PDA

View Full Version : laver gets too much credit


ormynameisntbill
06-02-2009, 06:19 PM
back when he played they only had 2 kinds of courts: hard and grass

if we still had that today you can multiply feds gs wins by at least 2. and he's only 27.

ormynameisntbill
06-02-2009, 06:20 PM
im not a fed fan either...ppl just go too crazy about mr. laver.

due respect however the man dominated his era and i respect what he has done for tennis.

1-handed-backhand
06-02-2009, 06:22 PM
true

plus he lost so often

16 times in 1969, so much for TOTAL DOMINATION

he wasn't tall enough to be a GOAT

he's a second tier player that got lucky with his era and technology

to put it bluntly, Sampras would beat Laver on clay even though Laver won RG

you have to remember, in Laver's day people S&V'd on CLAY!!!!!!!!!

Pete would have loved that

Pete is so unlucky, if he played in the 60s he would have 40+ slams

adidas_wilson
06-02-2009, 06:23 PM
back when he played they only had 2 kinds of courts: hard and grass

if we still had that today you can multiply feds gs wins by at least 2. and he's only 27.

dumb... What surface do you think the French was played on?

adidas_wilson
06-02-2009, 06:24 PM
true

plus he lost so often

16 times in 1969, so much for TOTAL DOMINATION

he wasn't tall enough to be a GOAT

he's a second tier player that got lucky with his era and technology

to put it bluntly, Sampras would beat Laver on clay even though Laver won RG

you have to remember, in Laver's day people S&V'd on CLAY!!!!!!!!!

Pete would have loved that

Pete is so unlucky, if he played in the 60s he would have 40+ slams

Again..... dumb..

What has someones height got to do anything?

Are you like 12?

ollinger
06-02-2009, 06:26 PM
Curiously, there are more surfaces for GS tournaments today, yet only one dominant style of play. Laver played S&V on the grass but also played an attacking baseline style on the clay. Today, pretty much everyone is a baseliner, with some venturing to net more often than others. I'm more impressed by Laver's versatility than the monotonous style of play one sees today.

1-handed-backhand
06-02-2009, 06:28 PM
Again..... dumb..

What has someones height got to do anything?

Are you like 12?

you dont know much about tennis

do you think its a coincedence that Fed,Nadal, Sampras etc

were all above 6ft

Laver was 5ft 8

Michael chang was 5ft 9 1/2

it was said of chang that had he been 6 ft 1 he could have dominated like sampras

simple genetics, Laver's build was not good enough for today's era, he wouldn't make the top 25

he is vastly oevrrated by rose tinted spectacle wearing fans

T1000
06-02-2009, 06:36 PM
back when he played they only had 2 kinds of courts: hard and grass

if we still had that today you can multiply feds gs wins by at least 2. and he's only 27.

grass and clay

at least get the surfaces right

BeHappy
06-02-2009, 06:36 PM
1) Yes 3 of the grand slams were played on grass, but they were all very different speeds. Today there is actually less disparity between the surfaces.

2)Laver actually won the equivelant of about 20 grandslams, he played most of his career on the pro circuit.

3)Laver was shot for shot better than Federer. He was like Hewitt with Federer's strokes and a much better backhand.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EpdPX9avs1M&fmt=18



/thread

adidas_wilson
06-02-2009, 06:37 PM
you dont know much about tennis

do you think its a coincedence that Fed,Nadal, Sampras etc

were all above 6ft

Laver was 5ft 8

Michael chang was 5ft 9 1/2

it was said of chang that had he been 6 ft 1 he could have dominated like sampras

simple genetics, Laver's build was not good enough for today's era, he wouldn't make the top 25

he is vastly oevrrated by rose tinted spectacle wearing fans

To start dopey.

Laver isn't playing in today's era.

It is fact that the Human race gets bigger with every generation. This is because of the advances of food and fitness. (In saying that, most all of the Australians were as fit as anyone playing today because it was Hopman that started the whole fitness thing with his players)

Even with Laver being so small, it just shows how good he really was. He beat a very tall John Newcombe in the 69 Wimbledon final. Newcombe himself was known as a big hitter and server, and was tall.

I know an awful lot about tennis, which wouldn't be hard compared to someone like yourself it seems..

I don't begrudge Roger. In fact I wish I could call him the greatest. But I simply can't when I match the careers..

In saying that. Roger was mainly dominant and got most of his titles within a 4 year period. Laver won 2 calender slams 7 years apart, and won everything in between, or what he was allowed to play in..And then played well into his 30's and still matched it with Borg and co..

adidas_wilson
06-02-2009, 06:40 PM
grass and clay

at least get the surfaces right

Agreed..

Wimbledon was a plush grass court. Australia was a dryer harder surface.

How do I know this. Because I grew up playing on it, as my father built us a grass court when I was growing up.. My brother and I had to look after it...

Don't know much about the US Grass..

T1000
06-02-2009, 06:44 PM
you dont know much about tennis

do you think its a coincedence that Fed,Nadal, Sampras etc

were all above 6ft

Laver was 5ft 8

Michael chang was 5ft 9 1/2

it was said of chang that had he been 6 ft 1 he could have dominated like sampras

simple genetics, Laver's build was not good enough for today's era, he wouldn't make the top 25

he is vastly oevrrated by rose tinted spectacle wearing fans

hewitt is 5'10 and owned sampras at the USO. Great champions adjust and laver would adjust to compete with the era today

pricey_aus
06-02-2009, 06:44 PM
1) Yes 3 of the grand slams were played on grass, but they were all very different speeds. Today there is actually less disparity between the surfaces.

2)Laver actually won the equivelant of about 20 grandslams, he played most of his career on the pro circuit.

3)Laver was shot for shot better than Federer. He was like Hewitt with Federer's strokes and a much better backhand.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EpdPX9avs1M&fmt=18



/thread

Thats a great vid. How good were the hands at the net! And I do not think that Laver is overrated at all. The times have changed however, but He was the greatest then, and Fed is the greatest now. In 50 years time we will be looking back and thinking "Was Roger Federer Overrated?"

1-handed-backhand
06-02-2009, 06:45 PM
To start dopey.

Laver isn't playing in today's era.


thats kind of the point, what worked for the 60s wouldn't work for today

someone under 6ft deson't have a chance at being GOAT i feel, n matter how strong they are. i would expect even tsonga to beat laver consistently


It is fact that the Human race gets bigger with every generation.

no it doesn't, its getting wider but you wont notice any kind of height difference in such a short time span, laver was just short, and it was fine for the 60s but would be deadly today


Even with Laver being so small, it just shows how good he really was. He beat a very tall John Newcombe in the 69 Wimbledon final. Newcombe himself was known as a big hitter and server, and was tall.

using wooden racquets



I know an awful lot about tennis, which wouldn't be hard compared to someone like yourself it seems..


mhm :roll:


I don't begrudge Roger. In fact I wish I could call him the greatest. But I simply can't when I match the careers..

lovely


In saying that. Roger was mainly dominant and got most of his titles within a 4 year period. Laver won 2 calender slams 7 years apart, and won everything in between, or what he was allowed to play in..And then played well into his 30's and still matched it with Borg and co..

i'd hardly call it matching it with borg and co, his lonevity was good, but it was still the wood era, rosewall did just the same, another overrated dinosaur

adidas_wilson
06-02-2009, 06:46 PM
omg, you don't work do you?

Mungo73
06-02-2009, 06:49 PM
haha new green Fed trolls bashing Laver

Laver is GOAT!!!

T1000
06-02-2009, 06:53 PM
haha new green Fed trolls bashing Laver

Laver is GOAT!!!

wow, just wow. your worse than NF. at least i can have a serious thoughtful conversation with him

pricey_aus
06-02-2009, 06:53 PM
thats kind of the point, what worked for the 60s wouldn't work for today

someone under 6ft deson't have a chance at being GOAT i feel, n matter how strong they are. i would expect even tsonga to beat laver consistently



no it doesn't, its getting wider but you wont notice any kind of height difference in such a short time span, laver was just short, and it was fine for the 60s but would be deadly today



using wooden racquets





mhm :roll:



lovely



i'd hardly call it matching it with borg and co, his lonevity was good, but it was still the wood era, rosewall did just the same, another overrated dinosaur


http://i304.photobucket.com/albums/nn193/DarethDarkaxe/Demotivator__Epic_Fail.jpg

T1000
06-02-2009, 06:53 PM
^ hahahaha

adidas_wilson
06-02-2009, 06:54 PM
http://i304.photobucket.com/albums/nn193/DarethDarkaxe/Demotivator__Epic_Fail.jpg

Great stuff mate!

canuckfan
06-02-2009, 07:02 PM
Laver deserves credit as a player who dominated in his era. However sports performance improves over time, training techniques improve, and technology also pushes the level of performance. All you have to do is look at the olympic records for proof -- why does the 100m time continue to decrease? Atlethes gradually get bigger, faster, stronger with each generation. If Laver were snatched from the 60's with his wooden racquet he would be eaten alive on today's tour. This is not his fault. It is simply the nature of things.

