Why not Roy Emerson?

[pj80]

Just wondering why is roy emerson excluded from the "goat" debate? he won 12 majors including all four. 6 AUssie Open Titles. The only time you ever heard of his name even just being mentioned was when pete sampras was approaching and/or breaking his record

 

[urban]

Emerson is both overrated and underrated. His 12 single majors were all amateur titles, won without the best pros of the time. You can see the difference in comparison to his pal and doubles partner Laver in the 60s: In the 19 tournaments, where both were in the field, Laver won 11, Emmo 2. In the 20, Emmo competed without Laver (and Rosewall, Hoad, Gimeno, Gonzales), Emmo won 10. On the other hand, overall, singles and doubles, Emmo was certainly one of the best all time. He won a record major 28 titles overall. You don't do this without being a great player. Can anyone imagine, that Davydenko would win so much, even without Federer and Nadal. In his best year 1964, Emmo had one of the best amateur years of all time, winning 3 majors and 55 matches in a row. He beat great players for his titles, including Laver, Ashe, Stolle and Newcombe. He was a fabulous big match player, winning all major finals except 3, and winning virtually all living Davis Cup matches he played. His only loss came to Santana in a dead rubber. He was in 8 winning teams for the Davis Cup - an unbroken record.
Together with Borg, he was probably the best athlete of all top players. A good sprinter in his youth, he said, that only kangoroos were faster than him, but he could play better tennis. This made him dangerous even on clay. He was probably the best coach of all time, although he never was a personal trainer. But what is not known widely, he made Navratilova the player she is, when he instructed her on her serve, while training the Boston team for the WTT in the 70s.

 

[hoodjem]

Emerson is both overrated and underrated.

I agree with Urban. I think this says it well. He has a great slam record, but it probably over-represents his true greatness. Emmo's biggest wins were mostly during the right-before-the-open-era when pros like Laver, Rosewall were excluded.

He's certainly worthy of note, but not truly among the real greats, IMHO.

 

[brc444]

How come Emerson (unlike Laver) never turned pro after he won some amateur grand slam titles? Did most players simply turn pro becasue they needed the money? Assuming for a minute that money was not an issue, was turning pro a bad tennis carrer move? After all it seems like when the open era came along the amateur slams (AO, FO, W, USO) had the staying power over the so called pro slams and if they stayed amateur, they could have racked up alot of amateur slams. Thanks.

 

[urban]

There were several reasons to stay amateur, although he had good offers after 1964: Firstly, the Australians felt a strong binding to the Davis Cup team. Sedgman, Hoad and other stayed one or two years longer as amateur, to play Davis Cup, before being lured to the pros by Kramer. Secondly (a point i read from Andrew some time ago): Emerson got mixed signals by his Queensland pals Mal Anderson and Ashley Cooper, who had not much success on the pro tour, and never found their rhythm there. The amateurcircuit was less rigorous and left time for having fun. Thirdly: He got good money under the table from the amateur organizers, although the Aussie federation was strictly against money. In some cases as in the case of Pietrangeli, it was later known, that amateurs got money even from their associations, to stay amateur. It is also said, that Emerson and Santana made some 20000-30000 $ in the last years of amateur tennis. Later in the first years of open tennis 68-70, Emmo made always around 50000-80000 $, ranking 4th and 5th on the prize money list.

 

[the green god]

Why? Ask Pancho Gonzales.

 

[timnz]

Win loss record against Newcombe

I'd like to know Emersons win Loss record against Newcombe (amateur years included with Pro and Open years). Apparently Emerson dominated Newcombe.