Talk:Roy Emerson

message: Was Roy Emerson one of the great tennis players of his era?  Yes.
Was he one of the greatest of all time as his Grand Slam record might indicate?  No.
Is the mention of Gonzales' record against Emerson particularly persuasive in support of the assertion that he would never have won any Grand Slam singles titles had tennis been Open throughout his run?  Not really.
Most tennis players begin to fade around age 30.  That Emerson did not fare as well when Open Tennis was born in 1968 in his 32nd year should not be unexpected.  This makes Rod Laver's achievements in his early thirties all the more remarkable while acknowledging those two fewer years (Laver was born in 1938) were a significant blessing.  Note that Laver did not win another Grand Slam singles title after his 31st birthday.
Of additional importance, the players Emerson beat were not always marginal.  He beat Laver twice in 1961 before Rod won his first Grand Slam the next year.  Three of those four victories were Laver over Emerson, meaning Emmo had a significant run in 61-62 in his own right and took two out of five over one of the greats of all time.  He beat Arthur Ashe twice (1966-67) and Ashe won the first Open Era U.S. Open in 1968.
Finally, tennis, much like boxing, has always had notable instances of players, or styles of play that gave another player fits. 
For example, one could easily assert that Bjorn Borg would have been lucky to win one Wimbledon had he faced a talented serve and volleyer like John McEnroe at the beginning of his run.  How many times did we see Borg almost dethroned by second-rate players with big serve and volley games more naturally suited for grass?  Who did he beat for the majority of his wins?  Groundstrokers with moderate serves like Nastase and Connors.  In current men's tennis we have the Grand Slam success of Rafael Nadal over Roger Federer, and the current dominance of Nadal by Novak Djokovic.  Would it be either fair or meaningful to assert that if Federer were the same age as Nadal and had been required to go through the Majorcan for the entirety of his Grand Slam career that he likely would not have broken Pete Sampras' title count?  Or that should Nadal fail to ever beat Djokovic in another slam final that his place in tennis history is forever tarnished? 
To balance the argument we must observe that five of Emerson's twelve singles titles were over Australian compatriot Fred Stolle.  Stolle was himself a prolific Grand Slam doubles champion (eleven men's and five mixed doubles championships) and won three of his men's titles with Emerson.  
However, Stolle's Grand Slam singles record was a dismal 2-8, with many of the defeats at the hands of Emerson.  While Stolle was a fine player within a generation of outstanding Australian tennis champions, he is unlikely on anyone's short list of historically important singles champions.
Overall, I agree with the premise that Emerson's Grand Slam championship career has to be critically evaluated, but find the assertion that he would never have won a Grand Slam title had the professionals of his day been competing highly speculative, particularly as it is substantiated primarily by his poor record against one player rather than his actual victories over historically important amateur champions who themselves became successful professional players.
Balcombie 13:13, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Different Evaluation of Emerson 

message: The following need to be neutralised or cited with multiple secondary sources...
#"...always being ready for strenuous matches because of his outstanding level of fitness..."
#"...was also able to adapt to the rigours of slow courts, allowing him to enjoy success on all surfaces.."
#"...Emerson, however, probably was not a better player during those years.." is pure WP:OR.
#"...He had the perfect doubles shot..."
#"...himself a candidate for the title of greatest player of all time..."
There are many more.  Please remember this is an encyclopedia, not a fanzine.  The Rambling Man on tour (talk) 08:07, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  POV 

message: There will always be different opinions on who was the greatest in any field, and for varying reasons.
Personally, I consider Emerson to be one of the Greatest of all-time - having seen him play on many an occasion.
Which leads to some important and varied considerations in making one's assessment 'arguable'.
Occasion and Atmosphere: Some players perform better when the game is treated as 'sport' and not as "career"; so the mere fact that the game became a profession may not have suited Emerson's personality as well as some of the other pro's.  As was cited, his record against 'arguably' the greatest of all: Rod Laver, was 2 wins against 3.  This was when both were playing amateur ranks.
Also, speaking of atmosphere itself, pro tennis was not well-attended, nor held in the same regard as amateur tennis for quite some time.  The lack of 'history' or "occasion" may well have affected the performances of some players who moved from amateur to professional ranks during those early days of less acceptance.  This can affect a player's attitude, and ultimately, performance.
Also, when we use measuring sticks to determine the Greatest in many such fields as tennis, we should include the very real consideration of 'doubles' performance, amongst that measure, and even mixed doubles, where it may apply.
To truly be considered "the Greatest", a player should be able to win titles in doubles and he/she should be able to win at all majors.
Verbatim, the Wikipedian entry on Emerson reads: "He is the only male player to have won singles and doubles titles at all four Grand Slam tournaments. His 28 Grand Slam titles are an all-time record for a male player."  The text then attempts to belittle this accomplishment by immediately stating that he may not have had to face the best in this achievement.
Regardless, this is not to say he may never have accomplished the same.  Even if he had accomplished less, he still may have put in notable performances.
Of these other players many regard as among the very greatest, quite a percentage are more 'singles' specialists - who may have won only the very odd doubles title, but nothing of any great significance in doubles - or not very often.
To me, a True Champion MUST be able to do it ALL.  When one is speaking of the 'Greatest Ever', the pick has to be able to show all-around talent and achievement: Doubles, singles, All 4 Majors ... varying surfaces; anyconditions - including wind and wet.
Whether Emerson could be considered the Greatest in singles only is open to question: certainly, he proved his worth from what was thrown at him, but having seen him, especially in Davis Cup play -where he thrived for his country, I can assure he was probably the 'most exciting doubles player' ever to pull on tennis boot - at least, arguably!
(Denidowi (talk) 13:24, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Except it's obvious that if he had to compete against the top players 63-67 he would not have won 12 GS titles, but maybe 6 at most.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.2.150.3 (talk) 23:51, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Arguably" 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Roy Emerson. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120310162226/http://www.australianopen.com/en_AU/event_guide/history/events/MS.html to http://www.australianopen.com/en_AU/event_guide/history/events/MS.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:34, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: I'm a little confused by these sentences: "... who won 12 Grand Slam singles titles, 16 Grand Slam men's doubles titles, and 2 Grand Slam mixed doubles titles. He has 28 Grand Slam titles." Shouldn't the conclusion be he had 30 titles? Or is one of the other numbers wrong? Paritalo (talk) 10:11, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: It looks like the mixed ones weren't titles but runners-up, judging from the tables? Paritalo (talk) 10:13, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Yep, I corrected it. Thanks. Fyunck(click) (talk) 22:20, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Awesome, thanks! Paritalo (talk) 15:47, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Number of titles