JeMar
06-02-2009, 07:07 PM
Laver was the OG.

prattle128
06-02-2009, 07:09 PM
1) Yes 3 of the grand slams were played on grass, but they were all very different speeds. Today there is actually less disparity between the surfaces.

2)Laver actually won the equivelant of about 20 grandslams, he played most of his career on the pro circuit.

3)Laver was shot for shot better than Federer. He was like Hewitt with Federer's strokes and a much better backhand.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EpdPX9avs1M&fmt=18



/thread

the most interesting thing about this video (that i find) is kinda where the grass is starting to fade to dirt. look at the wimbledon final in 2008, and then that video. just clearly shows the difference in play styles by where players were running/playing a lot of the points. just something that i personally thought was kinda interesting lol.

adidas_wilson
06-02-2009, 07:13 PM
Its funny.. Because I can still remember watching Steffi Graf playing at Wimbledon a few years back and saying to myself. gee the service box center line has taken a beating (it was obviously the second week)

Now it is only the baseline that takes a beating..

lawrence
06-02-2009, 07:19 PM
true

plus he lost so often

16 times in 1969, so much for TOTAL DOMINATION

he wasn't tall enough to be a GOAT

he's a second tier player that got lucky with his era and technology

to put it bluntly, Sampras would beat Laver on clay even though Laver won RG

you have to remember, in Laver's day people S&V'd on CLAY!!!!!!!!!

Pete would have loved that

Pete is so unlucky, if he played in the 60s he would have 40+ slams

you just made yourself look stupid
he was unfortunate not to be taller, yet he STILL managed to achieve what he did

doesnt that just make him better?
rofl.

nfor304
06-02-2009, 08:08 PM
I dont think Laver is at all over rated, he is one of the greatest to play the game ever. Yes if you took laver with his wooden racket and had him play now he wouldnt dominate the way he did but if you took any modern player and gave them a wooden racket they would do far worse.
To say that he is a second tier player who played in a weak era is beyond ridiculous, and shows that you know very little about tennis.

!Tym
06-03-2009, 04:30 AM
Laver deserves credit as a player who dominated in his era. However sports performance improves over time, training techniques improve, and technology also pushes the level of performance. All you have to do is look at the olympic records for proof -- why does the 100m time continue to decrease? Atlethes gradually get bigger, faster, stronger with each generation. If Laver were snatched from the 60's with his wooden racquet he would be eaten alive on today's tour. This is not his fault. It is simply the nature of things.

Lol...one word for you...STEROIDS.

I get what you're saying, but seriously look around for a second. Ain't no one was ripped in those days, now everyone has veins popping out of their every nook and cranny.

Heck, even just legal OTC supplements are HUGE improvements over what used to be available. An athlete's diet back then culminated with a steak dinner and a pepsi, just ask Jimmy Connors.

It's truly unfair to compare past generations. People are so quick to say founding fathers would get wiped away today, but don't give enough credit to the fact that with the forerunners there is no now. Every bit of human knowledge and advancement was built on knowing what are forerunners knew. We didn't go to the moon in a day. If those who sent us to the moon were born in a generation with no knowledge of the past, of even just the basic concept of math and 1 + 1 = 2 like the cavemen, what do you think? We would have gone to the moon? Of course not. I think being in the "now" always gives one a false sense of superiority when the reality is that you can only judge the elite TALENTS of EACH generation on their OWN terms.

Per Petr Korda who hit with an older than dirt Laver in I believe it was the late 80s, he said afterward, he was the most talented tennis player he had ever played against. Taking account into age and obvious respect for your elders, it is still quite a bold statement to make that claim, this especially coming from someone who was every bit as talented as any player of his generation.

Rabbit
06-03-2009, 05:08 AM
you dont know much about tennis

do you think its a coincedence that Fed,Nadal, Sampras etc

were all above 6ft

Laver was 5ft 8

Michael chang was 5ft 9 1/2

it was said of chang that had he been 6 ft 1 he could have dominated like sampras



Yeah, I guess this explains why Christopher Rochus at 5'2" is 2 - 1 against 6'10" Ivo Karlovic...with 1 of those wins on grass...but wait...this shouldn't be.

Who said that of Chang? Give me a name, I never heard that. Chang was a retriever plain and simple. He made his living with his legs, running evertything down.


simple genetics, Laver's build was not good enough for today's era, he wouldn't make the top 25

Genetics, you've got to be kidding.... What an idiotic thing to say. Laver would be top 5 any generation. Laver was taller than Ken Rosewall and Ken Rosewall played on tour for 25 years and won until he finally retired in his mid-40s.


he is vastly oevrrated by rose tinted spectacle wearing fans

Yeah, two Grand Slams ten years apart will tend to color anyone's spectacles. 11 majors with a ten year absence, winning matches until his late 30s. More court sense than all but a handful of players who ever stepped on court...EVER. All that and more will tend to color your view. It's painfully obvious that you never saw Laver play.


If height is the main consideration for greatness, why aren't Isner, Karlovic, Ancic, and all the other NBA-sized players domnating the rankings? Because it ain't so. The average height of the top ten has actually come back down some to around 6' - 6'2'. Connors, Borg, McEnroe, and Lendl were all 5'11" - 6'2".


Lol...one word for you...STEROIDS.

I get what you're saying, but seriously look around for a second. Ain't no one was ripped in those days, now everyone has veins popping out of their every nook and cranny.

Heck, even just legal OTC supplements are HUGE improvements over what used to be available. An athlete's diet back then culminated with a steak dinner and a pepsi, just ask Jimmy Connors.

It's truly unfair to compare past generations. People are so quick to say founding fathers would get wiped away today, but don't give enough credit to the fact that with the forerunners there is no now. Every bit of human knowledge and advancement was built on knowing what are forerunners knew. We didn't go to the moon in a day. If those who sent us to the moon were born in a generation with no knowledge of the past, of even just the basic concept of math and 1 + 1 = 2 like the cavemen, what do you think? We would have gone to the moon? Of course not. I think being in the "now" always gives one a false sense of superiority when the reality is that you can only judge the elite TALENTS of EACH generation on their OWN terms.

Per Petr Korda who hit with an older than dirt Laver in I believe it was the late 80s, he said afterward, he was the most talented tennis player he had ever played against. Taking account into age and obvious respect for your elders, it is still quite a bold statement to make that claim, this especially coming from someone who was every bit as talented as any player of his generation.

Especially coming from a guy like Korda who has/had more feel than 99% of the players who ever picked up a racquet.

zagor
06-03-2009, 05:13 AM
How exactly can you get "too" much credit if you've won 2(!) calendar Grand Slams? Don't really understand what OP means.

And yes,Nalbo who is 5 10(around that atleast) went on a tear in 2007 and beat Fed and Nadal in back-to-back tourneys(which no one has ever done).So height argument is a bit silly.

sheq
06-03-2009, 05:19 AM
yea ı agree.. laver is not definetely the goat..but ı have to admit he has a natureal and unique talent..However his records is not as impressive as roger's or sampras'..he is always mentioned about completing grand slams in a year twice..still,,we all know that competition wasnt as strong as today and surface transitition and diverstiy was low..

there are some people on this forum tend to assert pancho gonzalez rod laver don budge or newcombe are the greatest of all time..sorry people they are not..

of course they are so important for tennis evolution and they deserve all the credits..

IMO GOAT argument should based on two basic evoluation firstly pure talent and skill, second one the records.. ı would rate records as %60 or 70 and talent as %40-30

zagor
06-03-2009, 05:27 AM
Well sure the game of tennis changed over the years no question but are the main neccesary components for a great tennis champion that much changed? I kinda think that the truly great tennis players would be that in any era.

Also if guys are that bigger,stronger etc. than before why doesn't Fed look like a beefed up Del Potro or Safin etc. why isn't that kind of player dominating the game? Something doesn't add up there.

Dilettante
06-03-2009, 05:29 AM
Laver was the OG.

Original Gangster?

Thought it was Ice-T.

mental midget
06-03-2009, 12:32 PM
height helps a lot, but it's not everything.

if rios, at about 5'9 or whatever, had been born with hewitt's or nadal's brain, there's no question in my mind he would have won several majors.

timnz
06-03-2009, 05:12 PM
back when he played they only had 2 kinds of courts: hard and grass

if we still had that today you can multiply feds gs wins by at least 2. and he's only 27.

I suggest that you look at the following web site. Look at the tournament section of what tournaments Laver won and against them it says the surface if it is known. As you can see Laver won around 30 hard court tournaments & around 35 clay court tournaments. And many many more grass, indoor and carpet tournaments.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rod_Laver

This is a complete myth that he could only play on 2 surfaces.

