PDA

View Full Version : Why are Laver's 2 GrandSlams held with sugh high regard?


dima
02-28-2007, 09:36 AM
I mean, did he win slams on clay, hardcourts, and grass on the same year? No he didn't, thus making it not that good.

Moose Malloy
02-28-2007, 10:04 AM
The more people diminish the achievements of the past greats, the less impressive the achievements of the current greats are imo.
If we have disclaimers, like surface, etc(1st hardcourt slam was only in 1978), so how impressive is it to call Federer the best ever? Guess that means the best ever means only the best ever since 1978. Not much to get excited about since its only a 28 year period. Who knows, the Australian may change to velcro in the next 28 years & the current players will be dismissed since they didn't play on all surfaces.

Tennis is the only sport that does this. Baseball has been played since the 1800s & Babe Ruth regularly tops all polls of past greats, current players, fans etc as who the best player of alltime was & he played primarily in the 20s. Imagine if they decided on 1978 as the starting point for historical discussions, it would be a joke.

Also, the only reason a hardcourt slam became a reality in 1978 was that the USTA wanted to pick a surface that favored Americans. They certainly weren't trying to contribute "all surface players" to the game.

Here's an impressive win from Laver on hardcourts. The 1969 South African Open. 64 player draw, best of 5 all rounds. Sounds pretty similar to a Grand Slam to me.

http://www.itftennis.com/mens/tournaments/tournamentresults.asp?tournament=1010002576&event=

and keep in mind if its so easy, or "not good" to win all 4 slams in one year on only 2 surfaces, how come in the 60+ years that slams were played on only 2 surfaces, did this only happen 3 times?

dima
02-28-2007, 10:08 AM
and keep in mind if its so easy, or "not good" to win all 4 slams in one year on only 2 surfaces, how come in the 60+ years that slams were played on only 2 surfaces, did this only happen 3 times?

Because Federer didn't play back then.

tricky
02-28-2007, 10:12 AM
Tennis is the only sport that does this. Baseball has been played since the 1800s & Babe Ruth regularly tops all polls of past greats, current players, fans etc as who the best player of alltime was & he played primarily in the 20s. Imagine if they decided on 1978 as the starting point for historical discussions, it would be a joke.

Tennis has a unstable element, namely the racquet issue. Had baseball switched to aluminum with ever progressive metal technologies, most of the records would be meaningless. Even now with the steroid issue, many are arguing how to contextualize the 90s hitting stats within the proper context.

fastdunn
02-28-2007, 10:24 AM
Well, surfaces could be issue but still winning all 4 slams is amazing.
3 of slams were on grass but the fact that every single player
wanted to win it.

Current surface conditions are somewhat homegeoneous too.
Slowed grass and homegenized hard court surfaces.
But still Federer's winning just about everything is amazing.

Progressive10s
02-28-2007, 10:29 AM
Yes, The US Open, Wimbledon, and Australia were all played on grass. What impresses me about the grand slams Laver won is that they are seven years apart. Laver, Rosewall, and others were banned from the slams because they were playing professional events for little money in these out-of-the-way places. When the US Open became the first tennis event of the Open era in 1968, the first full year of Open tennis was 1969.

Laver probably spent the best years of his career toiling in obscurity, therefore we don't know how dominant he would have been because he could not play those events. I cannot take anything away from Roy Emerson, but Laver would have won many of the slams he accumulated and Laver could have won 20+ slams if allowed.

rossholster
12-02-2012, 05:39 PM
I have to agree as well. Let's not forget Laver didn't play any Slam events during the prime years of his career- that's about 24 that he didn't play in. If you figure he won only 25% of those, that would give him an additional 6 Slams...still ahead of Roger.
Food for thought...

timnz
12-02-2012, 05:42 PM
I mean, did he win slams on clay, hardcourts, and grass on the same year? No he didn't, thus making it not that good.

Three out of four were on grass which made it harder because there was so many grass court specialists. Besides, it has been said many times - in 1969 he won the top hard court tournaments, indoor tournaments that year as well as winning the Grand Slam. So he was the total surface player in 1969 - he won everything that counted that year on all surfaces. Not his fault the slams weren't spread like they are now.

Rattler
12-02-2012, 05:49 PM
I mean, did he win slams on clay, hardcourts, and grass on the same year? No he didn't, thus making it not that good.

Really?

Some of the things people post on message board boggle the mind

Mustard
12-02-2012, 05:51 PM
This thread is nearly 6 years old.

helloworld
12-02-2012, 05:55 PM
Laver would have won 30+ slams if pros were allowed to play in a grand slam event during that time. Yep, 30+ SLAMS!!

90's Clay
12-02-2012, 05:56 PM
Because no one has ever done it and will NEVER do it?

zam88
12-02-2012, 06:11 PM
Laver didn't pick the surfaces.

It's like we want athletes to do more than just beat the players in front of them to win the title.


Guys get criticized for weak draws, not getting slams on proper surfaces, etc.

If you win you did all you could do.

Laver won.... the other players practiced hard on the surfaces that the tournaments were played on i'm guessing.

6-1 6-3 6-0
12-03-2012, 01:11 AM
I mean, did he win slams on clay, hardcourts, and grass on the same year? No he didn't, thus making it not that good.

And who is the only player to win slams on clay, grass and hard-court all in a calendar year?

Rafael NADAL.

SQA333
12-03-2012, 01:14 AM
And who is the only player to win slams on clay, grass and hard-court all in a calendar year?

Rafael NADAL.

Who is the player to rank #2 for the most weeks?

Rafael NADAL

Who is the player to rank #1 for the most weeks?

Roger FEDERER

Who is the player to lose to the same guy for three straight Grand Slams?

Rafael NADAL

Who is the world #4, and out of the top 3?

Rafael NADAL

Who only won one match in Wimbledon this year?

Rafael NADAL

Who lost embarassingly to the world #100?

Rafael NADAL

Who can't reach more than a few Grand Slam finals in a row without damaging some part of his body?

Rafael NADAL

jokinla
12-03-2012, 10:14 AM
I have to agree as well. Let's not forget Laver didn't play any Slam events during the prime years of his career- that's about 24 that he didn't play in. If you figure he won only 25% of those, that would give him an additional 6 Slams...still ahead of Roger.
Food for thought...

If we're comparing Roger and using ifs, if 3 of the 4 slams were on grass now, Roger would have won more and most likely gotten a couple of calendar slams as well. As it is now, it took the GOAT on clay to stop him from doing this.

urban
12-03-2012, 10:38 AM
Yes of course he would have won 7 RGs, if 3 majors were played on grass.

Djokodal Fan
12-03-2012, 10:40 AM
Who is the player to rank #2 for the most weeks?

Rafael NADAL

Who is the player to rank #1 for the most weeks?

Roger FEDERER

Who is the player to lose to the same guy for three straight Grand Slams?

Rafael NADAL

Who is the world #4, and out of the top 3?

Rafael NADAL

Who only won one match in Wimbledon this year?

Rafael NADAL

Who lost embarassingly to the world #100?

Rafael NADAL

Who can't reach more than a few Grand Slam finals in a row without damaging some part of his body?

Rafael NADAL

Thanks for the facts.

kiki
12-03-2012, 10:41 AM
Three out of four were on grass which made it harder because there was so many grass court specialists. Besides, it has been said many times - in 1969 he won the top hard court tournaments, indoor tournaments that year as well as winning the Grand Slam. So he was the total surface player in 1969 - he won everything that counted that year on all surfaces. Not his fault the slams weren't spread like they are now.

Laver won wood majors which Fed never did and in 69 also took the biggest hc event which was SA OPEN
Plus the three gc events were even more different bounces than today where there is almost no difference

kiki
12-03-2012, 10:44 AM
The 69 slam is the biggest feat in tennis history given the level of competition
It is like if Fed had won the big 4 with a compettion that was the addition of his era and that of Sampras

Phoenix1983
12-03-2012, 11:28 AM
The 69 slam is the biggest feat in tennis history given the level of competition
It is like if Fed had won the big 4 with a compettion that was the addition of his era and that of Sampras

I agree. Look at the quarter-finalist line-up in the 1969 US Open, the tournament Laver needed to win (and did so, of course) to complete the Grand Slam;

Rod Laver
Roy Emerson
Arthur Ashe
Ken Rosewall
Butch Buchholz
Tony Roche
Fred Stolle
John Newcombe

All eight of these men had already won majors (either amateur or pro).

NatF
12-03-2012, 11:31 AM
It's hard to overrate an achievement that's so hard to accomplish it hasn't been done since.

TMF
12-03-2012, 03:51 PM
I have to agree as well. Let's not forget Laver didn't play any Slam events during the prime years of his career- that's about 24 that he didn't play in. If you figure he won only 25% of those, that would give him an additional 6 Slams...still ahead of Roger.
Food for thought...

IF he wants to play more slam events then he would have to be an amateur instead of joining the pro. And even if he managed to win more, it's still an amateur slams(vastly below the value of the modern slam). Keep in mind people in here don't take Emerson's 12 slams seriously because the field was very weak. And Laver being an amateur will not be playing in the 3 pro majors. So either you want Laver to take his chance at the amateur slams or he keeps all of his 8 pro majors.
Food for thought....

3fees
12-03-2012, 04:13 PM
Simply put Lavers accomplishment is way above what peeps think, no hawk eye, grass courts where the ball bounce was unpredictable,wet surfaces,ect. His style of play is not used any more,, his volleys were mostly to the center court , struck so that the bounce was below the net and dying in the opps service courts, then he came forward and challenged the opponent,, mano to mano to volleys for the point, bascially he was fearless. I seen all of his matches on PBS with Pub Collins calling the play by play, he has all the tools in spades. Mr. Pancho Gonzales thats an interesting life story he was fearless also, there are others as well.

:mrgreen:

BobbyOne
12-03-2012, 04:38 PM
IF he wants to play more slam events then he would have to be an amateur instead of joining the pro. And even if he managed to win more, it's still an amateur slams(vastly below the value of the modern slam). Keep in mind people in here don't take Emerson's 12 slams seriously because the field was very weak. And Laver being an amateur will not be playing in the 3 pro majors. So either you want Laver to take his chance at the amateur slams or he keeps all of his 8 pro majors.
Food for thought....

TMF, Laver, Rosewall and other greats turned pro not only for money reasons but also because they wanted to match the best pros and to become the top player of the world. Thus we should not blame them for leaving the amateurs.

Blocker
12-03-2012, 05:45 PM
The OP is a troll. And it appears, banned.

JW10S
12-03-2012, 06:01 PM
I mean, did he win slams on clay, hardcourts, and grass on the same year? No he didn't, thus making it not that good.If it were an easy thing to do, more players would have done it. They didn't, hence the esteem for Laver, who did--twice.

Ronaldo
12-03-2012, 06:21 PM
If it were an easy thing to do, more players would have done it. They didn't, hence the esteem for Laver, who did--twice.

Yes, why is J-Mac record in 1984 held in such high regard? One match from a Grand Slam.

jokinla
12-03-2012, 10:39 PM
Yes, why is J-Mac record in 1984 held in such high regard? One match from a Grand Slam.

Same with Fed in 06, and even though he only won 2 slams in 09, he lost the other two in 5 setters, so technically he was 2 sets away from the grand slam twice.

adil1972
12-03-2012, 10:49 PM
Who is the player to rank #2 for the most weeks?

Rafael NADAL

Who is the player to rank #1 for the most weeks?

Roger FEDERER

Who is the player to lose to the same guy for three straight Grand Slams?

Rafael NADAL

Who is the world #4, and out of the top 3?

Rafael NADAL

Who only won one match in Wimbledon this year?

Rafael NADAL

Who lost embarassingly to the world #100?

Rafael NADAL

Who can't reach more than a few Grand Slam finals in a row without damaging some part of his body?

Rafael NADAL

hey man cool down, both nadal and federer did good to tennis
lets not critize nadal injuries

only 3 players won the same slam 7 times. first sampras, second nadal and then federer

NadalAgassi
12-03-2012, 11:46 PM
If we're comparing Roger and using ifs, if 3 of the 4 slams were on grass now, Roger would have won more and most likely gotten a couple of calendar slams as well. As it is now, it took the GOAT on clay to stop him from doing this.

LOL please. Roger won only one French Open, so there is only 1 year he could have even possibly won any Calendar Slam with 3 of the 4 on grass, never mind "likely gotten a couple". As it was he was not a dominant enough a player anymore to win the Grand Slam by 2009 no matter what surfaces they were on, so that would mean "likely gotten a zero". Had he won a couple Frenchs from 2004-2007 you might have a case. Lastly despite that he has 7 Wimbledons and only 5 U.S Opens many would argue hard courts are Roger's best surface. He just has tons more competition on hard courts than the abysmal grass field of today, and even then he is more dominant in many of his hard court slam winning runs than many of his Wimbledon ones.

kiki
12-04-2012, 04:23 AM
IF he wants to play more slam events then he would have to be an amateur instead of joining the pro. And even if he managed to win more, it's still an amateur slams(vastly below the value of the modern slam). Keep in mind people in here don't take Emerson's 12 slams seriously because the field was very weak. And Laver being an amateur will not be playing in the 3 pro majors. So either you want Laver to take his chance at the amateur slams or he keeps all of his 8 pro majors.
Food for thought....

Correct and this is why you have to adition his pro slams from 63 to 67 both included

kiki
12-04-2012, 04:26 AM
Yes, why is J-Mac record in 1984 held in such high regard? One match from a Grand Slam.

One set away
But who knows what would happen in the AO in case he had won RG

Dan Lobb
12-04-2012, 10:09 AM
I agree. Look at the quarter-finalist line-up in the 1969 US Open, the tournament Laver needed to win (and did so, of course) to complete the Grand Slam;

Rod Laver
Roy Emerson
Arthur Ashe
Ken Rosewall
Butch Buchholz
Tony Roche
Fred Stolle
John Newcombe

All eight of these men had already won majors (either amateur or pro).

That's a stretch.
Bucholz won the World Professional Championship, in reality a second-rate event in Cleveland.
The real challenges on this list are Newcombe, Roche, Rosewall, Ashe, Emerson (who gave Laver his toughest match in this tournament).
I would suggest that the lineup for the 1959 Forest Hills Pro was much tougher, as all ten players had major titles.

kiki
12-04-2012, 10:19 AM
That's a stretch.
Bucholz won the World Professional Championship, in reality a second-rate event in Cleveland.
The real challenges on this list are Newcombe, Roche, Rosewall, Ashe, Emerson (who gave Laver his toughest match in this tournament).
I would suggest that the lineup for the 1959 Forest Hills Pro was much tougher, as all ten players had major titles.

Butcholz was a journeyman but rest of field is scaring
I wish Hoad had his CYGS too.He is the guy who should have it besides Laver,Budge and Borg

Dan Lobb
12-04-2012, 10:33 AM
Butcholz was a journeyman but rest of field is scaring
I wish Hoad had his CYGS too.He is the guy who should have it besides Laver,Budge and Borg

Hoad had difficulty playing a full year without interruption due to injury or back trouble (he was playing after 1953 with two ruptured discs!).
This would have made it difficult for him to win a calendar grand slam.

One player who should have won the calendar grand slam was Crawford in 1933, when he led Perry in the Forest Hills final two sets to one, and could not play further.
His friends had, without his awareness, plyed him with alcoholic drinks during the match, in the mistaken belief that his minor asthma would be helped by it. He was inebriated and unable to play further.

TMF
12-04-2012, 10:46 AM
TMF, Laver, Rosewall and other greats turned pro not only for money reasons but also because they wanted to match the best pros and to become the top player of the world. Thus we should not blame them for leaving the amateurs.

I don't have a problem with him turned pro, but rossholster stated that Laver would have won more amateur slams, which he probably would had he stayed as an amateur. However, that would removed everything he achieved as a pro player. Being an amateur he would be another Emerson.

TMF
12-04-2012, 10:48 AM
Correct and this is why you have to adition his pro slams from 63 to 67 both included

No. You either play in the amateur or the pro. Take your pick.

jokinla
12-04-2012, 10:53 AM
LOL please. Roger won only one French Open, so there is only 1 year he could have even possibly won any Calendar Slam with 3 of the 4 on grass, never mind "likely gotten a couple". As it was he was not a dominant enough a player anymore to win the Grand Slam by 2009 no matter what surfaces they were on, so that would mean "likely gotten a zero". Had he won a couple Frenchs from 2004-2007 you might have a case. Lastly despite that he has 7 Wimbledons and only 5 U.S Opens many would argue hard courts are Roger's best surface. He just has tons more competition on hard courts than the abysmal grass field of today, and even then he is more dominant in many of his hard court slam winning runs than many of his Wimbledon ones.

"If" 3 of the 4 were on grass now, he certainly could have completed one in 09, as it was he was 2 sets away, and if those finals were both on grass, he quite possibly could have. And prior to that, 'if" 3 of 4 were on grass, he could have started winning slams even more consistently in 04, and the confidence gained by winning more slams, certainly could have gotten him past Nads at one of those FO's. Of course this is usings "ifs", not reality, just as the poster I was replying to was.

kiki
12-04-2012, 11:00 AM
Hoad had difficulty playing a full year without interruption due to injury or back trouble (he was playing after 1953 with two ruptured discs!).
This would have made it difficult for him to win a calendar grand slam.

One player who should have won the calendar grand slam was Crawford in 1933, when he led Perry in the Forest Hills final two sets to one, and could not play further.
His friends had, without his awareness, plyed him with alcoholic drinks during the match, in the mistaken belief that his minor asthma would be helped by it. He was inebriated and unable to play further.

Always liked Crawford
Don' t ask me why but I did
He beat Vines in an all time classic

kiki
12-04-2012, 11:02 AM
No. You either play in the amateur or the pro. Take your pick.

Ok so add up Rod' s pro majors and see what happens

TMF
12-04-2012, 11:09 AM
Ok so add up Rod' s pro majors and see what happens

Like I said, you can't because you either a pro or an amateur. And it was better for him turing pro otherwise he would be another Emerson.

pc1
12-04-2012, 11:47 AM
Like I said, you can't because you either a pro or an amateur. And it was better for him turing pro otherwise he would be another Emerson.

Here's the question. How many classic majors would Federer have had if he turned pro (let's say after 2003) in an era that didn't allow pros to play the majors? Obviously far fewer. It would not affect his greatness as a player. He would have been every bit as great but he would be hurt by the different standards of greatness today that is often very inaccurate.

And I think Federer would want to play against the top players. The money wouldn't have hurt either.

BobbyOne
12-04-2012, 11:59 AM
Butcholz was a journeyman but rest of field is scaring
I wish Hoad had his CYGS too.He is the guy who should have it besides Laver,Budge and Borg

kiki, "Butcholz", recte Butch Buchholz, was more than only a journeyman. He was a first class player. I rank him among the top five for four years (1963 to 1966).

Buchholz almost beat Laver and Fraser in amateur majors and defeated Rosewall at least 12 times.

BobbyOne
12-04-2012, 12:11 PM
I don't have a problem with him turned pro, but rossholster stated that Laver would have won more amateur slams, which he probably would had he stayed as an amateur. However, that would removed everything he achieved as a pro player. Being an amateur he would be another Emerson.

