1968, his first year as a pro.

 

[Scott_tennis]

As best as I can determine...Emerson won 7 of 13 matches vs. Laver in 1968.
Emerson won at (1) Hollywood Florida (2) Bordeaux (3) Hawaii (first match) (4) Midland (5) Lima (6) Argentine Open and (7) Wembley.
Laver won at (1) Paris NTL (2) New York Madison Square Garden (3) Los Angeles Forum (4) Hawaii (second match) (5) Sao Paulo and (6) La Paz.

 

[Dan Lobb]

As best as I can determine...Emerson won 7 of 13 matches vs. Laver in 1968.
Emerson won at (1) Hollywood Florida (2) Bordeaux (3) Hawaii (first match) (4) Midland (5) Lima (6) Argentine Open and (7) Wembley.
Laver won at (1) Paris NTL (2) New York Madison Square Garden (3) Los Angeles Forum (4) Hawaii (second match) (5) Sao Paulo and (6) La Paz.

There was once a poster here who claimed that Emerson only beat Laver in minor events.
Wembley was not a minor event. And Laver's wins over Emmo in 1968 were not exactly majors.

 

[urban]

After 1968 it was 25-2.

 

[thrust]

As best as I can determine...Emerson won 7 of 13 matches vs. Laver in 1968.
Emerson won at (1) Hollywood Florida (2) Bordeaux (3) Hawaii (first match) (4) Midland (5) Lima (6) Argentine Open and (7) Wembley.
Laver won at (1) Paris NTL (2) New York Madison Square Garden (3) Los Angeles Forum (4) Hawaii (second match) (5) Sao Paulo and (6) La Paz.

I don't think Emerson reached a semi in an open era slam. He pretty much faded after 68.

 

[jorjipy]

The guy was born in 1936, so he’s 2 years older than Laver….in 1968 he was 32, that was ancient in those days for anyone bar Rosewall so of course he would have faded by then. I judge Emerson by 1962 as he was runner up in 3 of those slams that Laver won….so he was good, very good, just not as good as Laver, but who was!

 

[urban]

Emmos pro performance in 1969 and 1970 was pretty good. He was fourth on the prize money winner list in 1969 with 62 129 $ (behind Laver, Roche, Okker, but ahead of Newcombe, Rosewall Gonzalez, Riessen, Stolle and Ashe) and fifth in 1970 with 96485 $ (behind Laver, Ashe, Rosewall, Richey, and ahead of Smith, Newcombe, Gonzalez, Graebner and Roche). He had some close matches at USO 69 and Wim 1970 vs. the eventual Champs Laver and Newcombe, Especially the five setter vs. Newk at Wim qf was very, very close. He lost ist, when his shorts broke up, and he feared to play in the underwear.

 

[thrust]

The guy was born in 1936, so he’s 2 years older than Laver….in 1968 he was 32, that was ancient in those days for anyone bar Rosewall so of course he would have faded by then. I judge Emerson by 1962 as he was runner up in 3 of those slams that Laver won….so he was good, very good, just not as good as Laver, but who was!

Chances are that had Emerson joined the pro tour by 24 or so, he could have become a better player than he was as both Laver and Rosewall were better players after the joined the tour. Hopman and the Australian Tennis Association did everything they could to convince their top players to not join the pro tour so that they could play Davis Cup.

 

[jorjipy]

All that is true….but Laver was better in 62 and if they had both turned pro and both improved, Laver would still be better, no? He was a top player, but you couldn’t turn pro until you had won a Wimbledon or a US if you wanted to cash in…..so he could have turned pro after 64, I suppose, but he was a shamateur making plenty of money, didn’t need the pros and all that competition

 

[Dan Lobb]

After 1968 it was 25-2.

Yes, but the big question about Emmo was always how he would have fared in the years 1963 to 1967 with an open game. So 1968 has a special status on that issue.

 

[Dan Lobb]

I don't think Emerson reached a semi in an open era slam. He pretty much faded after 68.

He was tough at Wimbledon in 1970, nearly beat the winner.