Some depreciate his Grand Slams because they were only on Grass and Clay whereas today we have three surfaces for the Majors - Hard (Australian Open, US Open), Clay (Roland Garros) & Grass (Wimbledon). However, laver won the top hard court tournaments of the time such as the Pacific Southwest and the South African open, so you can be sure that he would have had no problems winning majors on a hard court.

harryz
06-03-2009, 05:59 PM
It's a losing proposition. I wonder how long he's been playing, watching and studying the sport. No matter, this isn't worth dignifying with a response.

Mac idolized Laver, and he played with and against many of the best "modern" players including Agassi, Becker, Sampras and others. He would know whereof he speaks.

No clue, no logic, and no sense. Interestingly, Laver doesn't believe in a GOAT but in the "greatest of each generation." Wise man.

pmerk34
06-03-2009, 06:14 PM
Laver deserves credit as a player who dominated in his era. However sports performance improves over time, training techniques improve, and technology also pushes the level of performance. All you have to do is look at the olympic records for proof -- why does the 100m time continue to decrease? Atlethes gradually get bigger, faster, stronger with each generation. If Laver were snatched from the 60's with his wooden racquet he would be eaten alive on today's tour. This is not his fault. It is simply the nature of things.

Laver has admitted that being 5'9" wouldn't exactly help him in the modern men's pro game LOL

AndrewD
06-03-2009, 06:32 PM
Laver deserves credit as a player who dominated in his era. However sports performance improves over time, training techniques improve, and technology also pushes the level of performance. All you have to do is look at the olympic records for proof -- why does the 100m time continue to decrease? Atlethes gradually get bigger, faster, stronger with each generation. If Laver were snatched from the 60's with his wooden racquet he would be eaten alive on today's tour. This is not his fault. It is simply the nature of things.

There's so many things wrong with that argument it's hard to know where to start. Suffice to say, if you're older than 12, it's embarrassing.

1. Take Rod Laver (or a Hoad, Rosewall, Gonzalez, Kramer, Budge, etc), with his championship mentality, and give him the same benefits as today's players and Laver would still be a champion. Unlike Federer he was never dominated by another player. That not only points to him having a better all-around game it points to him having a significantly stronger mindset.

2. You can't say 'oh, but he'd be too small to compete against today's athletes' BECAUSE, were Rod Laver to exist today he would be subject to the same things as everyone else. In other words, Rod Laver born in this era would not be a 5`8, he'd be about 6ft mark.

3. You can't say I'll take player X from his era, force him to use the same equipment as back then but compete against people user more efficient gear. That's just stupid. All it does is prove that today's racquets and string are more effective and efficient than the gear used previously and today's technique has changed to accommodate them. Even someone with a two digit IQ knows that to be true. However, it makes absolutely no comment on the ability of the player because you'd get exactly the same result if you took a player from today and forced them to use the same equipment.


Simply put:

1. What separates a great player from a good player is their championship MENTALITY.

2. What separates a person who understands professional sport from one who doesn't is the recognition of the first point.

Borgforever
06-03-2009, 06:37 PM
Laver overrated? I think a lot of people here would be considered extremely sober by the most critical of observers when they agree with this answer/understatement of the year:

No...

pmerk34
06-03-2009, 06:38 PM
There's so many things wrong with that argument it's hard to know where to start. Suffice to say, if you're older than 12, it's embarrassing.

1. Take Rod Laver (or a Hoad, Rosewall, Gonzalez, Kramer, Budge, etc), with his championship mentality, and give him the same benefits as today's players and Laver would still be a champion. Unlike Federer he was never dominated by another player. That not only points to him having a better all-around game it points to him having a significantly stronger mindset.

2. You can't say 'oh, but he'd be too small to compete against today's athletes' BECAUSE, were Rod Laver to exist today he would be subject to the same things as everyone else. In other words, Rod Laver born in this era would not be a 5`8, he'd be about 6ft mark.

3. You can't say I'll take player X from his era, force him to use the same equipment as back then but compete against people user more efficient gear. That's just stupid. All it does is prove that today's racquets and string are more effective and efficient than the gear used previously and today's technique has changed to accommodate them. Even someone with a two digit IQ knows that to be true. However, it makes absolutely no comment on the ability of the player because you'd get exactly the same result if you took a player from today and forced them to use the same equipment.


Simply put:

1. What separates a great player from a good player is their championship MENTALITY.

2. What separates a person who understands professional sport from one who doesn't is the recognition of the first point.

I get what you are saying but Laver himself realizes that with his stature he would not dominate in the modern era.

marc45
06-03-2009, 06:47 PM
hewitt is 5'10 and owned sampras at the USO. Great champions adjust and laver would adjust to compete with the era today
he owned him in the final, the year before sampras straight-setted him in the semis...hewitt did have the edge over pete overall, of course there was a significant age difference

Chopin
06-03-2009, 07:14 PM
Laver gets WAY to much credit. The guy played in a country club era of tennis. Any top ATP pro would crush a player of Laver's athleticism and skill level. Heck, a top 50 ATP pro would probably destroy him (even if they all were using wood racquets).

pmerk34
06-03-2009, 07:31 PM
he owned him in the final, the year before sampras straight-setted him in the semis...hewitt did have the edge over pete overall, of course there was a significant age difference

Irrelevant anyway. Hewitt never dominated and was never a GOAT contender.

Datacipher
06-03-2009, 07:53 PM
Yeah, I guess this explains why Christopher Rochus at 5'2" is 2 - 1 against 6'10" Ivo Karlovic...with 1 of those wins on grass...but wait...this shouldn't be.

Who said that of Chang? Give me a name, I never heard that. Chang was a retriever plain and simple. He made his living with his legs, running evertything down.


Obviously you having never heard that means little. While watching Chang play, Mcenroe was asked what a bit of extra height would have meant to Chang, Mcenroe answered very quickly "if Chang were two inches taller he'd be Jimmy Connors." To which the other commentator expressed suprise and Mcenroe reaffirmed. Tim Gullickson, Pancho Segura, Nick Bollettieri and Mary Carillo (among others) have also mentioned how just a bit more height could have changed everything for Chang.

Arafel
06-03-2009, 07:59 PM
Laver gets WAY to much credit. The guy played in a country club era of tennis. Any top ATP pro would crush a player of Laver's athleticism and skill level. Heck, a top 50 ATP pro would probably destroy him (even if they all were using wood racquets).

Yeah, Laver has no athleticism and couldn't hang with people who hit hard:

Just ask Connors:

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

or Borg

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7-VeBIal8TU&feature=related


Yeah, of course Laver couldn't keep up with someone who hits with lots of topspin . . . not

If this post was meant seriously, epic fail

Chopin
06-03-2009, 08:06 PM
Irrelevant anyway. Hewitt never dominated and was never a GOAT contender.

Agreed. Look at the Top 10 players today. Tell me what they all have in common....

Give up?

Nadal 6'1"
Federer 6'1"
Murray 6'3"
Djokovic 6'2"
Del Potro 6'6"
Roddick 6'2"
Simon 5'11"
Verdasco 6'2"
Tsonga 6'2"
Monfils 6'4"

Laver 5'8"

Now look at how athletic these guys are (if you've seen them in person you understand this latter point). Now look at a picture of Laver. Any of those guys would beat Laver soundly (wood or no wood).

Enough said.

Chopin
06-03-2009, 08:15 PM
Yeah, Laver has no athleticism and couldn't hang with people who hit hard:

Just ask Connors:

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

or Borg

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7-VeBIal8TU&feature=related


Yeah, of course Laver couldn't keep up with someone who hits with lots of topspin . . . not

If this post was meant seriously, epic fail

Uh, showing me a video of a challenge exhibition match of crappy quality that looks like the old school video type that is sped up isn't going to convince me of anything.

Maybe you'd like to note that Laver never won a set against Connors in official ATP matches and lost his last match to Connors 6-0, 6-1.

And trust me, there's no "hard hitting" going on in the Borg match. It's slow motion tennis. They can volley well, but their strokes are antique. Laver would be lucky to win more than a couple of games against Sampras or Federer.

Nice try.

krosero
06-03-2009, 08:59 PM
Uh, showing me a video of a challenge exhibition match of crappy quality that looks like the old school video type that is sped up isn't going to convince me of anything.

Maybe you'd like to note that Laver never won a set against Connors in official ATP matches and lost his last match to Connors 6-0, 6-1.

And trust me, there's no "hard hitting" going on in the Borg match. It's slow motion tennis. They can volley well, but their strokes are antique. Laver would be lucky to win more than a couple of games against Sampras or Federer.

Nice try.Chopin, what you're referring to as "old school video type" is film, and old film plays fast but no one has "sped" it up (talk about conspiracy thinking). Anyone of a certain age would have no excuse for not knowing these two things -- or maybe you're just too young. But then, that match with Connors was taken very seriously back then because it was different from exhibitions today, and Laver trained very hard for it; and you don't seem aware of any of that, either. Just how old are you?