Yes, Laver would have won many more amateur majors. Of course we cannot count both amateur and pro majors of a given player for the same period.

BobbyOne
12-04-2012, 12:16 PM
Like I said, you can't because you either a pro or an amateur. And it was better for him turing pro otherwise he would be another Emerson.

TMF, Laver as an amateur would have won more than "only" eight majors from 1963 to 1967.

Dan Lobb
12-04-2012, 12:28 PM
kiki, "Butcholz", recte Butch Buchholz, was more than only a journeyman. He was a first class player. I rank him among the top five for four years (1963 to 1966).

Buchholz almost beat Laver and Fraser in amateur majors and defeated Rosewall at least 12 times.

Buchholz in 1969? No longer a threat in a major.

pc1
12-04-2012, 12:36 PM
Buchholz in 1969? No longer a threat in a major.

I agree but for one match Buchholz was still dangerous and could beat anyone. I believe he beat John Newcombe several times in 1969.

Dan Lobb
12-04-2012, 12:38 PM
I agree but for one match Buchholz was still dangerous and could beat anyone. I believe he beat John Newcombe several times in 1969.

Another monument to Newk's inconsistency.

kiki
12-04-2012, 01:32 PM
kiki, "Butcholz", recte Butch Buchholz, was more than only a journeyman. He was a first class player. I rank him among the top five for four years (1963 to 1966).

Buchholz almost beat Laver and Fraser in amateur majors and defeated Rosewall at least 12 times.

He lost his most famous match...that being a mere W qf, to Neale Fraser.

He was used to just fill the pro fields.

Ayala, on the other hand had a RG final, at least.

best pros were Laver,Rosewall, Hoad (when available), Gonzales (idem), Gimeno, Olmedo,Cooper and Anderson.In the 60īs, of course.

BobbyOne
12-04-2012, 01:37 PM
Another monument to Newk's inconsistency.

Dan, you try to always have the last word even if it is a strange one...

BobbyOne
12-04-2012, 01:39 PM
I agree but for one match Buchholz was still dangerous and could beat anyone. I believe he beat John Newcombe several times in 1969.

pc1, Yes, Buchholz beat Newcombe in the 1969 Atlanta final in five sets.

BobbyOne
12-04-2012, 01:46 PM
He lost his most famous match...that being a mere W qf, to Neale Fraser.

He was used to just fill the pro fields.

Ayala, on the other hand had a RG final, at least.

best pros were Laver,Rosewall, Hoad (when available), Gonzales (idem), Gimeno, Olmedo,Cooper and Anderson.In the 60īs, of course.

kiki, after a longer while and having studied tennis history myself, I must contradicct you: Buchholz was not used to fill the pro field. No.4 and No.5 in several years...

Olmedo, Cooper and Anderson were not stronger than Buchholz.

Ayala was a joke in comparison to Buchholz in the pro ranks. See Joe's book!

kiki
12-04-2012, 01:56 PM
kiki, after a longer while and having studied tennis history myself, I must contradicct you: Buchholz was not used to fill the pro field. No.4 and No.5 in several years...

Olmedo, Cooper and Anderson were not stronger than Buchholz.

Ayala was a joke in comparison to Buchholz in the pro ranks. See Joe's book!

Olmedo won W and FH, so did Coop and Anderson won FH...Butchols??? a mere qf.No better than Riessen or Tim Gullikson.

hoodjem
12-04-2012, 02:12 PM
I mean, did he win slams on clay, hardcourts, and grass on the same year? No he didn't, thus making it not that good.Could he win "slams" on hard courts in 1969? Was it even possible?

If you want to take something away from Laver, then take it away because he failed or he stumbled, not because it did not exist or the world did not offer it.

He played all four slams. He won all four slams. Did he lose a match at the "slams" that year?

pc1
12-04-2012, 02:57 PM
Could he win "slams" on hard courts in 1969? Was it even possible?

If you want to take something away from Laver, then take it away because he failed or he stumbled, not because it did not exist or the world did not offer it.

He played all four slams. He won all four slams. Did he lose a match at the "slams" that year?

Like I have written before, Laver won Pro Majors on wood. Federer hasn't won a major on wood. Do we penalized Federer for not winning on wood? Of course not. He didn't have the opportunity and he probably would have. Same with Laver.

BobbyOne
12-04-2012, 04:07 PM
Olmedo won W and FH, so did Coop and Anderson won FH...Butchols??? a mere qf.No better than Riessen or Tim Gullikson.

kiki, I just must wonder about your statements.

Olmedo did not win FH. He won Australia.

Buchholz also lost the 1960 FH SF against Laver in five sets.

Buchholz turned pro very early (at 20). Thus his amateur record is not too great. But he reached No. 5 of the amateurs.

But we talk about the prime of the players. Here Butch was clearly better than Cooper, Olmedo and Anderson. None of them reached No.4 in the world.

Comparing Buchholz with Tim Gullikson is a shabby joke, and you do know it!

I guess you want to provoke me and to look if my tennis knowledge is good enough to disprove your statements....

Dan Lobb
12-04-2012, 06:38 PM
kiki, I just must wonder about your statements.

Olmedo did not win FH. He won Australia.

Buchholz also lost the 1960 FH SF against Laver in five sets.

Buchholz turned pro very early (at 20). Thus his amateur record is not too great. But he reached No. 5 of the amateurs.

But we talk about the prime of the players. Here Butch was clearly better than Cooper, Olmedo and Anderson. None of them reached No.4 in the world.

Comparing Buchholz with Tim Gullikson is a shabby joke, and you do know it!

I guess you want to provoke me and to look if my tennis knowledge is good enough to disprove your statements....

Why would Buchholz turn pro at 20 BEFORE he won anything, and TAKE A WEAK CONTRACT as a result? Something wrong there.
Did he realize that he might as well turn pro, that Laver would only continue to get better in the amateurs, and that he might have better luck in the pros BEFORE Laver got there?

kiki
12-04-2012, 10:33 PM
kiki, I just must wonder about your statements.

Olmedo did not win FH. He won Australia.

Buchholz also lost the 1960 FH SF against Laver in five sets.

Buchholz turned pro very early (at 20). Thus his amateur record is not too great. But he reached No. 5 of the amateurs.

But we talk about the prime of the players. Here Butch was clearly better than Cooper, Olmedo and Anderson. None of them reached No.4 in the world.

Comparing Buchholz with Tim Gullikson is a shabby joke, and you do know it!

I guess you want to provoke me and to look if my tennis knowledge is good enough to disprove your statements....

Bobby, I have nothing against Bucholz but I was always amused he was talked about in same sentence as all time greats who also were pros
You had to have proven something to get signed by Kramer or Mc Call back in that time so Butch is a real exception...maybe because he was american and that let him overcome his poir record as an amateur?
Anyhow,I wont regard you as a true historian till you give me a full picture about Jan Kodes

kiki
12-04-2012, 10:38 PM
Why would Buchholz turn pro at 20 BEFORE he won anything, and TAKE A WEAK CONTRACT as a result? Something wrong there.
Did he realize that he might as well turn pro, that Laver would only continue to get better in the amateurs, and that he might have better luck in the pros BEFORE Laver got there?

Mc Call had 5 aussies and 2 latins but no pure US player unless you assume Gonzales and Olmedo were WASP
So he desperatey signed journeyman Butch
He should wait a bit more and sign Mc Kinley or Ralston

kiki
12-04-2012, 10:43 PM
kiki, I just must wonder about your statements.

Olmedo did not win FH. He won Australia.

Buchholz also lost the 1960 FH SF against Laver in five sets.

Buchholz turned pro very early (at 20). Thus his amateur record is not too great. But he reached No. 5 of the amateurs.

But we talk about the prime of the players. Here Butch was clearly better than Cooper, Olmedo and Anderson. None of them reached No.4 in the world.

Comparing Buchholz with Tim Gullikson is a shabby joke, and you do know it!

I guess you want to provoke me and to look if my tennis knowledge is good enough to disprove your statements....

Why a joke? Gullikson reach a W qf just like your beloved Buch so where is difference?

Gizo
12-04-2012, 11:07 PM
Laver's 1962 grand slam is obviously nowhere near as significant as his 1969 feat for obvious reasons.

Still some feat by Laver to record the best ever year by an amateur player in 1962 (he also achieved the German-Italian-French Open triple crown that year), the best ever year by a player on the pre open-era pro tour in 1967, and the best ever year by a player in the open era in 1969.

At the Australian Open in 1969 he beat Emerson, Stolle, Roche and Gimeno en-route to his title, at RG Smith, Gimeno, Okker and the defending champion Rosewall, at Wimbledon Smith, Ashe and Newcombe, and the US Open he overcome Emerson, the defending champion Ashe and Roche. So he overcome tough draws at all 4 majors that year.

Not to mention that he also won the biggest hard court tournaments at Ellis Park in Johannesburg and Boston and the biggest indoor carpet events at Philadelphia and Wembley that year as well. Since then in the open era, no player has been able to win the biggest tournaments on 4 different surfaces in one year.

pc1
12-05-2012, 07:07 AM
Laver's 1962 grand slam is obviously nowhere near as significant as his 1969 feat for obvious reasons.

Still some feat by Laver to record the best ever year by an amateur player in 1962 (he also achieved the German-Italian-French Open triple crown that year), the best ever year by a player on the pre open-era pro tour in 1967, and the best ever year by a player in the open era in 1969.

At the Australian Open in 1969 he beat Emerson, Stolle, Roche and Gimeno en-route to his title, at RG Smith, Gimeno, Okker and the defending champion Rosewall, at Wimbledon Smith, Ashe and Newcombe, and the US Open he overcome Emerson, the defending champion Ashe and Roche. So he overcome tough draws at all 4 majors that year.

Not to mention that he also won the biggest hard court tournaments at Ellis Park in Johannesburg and Boston and the biggest indoor carpet events at Philadelphia and Wembley that year as well. Since then in the open era, no player has been able to win the biggest tournaments on 4 different surfaces in one year.

Excellent points. I read the harping (unjustifiably so in my opinion) that Laver won his two Grand Slams on only grass and red clay. And that he didn't win a hard court major. But he did win the biggest hard court event of the year and the biggest indoor event of the year in 1969. What more could he do?

Laver also won a Pro Grand Slam on wood and if you call that a hard court then he did win a hard court major.

BobbyOne
12-05-2012, 07:13 AM
Bobby, I have nothing against Bucholz but I was always amused he was talked about in same sentence as all time greats who also were pros
You had to have proven something to get signed by Kramer or Mc Call back in that time so Butch is a real exception...maybe because he was american and that let him overcome his poir record as an amateur?
Anyhow,I wont regard you as a true historian till you give me a full picture about Jan Kodes

kiki, I rate Kodes as a very good player, about in the class os Orantes.

BobbyOne
12-05-2012, 07:17 AM
Mc Call had 5 aussies and 2 latins but no pure US player unless you assume Gonzales and Olmedo were WASP
So he desperatey signed journeyman Butch
He should wait a bit more and sign Mc Kinley or Ralston

kiki, Buchholz was clearly stronger than McKinley and about equal with Ralston.

A typical journeyman among the pros was Ayala who seldom won a match.

BobbyOne
12-05-2012, 07:19 AM
Why a joke? Gullikson reach a W qf just like your beloved Buch so where is difference?

The big difference is that Buchholz was ranked among the top five all categories for several years while Gullikson was never a top ten player.

BobbyOne
12-05-2012, 07:20 AM
Laver's 1962 grand slam is obviously nowhere near as significant as his 1969 feat for obvious reasons.

Still some feat by Laver to record the best ever year by an amateur player in 1962 (he also achieved the German-Italian-French Open triple crown that year), the best ever year by a player on the pre open-era pro tour in 1967, and the best ever year by a player in the open era in 1969.

At the Australian Open in 1969 he beat Emerson, Stolle, Roche and Gimeno en-route to his title, at RG Smith, Gimeno, Okker and the defending champion Rosewall, at Wimbledon Smith, Ashe and Newcombe, and the US Open he overcome Emerson, the defending champion Ashe and Roche. So he overcome tough draws at all 4 majors that year.

Not to mention that he also won the biggest hard court tournaments at Ellis Park in Johannesburg and Boston and the biggest indoor carpet events at Philadelphia and Wembley that year as well. Since then in the open era, no player has been able to win the biggest tournaments on 4 different surfaces in one year.

Gizo, I agree totally.

TMF
12-05-2012, 09:31 AM
Here's the question. How many classic majors would Federer have had if he turned pro (let's say after 2003) in an era that didn't allow pros to play the majors? Obviously far fewer. It would not affect his greatness as a player. He would have been every bit as great but he would be hurt by the different standards of greatness today that is often very inaccurate.

And I think Federer would want to play against the top players. The money wouldn't have hurt either.

Had Fed was in the same position, I agree he would turned pro intstead of sticking around with the amateurs.

On the bolded part, Federer have been dominating against the whole field. Had the field was spit into two circuits, I think Fed would have won a lot, maybe even more majors. Let say Nadal was playing in the amateur like Emerson did, he would win many more majors himself. But this is alll speculating and we don't know for sure.

hoodjem
12-05-2012, 09:34 AM
Like I have written before, Laver won Pro Majors on wood. Federer hasn't won a major on wood. Do we penalized Federer for not winning on wood? Of course not. He didn't have the opportunity and he probably would have. Same with Laver.Fed has not won a major on wood??!!

No!! I don't believe it. Fed is the greatest player of all time, he must have won a major on wood. Otherwise his record is incomplete, or "No he didn't, thus making it not that good."

kiki
12-05-2012, 09:43 AM
Excellent points. I read the harping (unjustifiably so in my opinion) that Laver won his two Grand Slams on only grass and red clay. And that he didn't win a hard court major. But he did win the biggest hard court event of the year and the biggest indoor event of the year in 1969. What more could he do?

Laver also won a Pro Grand Slam on wood and if you call that a hard court then he did win a hard court major.

Next *******s argument: did not win in current grass,blue clay,sand and snow

Gizo
12-05-2012, 01:20 PM
Excellent points. I read the harping (unjustifiably so in my opinion) that Laver won his two Grand Slams on only grass and red clay. And that he didn't win a hard court major. But he did win the biggest hard court event of the year and the biggest indoor event of the year in 1969. What more could he do?

Laver also won a Pro Grand Slam on wood and if you call that a hard court then he did win a hard court major.

Agreed. Also many people have the wrong idea than in Laver's time, because 3 of the majors were on grass, grass was the dominant surface on the tennis calendar. However of course that couldn't be further from the truth. There were only a handful of grass court events in existence outside those 3 majors, and even before the US Open many of the lead up tournaments in those days were actually on different surfaces. There were considerably more indoor carpet events back then than grass court tournaments for starters.

Dan Lobb
12-05-2012, 06:36 PM
The big difference is that Buchholz was ranked among the top five all categories for several years while Gullikson was never a top ten player.

Question, my friend.
How many majors would Buchholz have won had he NOT turned pro in 1961?
Do you want to know my guess? (Hint: I watched him get walloped by Richey in the 1968 Canadian Open final. Richey won zero majors.)

pc1
12-06-2012, 03:26 AM
Question, my friend.
How many majors would Buchholz have won had he NOT turned pro in 1961?
Do you want to know my guess? (Hint: I watched him get walloped by Richey in the 1968 Canadian Open final. Richey won zero majors.)
Come on Dan, Richey was an excellent player and he beat greats like Laver and Rosewall.

Buchholz did win one Pro Major in 1961 but I agree with you that it's probable he would not have won a major. However with Laver, Rosewall, Hoad and Gonzalez around how many would win a major? Buchholz was a top player for years and wasn't a journeyman.

I will write this. It wouldn't have been surprising if Buchholz won a major.

akind
12-06-2012, 04:18 AM
Who knows, the Australian may change to velcro in the next 28 years & the current players will be dismissed since they didn't play on all surfaces.


:shock:
You will have to return the serve before the ball hit the ground! It will require a longer tennis racquet or a change of rule so that you can receive the serve from the service box. There will be no ground stroke.. all of the shots will have to be volleys.

pc1
12-06-2012, 05:25 AM
:shock:
You will have to return the serve before the ball hit the ground! It will require a longer tennis racquet or a change of rule so that you can receive the serve from the service box. There will be no ground stroke.. all of the shots will have to be volleys.

So I guess there will be no rallies at all unless the standard of volleying improves because no one can volley today. lol.

Personally I'm of the opinion we should have a wood major. Only problem would be termites and maybe woodpeckers.

BobbyOne
12-06-2012, 01:26 PM
Question, my friend.
How many majors would Buchholz have won had he NOT turned pro in 1961?
Do you want to know my guess? (Hint: I watched him get walloped by Richey in the 1968 Canadian Open final. Richey won zero majors.)

Dan, In 1968 Buchholz was after his peak.

Edit: In 1969.

Butch would have had good chances to win amateur majors against players like Emerson, Santana and Stolle. The latter three were not unvincible, to say the least. By the way, Gimeno as an amateur would most probably have won amateur majors.

Dan Lobb
12-06-2012, 01:46 PM
Dan, In 1968 Buchholz was after his peak.

Butch would have had good chances to win amateur majors against players like Emerson, Santana and Stolle. The latter three were not unvincible, to say the least. By the way, Gimeno as an amateur would most probably have won amateur majors.

So, he was too young to win in 1961 or 1962, and too old to win in 1968. When and where was there a peak?
Gimeno and Bucholz could see the writing on the wall, and took a weak pro contract rather than get clobbered by Laver, Emerson, and Santana in the amateur ranks.

BobbyOne
12-06-2012, 04:36 PM
Question, my friend.
How many majors would Buchholz have won had he NOT turned pro in 1961?
Do you want to know my guess? (Hint: I watched him get walloped by Richey in the 1968 Canadian Open final. Richey won zero majors.)

Dan, You mean the 1969 Canadian Open. You did not mention that Buchholz defeated Newcombe in the SFs, winning the last set by 6-0....

BobbyOne
12-06-2012, 04:55 PM
So, he was too young to win in 1961 or 1962, and too old to win in 1968. When and where was there a peak?
Gimeno and Bucholz could see the writing on the wall, and took a weak pro contract rather than get clobbered by Laver, Emerson, and Santana in the amateur ranks.

Strange Dan, as a certain variety I would like to get a post from you with reasonable arguments and opinions.

Here you again are far away from logic and facts.

Buchholz did win a major in 1962!

In 1969, not 1968, he lost a tournament to strong Richey who also reached the final of PSW that year....

Buchholz had his peak from 1963 to 1968, thus 6 years. Not too bad.

Butch beat Laver in the 1963 Wembley tournament by 6-1,6-4. Clobbered by Laver??? (not to talk about Emerson and Santana).

Buchholz won 5 WCT tournaments in 1968, finishing third in the WCT rankings, ahead of Roche, Drysdale and Riessen...

Dan, it's a shame how you distort tennis history. Go to kiki and let him teach you the secrets of tennis....

Dan Lobb
12-07-2012, 05:24 AM
Dan, You mean the 1969 Canadian Open. You did not mention that Buchholz defeated Newcombe in the SFs, winning the last set by 6-0....

Yes, it was 1969. Buchholz was a feeble old man of 28. (As you stated earlier, 28 is not the age of a veteran.)

