Isn't that sort of like saying Connors was the only player to win the USO on 3 different surfaces?
Laver happened to have had the timing that when Open Tennis (1968) started he was the indisputable #1 pro and yes, played incredibly well, at age 30/31 but both Ken Rosewall and Pancho Gonzales it's fair to say were past their salad days by 1968, at ages 34 & 40 respectively. What would have happened if Open tennis started in, say 1953 through 1958 When Pancho was the #1 pro, or in 1962/1963 When Ken Rosewall was the clearly #1 pro. In 1963 his head2head in pro matches with Rod Laver was a whopping 34 to 12 in his favor.
To compare to others:
Bill Tilden never played the Australian Championships. In his greatest years, 1920-21 he hardly lost a match, he won both W and the US Nationals and Davis Cup which was as prestigious and arguably more important to many tennis players. He was barred from playing the French those 2 years because it was then exclusively for French players only. Tilden also for a myriad of reasons didn't play Wimbledon for 4 years when he was acknowledged among the top 2 players in the world. There was no "pro circuit" in the true sense of the word when Bill Tilden left amateur ranks, more a tour of head2head pro matches with other players.
Don Budge had as many Major wins in the amateur era has Laver did, winning also the CYGS and was the top ranked amateur 2 straight years, something Rod Laver didn't do in his amateur career (Roy Emerson was the top amateur 1960-61). Plus Don Budge is the only amateur player to win 6 Straight Majors.
By the late 40's through the 50's there was a fully organized Pro Tour with Major Pro tournaments. Jack Kramer was instrumental in making a cohesive pro tour.
Again, it was the nature of the eras. Rod Laver Winning the 1962 Grand Slam while an amateur , OK, impressive, but by then Ken Rosewall was clearly the top professional and excluded from playing.
But if you count Laver's Amateur Grand Slam as "legit" , what about Roy Emerson's 13 Majors, they do not count?
That Laver straddled the amateur, exclusive pro circuit and then the Open era is true, but he was clearly not indisputably the greatest amateur player (Tilden had more years at the top, Budge more sheer domination, etc) nor the greatest Pro player (Both Ken Rodwalls and Pancho Gonzales IMO had more impressive pro careers)
Rod Laver was the top pro in the Open Era, for, what, 2 years? (1968-69). Granted he won the Grand Slam for one of those years. He was the top amateur tennis player for one year (1962) , granted again he won the Grand Slam for that sole year. The much maligned Roy Emerson bested him in 2 Major finals in 1961.
IN the exclusive pro circuit, Rod Laver was the top player for 65-67. So in total he was the top player in 3 eras a total of 6 years. I still think of 1965 one could argue Rosewall as the top pro.
This isn't done to denigrate Rod Laver, who is an all time great and a GOAT contender, but simply to point out how difficult it is to compare different eras as far as results.
Nice post. A lot to touch upon. As you know, comparing across eras is problematic. I personally don't think that Laver's 1962 AGS is nearly as impressive as his 1969 Open one, but impressive nonetheless.
Emerson is often overrated, but easily underrated. 12 Amateur Slams is still very impressive. I haven't looked into it too closely, but I think he probably belongs in the general category with Edberg/Becker/Newcombe, but below Agassi/Lendl/Connors/McEnroe. Maybe even arguably closer to Vilas/Nastase. But who knows.
Ultimate Tennis Statistics has Laver as #1 through 1971. Even though he was barely playing Slams after 1969, he won 13 titles in 1970 and 5-7 a year through 1975, the last year he finished in the top 10. In both 70 and 71 he won the Tennis Champions Classic, which was basically an alternate tour final, and in 1970 a whopping six Masters equivalents. He was, overall, the best player of the 1960s, just as Gonzales was the best player of the 1950s. The 1930s and 40s didn't have clear best players, with Tilden, Vines, Budge, Riggs and Kramer all sharing the spotlight, although it sounds like Kramer had the highest level. The 20s would have to go to Tilden, who in a way transitioned tennis into the pro era, with the earlier years dominated by players like the two Dohertys, Josiah Ritchie, Anthony Wilding (who died in WWI while probably the top player in the world).
But it is sketchy enough to compare pro/amateur era players to the Open Era, even more problematic before the pro tour started in 1927. So really we have three major Eras: The Early Years (1877-1926), Pro/Amateur Era (1927-68), and Open Era (1968-present).
So was Laver the best player of that second era? I think so. Or, at least, he shares the top spot with Gonzales, as both combined longevity with dominance. Tilden and Rosewall were great and even more impressive in terms of longevity, but not quite the dominance. Vines and Kramer were similarly dominant, but for shorter periods of time. Hoad is interesting too. Budge belongs in the conversation probably.
According to this
page, Gonzales is the only one to be world number one eight times, although only five were undisputed, three shared with others.
Renshaw, Tilden, Laver, and Djokovic seven times each, although each with at least one disputed (e.g. they give Djokovic a shared number one with Rafa in 2013; I think that belongs to Rafa).
R Doherty, Rosewall, Sampras six years each, although all of Doherty's are disputed, and half of Rosewall's.
For five years, you've got L Doherty, Larned, Pim, Vines, Budge, Kramer, Federer, and Nadal.
Anyhow, I'm dabbling with a "Dominance Metric" that tries to determine the most dominant player in a given year. It is very simple, but I think does a good job, at least in the Open Era. I'll try to apply it to at least the pro/amateur era. It re-arranges the #1s a bit, though, but not too much. I'll share it at some point soon.