CyBorg
06-03-2009, 09:17 PM
Troll thread. Don't bother.

anointedone
06-03-2009, 09:40 PM
It is kind of funny, I figured Chopin was the one to start this thread when I first saw it. Alas not.

anointedone
06-03-2009, 09:41 PM
Maybe you'd like to note that Laver never won a set against Connors in official ATP matches and lost his last match to Connors 6-0, 6-1.

Maybe you would like to note how old Laver was when those matches took place.

gpt
06-03-2009, 09:51 PM
I am either confused or naive. I can't work our whether most of the posters here are being deliberately provocative or are just thick. Any goat contender can only be judged by their accomplishments in their own era.

Chopin
06-03-2009, 09:57 PM
Chopin, what you're referring to as "old school video type" is film, and old film plays fast but no one has "sped" it up (talk about conspiracy thinking). Anyone of a certain age would have no excuse for not knowing these two things -- or maybe you're just too young. But then, that match with Connors was taken very seriously back then because it was different from exhibitions today, and Laver trained very hard for it; and you don't seem aware of any of that, either. Just how old are you?

So instead of responding to my arguments, you respond to a technicality in my language? I apologize, but I didn't mean to imply that the film was deliberatively sped up by a third-party. However, that doesn't change the fact that the playback IS faster than the live action itself.

And I'm old enough to know that your penultimate sentence contains passive voice, pronoun reference problems, and the use of a semicolon with a coordinating conjunction (a combination that, in this instance, leads to very a muddy sentence).

Seriously though, Laver was a great champion, but I don't think his strokes or athleticism would hold up against current ATP pros (regardless of what racquets or strings players are using).

It's OK though, we can agree to disagree. No hard feelings! Peace. :-)

Chopin
06-03-2009, 09:58 PM
Maybe you would like to note how old Laver was when those matches took place.

Quite old. But I wasn't the one who suggested that we should speculate on Laver's ability to cope with modern tennis from his matches with Connors.

Hey, I think Laver is a great, great champion. No doubt! But he's no GOAT.

35ft6
06-03-2009, 10:11 PM
I agree somewhat. By all accounts, he was a fantastic player, but the tour back then just wasn't as tough. And wasn't 3 of the 4 slams back then played on grass? How many Slams would Fed or Sampras have won if this were still the case?

weallwegot
06-03-2009, 10:12 PM
I agree, Laver is over rated. Winning a calender slam is tough and amazing, but doesn't deserve all this hype about him.

Sorry Laver fans.

chrisdaniel
06-03-2009, 10:14 PM
Hey, I think Laver is a great, great champion. No doubt! But he's no GOAT.

That's really all you had to say in this entire thread.

Chopin
06-03-2009, 10:19 PM
That's really all you had to say in this entire thread.

I know, I know. :-)

krosero
06-03-2009, 11:08 PM
However, that doesn't change the fact that the playback IS faster than the action itself.You're rejecting the evidence of your own eyes and ears if you really believe this, or else just trolling. Let's see which one it is. Why do the voices of the announcers sound no faster than they do in real life? Why does the soundtrack keep pace with the images? Why are the players moving between points at their normal pace?

Danstevens
06-03-2009, 11:10 PM
Yeah, I guess this explains why Christopher Rochus at 5'2" is 2 - 1 against 6'10" Ivo Karlovic...with 1 of those wins on grass...but wait...this shouldn't be.

Who said that of Chang? Give me a name, I never heard that. Chang was a retriever plain and simple. He made his living with his legs, running evertything down.



Genetics, you've got to be kidding.... What an idiotic thing to say. Laver would be top 5 any generation. Laver was taller than Ken Rosewall and Ken Rosewall played on tour for 25 years and won until he finally retired in his mid-40s.



Yeah, two Grand Slams ten years apart will tend to color anyone's spectacles. 11 majors with a ten year absence, winning matches until his late 30s. More court sense than all but a handful of players who ever stepped on court...EVER. All that and more will tend to color your view. It's painfully obvious that you never saw Laver play.


If height is the main consideration for greatness, why aren't Isner, Karlovic, Ancic, and all the other NBA-sized players domnating the rankings? Because it ain't so. The average height of the top ten has actually come back down some to around 6' - 6'2'. Connors, Borg, McEnroe, and Lendl were all 5'11" - 6'2".




Especially coming from a guy like Korda who has/had more feel than 99% of the players who ever picked up a racquet.

I agree, height doesn't really make the blindest bit of difference. Nadal and Fed are quite tall but no more than a lot of people. Height may change the playing style you have but play your style well enough and you could still be GOAT.

However, I must admit, I think there are greater players than Laver. He;s up there in my top 5 but not top of the list. What he accomplished was still amazing though.

DNShade
06-03-2009, 11:18 PM
So instead of responding to my arguments, you respond to a technicality in my language? I apologize, but I didn't mean to imply that the film was deliberatively sped up by a third-party. However, that doesn't change the fact that the playback IS faster than the live action itself.

You are totally 100% wrong with that statement. The playback is not faster than the live action at all. Sorry to burst your bubble or whatever. If you knew anything about video/film and how TV was recorded and broadcast then - you'd know that the audio is linked to the video so any speeding up would effect the audio as well. Not to mention that the freaking timecode is right there on screen. That is how exactly how fast JC and Laver hit live.

And the Caesars Palace thing was HUGE in tennis then and very serious.

Chopin
06-03-2009, 11:26 PM
You're rejecting the evidence of your own eyes and ears if you really believe this, or else just trolling. Let's see which one it is. Why do the voices of the announcers sound no faster than they do in real life? Why does the soundtrack keep pace with the images? Why are the players moving between points at their normal pace?

I think, actually, it's because the cameras recorded at a slower speed, in terms of frames per second, than today. So, it's all synced together at a certain speed, but when it's sped up for playback (which it is in the technical sense), it's still in sync, but the tape speed is faster. Honestly though, I'm not a film guy. Regardless, the video didn't show me anything that would lead me to believe that Laver could compete with today's guys. We'll agree to disagree. :-)

JoshDragon
06-03-2009, 11:27 PM
back when he played they only had 2 kinds of courts: hard and grass

if we still had that today you can multiply feds gs wins by at least 2. and he's only 27.

That's not true. There were indoor hard courts.

Chopin
06-03-2009, 11:27 PM
I think some of you guys will want to check out this clip:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V_TW5L8bHkk&feature=related

Note: I'm being light-hearted. Please, no need to be offended!

380pistol
06-03-2009, 11:34 PM
I just wanna touch on this height thing. Laver did play Gonzales (6'2"), Newcombe (over 6 feet, 6"1" or 6'2"), Emerson (over 6 feet), Ashe (6'3" I believe) and more than held his own.

Yes the depth of the game was no where near what it is today. But one must remeber on the flipside getting Rosewall, Newcombe, Emerson, Ashe, Fraser, Roche in the 2nd week of slams is a tougher road than Roddick, Davydenko Gonzalez, Baghdatis, Nalbandian etc.

And yes he played when 3 slams were played on grass. But he truned pro (arguably tougher than the amateur ranks) and won 3 or 4 Wembley Pros on indoor wood.

harryz
06-03-2009, 11:40 PM
You must be kidding. No really; you can not be serious.

Players now should be grateful that early pro and open era players paved the way for them. Men AND women. Pros in the 40s, 50s and 60s played over 100 matches a year, travelling from town to town at their own expense. No appearance money. No lucrative racquet or clothing deals. No pampering. No fancy hotels and people doting on them. No fawning media or entourages. No coaches and cross training and a fraction of the money, if any, even accounting for inflation. This as recently as the 80s. Plenty of very fine players; anybody who thinks that there weren't strong, fast and talented athletes back then is delusional and never saw them play in person. I did. And those who came before and saw Lew Hoad and Pancho Gonzales (Allen Fox, Brad Gilbert's coach and now Kunitsyn's, says Gonzales was the best ever) say that nobody-- even Becker, Agassi and others who bust the felt off of the ball, hit any harder. Contemplate that. And they did it with early metal frames and wood.

Young people have always thought that they discovered the universe and they often have a misplaced and misconceived notion of their own value and importance. I certainly did at a younger age. And (young, I presume) folks on this thread who think that tennis players are so much better now don't know very much. Players are faster, stronger, more agile, and bigger across the board, without a doubt. By and large, however, most play utterly brain dead tennis. Interestingly, all of the talk about the modern power game is pretty ironic and paradoxical. The best players of every generation win with their feet, their brains, and by controlling their power. Guys further down the rankings often hit harder-- they just make more errors and don't think as well on the court. And this will just continue, as it has for decades.

Case in point-- I saw both Lopez and Niemenen implode in Indian Wells last year in windy conditions against Donald Young and HT Lee, respectively. Neither one is a hard hitter. Both played smart, basic tennis. Their success had nothing to do with size or superior athleticism, either. And this happens every week on the pro tour.