Dan Lobb
12-07-2012, 05:28 AM
Strange Dan, as a certain variety I would like to get a post from you with reasonable arguments and opinions.

Here you again are far away from logic and facts.

Buchholz did win a major in 1962!

In 1969, not 1968, he lost a tournament to strong Richey who also reached the final of PSW that year....

Buchholz had his peak from 1963 to 1968, thus 6 years. Not too bad.

Butch beat Laver in the 1963 Wembley tournament by 6-1,6-4. Clobbered by Laver??? (not to talk about Emerson and Santana).

Buchholz won 5 WCT tournaments in 1968, finishing third in the WCT rankings, ahead of Roche, Drysdale and Riessen...

Dan, it's a shame how you distort tennis history. Go to kiki and let him teach you the secrets of tennis....

He did not win a major in 1962. He won the Cleveland Arena championship, with virtually no competition except Segura in the final, who lost in straight sets. It was a four-man tournament, with Barry McKay and Jack Arkinstall also on board. Wow.
He beat a rookie Laver in one match in 1963.
You mean he was third in the Handsome Eight competition? Without Laver, Rosewall, Gimeno, Gonzales, Stolle, Emerson, Ralston in the field, the group that Buchholz used to belong to, but quit for some reason. Was Buchholz about EIGHTH in that field? I guess Emerson's signing pushed Buchholz out.

Dan Lobb
12-07-2012, 07:14 AM
He did not win a major in 1962. He won the Cleveland Arena championship, with virtually no competition except Segura in the final, who lost in straight sets. It was a four-man tournament, with Barry McKay and Jack Arkinstall also on board. Wow.
He beat a rookie Laver in one match in 1963.
You mean he was third in the Handsome Eight competition? Without Laver, Rosewall, Gimeno, Gonzales, Stolle, Emerson, Ralston in the field, the group that Buchholz used to belong to, but quit for some reason. Was Buchholz about EIGHTH in that field? I guess Emerson's signing pushed Buchholz out.

Actually, Ralston did the wise thing and jumped over to Handsome Eight as well as Bucholz.

kiki
12-07-2012, 07:14 AM
Strange Dan, as a certain variety I would like to get a post from you with reasonable arguments and opinions.

Here you again are far away from logic and facts.

Buchholz did win a major in 1962!

In 1969, not 1968, he lost a tournament to strong Richey who also reached the final of PSW that year....

Buchholz had his peak from 1963 to 1968, thus 6 years. Not too bad.

Butch beat Laver in the 1963 Wembley tournament by 6-1,6-4. Clobbered by Laver??? (not to talk about Emerson and Santana).

Buchholz won 5 WCT tournaments in 1968, finishing third in the WCT rankings, ahead of Roche, Drysdale and Riessen...

Dan, it's a shame how you distort tennis history. Go to kiki and let him teach you the secrets of tennis....

Whether in a jokingly way or a serious way, I get aknowledged.

BTW, Gimeno vs Santana was the missing match of the 60īs.

Dan Lobb
12-07-2012, 07:27 AM
Strange Dan, as a certain variety I would like to get a post from you with reasonable arguments and opinions.

Here you again are far away from logic and facts.

Buchholz did win a major in 1962!

In 1969, not 1968, he lost a tournament to strong Richey who also reached the final of PSW that year....

Buchholz had his peak from 1963 to 1968, thus 6 years. Not too bad.

Butch beat Laver in the 1963 Wembley tournament by 6-1,6-4. Clobbered by Laver??? (not to talk about Emerson and Santana).

Buchholz won 5 WCT tournaments in 1968, finishing third in the WCT rankings, ahead of Roche, Drysdale and Riessen...

Dan, it's a shame how you distort tennis history. Go to kiki and let him teach you the secrets of tennis....

Buchholz finished third in the 1968 WCT rankings in terms of PERCENTAGE of matches won only.
In terms of money he was sixth (behind Pilic, Drysdale, Ralston).
In terms of matches won he was fifth.
The top money-winner was Roche, followed closely by Newcombe (who won the most tournaments), and no one else close. This is what you would expect.

kiki
12-07-2012, 07:37 AM
Newcombe and Roche were above Drisdale,Barthes,Pilic,Taylor,Butcholtz and Riessen.Nicky Pilic, however, was a real great player and could beat anybody if "on"

Tagg
12-07-2012, 08:04 AM
because no one else has done it in the open era or done it twice

simple answer

BobbyOne
12-07-2012, 02:44 PM
Yes, it was 1969. Buchholz was a feeble old man of 28. (As you stated earlier, 28 is not the age of a veteran.)

Dan, Buchholz was not as feeble at 28 as you are in tennis history...

BobbyOne
12-07-2012, 02:54 PM
He did not win a major in 1962. He won the Cleveland Arena championship, with virtually no competition except Segura in the final, who lost in straight sets. It was a four-man tournament, with Barry McKay and Jack Arkinstall also on board. Wow.
He beat a rookie Laver in one match in 1963.
You mean he was third in the Handsome Eight competition? Without Laver, Rosewall, Gimeno, Gonzales, Stolle, Emerson, Ralston in the field, the group that Buchholz used to belong to, but quit for some reason. Was Buchholz about EIGHTH in that field? I guess Emerson's signing pushed Buchholz out.

Dan, again WRONG! Buchholz beat a Laver who was much better than in his amateur days (You wrote that Laver, Emerson and Santana would have destroyed Buchholz at the amateurs).

Buchholz also beat Laver the same year at the Japanese pro championships

in straight sets.

Ralston was yet in the WCT field!

Buchholz was at least as good as Emerson and Stolle in 1968.

Butch finished only a bit behind Laver in the 1963 6 man tour, edging out Gimeno!

Dan, I'm tired to correct you every time. I hope that kiki or other posters can teach you tennis history...

BobbyOne
12-07-2012, 03:00 PM
Buchholz finished third in the 1968 WCT rankings in terms of PERCENTAGE of matches won only.
In terms of money he was sixth (behind Pilic, Drysdale, Ralston).
In terms of matches won he was fifth.
The top money-winner was Roche, followed closely by Newcombe (who won the most tournaments), and no one else close. This is what you would expect.

Dan, five winning tournaments against strong competition (Newcombe, Roche etc) is a proof for strength!

You have a special gift: Your ignorance increases from post to post...

BobbyOne
12-07-2012, 03:52 PM
Buchholz finished third in the 1968 WCT rankings in terms of PERCENTAGE of matches won only.
In terms of money he was sixth (behind Pilic, Drysdale, Ralston).
In terms of matches won he was fifth.
The top money-winner was Roche, followed closely by Newcombe (who won the most tournaments), and no one else close. This is what you would expect.

Dan, the percentage list was the official list to rank the Handsome Eight.

You have a strong money-fixation, I see.

Dan Lobb
12-07-2012, 04:31 PM
Dan, Buchholz was not as feeble at 28 as you are in tennis history...

I thought that you believed Buchholz was past his peak by 1969, a doddering old veteran of 28.

Dan Lobb
12-07-2012, 04:33 PM
Dan, five winning tournaments against strong competition (Newcombe, Roche etc) is a proof for strength!

You have a special gift: Your ignorance increases from post to post...

The bottom line is MONEY. Buchholz was way back, Roche and Newk far ahead of the rest.

Dan Lobb
12-07-2012, 04:39 PM
Dan, again WRONG! Buchholz beat a Laver who was much better than in his amateur days (You wrote that Laver, Emerson and Santana would have destroyed Buchholz at the amateurs).

Buchholz also beat Laver the same year at the Japanese pro championships

in straight sets.

Ralston was yet in the WCT field!

Buchholz was at least as good as Emerson and Stolle n 1968.

Butch finished only a bit behind Laver in the 1963 6 man tour, edging out Gimeno!

Dan, I'm tired to correct you every time. I hope that kiki or other posters can teach you tennis history...

Ralston was on both tours in 1968.
Why did Buchholz skip over to the WCT? Obviously, a weaker field.
Buchholz failed to win a major, and at Wembley in 1963, he choked against a lame Hoad, who pulled a thigh muscle in the third set. If you can't put away a player who is stumbling around on only one leg, you've got problems.

Dan Lobb
12-07-2012, 04:42 PM
Dan, the percentage list was the official list to rank the Handsome Eight.

You have a strong money-fixation, I see.

There is a HUGE gap between Roche and Newk and the rest in terms of money.
I hope that you are not shocked to learn that some matches are worth more money than others. This is where Newk and Roche apparently stood out.

BobbyOne
12-07-2012, 05:00 PM
I thought that you believed Buchholz was past his peak by 1969, a doddering old veteran of 28.

Dan Lobb, Buchholz in 1969 was 29 but still very tough. Even in 1970 he lost to No.1 player, Rosewall, 6-3, 4-6, 6-7 at Corpus Christi.

And as late as 1975 he lost a tough match to Rosewall. Doddering???

BobbyOne
12-07-2012, 05:04 PM
Ralston was on both tours in 1968.
Why did Buchholz skip over to the WCT? Obviously, a weaker field.
Buchholz failed to win a major, and at Wembley in 1963, he choked against a lame Hoad, who pulled a thigh muscle in the third set. If you can't put away a player who is stumbling around on only one leg, you've got problems.

Dan, Ralston played only the WCT tour and a few tournaments where all pros met, just as Buchholz did.

Where have you read that Buchholz skipped over to the WCT?

The WCT group was pretty tough.

If you neglect facts and logic repeatedly, you will get problems: serious fans will doubt if you are a serious man...

BobbyOne
12-07-2012, 05:08 PM
There is a HUGE gap between Roche and Newk and the rest in terms of money.
I hope that you are not shocked to learn that some matches are worth more money than others. This is where Newk and Roche apparently stood out.

Dan, I'm not easily shocked by something because I have learnt your strange opinions and your ignorant kind of argumentation...

BobbyOne
12-07-2012, 05:19 PM
The bottom line is MONEY. Buchholz was way back, Roche and Newk far ahead of the rest.

Dan, what did you expect? That Buchholz dominates Newcombe, Roche, and maybe even Laver and Rosewall??? I never claimed that Buchholz was a top three player. But he did be a top player, in my rankings several times being among the top five players of the world (1963 to 1966). Where is you logic?

This time I don't suggest that you should ask kiki, because he also belittles Buchholz....

Dan Lobb
12-07-2012, 06:28 PM
Dan, Ralston played only the WCT tour and a few tournaments where all pros met, just as Buchholz did.

Where have you read that Buchholz skipped over to the WCT?

The WCT group was pretty tough.

If you neglect facts and logic repeatedly, you will get problems: serious fans will doubt if you are a serious man...

Yes, Ralston just played a few joint tournaments against NTL players.
That means that Buchholz and Ralston chose (or had to choose) the weaker WCT league to the more elite NTL. Hmmm........
And how did Buchholz fail to beat a one-legged Hoad at Wembley in 1963? The London Times reporter was flabbergasted.

kiki
12-08-2012, 03:06 AM
Dan, again WRONG! Buchholz beat a Laver who was much better than in his amateur days (You wrote that Laver, Emerson and Santana would have destroyed Buchholz at the amateurs).

Buchholz also beat Laver the same year at the Japanese pro championships

in straight sets.

Ralston was yet in the WCT field!

Buchholz was at least as good as Emerson and Stolle in 1968.

Butch finished only a bit behind Laver in the 1963 6 man tour, edging out Gimeno!

Dan, I'm tired to correct you every time. I hope that kiki or other posters can teach you tennis history...

Do you think Butcholz was as good as Gimeno?

BobbyOne
12-08-2012, 04:45 AM
Yes, Ralston just played a few joint tournaments against NTL players.
That means that Buchholz and Ralston chose (or had to choose) the weaker WCT league to the more elite NTL. Hmmm........
And how did Buchholz fail to beat a one-legged Hoad at Wembley in 1963? The London Times reporter was flabbergasted.

Dan, your logic is really top.

BobbyOne
12-08-2012, 04:48 AM
Do you think Butcholz was as good as Gimeno?

kiki, I don't believe that Buchholz was as good as Gimeno.

Andres had more skills and I rank him No.3 for several years, Buchholz "only" No.4 once and No.5 in some other years.

kiki
12-08-2012, 10:36 AM
kiki, I don't believe that Buchholz was as good as Gimeno.

Andres had more skills and I rank him No.3 for several years, Buchholz "only" No.4 once and No.5 in some other years.

Butcholz was the Solomon or Ferrer or Arias of the 60īs.But I think he was even worse.A middle class journeyman with no chance to gain upper middle class status

Dan Lobb
12-08-2012, 10:48 AM
Dan, your logic is really top.

Thank you.

pc1
12-08-2012, 10:59 AM
kiki, I don't believe that Buchholz was as good as Gimeno.

Andres had more skills and I rank him No.3 for several years, Buchholz "only" No.4 once and No.5 in some other years.

Many, including Kramer considered Gimeno the third best player in the world for many years in the 1960's. Evidence of this was at the 1968 Wimbledon, the first Open Wimbledon and Gimeno was seeded third, behind Laver and Rosewall.

kiki
12-08-2012, 11:24 AM
Is it a happy coincidence that peak Zep and peak Kodes came along?

hoodjem
12-08-2012, 12:21 PM
Many, including Kramer considered Gimeno the third best player in the world for many years in the 1960's. Evidence of this was at the 1968 Wimbledon, the first Open Wimbledon and Gimeno was seeded third, behind Laver and Rosewall.
This is a good point.

I notice that Emerson was seeded fifth. Was he still an amateur by the time of Wimbledon 1968?

BobbyOne
12-08-2012, 12:41 PM
Butcholz was the Solomon or Ferrer or Arias of the 60īs.But I think he was even worse.A middle class journeyman with no chance to gain upper middle class status

kiki, I had thought you have learnt history?!?

BobbyOne
12-08-2012, 12:44 PM
This is a good point.

I notice that Emerson was seeded fifth. Was he still an amateur by the time of Wimbledon 1968?

hoodjem, Emerson had turned pro rather shortly before Wimbledon.

hoodjem
12-08-2012, 02:02 PM
hoodjem, Emerson had turned pro rather shortly before Wimbledon.

Okay. Thanks for the info.

BobbyOne
12-08-2012, 02:21 PM
Butcholz was the Solomon or Ferrer or Arias of the 60īs.But I think he was even worse.A middle class journeyman with no chance to gain upper middle class status

Then, why can Butch be ranked among thre top five players in the mid-1960s?

BobbyOne
12-08-2012, 02:24 PM
Okay. Thanks for the info.

hoodjem Emerson turned pro in April.

hoodjem
12-08-2012, 02:28 PM
hoodjem Emerson turned pro in April.

Interesting timing. Thanks again.

kiki
12-09-2012, 05:49 AM
kiki, I had thought you have learnt history?!?

Not your biassed view of it, though.

kiki
12-09-2012, 05:51 AM
Then, why can Butch be ranked among thre top five players in the mid-1960s?

Solomon was once ranked that high...in an open field, BTW.

BobbyOne
12-09-2012, 07:15 AM
Not your biassed view of it, though.

kiki, I could imagine that I'm a bit biased regarding Rosewall. But why should I be biased regarding Buchholz?? I'm not a Buchholz admirer. I just respect his high level in several years.

TMF
12-09-2012, 02:05 PM
kiki, I had thought you have learnt history?!?

Not your biassed view of it, though.

Both of you are very biased.

pc1
12-09-2012, 02:31 PM
Both of you are very biased.

And I suppose you're not. :shock:

TMF
12-09-2012, 02:46 PM
And I suppose you're not. :shock:

In what way? I believe sports and tennis gets better over time, and most people would agree with me.

TMF
12-09-2012, 03:17 PM
There are a number of ways to be bias:


*Double standard. The most common method that's use, and gets exposed often.

*Exaggeration. Making mountain out of a molehill when certain facts suit their agenda, but vice-versa when it works against them.

*Double-edged sword. I.e. If a player is too dominant, the field is weak. If a player isn't that dominant, it's because the supreme strength/depth of the field.

*Hide negative facts. Only employ by the old-timers. They know the younger fans doesn't know about history of classic tennis, so they take the advantage.

BobbyOne
12-09-2012, 04:44 PM
Both of you are very biased.

TMF, you are the last one who can blame others for being biased...

BobbyOne
12-09-2012, 04:46 PM
In what way? I believe sports and tennis gets better over time, and most people would agree with me.

12055 posts to push Federer are not enough of bias?

BobbyOne
12-09-2012, 04:51 PM
There are a number of ways to be bias:


*Double standard. The most common method that's use, and gets exposed often.

*Exaggeration. Making mountain out of a molehill when certain facts suit their agenda, but vice-versa when it works against them.

*Double-edged sword. I.e. If a player is too dominant, the field is weak. If a player isn't that dominant, it's because the supreme strength/depth of the field.

*Hide negative facts. Only employ by the old-timers. They know the younger fans doesn't know about history of classic tennis, so they take the advantage.

TMF, not only younger fans don't know about history, also long-time posters with more than 12000 posts...

Phoenix1983
12-10-2012, 02:37 AM
There are a number of ways to be bias:


*Double standard. The most common method that's use, and gets exposed often.

*Exaggeration. Making mountain out of a molehill when certain facts suit their agenda, but vice-versa when it works against them.

*Double-edged sword. I.e. If a player is too dominant, the field is weak. If a player isn't that dominant, it's because the supreme strength/depth of the field.

*Hide negative facts. Only employ by the old-timers. They know the younger fans doesn't know about history of classic tennis, so they take the advantage.

You forgot this one:

Blatant fanboyism towards a player. Create a username and avatar which are clearly supportive of a certain player. Post in every thread to argue that the player in question is not just GOAT but is, in fact, on a different tier to all previous greats. Maintain that this player's greatest rival is the fiercest competitor of all time, and yet is still far behind the GOAT. Maintain that this player plays in by far the strongest era of all time. Repeat ad nauseam.

pc1
12-10-2012, 03:50 AM
In what way? I believe sports and tennis gets better over time, and most people would agree with me.

And yet you won't write that Nadal or Djokovic by your logic is superior to Federer. Why is that? Incidentally I don't necessarily believe that.

Your logic I believe is somewhat correct but there are some flaws. Sports often get better due to former players setting up the foundation for today's players or new technology in training and equipment. It's not always that the players are superior today.

Top level chess today is superior to years ago. The reason is that they have the games of the past to study from and computers can analyze the positions. The top players from years ago, despite being far older are generally very competitive today because they have access to that knowledge.

arche3
12-10-2012, 04:00 AM
Fed djok nadal greater than Laver. Better in all respects.

Nadal_Power
12-10-2012, 04:42 AM
Fed djok nadal greater than Laver. Better in all respects.

Maybe Murray too?

pc1
12-10-2012, 05:26 AM
Fed djok nadal greater than Laver. Better in all respects.
Maybe Murray too?

Here's the thing, we can make statements like that and who knows, it may be true or it may not be true.

As a baseball fan I may make the statement that Andy Pettitte is a harder throw than Nolan Ryan at his best. But I'd better back it up with facts.