 

[Dan Lobb]

All that is true….but Laver was better in 62 and if they had both turned pro and both improved, Laver would still be better, no? He was a top player, but you couldn’t turn pro until you had won a Wimbledon or a US if you wanted to cash in…..so he could have turned pro after 64, I suppose, but he was a shamateur making plenty of money, didn’t need the pros and all that competition

He turned down a $100,000 offer to turn pro in 1966.

 

[Dan Lobb]

As best as I can determine...Emerson won 7 of 13 matches vs. Laver in 1968.
Emerson won at (1) Hollywood Florida (2) Bordeaux (3) Hawaii (first match) (4) Midland (5) Lima (6) Argentine Open and (7) Wembley.
Laver won at (1) Paris NTL (2) New York Madison Square Garden (3) Los Angeles Forum (4) Hawaii (second match) (5) Sao Paulo and (6) La Paz.

That makes it Emerson over Laver 7-6 for 1968. So Emmo was probably worth that $100,000 offer which he turned down in 1966.

Emmo waited until open tennis arrived in late March 1968 before he turned pro, he did not want to miss the majors.

 

[thrust]

The guy was born in 1936, so he’s 2 years older than Laver….in 1968 he was 32, that was ancient in those days for anyone bar Rosewall so of course he would have faded by then. I judge Emerson by 1962 as he was runner up in 3 of those slams that Laver won….so he was good, very good, just not as good as Laver, but who was!

Emerson was not as good as Rosewall or Gonzalez either in 62 , neither was Laver. In the 71 AO, Ken beat him in straight sets,4-4-4, and went on to win the title at 36. Laver had lost earlier to a lesser player, either Cox or Taylor?

 

[Dan Lobb]

Emerson was not as good as Rosewall or Gonzalez either in 62 , neither was Laver. In the 71 AO, Ken beat him in straight sets,4-4-4, and went on to win the title at 36. Laver had lost earlier to a lesser player, either Cox or Taylor?

If memory serves, Emerson had some notable wins over Rosewall in 1968, his first pro year.

 

[hoodjem]

I was curious about Roy Emerson - I knew he won 12 singles Grand Slams but didn't know he also won 16 Doubles (both men's and mixed) and he won those doubles (men's) slams mostly with his biggest challengers in singles! (particularly Laver and Stolle). I was really surprised to learn that he had won 110 titles in his career - many of them were before the Open Era, which is why he is never listed on that list where Connors at 104 has won the most: in the OPEN ERA! I also think all or almost all of his singles losses in Grand Slams were to Rod Laver, but he also defeated him at least 3 times too!

I really don't know a whole lot about him. Pre-open era (and yes, I know he was still playing at the beginning of the open era) has been lopped off a great deal from tennis history. He and Laver are the only pre-Open Era players with more than 10 Grand Slams on the list (however, I suspect there are others from the pre-Open Era who might have more?) that aren't the big 3, Pete Sampras and Bjorn Borg!

Yep. Excellent player.
He and Laver were friends, occasional opponents, and sometimes partners, never enemies.

 

[BorgTheGOAT]

I think that Emerson had a winning record against Laver in 1968, his first year as a pro.

He did. 7-6. It seems he is really underrated. People sometimes act as if he was a Murray with the big three away for 6 years.

 

[Mustard]

He did. 7-6. It seems he is really underrated. People sometimes act as if he was a Murray with the big three away for 6 years.

He is underrated by those who act like "Pah, he only won amateur majors and didn't face the professionals". But he's also overrated by those who say "He won 12 majors, more than anyone before Sampras".

 

[BorgTheGOAT]

He is underrated by those who act like "Pah, he only won amateur majors and didn't face the professionals". But he's also overrated by those who say "He won 12 majors, more than anyone before Sampras".

Of course he was never a serious GOAT candidate. But he could more or less hold his own against Laver, so maybe a Courier-like career under normal circumstances.

 

[urban]

Laver-Emerson was overall 51-21, according to documented stats..

 

[Hard Court]

Thats actually not bad, considering it was Laver.
Emerson certainly would not have won 12 Grand Slams if everyone was able to play. However, we should take a look at who was playing. There were some very good players. Nobody else came close to winning 12 during that time.