So in a nutshell, I'd take Laver in his prime against most players today, all factors (equipment etc...) being equal. An amazing player; not some two handed backhand, semi-western forehand clone who can't volley to save his life, but someone with great touch and variety and feel for the ball, regardless of the surface.

krosero
06-03-2009, 11:46 PM
I think, actually, it's because the cameras recorded at a slower speed, in terms of frames per second, than today. So, it's all synced together at a certain speed, but when it's sped up for playback (which it is in the technical sense), it's still in sync, but the tape speed is faster. Honestly though, I'm not a film guy. Regardless, the video didn't show me anything that would lead me to believe that Laver could compete with today's guys. We'll agree to disagree. :-)There's no such problem with video from 1975, you're talking about old camera technology used to make silent films decades earlier. And you're still claiming that the clip is faster than real life, even though the announcers are speaking in their regular voices? And their commentary keeps in sync with the points? And the timecode is right there. Sorry but there's no room for disagreement here; you're just wrong.

You have made one thing abundantly clear, though. By trying to deny that Connors and Laver could hit that hard, you've made it clear that that clip is displaying a pace of tennis that some people did not know was possible for 1975.

That's the one thing that's coming out clearly in your posts, and it's much appreciated.

35ft6
06-04-2009, 12:35 AM
I agree, height doesn't really make the blindest bit of difference. Nadal and Fed are quite tall but no more than a lot of people. Height is a big advantage since the serve is the most important shot in tennis. But that's not to say being 6'5" is better than 6'4", and so on. It's not about "the taller the better!" More about not being too short. Seems like 6'1" or 6'2" is ideal.

35ft6
06-04-2009, 12:45 AM
Young people have always thought that they discovered the universe and they often have a misplaced and misconceived notion of their own value and importance. So do older people. There's a reason why advertisers prize people younger than 35 than those over 35 and it's not because older people are open minded to changes and improvements. I think a lot of guys worship the older players because they were kids when they watched them. So they were kids watching grown men. But now that they're older, the players today seem like kids. Just whippersnappers. Even thought Mac, Laver, and Borg were probably just as young when they started watching them.I certainly did at a younger age. And (young, I presume) folks on this thread who think that tennis players are so much better now don't know very much.Almost every former pro, commentator and coach agrees that the game is better today. In terms of entertainment value, if you prefer more all court or serve and volley styles, it might not be better, but in terms of put today's player up against a player from 50's, 60's, 70's, and 80's, and have them slug it out, today's players will win more often.Players are faster, stronger, more agile, and bigger across the board, without a doubt. By and large, however, most play utterly brain dead tennis.I agree point construction is different. But Lendl was accused of playing robotic, boring tennis, too. Personally, overall, I find today's game way more interesting. I think this is actually pretty boring, and it's been edited down:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wHaN2h21ANs&feature=relatedInterestingly, all of the talk about the modern power game is pretty ironic and paradoxical. The best players of every generation win with their feet, their brains, and by controlling their power. Guys further down the rankings often hit harder-- they just make more errors and don't think as well on the court. And this will just continue, as it has for decades. I don't know about guys way down hitting harder. I feel like the top guys are the hardest hitters who also manage to keep the ball in play. And brains becomes the X factor when all the physical skills are roughly equivalent. Santoro will still simply get hit off the court lots of times. Variety in and of itself is overrated, as if it alone can determine who wins. We all know guys who can only do a few basic things but beat "better" players with prettier games because they know how to maximize what little they have.Case in point-- I saw both Lopez and Niemenen implode in Indian Wells last year in windy conditions against Donald Young and HT Lee, respectively. Neither one is a hard hitter. Both played smart, basic tennis. Their success had nothing to do with size or superior athleticism, either. And this happens every week on the pro tour. But isolated incidents aside, when you look at the big picture, Donald Young and HT Lee aren't dominating the ATP tour.So in a nutshell, I'd take Laver in his prime against most players today, all factors (equipment etc...) being equal. An amazing player; not some two handed backhand, semi-western forehand clone who can't volley to save his life, but someone with great touch and variety and feel for the ball, regardless of the surface.He did have CRAZY MAD skills.

DNShade
06-04-2009, 04:33 AM
I think, actually, it's because the cameras recorded at a slower speed, in terms of frames per second, than today. So, it's all synced together at a certain speed, but when it's sped up for playback (which it is in the technical sense), it's still in sync, but the tape speed is faster. Honestly though, I'm not a film guy. Regardless, the video didn't show me anything that would lead me to believe that Laver could compete with today's guys. We'll agree to disagree. :-)

You are TOTALLY WRONG. Stop. I am a film/video/TV guy (what I do for a living) and I can tell you for a fact that there is no speeding up of the video. That is exactly the speed they were playing at live. You can tell it for yourself as you see the balls bounce and drop at the correct speed - but that's besides the point. There is no speeding up of video - it's still being broadcast in the same frame speed as it was then (HD is a different animal - but not that different).

So just stop with the video breakdown, okay? Move on. Figure out some other tactic to tell everyone that Rocket sucks and couldn't compete today.

PCXL-Fan
06-04-2009, 04:42 AM
For those that think Laver can be compared to todays players ask yourself how many people entered tennis professionally back in the 60s? the pool of people was far smaller and attracted far less people to the sport in america and worldwide then it does now. People didn't utterly dedicate themselves to tennis. And far fewer were motivated to pursue a career in tennis. Professional tennis was in its infancy.

Back in the 60s tennis was considered sort of a sissy sport sport by some. And the financial incentive to dedicate ones life was far less. Nobody would become fabulously rich player tennis.
And don't kid yourself, wealth is a titanic motivator.

harryz
06-04-2009, 08:38 AM
Thanks for your thoughtful response. I agree with much of it. However, most ads target people under 35 because they are written by people under 35. The popular culture and marketplace are targeted to people under 30 for a reason-- younger people prize novelty. So today's popular music and movies, which are variations on yesterdays, continue to sell even when they are insipid and ridiculous and have no value. Granted, some does, and what is good will stand the test of time.
But to suggest that people over 35 live in the past and have "rose colored glasses" is equally biased, if not more so. It's funny-- most other cultures value age and the wisdom that should come with life experience. We put people in nursing homes and sell products to prevent wrinkles. Everything is about the external.

I don't buy the argument that today's players are better. They are bigger and stronger and have newer technology and all sorts of advantages. The game has changed in many ways; whether it has improved is subject to debate. The best players and athletes of prior generations, given today's equipment, coaching, nutrition etc... would hold their own just fine.

hoodjem
06-04-2009, 09:11 AM
However his records is not as impressive as roger's or sampras'..he is always mentioned about completing grand slams in a year twice..still,,we all know that competition wasnt as strong as today and surface transitition and diverstiy was low.
Competition was tougher in 1969 than it is today.

Top FIVE in early 2008
1. Federer
2. Nadal (6 Grand Slam titles: singles)
3. Djokovic (1 Grand Slam titles: singles)
4. Murray (0 Grand Slam titles)
5. Del Potro (0 Grand Slam titles)


Top FIVE in 1969
1. Laver
2. Rosewall (17 Grand Slam titles: singles, doubles)
3. Roche (15 Grand Slam titles: singles, doubles, mixed doubles)
4. Ashe (3 Grand Slam titles: singles)
5. Newcombe (26 Grand Slam titles: singles, doubles, mixed doubles)*

*career totals, not as of 1969

woodrow1029
06-04-2009, 09:14 AM
back when he played they only had 2 kinds of courts: hard and grass

if we still had that today you can multiply feds gs wins by at least 2. and he's only 27.
I see that you haven't finished making ridiculously stupid threads yet. Hard and grass only? Are you kidding me?

Chopin
06-04-2009, 09:42 AM
You are TOTALLY WRONG. Stop. I am a film/video/TV guy (what I do for a living) and I can tell you for a fact that there is no speeding up of the video. That is exactly the speed they were playing at live. You can tell it for yourself as you see the balls bounce and drop at the correct speed - but that's besides the point. There is no speeding up of video - it's still being broadcast in the same frame speed as it was then (HD is a different animal - but not that different).

So just stop with the video breakdown, okay? Move on. Figure out some other tactic to tell everyone that Rocket sucks and couldn't compete today.

I even admitted that I was not a film guy in my video. I didn't claim to be an expert on it.

I'm sorry, but I just watched the video again and regardless of how it was filmed--it does appear faster (though once again, I'm unsure of the exact reason for this). Look at Connors running at 1:50 or the paper clapping at 2:29. It's manic. Anyways, it doesn't matter because it's still not an accurate way to gauge how Laver would fare in the modern game, as I've already pointed out. Peace.

Also, there's no need to type in capitals as if you're shouting.

Chopin
06-04-2009, 09:45 AM
Competition was tougher in 1969 than it is today.