Now I don't think Andy Pettitte is superior to Ryan in pure speed. I've seen how Nolan Ryan threw the ball and it's far faster in my opinion to Pettitte. Ryan's last pitch at age 46 was timed at 98 mph. He started playing in the 1960's. And I like Pettitte because I'm a Yankee fan. Point is that super athletes also played in the 1960's and way before. Pancho Gonzalez may very well been the greatest tennis athlete of them all at 6'3 and one half with great mobility and power. Here's a video of Pancho.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nd0gJzm_EQY

So my point is how are these guys superior to Laver? Is it your opinion or it is backed by facts?

Here's a video of Laver at the 1969 US Open. Notice how bad the grass is so you couldn't have the baseline rallies we have today. The ball often wouldn't bounce at all. The footing was also awful. Laver wasn't exactly a pity-pat type player who had no power and no skills.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CvpckZmLaEc

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2f60jJTbEps

The women playing today can hit the serve over 120 mph and great female players like Serena can hit the ball from the baseline like lightning. My question is this...do you really think they would win one game from Laver if they had the same equipment? I doubt it. Often level of play is determined by equipment.

I doubt if you can say all these guys are better than Laver by record since Laver won 200 tournaments, one amateur Grand Slam, One Pro Grand Slam and on Open Grand Slam so I guess it's by opinion.

So I'm curious about where guys like Nadal, Djokovic, Federer and Murray break down stroke by stroke with Laver? Do they have a better volley, serve, backhand, forehand?

Now bear in mind I actually think these guys are gifted players and who knows, you may be right. I actually think Murray is the most gifted of all of them but you know what, his record isn't as good as the other three.

abmk
12-10-2012, 08:20 AM
So I'm curious about where guys like Nadal, Djokovic, Federer and Murray break down stroke by stroke with Laver? Do they have a better volley, serve, backhand, forehand?

Now bear in mind I actually think these guys are gifted players and who knows, you may be right. I actually think Murray is the most gifted of all of them but you know what, his record isn't as good as the other three.

http://cdn.memegenerator.net/instances/400x/24611754.jpg

TMF
12-10-2012, 09:21 AM
And yet you won't write that Nadal or Djokovic by your logic is superior to Federer. Why is that? Incidentally I don't necessarily believe that.
Fed/Nadal/Nole are competing against the same field. Almost all of their slams, achievements have overlapped, facing one another. Unlike Sampras in the 90s, or Lendl in the 80s when the field was a complete separation. I've already explained it already.

Your logic I believe is somewhat correct but there are some flaws. Sports often get better due to former players setting up the foundation for today's players or new technology in training and equipment. It's not always that the players are superior today.

Top level chess today is superior to years ago. The reason is that they have the games of the past to study from and computers can analyze the positions. The top players from years ago, despite being far older are generally very competitive today because they have access to that knowledge.

That's true. But it's also true that more athletes increase add more depth/talent to the pool. Even if the technology/training stay "fixed", that doesn't mean number of talented athletes stay "fixed". Remember you agree that the international basketball have vastly improved in the past 20 years(since 1992 first dream team). Other countries know that they are greatly inferior to the USA, and have steadily improved. Still is behind the USA but the gap isn't as ridiculous huge as it was 20 years ago.

If you agree that global sport like basketball have improved, then you have to believe global sport like tennis also imrpoved. If you don't, then you fall under a bias type "double standard".

TMF
12-10-2012, 09:28 AM
12055 posts to push Federer are not enough of bias?

The total number of posts doesn't signify bias. It's the content of the posts, and your posts are littered with bias against modern tennis.

pc1
12-10-2012, 11:40 AM
Fed/Nadal/Nole are competing against the same field. Almost all of their slams, achievements have overlapped, facing one another. Unlike Sampras in the 90s, or Lendl in the 80s when the field was a complete separation. I've already explained it already.



That's true. But it's also true that more athletes increase add more depth/talent to the pool. Even if the technology/training stay "fixed", that doesn't mean number of talented athletes stay "fixed". Remember you agree that the international basketball have vastly improved in the past 20 years(since 1992 first dream team). Other countries know that they are greatly inferior to the USA, and have steadily improved. Still is behind the USA but the gap isn't as ridiculous huge as it was 20 years ago.

If you agree that global sport like basketball have improved, then you have to believe global sport like tennis also imrpoved. If you don't, then you fall under a bias type "double standard".

Not necessarily because tennis has had some many changes in the sports that it is hard to see skills differences for example. I've noticed you don't acknowledge that. And we are talking often about the top levels and greats are often greats in any era. The other thing you don't acknowledge is the possibility of a past great doing well (given time to adapt) in today's game and yet you assume current greats would automatically do well if transported into let's say 1969.

Dan Lobb
12-10-2012, 11:46 AM
Not necessarily because tennis has had some many changes in the sports that it is hard to see skills differences for example. I've noticed you don't acknowledge that. And we are talking often about the top levels and greats are often greats in any era.

The same argument occurs in baseball, where modern record breakers are questioned about steroid use and corked bats, which affects the home run totals.
Also, the leagues determine the tightness of the baseball "wind" in manufacture, which has a big effect on the home run "pop" off the bat.
These all have to be kept in mind when comparing current home run champions with Babe Ruth or Roger Maris. Maris, like Aaron, played in an era when the balls were wound looser, and it was harder to hit a home run.

hoodjem
12-10-2012, 11:48 AM
Fed djok nadal greater than Laver. Better in all respects.Yep. Look at all the Grand Slams they have won.

pc1
12-10-2012, 12:11 PM
The same argument occurs in baseball, where modern record breakers are questioned about steroid use and corked bats, which affects the home run totals.
Also, the leagues determine the tightness of the baseball "wind" in manufacture, which has a big effect on the home run "pop" off the bat.
These all have to be kept in mind when comparing current home run champions with Babe Ruth or Roger Maris. Maris, like Aaron, played in an era when the balls were wound looser, and it was harder to hit a home run.

Good points Dan. It's doesn't mean that the sport of tennis has not advanced but do we really know for sure? The new technology certainly makes it easier to hit shots like hitting topspin lobs. I can now (given time) easily hit a backhand topspin lob where in the past it would have been very hard. The racquets are better. The strings are superior.

Does the advance technology hurt the skills set of the modern player since they can do more than less effort? Volleying seems non existence nowadays and while some say it's because of the excess topspin I see so many sitters hit out or into the net it's almost laughable. Servicing percentages are higher as well they should be because the extra spin allows all of us to serve more safely today.

Even Pete Sampras once mentioned that he would start a beginning off with a wood racquet to improve their skills.

pc1
12-10-2012, 12:39 PM
The same argument occurs in baseball, where modern record breakers are questioned about steroid use and corked bats, which affects the home run totals.
Also, the leagues determine the tightness of the baseball "wind" in manufacture, which has a big effect on the home run "pop" off the bat.
These all have to be kept in mind when comparing current home run champions with Babe Ruth or Roger Maris. Maris, like Aaron, played in an era when the balls were wound looser, and it was harder to hit a home run.

The mound was higher also and the strike zone was larger.

World Beater
12-10-2012, 12:45 PM
Not necessarily because tennis has had some many changes in the sports that it is hard to see skills differences for example. I've noticed you don't acknowledge that. And we are talking often about the top levels and greats are often greats in any era.

Huh?

You dont see the skill difference between taking a ball early that comes to you at 90 mph Vs. 60 mph.

Returning a serve coming at 140 mph?

Timing balls that are turning at more than 3000 rpm?

Anticipating and making split second decisions.

You need amazing hand-eye, and court sense to do all these things.

That is not to say that past legends didnt have it, but certainly modern players have DEMONSTRATED it.

Tennis unlike baseball is also an equalizer. If you get to use modern technology, your opponent also gets to use modern technology, and they can use it against you to make your level go down.

Tennis players succeed at the demise of the opponent.

Phoenix1983
12-10-2012, 12:54 PM
I don't mind if people say they believe the greats of today are better than the greats of yesteryear because the game has progressed, as long as they concede that the same process will keep occurring moving forwards. Meaning that, in 50 years time, the dominant players then will be better than Federer or Nadal.

Strangely though, I feel some posters here believe that where we are now is the endpoint of the game and that Federer will forever be GOAT...

kiki
12-10-2012, 12:59 PM
kiki, I could imagine that I'm a bit biased regarding Rosewall. But why should I be biased regarding Buchholz?? I'm not a Buchholz admirer. I just respect his high level in several years.

Donīt ask TMF about Butcholz...heīll ask a big, toasted Butcholz next time he goes to Mc Donalds..

pc1
12-10-2012, 01:01 PM
Huh?

You dont see the skill difference between taking a ball early that comes to you at 90 mph Vs. 60 mph.

Returning a serve coming at 140 mph?

Timing balls that are turning at more than 3000 rpm?

Anticipating and making split second decisions.

You need amazing hand-eye, and court sense to do all these things.

That is not to say that past legends didnt have it, but certainly modern players have DEMONSTRATED it.

Tennis unlike baseball is also an equalizer. If you get to use modern technology, your opponent also gets to use modern technology, and they can use it against you to make your level go down.

Tennis players succeed at the demise of the opponent.

But the point is as you pointed out that it is not an apples to apples comparison. And considering how often modern players hold serve how effective is their service return.

Remember that the serving speed with wood isn't that much different than with modern racquets, it's returning well with wood that's the problem.

Yes the past players haven't demonstrated returning a big serve well but frankly doesn't anyone really return a big 140 mph well consistently? And very few serve 140 mph consistently. Even Karolovic and Isner don't do it consistently. Roddick in his prime didn't either.

I also propose that the reverse is also true, that the modern player hasn't proved to be able to return or serve well with a wood racquet. Point is that you can't compare that well.

http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/sports/tennis/2007-06-20-raquet-tech_N.htm

http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/sports/tennis/2007-06-21-racket-sidebar_N.htm

kiki
12-10-2012, 01:01 PM
TMF, not only younger fans don't know about history, also long-time posters with more than 12000 posts...

...and, maybe, 5 of those 12.000 posts even mention Kodes:oops:

Not that he even gets major exposure on all of them...

kiki
12-10-2012, 01:03 PM
Then, why can Butch be ranked among thre top five players in the mid-1960s?

What happened in the middle 60īs to Olmedo, Coop,Anderson, the so called second stringers, all of them with a far more impressive record than Buch?

kiki
12-10-2012, 01:04 PM
kiki, I could imagine that I'm a bit biased regarding Rosewall. But why should I be biased regarding Buchholz?? I'm not a Buchholz admirer. I just respect his high level in several years.

You are not biassed concerning Rosewall...I think you have not paid tribute to his wonderful shots ( I wonīt mention again THAT backhand) but you rather focused on his records...do that, give us your opinion about his strokes.

Iīll give you mine about Kodes game.

kiki
12-10-2012, 01:06 PM
You forgot this one:

Blatant fanboyism towards a player. Create a username and avatar which are clearly supportive of a certain player. Post in every thread to argue that the player in question is not just GOAT but is, in fact, on a different tier to all previous greats. Maintain that this player's greatest rival is the fiercest competitor of all time, and yet is still far behind the GOAT. Maintain that this player plays in by far the strongest era of all time. Repeat ad nauseam.

I heard about that in the 1930īs...but I have not learnt enough history according to Bobby One.

As an Austrian, heīll certainly enlighten us about those wonderful years...

kiki
12-10-2012, 01:09 PM
And yet you won't write that Nadal or Djokovic by your logic is superior to Federer. Why is that? Incidentally I don't necessarily believe that.

Your logic I believe is somewhat correct but there are some flaws. Sports often get better due to former players setting up the foundation for today's players or new technology in training and equipment. It's not always that the players are superior today.

Top level chess today is superior to years ago. The reason is that they have the games of the past to study from and computers can analyze the positions. The top players from years ago, despite being far older are generally very competitive today because they have access to that knowledge.

Fischer vs Spassky and Korchnoi vs Karpov are the peak of comeptitive chess, at least in the modern era.

BTW, Korchnoi was underrated as Kodes.

And Fischer, just overrated as Vines, probably because they had the same Marketing Agent.

kiki
12-10-2012, 01:13 PM
Fed/Nadal/Nole are competing against the same field. Almost all of their slams, achievements have overlapped, facing one another. Unlike Sampras in the 90s, or Lendl in the 80s when the field was a complete separation. I've already explained it already.



That's true. But it's also true that more athletes increase add more depth/talent to the pool. Even if the technology/training stay "fixed", that doesn't mean number of talented athletes stay "fixed". Remember you agree that the international basketball have vastly improved in the past 20 years(since 1992 first dream team). Other countries know that they are greatly inferior to the USA, and have steadily improved. Still is behind the USA but the gap isn't as ridiculous huge as it was 20 years ago.

If you agree that global sport like basketball have improved, then you have to believe global sport like tennis also imrpoved. If you don't, then you fall under a bias type "double standard".

Sorry to say but you know nothing about international basketball.and I hate to say this but, the story that international basketball has improved vs 1970īs and 1980īs is just a fake, an ilusion created by US journalists to enhance the NBA league overworld and their National Team so to create interest.The US Sports Marketing Top guys are just brilliant but they are the first to know that this is just an ilusional wisdom for ignorant, young fans catch up.

World Beater
12-10-2012, 01:53 PM
But the point is as you pointed out that it is not an apples to apples comparison. And considering how often modern players hold serve how effective is their service return.

Remember that the serving speed with wood isn't that much different than with modern racquets, it's returning well with wood that's the problem.

Yes the past players haven't demonstrated returning a big serve well but frankly doesn't anyone really return a big 140 mph well consistently? And very few serve 140 mph consistently. Even Karolovic and Isner don't do it consistently. Roddick in his prime didn't either.

I also propose that the reverse is also true, that the modern player hasn't proved to be able to return or serve well with a wood racquet. Point is that you can't compare that well.

http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/sports/tennis/2007-06-20-raquet-tech_N.htm

http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/sports/tennis/2007-06-21-racket-sidebar_N.htm

It seems that you clutching at straws. the players certainly max out near 140 mph, but on average roddick serves for example 130, and 20-30% of the time beyond 130 mph. Isner, karlovic and others are certainly within the same range.

The point is that it is considerably faster than 1930s or 1940s.

Federer, murray, djokovic, hewitt, safin, nalbandian have all demonstrated the ability to return 130 mphs serves. Enough so that sets arent inevitably decided in TBs.

The return game has improved tremendously and this is well documented by this generation of players. But serve speeds have increased as well. Roddick, isner , karlovic all serve consistently harder than players of past eras. not to mention sampras, krajicek, rusedski etc.

I dont quite understand the obsession with wood racquets, and why players of today need to play with wood in order to demonstrate superior skill. Why stop at wood? Why not play with frying pans or just your bare hands?

THere is a reason for this. Mastering a piece of equipment that has a broad spectrum of power, spins, strokes is more difficult than equipment that is very limited in what it can offer its owner.

This principle is the same one as to why we all care so much more about F1 Racing, than racing in toyota, honda, bmw sedans. F1 racing has a much bigger gear range, more brake power that allows its driver to display a level of technical talent that is not physically possible in a mid-size sedan.

pc1
12-10-2012, 02:18 PM
It seems that you clutching at straws. the players certainly max out near 140 mph, but on average roddick serves for example 130, and 20-30% of the time beyond 130 mph. Isner, karlovic and others are certainly within the same range.

The point is that it is considerably faster than 1930s or 1940s.

Federer, murray, djokovic, hewitt, safin, nalbandian have all demonstrated the ability to return 130 mphs serves. Enough so that sets arent inevitably decided in TBs.

The return game has improved tremendously and this is well documented by this generation of players. But serve speeds have increased as well. Roddick, isner , karlovic all serve consistently harder than players of past eras. not to mention sampras, krajicek, rusedski etc.

I dont quite understand the obsession with wood racquets, and why players of today need to play with wood in order to demonstrate superior skill. Why stop at wood? Why not play with frying pans or just your bare hands?

THere is a reason for this. Mastering a piece of equipment that has a broad spectrum of power, spins, strokes is more difficult than equipment that is very limited in what it can offer its owner.

This principle is the same one as to why we all care so much more about F1 Racing, than racing in toyota, honda, bmw sedans. F1 racing has a much bigger gear range, more brake power that allows its driver to display a level of technical talent that is not physically possible in a mid-size sedan.

I'm not clutching at anything. You're misinterpreting what I"m writing. With the equipment the game is of course better but I'm just talking about the player. Are the players themselves necessarily better? Serena with her equipment today may beat many males players of the past but is she a better player? I don't think she's better than Jack Kramer for example or Bobby Riggs in their primes. Would she beat Riggs with her equipment today versus Riggs' wood in the past. Perhaps. But give Serena a wood racquet versus Riggs with wood and I don't think Serena gets a game. I frankly prefer hitting with today's racquets than wood racquets. Who wouldn't except for a few? ]But the point is that it's a different game. I don't like playing with wood racquets. And what's wrong with playing with a frying pan?? lol.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SwfbYdaYEoc

Major League Baseball has wood bats. Colleges usually allow aluminum bats. Often the aluminum bats users can't make it in the majors leagues because they can't play with wood bats. It's a different game.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/19/sports/baseball/metal-bats-that-play-like-wood-alter-college-baseball.html?pagewanted=all

In most sports the game hasn't changed that much but tennis has changed a lot so I find a comparison tougher. If you don't than perhaps you're better in analysis than me and that's very possible.

arche3
12-10-2012, 02:46 PM
I'm not clutching at anything. You're misinterpreting what I"m writing. With the equipment the game is of course better but I'm just talking about the player. Are the players themselves necessarily better? Serena with her equipment today may beat many males players of the past but is she a better player? I don't think she's better than Jack Kramer for example or Bobby Riggs in their primes. Would she beat Riggs with her equipment today versus Riggs' wood in the past. Perhaps. I frankly prefer hitting with today's racquets than wood racquets. Who wouldn't except for a few? ]But the point is that it's a different game. I don't like playing with wood racquets. And what's wrong with playing with a frying pan?? lol.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SwfbYdaYEoc

Major League Baseball has wood bats. Colleges usually allow aluminum bats. Often the aluminum bats users can't make it in the majors leagues because they can't play with wood bats. It's a different game.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/19/sports/baseball/metal-bats-that-play-like-wood-alter-college-baseball.html?pagewanted=all

In most sports the game hasn't changed that much but tennis has changed a lot so I find a comparison tougher. If you don't than perhaps you're better in analysis than me and I salute you.

It is also the level of athletic ability as well as tennis talent. I'd bet rafa can run a faster 40 and longer than Laver. Bench more and jump higher. So yeah the game changed to being better athletes compared to Laver in his prime. If Laver given his genetic tennis talent was playing in the current era he would be fitter because he has to be and probably have a chance at greatness just the same. But comparing Laver to rafa is a joke. Just look at the videos of both. Its not the same game they are playing.

Also Federer has a much superior bh to Laver.... regardless of era. :D

pc1
12-10-2012, 02:57 PM
It is also the level of athletic ability as well as tennis talent. I'd bet rafa can run a faster 40 and longer than Laver. Bench more and jump higher. So yeah the game changed to being better athletes compared to Laver in his prime. If Laver given his genetic tennis talent was playing in the current era he would be fitter because he has to be and probably have a chance at greatness just the same. But comparing Laver to rafa is a joke. Just look at the videos of both. Its not the same game they are playing.

