They were discussing tennis on the radio the other day. They were comparing Federer and Nadal with the all-time greats. Someone said you cannot compare Emerson’s record or Laver’s grand slam record to Federer or Nadal. Because Laver went 6 years where he could not contest the Grand slams and Emerson won most of his because he stayed an amateur and not competing with Laver.
So why didn’t Roy Emerson turn professional? Not enough money? Other reasons?
It is pointless to compare anyway. Unless the circumstances, surfaces, competition and all other variables are the same, we can’t say who was the best.
We can only talk in general terms. What is not in doubt is that Nadal, Federer, Laver and Emerson are four of the greatest tennis players ever.
For us to be able to watch two of them at the height of their powers has been wonderful.
The professionals were the ones making money: they weren’t allowed to compete in the Grand Slam events but they were able to make real money, so the top few pros went around the world playing each other over and over. Emerson did turn pro in 1968, when professionals were allowed to play in the major tournaments for the first time. He was 32 then, and I’m not sure why he didn’t go pro sooner.