Top FIVE in early 2008
1. Federer
2. Nadal (6 Grand Slam titles: singles)
3. Djokovic (1 Grand Slam titles: singles)
4. Murray (0 Grand Slam titles)
5. Del Potro (0 Grand Slam titles)


Top FIVE in 1969
1. Laver
2. Rosewall (17 Grand Slam titles: singles, doubles)
3. Roche (15 Grand Slam titles: singles, doubles, mixed doubles)
4. Ashe (3 Grand Slam titles: singles)
5. Newcombe (26 Grand Slam titles: singles, doubles, mixed doubles)

Yeah, but why do you think those guys had all those slams? It's because the era was so weak. The sign of a strong era is less slams for the top players.

hoodjem
06-04-2009, 10:23 AM
Yeah, but why do you think those guys had all those slams? It's because the era was so weak. The sign of a strong era is less slams for the top players.
Really? Does "less slams" won really mean a stronger field?

Would that mean that no slams won is the strongest field of all time?

(Maybe we'll never resolve this difference of opinion to the point of agreement.)

Xuxa Kuerten
06-04-2009, 10:28 AM
About the height issue. A comparison:

1969 (I've selected 12 players that appeared the most on majors):

Laver – 5'8
Rosewall – 5'7
Tom Okker – 5'9.5
Tony Roche – 5'10
Newcombe – 6'
Pancho Gonzalez – 6'3
Stolle – 6'3
Riessen – 6'1
Ashe – 6'1
Emerson – 6
Gimeno – 6'1
Smith – 6'4

Average height: 6'

1999:

Sampras – 1.85m
Agassi – 1.80m
Kafelnikov – 1.90m
Rafter – 1.88m
Kuerten – 1.91m
Henman – 1.85m
Martin – 1.98m
Moya – 1.91m
Rusedski – 1.93m
Rios – 1.75m
Corretja – 1.80m
Krajicek – 1.95m

Average height: 6'2

2009 average height of top 10 players: 6'2

Source: Wikipedia and ATP website.

So if you compare Laver's era with contemporary players, the difference isn't big at all. In fact, if you exclude Rosewall and Laver, the average height of 1969's players is only 1 inch smaller than 2009's. So in fact Laver's feat is incredible, and he definitelly shouldn't be discredited due to his height. In fact, it's quite the opposite.

380pistol
06-04-2009, 10:42 AM
Competition was tougher in 1969 than it is today.

Top FIVE in early 2008
1. Federer
2. Nadal (6 Grand Slam titles: singles)
3. Djokovic (1 Grand Slam titles: singles)
4. Murray (0 Grand Slam titles)
5. Del Potro (0 Grand Slam titles)


Top FIVE in 1969
1. Laver
2. Rosewall (17 Grand Slam titles: singles, doubles)
3. Roche (15 Grand Slam titles: singles, doubles, mixed doubles)
4. Ashe (3 Grand Slam titles: singles)
5. Newcombe (26 Grand Slam titles: singles, doubles, mixed doubles)


Well done!!! But if you're taking Laver's best year then put it up against Roger's best year which was 2006

Top FIVE in 2006
1. Federer
2. Nadal
3. Davydenko
4. Blake
5. Ljubicic

Compared to the top 5 of 1969. You can do that for a few years this decade. Yes Laver's era may have lacked depth, but it was certainly tougher at the top.

Cesc Fabregas
06-04-2009, 10:51 AM
Competition was tougher in 1969 than it is today.

Top FIVE in early 2008
1. Federer
2. Nadal (6 Grand Slam titles: singles)
3. Djokovic (1 Grand Slam titles: singles)
4. Murray (0 Grand Slam titles)
5. Del Potro (0 Grand Slam titles)


Top FIVE in 1969
1. Laver
2. Rosewall (17 Grand Slam titles: singles, doubles)
3. Roche (15 Grand Slam titles: singles, doubles, mixed doubles)
4. Ashe (3 Grand Slam titles: singles)
5. Newcombe (26 Grand Slam titles: singles, doubles, mixed doubles)

The top level competition might of been tougher but it was basically cake walks in the early round in todays game the depth is stronger in the top 100.

krosero
06-04-2009, 11:05 AM
I even admitted that I was not a film guy in my video. I didn't claim to be an expert on it.

I'm sorry, but I just watched the video again and regardless of how it was filmed--it does appear faster (though once again, I'm unsure of the exact reason for this). Look at Connors running at 1:50 or the paper clapping at 2:29. It's manic. Anyways, it doesn't matter because it's still not an accurate way to gauge how Laver would fare in the modern game, as I've already pointed out. Peace.

Also, there's no need to type in capitals as if you're shouting.Saying "peace" is not going to make the problems in your claim go away, nor do you get to make a claim, fail to back it up, and then hide for cover by saying you're not an expert.

I cannot find, at all, what you're seeing in those two moments. Something is playing tricks with you -- or you are playing tricks with us.

I captured that video by pointing a camera at the TV screen (where the video plays EXACTLY at the same speed as you see it on YouTube). You lose resolution with that method, and more is lost when the video is uploaded. That means that sudden movements in the action can appear less than smooth (maybe DNShade knows better how to describe this), but that does not mean that anything has been done to the speed. It just means that with better resolution you'd see the same action, at the same speed, but it would appear smoother to you.

Most people get that when they're watching a YouTube video of imperfect quality; and in a way I'm being redundant saying so, because YouTube videos ARE of imperfect quality. Occasionally playback even stalls and becomes herky-jerky on all sorts of YouTube clips, for a variety of technical reasons -- but I don't let my imagination run away with me when any video looks too slow or too fast at any given moment.

Yet I don't even see what you're seeing, in this instance.

Again, most people understand instinctively that they're not looking at a clip of super high resolution. So they don't make anything out of any imperfections they see -- and what you claim makes no sense even theoretically. Why would the video be sped up at certain points? Who would have done that, and for what purpose? Why would clapping, of all things, be sped up? Why would Connors' running AFTER a point is over be sped up? Why, for the third time, is there no problem with the voices of the announcers? Why does the time clock keep moving at its normal pace all throughout the video and EVEN DURING those two moments you pinpointed?

What you seem to be doing is letting your preconceptions about tennis in 1975 (and your mistaken notion that you're looking at old film) affect your judgment about what you're seeing. You're taking any imperfections in a YouTube upload and imagining that it must be a speeding up of the video (because that fits your preconceptions). Stop letting your imagination run away and just do the decent thing and admit you made a mistake. You have no cred otherwise.

Chopin
06-04-2009, 11:05 AM
Really? Does "less slams" won really mean a stronger field?

Would that mean that no slams won is the strongest field of all time?

(Maybe we'll never resolve this difference of opinion to the point of agreement.)

Hmm...but you could never have "no slams won," which in many ways, is precisely the point. There is always a winner of slams, right? So listing a top 5 at a given time with their total slam count over their careers is not telling you much (in 1969, Rosewall, for instance, did not have 17 slams yet).

CyBorg
06-04-2009, 11:05 AM
And wasn't 3 of the 4 slams back then played on grass?

If you really have to ask this question then you probably aren't qualified to comment on anything related to Laver.

CyBorg
06-04-2009, 11:08 AM
There's no such problem with video from 1975, you're talking about old camera technology used to make silent films decades earlier. And you're still claiming that the clip is faster than real life, even though the announcers are speaking in their regular voices? And their commentary keeps in sync with the points? And the timecode is right there. Sorry but there's no room for disagreement here; you're just wrong.

You have made one thing abundantly clear, though. By trying to deny that Connors and Laver could hit that hard, you've made it clear that that clip is displaying a pace of tennis that some people did not know was possible for 1975.

That's the one thing that's coming out clearly in your posts, and it's much appreciated.

I'm glad that Chopin has finally outed himself for being the troll that he is. 35ft6 as well.

At least now it is quite clear to everyone here.

As for Laver's height - I've played against some shorter guys than myself and the really stocky ones are often much stronger and fitter than the tall ones.

I am myself 6-foot-4 and gangly. I get tired earlier and lack upper body bulk comparing to guys sub-six feet.

Chopin
06-04-2009, 11:08 AM
Saying "peace" is not going to make the problems in your claim go away, nor do you get to make a claim, fail to back it up, and then hide for cover by saying you're not an expert.

I cannot find, at all, what you're seeing in those two moments. Something is playing tricks with you -- or you are playing tricks with us.

I captured that video by pointing a camera at the TV screen (where the video plays EXACTLY at the same speed as you see it on YouTube). You lose resolution with that method, and more is lost when the video is uploaded. That means that sudden movements in the action can appear less than smooth (maybe DNShade knows better how to describe this), but that does not mean that anything has been done to the speed. It just means that with better resolution you'd see the same action, at the same speed, but it would appear smoother to you.