Also Federer has a much superior bh to Laver.... regardless of era. :D

The above paragraph could very well be true. Laver however didn't exactly have a weak left arm by the way and I would think Rafa could ran a faster 40, bench more and jump higher than just about any player. You could make that statement about Rafa versus Federer.

However I do take issue with Federer having a better backhand than Laver? Have you seen Federer over the years and watched his backhand carefully? I could make a statement that Federer has a better backhand than Agassi or Djokovic regardless of era also but I'd be lying.

Oh well. :shock: You're entitled to your opinion.

arche3
12-10-2012, 03:07 PM
The above paragraph could very well be true but Federer having a better backhand than Laver?? Have you seen Federer over the years and watched his backhand carefully? I could make a statement that Federer has a better backhand than Agassi or Djokovic regardless of era also but I'd be lying.

Oh well. :shock: You're entitled to your opinion.

Feds bh is goat. It might fail at times but Laver just pushed the ball around with his bh. The granpa slice. Sure it was fast and skidded but it looked like a nice stroll on the court. "Put it there, put it here..." Fed on the other hand in boss mode the bh is goat. Cross court bh battle Laver could very well best fed but the fed bh is like poetry.

pc1
12-10-2012, 03:12 PM
Feds bh is goat. It might fail at times but Laver just pushed the ball around with his bh. The granpa slice. Sure it was fast and skidded but it looked like a nice stroll on the court. "Put it there, put it here..." Fed on the other hand in boss mode the bh is goat. Cross court bh battle Laver could very well best fed but the fed bh is like poetry.

Do you really believe that?

BobbyOne
12-10-2012, 04:22 PM
Donīt ask TMF about Butcholz...heīll ask a big, toasted Butcholz next time he goes to Mc Donalds..

kiki, good joke. And I congratulate to the new name Butcholz...

BobbyOne
12-10-2012, 04:29 PM
What happened in the middle 60īs to Olmedo, Coop,Anderson, the so called second stringers, all of them with a far more impressive record than Buch?

kiki, Cooper played only till 1962 due to an injury, Olmedo played virtually till 1964 but finished the 1964 world tour only at seventh place.

Anderson played longer and not bad but always finished behind Buchholz. (By the way, I'm an Anderson admirer).

arche3
12-10-2012, 04:32 PM
Do you really believe that?

Yes. Fh too.

BobbyOne
12-10-2012, 04:33 PM
You are not biassed concerning Rosewall...I think you have not paid tribute to his wonderful shots ( I wonīt mention again THAT backhand) but you rather focused on his records...do that, give us your opinion about his strokes.

Iīll give you mine about Kodes game.

kiki, you are right, I focussed to Rosewall's superb record. Of course I also like and admire his extraordinary strokes. Maybe I will write about them a bit in the future.

I guess that Kodes' best stroke was his superb return. Do you agree?

pc1
12-10-2012, 04:37 PM
Yes. Fh too.

Okay. Fine.

BobbyOne
12-10-2012, 04:41 PM
I heard about that in the 1930īs...but I have not learnt enough history according to Bobby One.

As an Austrian, heīll certainly enlighten us about those wonderful years...

kiki, even though I like you, I must say that your political opinions, especially about Austria, are a bit strange....

pc1
12-10-2012, 04:46 PM
You are not biassed concerning Rosewall...I think you have not paid tribute to his wonderful shots ( I wonīt mention again THAT backhand) but you rather focused on his records...do that, give us your opinion about his strokes.

Iīll give you mine about Kodes game.

I'll give you my opinion about Kodes' game and Rosewall's game. Excellent backhand which was his best shot. Forehand good but not to the level of his backhand. Excellent mover with excellent reflexes. Good volleyer with a good but not great serve. Top player and capable of great streaks of tennis. Hit with one grip for all shots, the continental grip.

Rosewall-Arguably the best backhand in history. Very versatile with his backhand when he can drive, dink, lob with great disguise. Very consistent on the backhand and forehand with the backhand his better shot. Forehand is an excellent shot but as with Kodes, not at the level of the backhand. Great slice lob off the forehand which as someone once wrote that once you figured out Rosewall lobbed on the forehand, the ball is bouncing on the baseline. At least it was words to that effect.

Super footwork and movement which enables him to get to shots early and disguise his shots better. Great volley and overhead. Great errorless groundies with one of the best returns in tennis history. Doesn't attack the return like Connors does but I believe it comes back more often than even Connors' return and he does hit his share of return winners.

Serve okay but not great. Better stamina than you would think considering he often seems tired but once the rally starts he's moving very well.

BobbyOne
12-10-2012, 04:47 PM
It is also the level of athletic ability as well as tennis talent. I'd bet rafa can run a faster 40 and longer than Laver. Bench more and jump higher. So yeah the game changed to being better athletes compared to Laver in his prime. If Laver given his genetic tennis talent was playing in the current era he would be fitter because he has to be and probably have a chance at greatness just the same. But comparing Laver to rafa is a joke. Just look at the videos of both. Its not the same game they are playing.

Also Federer has a much superior bh to Laver.... regardless of era. :D

arche3, I'm still convinced that Emerson (and maybe Laver and Rosewall) could run as fast as Nadal and jump as highly.

Federer' s backhand better that Laver's is the joke of the century!!!

pc1
12-10-2012, 04:50 PM
arche3, I'm still convinced that Emerson (and maybe Laver and Rosewall) could run as fast as Nadal and jump as highly.

Federer' s backhand better that Laver's is the joke of the century!!!

I think he is joking but if he isn't I don't think he's watched much of Djokovic or Murray or Nadal for that matter who I believe have superior backhands. But it is amazing that if Federer has the best forehand and backhand in the history of tennis. That should make him unbeatable in the baseline type game tennis is nowadays. Considering all that how does Rafael Nadal has a better lifetime winning percentage than Federer??

I guess it's one of the anomalies that we have now in tennis. The laws of physics or mathematics have been changed somehow.

BobbyOne
12-10-2012, 04:52 PM
Feds bh is goat. It might fail at times but Laver just pushed the ball around with his bh. The granpa slice. Sure it was fast and skidded but it looked like a nice stroll on the court. "Put it there, put it here..." Fed on the other hand in boss mode the bh is goat. Cross court bh battle Laver could very well best fed but the fed bh is like poetry.

arche3, You are wrong twice: Laver did seldom slice his backhand and Federer does often slice his bh. The latter is a certain weakness against Nadal's answer to it...

Laver's forte was a topspin backhand.

BobbyOne
12-10-2012, 05:03 PM
I'll give you my opinion about Kodes' game and Rosewall's game. Excellent backhand which was his best shot. Forehand good but not to the level of his backhand. Excellent mover with excellent reflexes. Good volleyer with a good but not great serve. Top player and capable of great streaks of tennis. Hit with one grip for all shots, the continental grip.

Rosewall-Arguably the best backhand in history. Very versatile with his backhand when he can drive, dink, lob with great disguise. Very consistent on the backhand and forehand with the backhand his better shot. Forehand is an excellent shot but as with Kodes, not at the level of the backhand. Great slice lob off the forehand which as someone once wrote that once you figured out Rosewall lobbed on the forehand, the ball is bouncing on the baseline. At least it was words to that effect.

Super footwork and movement which enables him to get to shots early and disguise his shots better. Great volley and overhead. Great errorless groundies with one of the best returns in tennis history. Doesn't attack the return like Connors does but I believe it comes back more often than even Connors' return and he does hit his share of return winners.

Serve okay but not great. Better stamina than you would think considering he often seems tired but once the rally starts he's moving very well.

pc1, I agree. I could maybe add that Muscles also has fantastic drop shots, stop-volleys and half-volleys...

arche3
12-10-2012, 05:03 PM
arche3, You are wrong twice: Laver did seldom slice his backhand and Federer does often slice his bh. The latter is a certain weakness against Nadal's answer to it...

Laver's forte was a topspin backhand.

Laver BH against nadal fh is worse than fed matchup.

arche3
12-10-2012, 05:04 PM
I think he is joking but if he isn't I don't think he's watched much of Djokovic or Murray or Nadal for that matter who I believe have superior backhands. But it is amazing that if Federer has the best forehand and backhand in the history of tennis. That should make him unbeatable in the baseline type game tennis is nowadays. Considering all that how does Rafael Nadal has a better lifetime winning percentage than Federer??

I guess it's one of the anomalies that we have now in tennis. The laws of physics or mathematics have been changed somehow.

Those guys might be better now. But does not mean their fh or BH are goat.

pc1
12-10-2012, 05:06 PM
Laver BH against nadal fh is worse than fed matchup.

But if Federer's backhand is the greatest ever, why does Djokovic handle the Nadal forehand with his backhand so well? Should Federer handle the Nadal forehand with his backhand better than Djokovic handles it?

And Laver did have the equivalent of Nadal in his time with Bjorn Borg who had heavy topspin and he was fine.

pc1
12-10-2012, 05:07 PM
Those guys might be better now. But does not mean their fh or BH are goat.

Don't understand your logic. We're talking about lifetime percentages?

It's doesn't matter. You and I disagree and that's okay. But think about it. If Federer has the best forehand and best backhand EVER should he ever lose? You realize his lifetime winning percentage is around 82% so he does lose about 18 times out of 100 on average. To be exact 81.59%.

I can see a very good argument for Federer's FOREHAND to be the best in the history of the game but the backhand, don't think so. It's a solid shot and fits in wonderfully with his game but it is not a major attacking weapon. It is a shot that can hit winners but it's not the highlight videos winners we see on youtube. It is hard to attack and he uses it as a way to disrupt the opponents game often setting the opponent up for his killer forehand.

arche3
12-10-2012, 05:42 PM
Don't understand your logic. We're talking about lifetime percentages?

It's doesn't matter. You and I disagree and that's okay. But think about it. If Federer has the best forehand and best backhand EVER should he ever lose? You realize his lifetime winning percentage is around 82% so he does lose about 18 times out of 100 on average. To be exact 81.59%.

I can see a very good argument for Federer's FOREHAND to be the best in the history of the game but the backhand, don't think so. It's a solid shot and fits in wonderfully with his game but it is not a major attacking weapon. It is a shot that can hit winners but it's not the highlight videos winners we see on youtube. It is hard to attack and he uses it as a way to disrupt the opponents game often setting the opponent up for his killer forehand.

I'm just saying I like the way fed uses his BH. And the highlight reels aspect of it. I think its hard to base it on math.

pc1
12-10-2012, 06:57 PM
I'm just saying I like the way fed uses his BH. And the highlight reels aspect of it. I think its hard to base it on math.

You have to remember that highlight reels just show winners on his backhand. You can show another player who doesn't have as good a backhand as Federer and make it look spectacular also. There are a trillion backhand highlight reels it seems. Not all of them hit winners all the time like the highlight reels seem. Here's a few of them.

Here's a Nalbanian backhand highlight reel
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6XBdNRP2J9k

Here's a Gasquet highlight backhand reel.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hGWkwaMWaDk

Here's a Murray backhand highlight reel
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cuGwWsIhWgU

Here's a Djokovic backhand highlight reel
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5nbmevsrpJc

Here's an Agassi backhand highlight reel
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b3uiZvHN9f8

Here's an Edberg backhand highlight reel
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zpZnZlXWxQw

Lendl backhand highlight reel
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CQIrH-wfO6k

And of course Federer backhand highlight reel
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bByvWPmMZ_8

My greatest wish is that they start a Francoise Durr backhand highlight reel or maybe a highlight reel of Francois Durr's greatest second serves. And in my opinion any of Frankie Durr's second serves are highlights to me. :)

hoodjem
12-11-2012, 12:22 AM
Feds bh is goat. It might fail at times but Laver just pushed the ball around with his bh. The granpa slice. Sure it was fast and skidded but it looked like a nice stroll on the court. "Put it there, put it here..." Fed on the other hand in boss mode the bh is goat. Cross court bh battle Laver could very well best fed but the fed bh is like poetry.
This is a travesty od fabrications, untruths, and wild dreams. Laver did not have a "grandpa slice." He had some slice-drives, slice-lobs, slice-drops.

His main backhand was the topspin drive, which i would argue was the equivalent to Fed's forehand: hit almost any angle from anywhere with incredible power It was point-ending.

You must be thinking of someone else.

arche3
12-11-2012, 01:33 AM
You have to remember that highlight reels just show winners on his backhand. You can show another player who doesn't have as good a backhand as Federer and make it look spectacular also. There are a trillion backhand highlight reels it seems. Not all of them hit winners all the time like the highlight reels seem. Here's a few of them.

Here's a Nalbanian backhand highlight reel
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6XBdNRP2J9k

Here's a Gasquet highlight backhand reel.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hGWkwaMWaDk

Here's a Murray backhand highlight reel
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cuGwWsIhWgU

Here's a Djokovic backhand highlight reel
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5nbmevsrpJc

Here's an Agassi backhand highlight reel
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b3uiZvHN9f8

Here's an Edberg backhand highlight reel
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zpZnZlXWxQw

Lendl backhand highlight reel
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CQIrH-wfO6k

And of course Federer backhand highlight reel
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bByvWPmMZ_8

My greatest wish is that they start a Francoise Durr backhand highlight reel or maybe a highlight reel of Francois Durr's greatest second serves. And in my opinion any of Frankie Durr's second serves are highlights to me. :)

Tsongas are great. As they all are. My point is also that goat is subjective to the person and there is no way mathematically to determine goat.

arche3
12-11-2012, 01:37 AM
This is a travesty od fabrications, untruths, and wild dreams. Laver did not have a "grandpa slice." He had some slice=drives, slice-lobs, slice-drops.

His main backhand was the topspin drive, which i would argue was the equivalent to Fed's forehand: hit almost any angle from anywhere with incredible power It was point-ending.

You must be thinking of someone else.

Untruths? If I watch Laver play on the old videos and fed play. Laver is playing grand pa tennis. Very good tennis but grand pa tennis non the less. And the top spin bh of his i saw is not on par with feds goat fhs. Maybe the videos just look lame because there really isn't many of them and the quality does not show though.

TMF
12-11-2012, 08:31 PM
Sorry to say but you know nothing about international basketball.and I hate to say this but, the story that international basketball has improved vs 1970īs and 1980īs is just a fake, an ilusion created by US journalists to enhance the NBA league overworld and their National Team so to create interest.The US Sports Marketing Top guys are just brilliant but they are the first to know that this is just an ilusional wisdom for ignorant, young fans catch up.

You can't be anymore wrong. The NBA today are flooded with foreign players, unlike there were a few back then. Managers, agents, coaches all scouting athetes from other countries because there are a lot of talent out there !

According to kiki, the growing number of athletes playing in the NBA where it consists only the best players in the world means internationl basketball got worse. Haha, good one !

NadalAgassi
12-12-2012, 03:14 AM
I think he is joking but if he isn't I don't think he's watched much of Djokovic or Murray or Nadal for that matter who I believe have superior backhands. But it is amazing that if Federer has the best forehand and backhand in the history of tennis. That should make him unbeatable in the baseline type game tennis is nowadays. Considering all that how does Rafael Nadal has a better lifetime winning percentage than Federer??

I guess it's one of the anomalies that we have now in tennis. The laws of physics or mathematics have been changed somehow.

Most people on this forum believe Federer in his prime was faster and a better mover than Nadal. Dont underestimate the ****ism diseases of Planet TW, and the level of genuine stupidity it evokes.

THUNDERVOLLEY
12-12-2012, 04:12 AM
Most people on this forum believe Federer in his prime was faster and a better mover than Nadal. Dont underestimate the ****ism diseases of Planet TW, and the level of genuine stupidity it evokes.

Quoted for truth.

Concentrated dominance in a single season's 4 majors is the proving ground, and in the many times Fed-fanatics must be reminded, their false notion that Laver had some "advantage" due to the so-called lack of surface diveristy at the time is patently illogical as his competition also played under the same conditions. Still, for any lingering Kleenex soaking about that, then there's Graf, who won her Grand Slam on 4 different surfaces, proving that the truly GOAT could win, no matter the surface or condition. Certainly, Federer was not in that league.

pc1
12-12-2012, 05:34 AM
Fischer vs Spassky and Korchnoi vs Karpov are the peak of comeptitive chess, at least in the modern era.

BTW, Korchnoi was underrated as Kodes.

And Fischer, just overrated as Vines, probably because they had the same Marketing Agent.

Kiki,

Fischer had the highest rating in the history of chess before they changed the rating system so ratings can only drop so much. Fischer defeated Larsen and Taimanov by the incredible scores of 6-0 which is virtually impossible and unheard of in top chess competition. He was a contender for the World Title when he was 15!

Korchnoi isn't underrated I believe. He was almost as great as Karpov and came close to defeating Karpov for the World Championship in several matches. Korchnoi may be the best chess player not to win the World Title. But even Korchnoi admitted if he played Fischer he probably would lose around the score of 10 wins to 3 with many draws.

Kasparov against Karpov was perhaps the greatest chess rivalry ever.

pc1
12-12-2012, 05:43 AM
It is also the level of athletic ability as well as tennis talent. I'd bet rafa can run a faster 40 and longer than Laver. Bench more and jump higher. So yeah the game changed to being better athletes compared to Laver in his prime. If Laver given his genetic tennis talent was playing in the current era he would be fitter because he has to be and probably have a chance at greatness just the same. But comparing Laver to rafa is a joke. Just look at the videos of both. Its not the same game they are playing.

Also Federer has a much superior bh to Laver.... regardless of era. :D

Incidentally Laver had the wrist strength of a man far larger than him. He could flick shots with his left arm that an ordinary player would dream of. Perhaps Nadal is faster and may bench more but like I wrote before he may bench more than Djokovic and may be (maybe not) faster than Djokovic but that didn't mean much in 2011 didn't it?

I think it's quite possible that Laver, with his huge left arm and wrist could do many things that Nadal can't do. Laver's wrist was bigger than the World Heavyweight Champion in boxing. Laver was stronger imo than Newcombe or perhaps even Pancho Gonzalez, at least with a tennis racquet but Newcombe or Gonzalez were probably far stronger men. There is a big difference there.

Here's some info on Laver's left arm.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/31/sports/tennis/31anderson.html?_r=0

But I doubt if it will allow you to open your mind to the possibility that Laver was pretty good. Incidentally if Laver hit grandpa type backhands I would guess your backhand is superior to Laver's. It's pretty easy to hit grandpa backhands.

Check out Laver's "Grandpa" backhands here.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2f60jJTbEps
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=43csIDKmkMk

Please understand that especially in the first video at the West Side Tennis Club that the courts were so bad that the balls often took bad bounces and sometimes didn't bounce at all. You had to often slice the backhand which keeps the ball low on your opponent's side and makes it harder to drive the ball. Federer often slices the ball with his backhand so by your logic Federer uses a Grandpa backhand. The thing is that slices are often very effective whether as a change of pace or often as approach shots. Nadal often slices on his backhand side also but his slices tends to float more than Laver's in my opinion. Laver's was more of a heavy slice drive when he hit it.

pc1
12-12-2012, 07:58 AM
Most people on this forum believe Federer in his prime was faster and a better mover than Nadal.

Well if that's true I'm shocked because when Federer in his prime played Nadal it seemed to me most people thought Nadal had more mobility.

forzamilan90
12-12-2012, 12:08 PM
Well if that's true I'm shocked because when Federer in his prime played Nadal it seemed to me most people thought Nadal had more mobility.

I don't like NadalAgassi's phrasing of that. I think he means footwork as opposed to raw speed (where Nadal has him beat).

pc1
12-12-2012, 12:27 PM
I don't like NadalAgassi's phrasing of that. I think he means footwork as opposed to raw speed (where Nadal has him beat).

That's why I use the term mobility. To me that covers footwork and speed.

arche3
12-12-2012, 12:37 PM
Incidentally Laver had the wrist strength of a man far larger than him. He could flick shots with his left arm that an ordinary player would dream of. Perhaps Nadal is faster and may bench more but like I wrote before he may bench more than Djokovic and may be (maybe not) faster than Djokovic but that didn't mean much in 2011 didn't it?

I think it's quite possible that Laver, with his huge left arm and wrist could do many things that Nadal can't do. Laver's wrist was bigger than the World Heavyweight Champion in boxing. Laver was stronger imo than Newcombe or perhaps even Pancho Gonzalez, at least with a tennis racquet but Newcombe or Gonzalez were probably far stronger men. There is a big difference there.

Here's some info on Laver's left arm.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/31/sports/tennis/31anderson.html?_r=0

But I doubt if it will allow you to open your mind to the possibility that Laver was pretty good. Incidentally if Laver hit grandpa type backhands I would guess your backhand is superior to Laver's. It's pretty easy to hit grandpa backhands.

Check out Laver's "Grandpa" backhands here.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2f60jJTbEps
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=43csIDKmkMk

Please understand that especially in the first video at the West Side Tennis Club that the courts were so bad that the balls often took bad bounces and sometimes didn't bounce at all. You had to often slice the backhand which keeps the ball low on your opponent's side and makes it harder to drive the ball. Federer often slices the ball with his backhand so by your logic Federer uses a Grandpa backhand. The thing is that slices are often very effective whether as a change of pace or often as approach shots. Nadal often slices on his backhand side also but his slices tends to float more than Laver's in my opinion. Laver's was more of a heavy slice drive when he hit it.

Of course Laver was good. He was a champion of tennis. But times change and athletes get better. Fact of sports. Faster Olympic times. More weight lifted. Everything improves incrementally as the years pass. to say it's because of the rackets is just not true. They 're better athletes and tennis players now. They face a higher variety of spins and pace. More of everything. Don't get stuck in the it was better in my day mentality. And yes those videos looked like grand pa tennis compared to the matches now.

pc1
12-12-2012, 01:00 PM
Of course Laver was good. He was a champion of tennis. But times change and athletes get better. Fact of sports. Faster Olympic times. More weight lifted. Everything improves incrementally as the years pass. to say it's because of the rackets is just not true. They 're better athletes and tennis players now. They face a higher variety of spins and pace. More of everything. Don't get stuck in the it was better in my day mentality. And yes those videos looked like grand pa tennis compared to the matches now.

You have to take into account that it's wood racquets. And by the way, please don't read anything into my comments. You make too many assumptions in your comments. I don't necessarily believe it's better in the past than now but why don't you put it in perspective. And I consider my day the present. Take into account that the female players can serve over 120 mph and hit the ball like lightning. Don't you think greats like Laver and other could use today's racquets and do well? Do you really think Serena would have any sort of chance against Laver in his prime if they both had the racquets of today? I think Serena would have problems winning a game.

My point is that you don't know how they would play today and you don't know how the players like Federer would do in the past. Federer would have to revamp his whole game. Often all you can go by is the record. Pick up a old wood racquet and swing with it. Play a whole match with it. Play a series of matches with it. Make sure you use the old strings. So you'll be using a tiny head about 60 to 65 inches so you don't have the surface to hit as much topspin. You'll probably mishit a lot more. The racquet will be heavier than the current racquets, let's say 14.5 ounces. That doesn't seem much but over the course of thousands of swings it'll add up. It'll probably have far more vibration too. And it'll be wood instead of today's space age materials so you won't have the power and spin. Basically it'll like using a bike as opposed to a modern sports car.

If you try the old wood racquet and still believe all you write. Fine. But at least test it out.

BobbyOne
12-12-2012, 01:43 PM
Of course Laver was good. He was a champion of tennis. But times change and athletes get better. Fact of sports. Faster Olympic times. More weight lifted. Everything improves incrementally as the years pass. to say it's because of the rackets is just not true. They 're better athletes and tennis players now. They face a higher variety of spins and pace. More of everything. Don't get stuck in the it was better in my day mentality. And yes those videos looked like grand pa tennis compared to the matches now.

arche3, You seem to forget that in Laver's days the players played more volleys and touch shots. I claim that the current stars don't play as excellent volleys and dropshots and lobs as Laver, Rosewall etc did.

arche3
12-12-2012, 02:06 PM
arche3, You seem to forget that in Laver's days the players played more volleys and touch shots. I claim that the current stars don't play as excellent volleys and dropshots and lobs as Laver, Rosewall etc did.

A lot of players today can't volley properly its true. So yeah laver I'm sure is a more proficient net player than most top guys today. And they did it with wood rackets even. Johnny Mac is a better net guy as well.

The game changed away from serve and volley due to court speed and better passing shots. Slower courts and booming top spin does not help the guy at net. Laver probably wanted to volley more so the ball didn't bounce all crazy off the speed grass.

arche3
12-12-2012, 02:10 PM
You have to take into account that it's wood racquets. And by the way, please don't read anything into my comments. You make too many assumptions in your comments. I don't necessarily believe it's better in the past than now but why don't you put it in perspective. And I consider my day the present. Take into account that the female players can serve over 120 mph and hit the ball like lightning. Don't you think greats like Laver and other could use today's racquets and do well? Do you really think Serena would have any sort of chance against Laver in his prime if they both had the racquets of today? I think Serena would have problems winning a game.

My point is that you don't know how they would play today and you don't know how the players like Federer would do in the past. Federer would have to revamp his whole game. Often all you can go by is the record. Pick up a old wood racquet and swing with it. Play a whole match with it. Play a series of matches with it. Make sure you use the old strings. So you'll be using a tiny head about 60 to 65 inches so you don't have the surface to hit as much topspin. You'll probably mishit a lot more. The racquet will be heavier than the current racquets, let's say 14.5 ounces. That doesn't seem much but over the course of thousands of swings it'll add up. It'll probably have far more vibration too. And it'll be wood instead of today's space age materials so you won't have the power and spin. Basically it'll like using a bike as opposed to a modern sports car.

If you try the old wood racquet and still believe all you write. Fine. But at least test it out.

Laver would probably beat Serena in his prime using wood racket. WTA and ATP is not the same. It is hard to compare but it is not hard to see the difference between prime laver and top guys now. And it is a logical assumption fed djoko nadal are superior tennis players. Its not the rackets. Or the strings. Top players now are just better.

pc1
12-12-2012, 04:54 PM
Laver would probably beat Serena in his prime using wood racket. WTA and ATP is not the same. It is hard to compare but it is not hard to see the difference between prime laver and top guys now. And it is a logical assumption fed djoko nadal are superior tennis players. Its not the rackets. Or the strings. Top players now are just better.

You cannot assume these things and you haven't given an answer on what Federer would do if he played with wood. Try a wood racquet.

The point is not whether Laver would beat Serena with wood but how powerful would he be with the frames of today? If you assume he can beat Serena with wood, how much better would he be with a powerful racquet with modern strings. He did have tremendous racquet speed and strength. The Serena example was to let you understand how modern equipment gives the illusion the player is much better than you would think. Laver with a modern racquet would overpower Serena with ease. His serve would have much more power and spin as well as his groundies.

pc1
12-12-2012, 04:56 PM
A lot of players today can't volley properly its true. So yeah laver I'm sure is a more proficient net player than most top guys today. And they did it with wood rackets even. Johnny Mac is a better net guy as well.

The game changed away from serve and volley due to court speed and better passing shots. Slower courts and booming top spin does not help the guy at net. Laver probably wanted to volley more so the ball didn't bounce all crazy off the speed grass.

I think Laver wrote that many of the guys he played with almost felt it was cheating when they volley with the large light frames of today.

And yes the players did want to volley more because of the awful bounces. You are absolutely correct there and that's not an assumption but fact.

Feather
12-12-2012, 09:26 PM
You have to take into account that it's wood racquets. And by the way, please don't read anything into my comments. You make too many assumptions in your comments. I don't necessarily believe it's better in the past than now but why don't you put it in perspective. And I consider my day the present. Take into account that the female players can serve over 120 mph and hit the ball like lightning. Don't you think greats like Laver and other could use today's racquets and do well? Do you really think Serena would have any sort of chance against Laver in his prime if they both had the racquets of today? I think Serena would have problems winning a game.

My point is that you don't know how they would play today and you don't know how the players like Federer would do in the past. Federer would have to revamp his whole game. Often all you can go by is the record. Pick up a old wood racquet and swing with it. Play a whole match with it. Play a series of matches with it. Make sure you use the old strings. So you'll be using a tiny head about 60 to 65 inches so you don't have the surface to hit as much topspin. You'll probably mishit a lot more. The racquet will be heavier than the current racquets, let's say 14.5 ounces. That doesn't seem much but over the course of thousands of swings it'll add up. It'll probably have far more vibration too. And it'll be wood instead of today's space age materials so you won't have the power and spin. Basically it'll like using a bike as opposed to a modern sports car.

If you try the old wood racquet and still believe all you write. Fine. But at least test it out.

very nice post and put it in a very polite manner.. Loved every word of it

Feather
12-12-2012, 09:31 PM
Of course Laver was good. He was a champion of tennis. But times change and athletes get better. Fact of sports. Faster Olympic times. More weight lifted. Everything improves incrementally as the years pass. to say it's because of the rackets is just not true. They 're better athletes and tennis players now. They face a higher variety of spins and pace. More of everything. Don't get stuck in the it was better in my day mentality. And yes those videos looked like grand pa tennis compared to the matches now.

I am a die hard fan of Roger Federer and I never once posted that Roger is GOAT. I feel that it's a disservice to legends of the game when you compare different eras and say that one player is GOAT.

It's silly to use words like "grandpa" shots, I don't intend to offend you. Just my two cents

qindarka
12-12-2012, 10:01 PM
Most people on this forum believe Federer in his prime was faster and a better mover than Nadal. Dont underestimate the ****ism diseases of Planet TW, and the level of genuine stupidity it evokes.

No one believes that. You are setting up a strawman here.

arche3
12-13-2012, 04:31 AM
You have to take into account that it's wood racquets. And by the way, please don't read anything into my comments. You make too many assumptions in your comments. I don't necessarily believe it's better in the past than now but why don't you put it in perspective. And I consider my day the present. Take into account that the female players can serve over 120 mph and hit the ball like lightning. Don't you think greats like Laver and other could use today's racquets and do well? Do you really think Serena would have any sort of chance against Laver in his prime if they both had the racquets of today? I think Serena would have problems winning a game.

My point is that you don't know how they would play today and you don't know how the players like Federer would do in the past. Federer would have to revamp his whole game. Often all you can go by is the record. Pick up a old wood racquet and swing with it. Play a whole match with it. Play a series of matches with it. Make sure you use the old strings. So you'll be using a tiny head about 60 to 65 inches so you don't have the surface to hit as much topspin. You'll probably mishit a lot more. The racquet will be heavier than the current racquets, let's say 14.5 ounces. That doesn't seem much but over the course of thousands of swings it'll add up. It'll probably have far more vibration too. And it'll be wood instead of today's space age materials so you won't have the power and spin. Basically it'll like using a bike as opposed to a modern sports car.

If you try the old wood racquet and still believe all you write. Fine. But at least test it out.

You assume I have not used a wood racket. I play in a yearly wood tourney. I can use a wood racket.

I just think it is reasonable to assume as time and our sport progresses the level of tennis does as well.

arche3
12-13-2012, 04:34 AM
I am a die hard fan of Roger Federer and I never once posted that Roger is GOAT. I feel that it's a disservice to legends of the game when you compare different eras and say that one player is GOAT.

It's silly to use words like "grandpa" shots, I don't intend to offend you. Just my two cents

Not meant to make fun. It looks like that compared to tennis now. Watch evert Lloyd old matches. Watch Serena and azi video. Evert looks like slow motion. Things progress.

hoodjem
12-13-2012, 05:22 AM
I am a die hard fan of Roger Federer and I never once posted that Roger is GOAT. I feel that it's a disservice to legends of the game when you compare different eras and say that one player is GOAT.

It's silly to use words like "grandpa" shots, I don't intend to offend you. Just my two centsI appreciate that.

Maybe a "Grandpa shot" is anything hit more than 5 feet inside the baseline.? :wink:

zagor
12-13-2012, 05:35 AM
Not meant to make fun. It looks like that compared to tennis now. Watch evert Lloyd old matches. Watch Serena and azi video. Evert looks like slow motion. Things progress.

Or maybe the conditions (surfaces, balls), tech, training methods, nutrition etc. differ from era to era and players happen to simply be a product of their era?

I know people will once again bring improved records in swimming, racing etc. but tennis is far more nuanced than those sports, bigger, stronger and faster athlete doesn't always win.

Things like feel for the ball, anticipation, court sense etc. play a big role as well, tennis court isn't exactly big and thus isn't that hard to cover (making anticipation for example almost as much as a factor as raw footspeed).

Did you watch the last match of 2012 season? Between Stepanek and Almagro who was the younger player who hit with more power? And yet he lost.

Feather
12-13-2012, 06:08 AM
I appreciate that.

Maybe a "Grandpa shot" is anything hit more than 5 feet inside the baseline.? :wink:

Probably, who knows. May be I will know once I become a grand pa, hehe

arche3
12-13-2012, 06:28 AM
Or maybe the conditions (surfaces, balls), tech, training methods, nutrition etc. differ from era to era and players happen to simply be a product of their era?

I know people will once again bring improved records in swimming, racing etc. but tennis is far more nuanced than those sports, bigger, stronger and faster athlete doesn't always win.

Things like feel for the ball, anticipation, court sense etc. play a big role as well, tennis court isn't exactly big and thus isn't that hard to cover (making anticipation for example almost as much as a factor as raw footspeed).

Did you watch the last match of 2012 season? Between Stepanek and Almagro who was the younger player who hit with more power? And yet he lost.

But the best in tennis now is the fastest and strongest. Nadal, Djokovic. Declining Fed because he is getting slower. And I would say Fed has the most touch and feel of the top guys. And yet he still has trouble with the guys who are shot makers AND grinders like Djiko, Nadal, Murray. Skill can only make up for so much when the top guys all have skill. And the equipment theory goes both ways. If Laver at his prime level used the same gear as Nadal or Djoko I would still say Nadal or Djoko would win simply based on defense. Not to even bring their offense into the picture. Laver is not used to guys who get that many balls back and the transitions of defense to offense that happens now. If we are comparing and extrapolating based on skill sets and fitness levels of the players prime irregardless of gear then I say absolutely the guys now would win. The top guys are more developed athletes as well as very skilled tennis players.

Amalgro is not the same level skill wise as Nadal Djoko or Fed. Not even close. Laver could probably beat him in this debate we are having.

pc1
12-13-2012, 06:35 AM
You assume I have not used a wood racket. I play in a yearly wood tourney. I can use a wood racket.

I just think it is reasonable to assume as time and our sport progresses the level of tennis does as well.

It is reasonable to think that.

It must be fun to play in a wood tournament. How long does it take you to adapt back to the old ways?

arche3
12-13-2012, 06:51 AM
It is reasonable to think that.

It must be fun to play in a wood tournament. How long does it take you to adapt back to the old ways?

Well I grew up playing ps 85. I only started using the wood rackets for the last 5 years. I like it actually. I serve and volley and try to hit using conti grip for EVERY stroke. It doesn't help that I borrow the rackets every year. So I do not get a good one all the time. This past summer I borrowed from a guy who grew up using the wood rackets and actually had the proper string setups and everything. My game improved using it. I have pretty good reflexes so I am actually quite good at the serve and volley using the wood rackets and adapted fast to them. And I feed a lot of balls to my son as his coach so I am comfortable hitting all shots using only a conti grip.

pc1
12-13-2012, 06:58 AM
But the best in tennis now is the fastest and strongest. Nadal, Djokovic. Declining Fed because he is getting slower. And I would say Fed has the most touch and feel of the top guys. And yet he still has trouble with the guys who are shot makers AND grinders like Djiko, Nadal, Murray. Skill can only make up for so much when the top guys all have skill. And the equipment theory goes both ways. If Laver at his prime level used the same gear as Nadal or Djoko I would still say Nadal or Djoko would win simply based on defense. Not to even bring their offense into the picture. Laver is not used to guys who get that many balls back and the transitions of defense to offense that happens now. If we are comparing and extrapolating based on skill sets and fitness levels of the players prime irregardless of gear then I say absolutely the guys now would win. The top guys are more developed athletes as well as very skilled tennis players.

Amalgro is not the same level skill wise as Nadal Djoko or Fed. Not even close. Laver could probably beat him in this debate we are having.

It's funny. A lot of people think in this forum I don't like current tennis. Fact is that I much prefer today's tennis to matches a few years ago. I wasn't fond of the big serve and volley with few rallies.

I do think and how written in the past that a number of players today, Nadal, Djokovic and Federer all can accomplish or have already accomplished enough to be arguably in any GOAT conversation. Now some claim there is no GOAT. That's fine but GOAT conversations in any sport is some of the most fun AND heated conversations you can get. I think it would be a shame if you don't talk about it at least occasionally. Another player I think is fantastic but erratic is Andy Murray who I believe is as gifted as any player today and among the most talented I've ever seen.

The question remains do I think the players today are the most talented ever? I really don't know. Perhaps the overall players may be today but I do think the top players in most eras can be at or near the top in other eras. I think Pancho Gonzalez was a super gifted athlete. I believe that of Lew Hoad, Bill Tilden, Edberg, Nastase, Becker, Sampras, Agassi, Lendl, Ashe, Borg, Laver, Sedgman and many others.

I've read a poster that claimed Sampras stayed toe to toe with a world class splinter who played football. Sampras was a fantastic athlete. Should I eliminate him because his best years are over 15 years ago? Don't think so.

It's a never ending question but yes in general I think believe that sports usually gets better but I also believe the top, given the same advantages should also general be at or near the top.

BobbyOne
12-13-2012, 06:58 AM
Or maybe the conditions (surfaces, balls), tech, training methods, nutrition etc. differ from era to era and players happen to simply be a product of their era?

I know people will once again bring improved records in swimming, racing etc. but tennis is far more nuanced than those sports, bigger, stronger and faster athlete doesn't always win.

Things like feel for the ball, anticipation, court sense etc. play a big role as well, tennis court isn't exactly big and thus isn't that hard to cover (making anticipation for example almost as much as a factor as raw footspeed).

Did you watch the last match of 2012 season? Between Stepanek and Almagro who was the younger player who hit with more power? And yet he lost.

zagor, I agree. Fine analysis!

pc1
12-13-2012, 07:01 AM
Or maybe the conditions (surfaces, balls), tech, training methods, nutrition etc. differ from era to era and players happen to simply be a product of their era?