Most people get that when they're watching a YouTube video of imperfect quality; and in a way I'm being redundant saying so, because YouTube videos ARE of imperfect quality. Occasionally playback even stalls and becomes herky-jerky, for a variety of technical reasons -- but I don't let my imagination run away with me when any video looks too slow or too fast at any given moment.

Yet I don't even see what you're seeing, in this instance.

Again, most people understand instinctively that they're not looking at a clip of super high resolution. So they don't make anything out of any imperfections they see -- and what you claim makes no sense even theoretically. Why would the video be sped up at certain points? Who would have done that, and for what purpose? Why would clapping, of all things, be sped up? Why would Connors' running AFTER a point is over be sped up? Why, for the third time, is there no problem with the voices of the announcers? Why does the time clock keep moving at its normal pace all throughout the video and EVEN DURING those two moments you pinpointed?

What you seem to be doing is letting your preconceptions about tennis in 1975 (and your mistaken notion that you're looking at old film) affect your judgment about what you're seeing. You're taking any imperfections in a YouTube upload and imagining that it must be a speeding up of the video (because that fits your preconceptions). Stop letting your imagination run away and just do the decent thing and admit you made a mistake. You have no cred otherwise.

My point stands, the video is of poor quality, blurry and of an exhibition match. It shows me very little of Laver's potential ability to cope with the modern game. I'm not sure this is about doing the "decent" thing--this is an internet forum discussion about tennis, right? Let's not take it so seriously.

Best,
Chopin

Chopin
06-04-2009, 11:13 AM
I'm glad that Chopin has finally outed himself for being the troll that he is.

At least now it is quite clear to everyone here. 35ft6 as well.

Wow. Saying Laver is over-rated and not the GOAT is like speaking out against the Church of Scientology!

Seriously though, Cyborg, I have no hard feelings towards you. There's no need to get into another "war of words."

And I think 35ft6 is not troll. Let's all just relax.

krosero
06-04-2009, 11:13 AM
I'm not sure this is about doing the "decent" thing--this is an internet forum discussion about tennis, right? Let's not take it so seriously. It's not the tennis that matters here.

CyBorg
06-04-2009, 11:15 AM
Wow. Saying Laver is over-rated and not the GOAT is like speaking out against the Church of Scientology!

Seriously though, Cyborg, I have no hard feelings towards you. There's no need to get into another "war of words."

And I think 35ft6 is a good poster. His arguments are always well made and thoughtful. Let's just all relax. There is no real GOAT anyways.

I'm feeling very relaxed. As I've said, I'm very glad that you've made your intentions so apparent to everyone here.

As for 35ft6 - you may be right that he's probably more ignorantly well-intentioned, unlike yourself.

Chopin
06-04-2009, 11:17 AM
It's not the tennis that matters here.

I suggest that you just smile and let it go. :-)

CyBorg
06-04-2009, 11:17 AM
This of course has been posted numerous times already, but people really should stop saying that tennis is more popular now than in the early days of the open era.

This really depends on the country. If we're talking about the United States, then I hate to burst your bubble - it isn't.

Tennis was at the peak of its popularity in America in the early 1970s. It's been in steady decline ever since.

Chopin
06-04-2009, 11:18 AM
I'm feeling very relaxed. As I've said, I'm very glad that you've made your intentions so apparent to everyone here.

As for 35ft6 - you may be right that he's probably more ignorantly well-intentioned, unlike yourself.

Well, we clearly have different perspectives on Laver. Besides, Cyborg, it's not as though you never try to push people's buttons on this board. :-)

CyBorg
06-04-2009, 11:21 AM
I suggest that you just smile and let it go. :-)

Trolling with a smile - that's just how you roll.

I find it curious how you suddenly persist in trying to convince everyone that none of this is a big deal or that you're suddenly just joking. All of this after persistently trolling threads on this board.

Yup - you don't seem insecure at all. Keep it up - your song-and-dance is quite amusing to me.

CyBorg
06-04-2009, 11:22 AM
Well, we clearly have different perspectives on Laver. Besides, Cyborg, it's not as though you never try to push people's buttons on this board. :-)

Folks on this board will take you up on your ********. You don't have to admit to it - but others will know.

Chopin
06-04-2009, 11:44 AM
Trolling with a smile - that's just how you roll.

I find it curious how you suddenly persist in trying to convince everyone that none of this is a big deal or that you're suddenly just joking. All of this after persistently trolling threads on this board.

Yup - you don't seem insecure at all. Keep it up - your song-and-dance is quite amusing to me.

I'm not joking that Laver is over-rated and not a GOAT candidate. Nor was I joking when I pointed out that the video is of poor quality and shows us very little. I'm merely suggesting that I don't have time to waste arguing with people who clearly have different perspectives and that are not going to be receptive of viewpoints critical of Laver.

The fact is, whether you'd like to accept it or not, that many posters in this thread have made up their minds about Laver (including you) and are going to be hostile to any and all arguments that diminish his greatness. Quite frankly, I don't have time to waste arguing with you (or trading verbal insults), so I'm done. People take this forum far too seriously, and many of the posts are rude, aggressive, and not at all how people interact face to face. I'm guilty of it, you are, and so are many of the other posters. I see now that threads like this are a waste of my time.

CyBorg
06-04-2009, 11:47 AM
I'm not joking that Laver is over-rated and not a GOAT candidate. Nor was I joking when I pointed out that the video is of poor quality and shows us very little. I'm merely suggesting that I don't have time to waste arguing with people who clearly have different perspectives and that are not going to be receptive of viewpoints critical of Laver.

The fact is, whether you'd like to accept it or not, that many posters in this thread have made up their minds about Laver (including you) and are going to be hostile to any and all arguments that diminish his greatness. Quite frankly, I don't have time to waste arguing with you (or trading verbal insults), so I'm done. People take this forum far too seriously, and many of the posts are rude, aggressive, and not at all how people interact face to face. I'm guilty of it, you are, and so are many of the other posters. I see now that threads like this are a waste of my time.

No one really cares what you believe, Chopin. What really matters is the strength of the argumentation. Whether you're logical and reasonable.

Without strong argumentation, there is only a claim. And claims are a dime a dozen.

35ft6
06-04-2009, 12:42 PM
Thanks for your thoughtful response. I agree with much of it. However, most ads target people under 35 because they are written by people under 35. You're putting the cart before the horse here. They go after people under 35 the most because they're not as set in their ways. (if there are a lot of young people creating ad campaigns, it's because the people in charge assume a young person knows how to appeal to a young person better than an older person...) They're more of an untapped market, by comparison, older people have already decided what they like best and are more resistant to new things. We all know this to be true. And just like an older person might think Tide is the best detergent, in general, by a certain age, people have their favorite brand of car, music, TV, film, and sports stars, and surprise surprise they tend to be songs, cars, films, and tennis players from their pre-35 yo years. I'm just pointing this out as a matter of human nature, not to condemn anybody. We're all getting older.I don't buy the argument that today's players are better.But the people most involved in the sport, the ex players, the coaches, agents, promoters, and commentators, the general consensus is overwhelmingly that today's tour is better. But it depends on how you define "better."

Rabbit
06-04-2009, 01:41 PM
You are totally 100% wrong with that statement. The playback is not faster than the live action at all. Sorry to burst your bubble or whatever. If you knew anything about video/film and how TV was recorded and broadcast then - you'd know that the audio is linked to the video so any speeding up would effect the audio as well. Not to mention that the freaking timecode is right there on screen. That is how exactly how fast JC and Laver hit live.

And the Caesars Palace thing was HUGE in tennis then and very serious.

Yes it was. Laver could pound the ball as could Connors. The difference then was tactic and equipment. Percentage tennis then was different than Academy tennis today.

You must be kidding. No really; you can not be serious.

Players now should be grateful that early pro and open era players paved the way for them. Men AND women. Pros in the 40s, 50s and 60s played over 100 matches a year, travelling from town to town at their own expense. No appearance money. No lucrative racquet or clothing deals. No pampering. No fancy hotels and people doting on them. No fawning media or entourages. No coaches and cross training and a fraction of the money, if any, even accounting for inflation. This as recently as the 80s. Plenty of very fine players; anybody who thinks that there weren't strong, fast and talented athletes back then is delusional and never saw them play in person. I did. And those who came before and saw Lew Hoad and Pancho Gonzales (Allen Fox, Brad Gilbert's coach and now Kunitsyn's, says Gonzales was the best ever) say that nobody-- even Becker, Agassi and others who bust the felt off of the ball, hit any harder. Contemplate that. And they did it with early metal frames and wood.

Young people have always thought that they discovered the universe and they often have a misplaced and misconceived notion of their own value and importance. I certainly did at a younger age. And (young, I presume) folks on this thread who think that tennis players are so much better now don't know very much. Players are faster, stronger, more agile, and bigger across the board, without a doubt. By and large, however, most play utterly brain dead tennis. Interestingly, all of the talk about the modern power game is pretty ironic and paradoxical. The best players of every generation win with their feet, their brains, and by controlling their power. Guys further down the rankings often hit harder-- they just make more errors and don't think as well on the court. And this will just continue, as it has for decades.