I know people will once again bring improved records in swimming, racing etc. but tennis is far more nuanced than those sports, bigger, stronger and faster athlete doesn't always win.

Things like feel for the ball, anticipation, court sense etc. play a big role as well, tennis court isn't exactly big and thus isn't that hard to cover (making anticipation for example almost as much as a factor as raw footspeed).

Did you watch the last match of 2012 season? Between Stepanek and Almagro who was the younger player who hit with more power? And yet he lost.

Can't disagree with that! Totally logical. (I'm beginning to sound like Mr. Spock. Wish I was as smart as Spock.:) )

arche3
12-13-2012, 07:12 AM
It's funny. A lot of people think in this forum I don't like current tennis. Fact is that I much prefer today's tennis to matches a few years ago. I wasn't fond of the big serve and volley with few rallies.

I do think and how written in the past that a number of players today, Nadal, Djokovic and Federer all can accomplish or have already accomplished enough to be arguably in any GOAT conversation. Now some claim there is no GOAT. That's fine but GOAT conversations in any sport is some of the most fun AND heated conversations you can get. I think it would be a shame if you don't talk about it at least occasionally. Another player I think is fantastic but erratic is Andy Murray who I believe is as gifted as any player today and among the most talented I've ever seen.

The question remains do I think the players today are the most talented ever? I really don't know. Perhaps the overall players may be today but I do think the top players in most eras can be at or near the top in other eras. I think Pancho Gonzalez was a super gifted athlete. I believe that of Lew Hoad, Bill Tilden, Edberg, Nastase, Becker, Sampras, Agassi, Lendl, Ashe, Borg, Laver, Sedgman and many others.

I've read a poster that claimed Sampras stayed toe to toe with a world class splinter who played football. Sampras was a fantastic athlete. Should I eliminate him because his best years are over 15 years ago? Don't think so.

It's a never ending question but yes in general I think believe that sports usually gets better but I also believe the top, given the same advantages should also general be at or near the top.

Maybe this argument can have a set of rules to even out the issues.

1) the players will possess only the skills and fitness levels of their prime in their respective eras.

2) we must find a racket that is between wood and modern graphite tweeners.

If we were comparing Laver to Nadal. The Racket would be the Wilson ProStaff 85 imo. In this comparison I say Nadal wins in a close 5 set match.

If it were Laver and Federer we would need to find another racket. But for Djoko and Murray the ps85 probably would do as well.

This is kinda like the show deadliest warrior.

pc1
12-13-2012, 07:21 AM
Maybe this argument can have a set of rules to even out the issues.

1) the players will possess only the skills and fitness levels of their prime in their respective eras.

2) we must find a racket that is between wood and modern graphite tweeners.

If we were comparing Laver to Nadal. The Racket would be the Wilson ProStaff 85 imo. In this comparison I say Nadal wins in a close 5 set match.

If it were Laver and Federer we would need to find another racket. But for Djoko and Murray the ps85 probably would do as well.

This is kinda like the show deadliest warrior.

Maybe we should just let them use light sabers instead. In that case I would say Luke Skywalker is the best tennis player. I would eliminate Darth Vader because that costume would weigh him down too much. No mobility.

pc1
12-13-2012, 07:24 AM
Incidentally shouldn't we just get back to topic? Laver's two Grand Slams, sweeping the top four tournament have only been accomplished three times in men's tennis history so I think it's pretty impressive.

arche3
12-13-2012, 07:34 AM
Maybe we should just let them use light sabers instead. In that case I would say Luke Skywalker is the best tennis player. I would eliminate Darth Vader because that costume would weigh him down too much. No mobility.

My proposed rules can help determine GOAT. Why not? I say under my rules Nadal bests Laver.

pc1
12-13-2012, 07:44 AM
My proposed rules can help determine GOAT. Why not? I say under my rules Nadal bests Laver.

Whatever. It's very well possible.

I do think the sarcasm is getting out of hand here. I'll just leave it at that.

Nadal beats Laver is really off topic.

arche3
12-13-2012, 09:30 AM
Whatever. It's very well possible.

I do think the sarcasm is getting out of hand here. I'll just leave it at that.

Nadal beats Laver is really off topic.

True. Laver slams are a great achievement .

kiki
12-13-2012, 01:54 PM
It's funny. A lot of people think in this forum I don't like current tennis. Fact is that I much prefer today's tennis to matches a few years ago. I wasn't fond of the big serve and volley with few rallies.

I do think and how written in the past that a number of players today, Nadal, Djokovic and Federer all can accomplish or have already accomplished enough to be arguably in any GOAT conversation. Now some claim there is no GOAT. That's fine but GOAT conversations in any sport is some of the most fun AND heated conversations you can get. I think it would be a shame if you don't talk about it at least occasionally. Another player I think is fantastic but erratic is Andy Murray who I believe is as gifted as any player today and among the most talented I've ever seen.

The question remains do I think the players today are the most talented ever? I really don't know. Perhaps the overall players may be today but I do think the top players in most eras can be at or near the top in other eras. I think Pancho Gonzalez was a super gifted athlete. I believe that of Lew Hoad, Bill Tilden, Edberg, Nastase, Becker, Sampras, Agassi, Lendl, Ashe, Borg, Laver, Sedgman and many others.

I've read a poster that claimed Sampras stayed toe to toe with a world class splinter who played football. Sampras was a fantastic athlete. Should I eliminate him because his best years are over 15 years ago? Don't think so.

It's a never ending question but yes in general I think believe that sports usually gets better but I also believe the top, given the same advantages should also general be at or near the top.

Perry.Kramer,Kodes,Newcombe, those were also fantastic athletes.

kiki
12-13-2012, 01:55 PM
I think, plainly and at the end of the day, reason Laver won a GS in the star studded fields of 1969 is just that he played like nobody else the all court game, not just technically but also strategically.Nobody has ever done that and I donīt think anybody will in the enxt 10 years.

he is in a league by himself.

Tagg
12-13-2012, 02:45 PM
physicality of the game today means that no one will achieve the grand slam

non-calender year grand slam is a more realistic prospect

sampras was 2 matches away from it in 94, federer was 2 sets away in 06 and 07, nadal was 2 matches away in 10, djokovic was 2 sets away this year

it's not a coincidence that it's become easier with the homogenized surfaces and playing styles

career grand slam has also become a lot more achievable. it was a shock when agassi did it in 99

federer has had the honestly to admit that the changes (uniform) in surfaces has led to himself and nadal achieving it so fast

don't believe nadal has commented on it.

can't see either of them winning it in the 80s or 90s. nadal would come unstuck at the AO and the US, federer at the FO

World Beater
12-13-2012, 09:49 PM
I'm not clutching at anything. You're misinterpreting what I"m writing. With the equipment the game is of course better but I'm just talking about the player. Are the players themselves necessarily better? Serena with her equipment today may beat many males players of the past but is she a better player? I don't think she's better than Jack Kramer for example or Bobby Riggs in their primes. Would she beat Riggs with her equipment today versus Riggs' wood in the past. Perhaps. But give Serena a wood racquet versus Riggs with wood and I don't think Serena gets a game. I frankly prefer hitting with today's racquets than wood racquets. Who wouldn't except for a few? ]But the point is that it's a different game. I don't like playing with wood racquets. And what's wrong with playing with a frying pan?? lol.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SwfbYdaYEoc

Major League Baseball has wood bats. Colleges usually allow aluminum bats. Often the aluminum bats users can't make it in the majors leagues because they can't play with wood bats. It's a different game.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/19/sports/baseball/metal-bats-that-play-like-wood-alter-college-baseball.html?pagewanted=all

In most sports the game hasn't changed that much but tennis has changed a lot so I find a comparison tougher. If you don't than perhaps you're better in analysis than me and that's very possible.



I am misinterpreting what you are writing??

This is what you said...


Not necessarily because tennis has had some many changes in the sports that it is hard to see skills differences for example. I've noticed you don't acknowledge that. And we are talking often about the top levels and greats are often greats in any era.
.

Hard to see skill differences? Really???

Again. returning a 120-130 mph serve...timing a ball coming at you at 3000 rpm. Split second decisions.

Movement and court coverage when the balls are flying over the net at 90mph.

This is not all due to equipment and fancy racquets/ strings.

I think you are misinterpreting what you see on the tv screen.

Its easy to see skill differences. Players of today have demonstrated it. Players of past eras have not - we speculate that they MIGHT have if they grew up today...but we dont know.

Serena williams hits the ball hard, and power is part of the game. She may not have the finesse skills of those players you mention, but power is a huge part of the game. She also happens to have great technique on her groundstrokes that are able to generate her that power. There are bigger girls on tour who cannot generate tha same pace because their technique isn't as good or as robust in terms of racquet head speed.

To me serena williams stroke production is far different to those players you mention. Her racquet swings are far more violent and cut through the air faster. The racquets surely help the control, but the power can be generated even from wooden / heavier racquets.

pc1
12-14-2012, 03:39 AM
It seems that you clutching at straws. the players certainly max out near 140 mph, but on average roddick serves for example 130, and 20-30% of the time beyond 130 mph. Isner, karlovic and others are certainly within the same range.

The point is that it is considerably faster than 1930s or 1940s.

Federer, murray, djokovic, hewitt, safin, nalbandian have all demonstrated the ability to return 130 mphs serves. Enough so that sets arent inevitably decided in TBs.

The return game has improved tremendously and this is well documented by this generation of players. But serve speeds have increased as well. Roddick, isner , karlovic all serve consistently harder than players of past eras. not to mention sampras, krajicek, rusedski etc.

I dont quite understand the obsession with wood racquets, and why players of today need to play with wood in order to demonstrate superior skill. Why stop at wood? Why not play with frying pans or just your bare hands?

THere is a reason for this. Mastering a piece of equipment that has a broad spectrum of power, spins, strokes is more difficult than equipment that is very limited in what it can offer its owner.

This principle is the same one as to why we all care so much more about F1 Racing, than racing in toyota, honda, bmw sedans. F1 racing has a much bigger gear range, more brake power that allows its driver to display a level of technical talent that is not physically possible in a mid-size sedan.I'm not clutching at anything. You're misinterpreting what I"m writing. With the equipment the game is of course better but I'm just talking about the player. Are the players themselves necessarily better? Serena with her equipment today may beat many males players of the past but is she a better player? I don't think she's better than Jack Kramer for example or Bobby Riggs in their primes. Would she beat Riggs with her equipment today versus Riggs' wood in the past. Perhaps. But give Serena a wood racquet versus Riggs with wood and I don't think Serena gets a game. I frankly prefer hitting with today's racquets than wood racquets. Who wouldn't except for a few? ]But the point is that it's a different game. I don't like playing with wood racquets. And what's wrong with playing with a frying pan?? lol.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SwfbYdaYEoc

Major League Baseball has wood bats. Colleges usually allow aluminum bats. Often the aluminum bats users can't make it in the majors leagues because they can't play with wood bats. It's a different game.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/19/sports/baseball/metal-bats-that-play-like-wood-alter-college-baseball.html?pagewanted=all

In most sports the game hasn't changed that much but tennis has changed a lot so I find a comparison tougher. If you don't than perhaps you're better in analysis than me and that's very possible.

Not necessarily because tennis has had some many changes in the sports that it is hard to see skills differences for example. I've noticed you don't acknowledge that. And we are talking often about the top levels and greats are often greats in any era. The other thing you don't acknowledge is the possibility of a past great doing well (given time to adapt) in today's game and yet you assume current greats would automatically do well if transported into let's say 1969.
I am misinterpreting what you are writing??

This is what you said...



Hard to see skill differences? Really???

Again. returning a 120-130 mph serve...timing a ball coming at you at 3000 rpm. Split second decisions.

Movement and court coverage when the balls are flying over the net at 90mph.

This is not all due to equipment and fancy racquets/ strings.

I think you are misinterpreting what you see on the tv screen.

Its easy to see skill differences. Players of today have demonstrated it. Players of past eras have not - we speculate that they MIGHT have if they grew up today...but we dont know.

Serena williams hits the ball hard, and power is part of the game. She may not have the finesse skills of those players you mention, but power is a huge part of the game. She also happens to have great technique on her groundstrokes that are able to generate her that power. There are bigger girls on tour who cannot generate tha same pace because their technique isn't as good or as robust in terms of racquet head speed.

To me serena williams stroke production is far different to those players you mention. Her racquet swings are far more violent and cut through the air faster. The racquets surely help the control, but the power can be generated even from wooden / heavier racquets.


Actually what I'm writing is that wood racquets force skill differences and that if Federer or Nadal used them they would play differently and if Laver or Rosewall used today's racquets they would play differently. There are skill differences, BOTH WAYS. So what I mean is that you can't tell EASILY the differences in play because the equipment is different and perhaps I forgot to mention, the surfaces are different. For example I have changed my own forehand swing so it takes advantage of today's equipment so I can hit more topspin.

If if this is a contradiction to you that is okay but I don't see it.

Would you change you style if you used different equipment like a smaller wood racquet? I know that I do. Perhaps Serena would not.

Here's the thing, maybe you can tell the differences easily. If you can that's great but I do NOT think I can. The reason is that I believe the racquet and equipment differences would cause coaches to teach a different style of play so we don't know what would happen if they all operated under the same system or if the roles were reversed.

Would Federer or Nadal serve and volley more if they learned to play the old way? Would Rosewall use a semi-western grip? Would Laver use a two handed backhand? Would Rosewall play left handed because he's a natural lefty? We don't know the answers to this.

Here's a hypothetical example-Let's say Serena is playing Martina Navratilova at the 1969 US Open a wood racquet. The US Open is played on awful worn grass that takes terrible bounces and often doesn't bounce. So you're telling me that Serena can take the same swing as she does today? I don't think so. I think she would have to flatten out her swing to compensate for the bad bounces. She may have to volley more. And the racquets are a lot smaller so she probably would have a lot more mishits. I also doubt if she can get the heavy topspin she gets today with the better larger racquets and strings.

Here's a video of the 1969 US Open so you can check out the surface. Notice how awful the court is.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CvpckZmLaEc

To put it simply I think the comparisons in tennis of the past and present often are an apples to oranges comparison. Yes we can compare but to me it's not that easy.

By the way notice that I also wrote greats will be greats in any era. That also means that a player like Nadal in my opinion would be great in the past because I think he would adapt. Not just the other way around.

World Beater
12-15-2012, 10:02 PM
Actually what I'm writing is that wood racquets force skill differences and that if Federer or Nadal used them they would play differently and if Laver or Rosewall used today's racquets they would play differently. There are skill differences, BOTH WAYS. So what I mean is that you can't tell EASILY the differences in play because the equipment is different and perhaps I forgot to mention, the surfaces are different. For example I have changed my own forehand swing so it takes advantage of today's equipment so I can hit more topspin.

If if this is a contradiction to you that is okay but I don't see it.

Would you change you style if you used different equipment like a smaller wood racquet? I know that I do. Perhaps Serena would not.

Here's the thing, maybe you can tell the differences easily. If you can that's great but I do NOT think I can. The reason is that I believe the racquet and equipment differences would cause coaches to teach a different style of play so we don't know what would happen if they all operated under the same system or if the roles were reversed.

Would Federer or Nadal serve and volley more if they learned to play the old way? Would Rosewall use a semi-western grip? Would Laver use a two handed backhand? Would Rosewall play left handed because he's a natural lefty? We don't know the answers to this.

Here's a hypothetical example-Let's say Serena is playing Martina Navratilova at the 1969 US Open a wood racquet. The US Open is played on awful worn grass that takes terrible bounces and often doesn't bounce. So you're telling me that Serena can take the same swing as she does today? I don't think so. I think she would have to flatten out her swing to compensate for the bad bounces. She may have to volley more. And the racquets are a lot smaller so she probably would have a lot more mishits. I also doubt if she can get the heavy topspin she gets today with the better larger racquets and strings.

Here's a video of the 1969 US Open so you can check out the surface. Notice how awful the court is.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CvpckZmLaEc

To put it simply I think the comparisons in tennis of the past and present often are an apples to oranges comparison. Yes we can compare but to me it's not that easy.

By the way notice that I also wrote greats will be greats in any era. That also means that a player like Nadal in my opinion would be great in the past because I think he would adapt. Not just the other way around.

Your hypothesis is fair.

But i happen to disagree. I am stating that wood racquets take LESS skill to master than modern racquets because of the amount/ number of shots you can manufacture with today's racquets.

simply, put - there is more that can be done with today's racquets which also necessitates that you must master more to take full advantage of the modern racquets.

meaning..if you want to hit with power - your swing has to be more violent with modern racquets, but that means you must have much better timing.

older racquets - much more difficult to generate power and the swings are far less violent. You swing slower but also timing becomes easier.

Its the same analogy - with F1 cars Vs. mid-size sedan cars.

If i prove myself to be the best mid size car sedan driver in the world...vs the best F1 driver in the world. Who would impress you more?

To be the best F1 driver is simply much harder.

World Beater
12-15-2012, 10:08 PM
By the way notice that I also wrote greats will be greats in any era. That also means that a player like Nadal in my opinion would be great in the past because I think he would adapt. Not just the other way around.

This is a very PC sort of thing to say (pardon the pun).

But i do not believe its the truth.

Most posters in this section - as you can tell from their views are clearly biased towards a particular era or player, even if they do not state it directly.

pc1
12-16-2012, 05:55 AM
This is a very PC sort of thing to say (pardon the pun).

But i do not believe its the truth.

Most posters in this section - as you can tell from their views are clearly biased towards a particular era or player, even if they do not state it directly.

The thing is that I'm not sure about others but I always want the current best player to be the best ever because if that person is the best ever (imo) I know I'm enjoying the best possible type of tennis. I feel that way in every sport.

I think it's possible that Lebron James could be the best ever in basketball but I also believe that Michael Jordan, Kareem Jabbar or Wilt Chamberlain would be fantastic today. I think that Pedro Martinez could be the best starting pitcher I've seem but I'm sure Tom Seaver would be incredible in MLB currently. I think in the NFL that Peyton Manning or Joe Montana are the two best QBs I've seem. In tennis we have some current GOAT candidates in Federer, Nadal and Djokovic. Now I don't believe Nadal and Djokovic have done enough yet but if you project dominance in the future it is possible. I just enjoy watching what I perceive as greatness.

Incidentally PC is my wife's initials.

World Beater
12-16-2012, 10:34 AM
The thing is that I'm not sure about others but I always want the current best player to be the best ever because if that person is the best ever (imo) I know I'm enjoying the best possible type of tennis. I feel that way in every sport.

I think it's possible that Lebron James could be the best ever in baseball but I also believe that Michael Jordan, Kareem Jabbar or Wilt Chamberlain would be fantastic today. I think that Pedro Martinez could be the best starting pitcher I've seem but I'm sure Tom Seaver would be incredible in MLB currently. I think in the NFL that Peyton Manning or Joe Montana are the two best QBs I've seem. In tennis we have some current GOAT candidates in Federer, Nadal and Djokovic. Now I don't believe Nadal and Djokovic have done enough yet but if you project dominance in the future it is possible. I just enjoy watching what I perceive as greatness.

Incidentally PC is my wife's initials.

Lebron just hasn't done enough. Winning one championship is nice - but cleary he has much to do to join the ranks of jordan, chamberlain etc.

Jordan, kareem etc all have good arguments in their favor. But they also play different positions - so its hard to compare. But jordan i would say was the first SG that combined raw athleticism with great skill. There were other players before that had great skill but perhaps not the same athleticism. Jordan also happens to have had the most media coverage and this certainly helps his legendary status.

Novak is far from being a goat candidate. Nadal still has much work to do. They are not yet in the conversation.

pc1
12-16-2012, 11:03 AM
Lebron just hasn't done enough. Winning one championship is nice - but cleary he has much to do to join the ranks of jordan, chamberlain etc.

Jordan, kareem etc all have good arguments in their favor. But they also play different positions - so its hard to compare. But jordan i would say was the first SG that combined raw athleticism with great skill. There were other players before that had great skill but perhaps not the same athleticism. Jordan also happens to have had the most media coverage and this certainly helps his legendary status.

Novak is far from being a goat candidate. Nadal still has much work to do. They are not yet in the conversation.

Incidentally I noticed I wrote baseball for Lebron, that an obvious typo. Just edited my post there. I agree that Lebron hasn't done enough yet but he has a chance to be up there with anyone who ever played basketball.

I do think Novak has a shot to be a GOAT candidate and an outside chance to be the best ever. I also agree with your comment on Nadal but as with Djokovic he has a chance imo. Funny however when Federer the amont of majors that Nadal has now they were already (prematurely imo) calling him the GOAT. Players like Nadal and Djokovic don't come around too often.

kiki
12-16-2012, 12:26 PM
The thing is that I'm not sure about others but I always want the current best player to be the best ever because if that person is the best ever (imo) I know I'm enjoying the best possible type of tennis. I feel that way in every sport.

I think it's possible that Lebron James could be the best ever in basketball but I also believe that Michael Jordan, Kareem Jabbar or Wilt Chamberlain would be fantastic today. I think that Pedro Martinez could be the best starting pitcher I've seem but I'm sure Tom Seaver would be incredible in MLB currently. I think in the NFL that Peyton Manning or Joe Montana are the two best QBs I've seem. In tennis we have some current GOAT candidates in Federer, Nadal and Djokovic. Now I don't believe Nadal and Djokovic have done enough yet but if you project dominance in the future it is possible. I just enjoy watching what I perceive as greatness.

Incidentally PC is my wife's initials.

ŋ Patty Connors?

wait, you sound too nice guy:)

.. and you donīt respect Kodes as much as Jimmy did...

pc1
12-16-2012, 12:32 PM
ŋ Patty Connors?

wait, you sound too nice guy:)

.. and you donīt respect Kodes as much as Jimmy did...

Well I'm a righty with a one handed backhand and Kodes has never beaten me. lol. Of course if he ever played me he would crush me.

hoodjem
12-16-2012, 05:57 PM
Your hypothesis is fair.

But i happen to disagree. I am stating that wood racquets take LESS skill to master than modern racquets because of the amount/ number of shots you can manufacture with today's racquets.

simply, put - there is more that can be done with today's racquets which also necessitates that you must master more to take full advantage of the modern racquets.

meaning..if you want to hit with power - your swing has to be more violent with modern racquets, but that means you must have much better timing.

older racquets - much more difficult to generate power and the swings are far less violent. You swing slower but also timing becomes easier.

Its the same analogy - with F1 cars Vs. mid-size sedan cars.

If i prove myself to be the best mid size car sedan driver in the world...vs the best F1 driver in the world. Who would impress you more?

To be the best F1 driver is simply much harder.
There are several empirical and logical flaws here.

But I actually agree with your conclusion--except the wooden racquet is the Formula One racer.

The 100 sq. in. Babolat with poly strings is the mid-size sedan with cruise control and anti-lock brakes. (Read what Djokovic had to say about hitting with a wood racquet.)

World Beater
12-16-2012, 10:41 PM
There are several empirical and logical flaws here.

But I actually agree with your conclusion--except the wooden racquet is the Formula One racer.

The 100 sq. in. Babolat with poly strings is the mid-size sedan with cruise control and anti-lock brakes. (Read what Djokovic had to say about hitting with a wood racquet.)

I would like to hear about these logic flaws. Do share...


No. Wooden racquets is like having an automobile from the 70s with only 4 gears. wooden racquets are just not capable of hitting certain shots due to their weight, lack of aerodynamism - less swing speed, which slows the game down such that hand eye coordination need not be so advanced to time the ball.

Today's racquets have far more Horsepower...their 0-60 speed (or racquet head acceleration) is far more advanced.

Poly strings are like increased handling around corners for cars. i.e. greater topspin to hit harder nearer the lines/edges of the court.

Also racquets are lighter like the aluminum bodied / carbon - fibre cars of today.

The speed of the game is much higher creating a higher degree of difficulty in timing the ball, and demanding much more precise hand-eye...and of course now foot-eye coordination.

Your cruise control analogy makes no sense, as the players are hitting the ball incredibly hard with exaggerated swings. So much so that now a player like nadal can hit the ball quite unconventionally. There is also only one player like nadal, meaning that other players have not mastered the technique of being able to hit the ball like him currently.

This has expanded the spectrum of stroke swings and tactics

Players of past eras were with their shorter takebacks and less violent stroke patterns. It was more like cruise control for them.

World Beater
12-16-2012, 10:49 PM
Incidentally I noticed I wrote baseball for Lebron, that an obvious typo. Just edited my post there. I agree that Lebron hasn't done enough yet but he has a chance to be up there with anyone who ever played basketball.

I do think Novak has a shot to be a GOAT candidate and an outside chance to be the best ever. I also agree with your comment on Nadal but as with Djokovic he has a chance imo. Funny however when Federer the amont of majors that Nadal has now they were already (prematurely imo) calling him the GOAT. Players like Nadal and Djokovic don't come around too often.

Federer had a GOAT game when he was at the same age, and also a strong consensus among journalists and some former pros/coaches.

THat is not the same as being the GOAT. He needed the records to have a more solid argument for it.

Novak may have a shot, but he currently...that is today/now/presently is NOT a goat candidate. Also the consensus for novak is not nearly as strong as for federer at the same age for many reasons.

What he may do or not do in the future, we can certainly debate in the future.

Of course, he may be the best player you have seen - gamewise..but this is not the same as GOAT.

pc1
12-17-2012, 04:38 AM
Federer had a GOAT game when he was at the same age, and also a strong consensus among journalists and some former pros/coaches.

THat is not the same as being the GOAT. He needed the records to have a more solid argument for it.

Novak may have a shot, but he currently...that is today/now/presently is NOT a goat candidate. Also the consensus for novak is not nearly as strong as for federer at the same age for many reasons.

What he may do or not do in the future, we can certainly debate in the future.

Of course, he may be the best player you have seen - gamewise..but this is not the same as GOAT.

The definition of so called GOAT is always tough. I'll give an example. Let's say we have Clark Kent aka Superman and he decides to play ATP tennis for a few years. Clark hits aces all the time, hits all service returns for winners and when he feels like taking it easy on his opponent he puts in a soft kick serve at 155 mph and runs in to put the volley away and Clark always puts volleys away. No one can lob Clark because he can fly to hit any overhead plus he has super speed. Clark Kent plays for three years and wins every point of every match. He win the Grand Slam for three consecutive years and he wins over one hundred tournaments in those three years. Clark decides to retire in order to do his more important job of protecting the Earth as Superman. There is no doubt that for three years Clark is the greatest tennis player that ever lived or probably will ever be. However Clark's twelve majors are below that of Sampras and Federer. Question for all of you, is Clark Kent in this example the greatest tennis player that ever lived? I think he may very well be.

I think the key word here is dominance. Clark Kent is undoubtedly in this example the most dominant tennis player in history. His dominance is so great that in a few years he accomplished more than just about anybody. If he continued there is no doubt he would have smashed all records.


I often look at players during their peak years and obviously in this hypothetical example during Clark Kent's peak he is by far the greatest ever. It is a definite consideration but some players can be super for a while but later develop injuries that lower their level of play. In tennis for example that may have happened with Don Budge. Sandy Koufax in baseball has been called the greatest pitcher that ever played but he didn't even win 200 games but for five years he was incredible. He easily went into the Baseball Hall of Fame.

zagor
12-17-2012, 06:30 AM
The thing is that I'm not sure about others but I always want the current best player to be the best ever because if that person is the best ever (imo) I know I'm enjoying the best possible type of tennis. I feel that way in every sport.

I actually think it's unfortunate circumstance that so many people feel like you do on the issue cause as a consequence we have media heads always blabbering about evolution of the game and now current #1 is the best thing since sliced bread.

In tennis we have some current GOAT candidates in Federer, Nadal and Djokovic. Now I don't believe Nadal and Djokovic have done enough yet but if you project dominance in the future it is possible. I just enjoy watching what I perceive as greatness.

Possibility is one thing, saying that Nadal and Novak are GOAT candidates already is quite another and for the record I felt the same way about Fed say at the end of 2006 and personally consider Novak's 2011 to have been the most impressive year in the Open Era aside from Laver's Calendar Grand Slam.

I do think Novak has a shot to be a GOAT candidate and an outside chance to be the best ever. I also agree with your comment on Nadal but as with Djokovic he has a chance imo.

They both have a shot though Nadal has a better one by far, I'm not a Nadal fan at all (while I am a fan of Novak's) but that's how I feel about it.

Funny however when Federer the amont of majors that Nadal has now they were already (prematurely imo) calling him the GOAT.

Actually if by they we're presuming media heads like McEnroe, Wilander etc. then what you fail to mention is that they basically did the same for Nadal at the end of 2010, don't tell me you forgot all that "Rafa slam" talk? Media heads have their reasons for hyping the heck out of current dominant player, it's called selling the game.

Furthemore, I find it a bit contradictory that you think calling Fed the GOAT when he had 11 slams was premature but you have no problem referring Novak with 5 slams to his name as a GOAT candidate, not to mention that Fed had 3 back-to-back seasons comparable (not necessarily better or even equal but undoubtedly comparable) to Novak's 2011.



Players like Nadal and Djokovic don't come around too often.

Obviously.

The definition of so called GOAT is always tough. I'll give an example. Let's say we have Clark Kent aka Superman and he decides to play ATP tennis for a few years. Clark hits aces all the time, hits all service returns for winners and when he feels like taking it easy on his opponent he puts in a soft kick serve at 155 mph and runs in to put the volley away and Clark always puts volleys away. No one can lob Clark because he can fly to hit any overhead plus he has super speed. Clark Kent plays for three years and wins every point of every match. He win the Grand Slam for three consecutive years and he wins over one hundred tournaments in those three years. Clark decides to retire in order to do his more important job of protecting the Earth as Superman. There is no doubt that for three years Clark is the greatest tennis player that ever lived or probably will ever be. However Clark's twelve majors are below that of Sampras and Federer. Question for all of you, is Clark Kent in this example the greatest tennis player that ever lived? I think he may very well be.

I think the key word here is dominance. Clark Kent is undoubtedly in this example the most dominant tennis player in history. His dominance is so great that in a few years he accomplished more than just about anybody. If he continued there is no doubt he would have smashed all records.


I often look at players during their peak years and obviously in this hypothetical example during Clark Kent's peak he is by far the greatest ever. It is a definite consideration but some players can be super for a while but later develop injuries that lower their level of play. In tennis for example that may have happened with Don Budge. Sandy Koufax in baseball has been called the greatest pitcher that ever played but he didn't even win 200 games but for five years he was incredible. He easily went into the Baseball Hall of Fame.

Problem is, your Clark Kent scenario is so drastic that if it happened people would have to reevaluate their standards thoroughly and therefore isn't terribly fit to draw conclusions from for real life comparisons. Novak wasn't Clark Kent like in 2011, he was amazing but the gap between him and the field wasn't that drastic, his wins over Nadal were impressive but they were hardly walks in the park and that goes double for Fed who beat him in 2011 FO SF and had MPs in 2011 USO SF.

Not to mention that it actually gives more ammunition (or atleast partial credibility/plausibility to their theories/opinion) to people for whom for example a guy like Delpo does seem superhuman in how hard he hits his FH compared to watching Laver and Rosewall on youtube hit their "grandpa BH slices" and therefore Laver's Calendar Grand Slams and/or Rosewall's incredible longevity don't mean all that much because have you seen how hard Delpo pummels the ball? Of course, that way of thinking also creates threads like these.

Furthemore, if you value dominance so much and you understand how it can affect people's perception about GOAT topic why do you consider media experts calling Fed the GOAT premature (I know why I do/did personally but I don't consider Novak with 5 slams to be a GOAT candidate) ? Afterall, his dominance over a 4 year period was almost unparalleled.

TMF
12-17-2012, 08:54 AM
I agree with World Beater that modern racquet is a F1 equivalent. It's more harder to master an equipment that can do so much and at the same time having to counter the opponent's big serve, spin, speed and angle. Not to mention the players have to be more athletic, faster, greater reflex on movement. All contributed by a superior racquet and string.

pc1
12-17-2012, 09:38 AM
I actually think it's unfortunate circumstance that so many people feel like you do on the issue cause as a consequence we have media heads always blabbering about evolution of the game and now current #1 is the best thing since sliced bread.



Possibility is one thing, saying that Nadal and Novak are GOAT candidates already is quite another and for the record I felt the same way about Fed say at the end of 2006 and personally consider Novak's 2011 to have been the most impressive year in the Open Era aside from Laver's Calendar Grand Slam.



They both have a shot though Nadal has a better one by far, I'm not a Nadal fan at all (while I am a fan of Novak's) but that's how I feel about it.



Actually if by they we're presuming media heads like McEnroe, Wilander etc. then what you fail to mention is that they basically did the same for Nadal at the end of 2010, don't tell me you forgot all that "Rafa slam" talk? Media heads have their reasons for hyping the heck out of current dominant player, it's called selling the game.

Furthemore, I find it a bit contradictory that you think calling Fed the GOAT when he had 11 slams was premature but you have no problem referring Novak with 5 slams to his name as a GOAT candidate, not to mention that Fed had 3 back-to-back seasons comparable (not necessarily better or even equal but undoubtedly comparable) to Novak's 2011.





Obviously.



Problem is, your Clark Kent scenario is so drastic that if it happened people would have to reevaluate their standards thoroughly and therefore isn't terribly fit to draw conclusions from for real life comparisons. Novak wasn't Clark Kent like in 2011, he was amazing but the gap between him and the field wasn't that drastic, his wins over Nadal were impressive but they were hardly walks in the park and that goes double for Fed who beat him in 2011 FO SF and had MPs in 2011 USO SF.

Not to mention that it actually gives more ammunition (or atleast partial credibility/plausibility to their theories/opinion) to people for whom for example a guy like Delpo does seem superhuman in how hard he hits his FH compared to watching Laver and Rosewall on youtube hit their "grandpa BH slices" and therefore Laver's Calendar Grand Slams and/or Rosewall's incredible longevity don't mean all that much because have you seen how hard Delpo pummels the ball? Of course, that way of thinking also creates threads like these.

Furthemore, if you value dominance so much and you understand how it can affect people's perception about GOAT topic why do you consider media experts calling Fed the GOAT premature (I know why I do/did personally but I don't consider Novak with 5 slams to be a GOAT candidate) ? Afterall, his dominance over a 4 year period was almost unparalleled.

Zagor,

I know you're read my posts in the past so I'm sure you know that I don't necessarily believe the current number one is the best ever. I wrote I hope he or she is but it's not necessarily true.

The Clark Kent example was very drastic to show how tough it is to evaluate who is a GOAT and what are the prerequisites for GOAT. There are so many ways to determine GOAT depending on the so called expert or the player we are writing about.

A GOAT candidate to me is a player who has always accomplished enough to at least have a record up arguably there with any player that ever lived. You're right, Novak isn't a GOAT candidate by that definition yet but I do believe he has a chance to be given a few more super years. I wouldn't say that about a David Ferrer or David Nalbanian for example. Any player who potential can be a GOAT candidate with a few more super years is always a long shot but heck, to be the greatest of all time is almost always a long shot unless the game is tic tac toe in which the GOAT is many including me. lol.

zagor
12-17-2012, 12:53 PM
Zagor,

I know you're read my posts in the past so I'm sure you know that I don't necessarily believe the current number one is the best ever. I wrote I hope he or she is but it's not necessarily true.

Yes but I think the main reason commentators heap so much praise at current best player(s) while claiming how the game is deeper than ever (while I personally remember a heck of a lot more upsets and sets lost by top stars in the 90s), etc. is because many people like to feel that what they're watching right now is something truly special and the best ever and commentators/former player/media experts play on that fact.

Reality is that while I do think the current top 4 are amazing players, surface homogenization and 32 seeding system makes it easier for top players to dominate to such a degree and it annoys me a bit that so few (if any) players/commentators/tennis analysts etc. even acknowledge but instead all repeat the same thing like parrots (they're the bestest ever, the field is so deep, the game has evolved so much bla bla bla).

The Clark Kent example was very drastic to show how tough it is to evaluate who is a GOAT and what are the prerequisites for GOAT. There are so many way to determine GOAT depending on the so call expert or the player we are writing about.

I agree, I think peak play should be valued but of course factors like longevity versatility should also be included but yeah overall everyone has their own idea of what constitutes a GOAT.

I'd say it's even impossible to determine one single undisputed GOAT, I personally think tiers are the way to go.

A GOAT candidate to me is a player who has always accomplished enough to at least have a record up arguably there with any player that ever lived. You're right, Novak isn't a GOAT candidate by that definition yet but I do believe he has a chance to be given a few more super years. I wouldn't say that about a David Ferrer or David Nalbanian for example. Any player who potential can be a GOAT candidate with a few more super years is always a long shot but heck, to be the greatest of all time is almost always a long shot unless the game is tic tac toe in which the GOAT is many including me. lol.

Well Novak has a shot but it's a long way to go, I do think his level of play in 2011 is comparable to anyone and in that regard (peak level of play) he is an all time tennis great already in my book but I also have to respect the consistency in playing great tennis over a longer period from guys like Sampras, Fed, Nadal, Lendl etc.

BobbyOne
12-17-2012, 04:05 PM
Yes but I think the main reason commentators heap so much praise at current best player(s) while claiming how the game is deeper than ever (while I personally remember a heck of a lot more upsets and sets lost by top stars in the 90s), etc. is because many people like to feel that what they're watching right now is something truly special and the best ever and commentators/former player/media experts play on that fact.

Reality is that while I do think the current top 4 are amazing players, surface homogenization and 32 seeding system makes it easier for top players to dominate to such a degree and it annoys me a bit that so few (if any) players/commentators/tennis analysts etc. even acknowledge but instead all repeat the same thing like parrots (they're the bestest ever, the field is so deep, the game has evolved so much bla bla bla).



I agree, I think peak play should be valued but of course factors like longevity versatility should also be included but yeah overall everyone has their own idea of what constitutes a GOAT.

I'd say it's even impossible to determine one single undisputed GOAT, I personally think tiers are the way to go.



Well Novak has a shot but it's a long way to go, I do think his level of play in 2011 is comparable to anyone and in that regard (peak level of play) he is an all time tennis great already in my book but I also have to respect the consistency in playing great tennis over a longer period from guys like Sampras, Fed, Nadal, Lendl etc.

zagor, I agree.