Case in point-- I saw both Lopez and Niemenen implode in Indian Wells last year in windy conditions against Donald Young and HT Lee, respectively. Neither one is a hard hitter. Both played smart, basic tennis. Their success had nothing to do with size or superior athleticism, either. And this happens every week on the pro tour.

So in a nutshell, I'd take Laver in his prime against most players today, all factors (equipment etc...) being equal. An amazing player; not some two handed backhand, semi-western forehand clone who can't volley to save his life, but someone with great touch and variety and feel for the ball, regardless of the surface.

Amen! And, I would add that Rod Laver's court sense and tactical mind were also what made him stand out. He and Ken Rosewall simply knew what to hit when.

Yeah, but why do you think those guys had all those slams? It's because the era was so weak. The sign of a strong era is less slams for the top players.

Gee, so today is a weak era? Since Roger Federer won his first Major in 2003 there have been 24 titles. Of those 24 opportunities, 18 have been won by either Federer or Nads. Bring it on in to 2009 and 19/25 have been won by either Nads or Federer.

By your own logic then we are in the single weakest period since Open tennis came around? Hmmmmmm...makes Laver look all the better.

About the height issue. A comparison:

1969 (I've selected 12 players that appeared the most on majors):

Laver – 5'8
Rosewall – 5'7
Tom Okker – 5'9.5
Tony Roche – 5'10
Newcombe – 6'
Pancho Gonzalez – 6'3
Stolle – 6'3
Riessen – 6'1
Ashe – 6'1
Emerson – 6
Gimeno – 6'1
Smith – 6'4

Average height: 6'

1999:

Sampras – 1.85m
Agassi – 1.80m
Kafelnikov – 1.90m
Rafter – 1.88m
Kuerten – 1.91m
Henman – 1.85m
Martin – 1.98m
Moya – 1.91m
Rusedski – 1.93m
Rios – 1.75m
Corretja – 1.80m
Krajicek – 1.95m

Average height: 6'2

2009 average height of top 10 players: 6'2

Source: Wikipedia and ATP website.

So if you compare Laver's era with contemporary players, the difference isn't big at all. In fact, if you exclude Rosewall and Laver, the average height of 1969's players is only 1 inch smaller than 2009's. So in fact Laver's feat is incredible, and he definitelly shouldn't be discredited due to his height. In fact, it's quite the opposite.

Excellent post!

The whole height argument is ridiculous. Justine Henin was a dominant champion and not close to "average" height.

Well, we clearly have different perspectives on Laver. Besides, Cyborg, it's not as though you never try to push people's buttons on this board. :-)

Yeah, those of us that saw Laver play know he was the best ever.

And, BTW, Laver's game translated from S/V tennis to Borg's heyday. Laver could stay on court with any player using any tactic. While you say no one can prove Laver's game would translate to today's game, the same is true of you. You can't prove it wouldn't. The height argument has been proven specious. You just don't have a leg to stand on.

pmerk34
06-04-2009, 01:41 PM
You're putting the cart before the horse here. They go after people under 35 the most because they're not as set in their ways. (if there are a lot of young people creating ad campaigns, it's because the people in charge assume a young person knows how to appeal to a young person better than an older person...) They're more of an untapped market, by comparison, older people have already decided what they like best and are more resistant to new things. We all know this to be true. And just like an older person might think Tide is the best detergent, in general, by a certain age, people have their favorite brand of car, music, TV, film, and sports stars, and surprise surprise they tend to be songs, cars, films, and tennis players from their pre-35 yo years. I'm just pointing this out as a matter of human nature, not to condemn anybody. We're all getting older.But the people most involved in the sport, the ex players, the coaches, agents, promoters, and commentators, the general consensus is overwhelmingly that today's tour is better. But it depends on how you define "better."

Most people define best or better by what they saw as a kid as you have alluded to. Most baseball announcers came of age in the 60's when the strikezone, rules and ballparks all favored pitching. Therefore they still insist that only 2-1 games are "real" baseball and that Sandy Koufax is a god while never putting his accomplishments in perspective to his era and never once thinking that the way the game is played now Sandy would never pitch 300 innings a year or win 27 games in one season.

Tennis is actually much more immune to this thinking. I have heard both Laver himself and McEnroe (who idolizes Rod) speculate on how Laver's small physical size would hurt him in today's game.

With Graphite frames the only frames used now the Serve has become the an almost indispensable stroke in attaining dominant and immortal status. The best players ever since 1985 have either had the best serve or certainly had the highest hold %'s I would imagine. This is why Nadal does nothing except work on improving his to win cheap points.

Since 1985:

Lendl had a huge serve that one him free points outright and also set up weak replies.

Becker's game was based around his monster serve.

Edberg's whole game revolved around his kicker to get him into net.

Sampras probably had the best service game ever.

Federer - when his serve is on he crushes people.

Wilander- a clear exception. In my opinion 1988 was the last year before outright power became the norm at the top.

Rod was immortal but no 5'9" player is going to be near the top of his peers in serving in today's game.

The Women's game and Justine Henin are irrelevant to this argument.

pmerk34
06-04-2009, 01:44 PM
Yes it was. Laver could pound the ball as could Connors. The difference then was tactic and equipment. Percentage tennis then was different than Academy tennis today.



Amen! And, I would add that Rod Laver's court sense and tactical mind were also what made him stand out. He and Ken Rosewall simply knew what to hit when.



Gee, so today is a weak era? Since Roger Federer won his first Major in 2003 there have been 24 titles. Of those 24 opportunities, 18 have been won by either Federer or Nads. Bring it on in to 2009 and 19/25 have been won by either Nads or Federer.

By your own logic then we are in the single weakest period since Open tennis came around? Hmmmmmm...makes Laver look all the better.



Excellent post!

The whole height argument is ridiculous. Justine Henin was a dominant champion and not close to "average" height.



Yeah, those of us that saw Laver play know he was the best ever.

And, BTW, Laver's game translated from S/V tennis to Borg's heyday. Laver could stay on court with any player using any tactic. While you say no one can prove Laver's game would translate to today's game, the same is true of you. You can't prove it wouldn't. The height argument has been proven specious. You just don't have a leg to stand on.

McEnroe and Laver have both said how his height and small stature would make it very difficult to compete with a Pete Sampras for instance.

Rabbit
06-04-2009, 01:58 PM
Most people define best or better by what they saw as a kid as you have alluded to. Most baseball announcers came of age in the 60's when the strikezone, rules and ballparks all favored pitching. Therefore they still insist that only 2-1 games are "real" baseball and that Sandy Koufax is a god while never putting his accomplishments in perspective to his era and never once thinking that the way the game is played now Sandy would never pitch 300 innings a year or win 27 games in one season.

Funny you even mention Koufax. There is a story about the Dodgers when Steve Garvey played for them and they were in the World Series. Koufax was pitching batting practice. He got in a groove and began striking out the heart of the Dodger order. The manager had to come to the mound and remind Koufax not to dismantle the team's confidence.

Point being, there probably was a reason Koufax, Drysdale, and Gibson were idolized. They were that good.


Tennis is actually much more immune to this thinking. I have heard both Laver himself and McEnroe (who idolizes Rod) speculate on how Laver's small physical size would hurt him in today's game.

I don't agree, and haven't heard them say that. Physical size didn't hurt Andre Agassi too badly in his competition with Sampras. I don't think it'd hurt Laver either. As noted, Laver played against competition which averaged 2" shorter than today.


With Graphite frames the only frames used now the Serve has become the an almost indispensable stroke in attaining dominant and immortal status. The best players ever since 1985 have either had the best serve or certainly had the highest hold %'s I would imagine. This is why Nadal does nothing except work on improving his to win cheap points.

Since 1985:

Lendl had a huge serve that one him free points outright and also set up weak replies.

Becker's game was based around his monster serve.

Edberg's whole game revolved around his kicker to get him into net.

Sampras probably had the best service game ever.

Federer - when his serve is on he crushes people.

Wilander- a clear exception. In my opinion 1988 was the last year before outright power became the norm at the top.

Rod was immortal but no 5'9" player is going to be near the top of his peers in serving in today's game.

Two points here. First, the advent of the graphite racquet has seen just as big an improvement in the return of serve. It is not the serve which has changed the game, it is the return. If the serve was as dominant as you mention, S/V tennis would still prevail. Clearly, the ability of the returner of serve to hit winners is what has curtailed the S/V tactic.

Second point is that the rules regarding serve changed. When Laver learnt the game, one had to keep one's foot on the ground when serving. Laver never really embraced the jump that came later. Even so, Laver's serve was more than adequate.


The Women's game and Justine Henin are irrelevant to this argument.

We disagree. The argument put forth was that height was a pre-requisite for modern tennis. Clearly this is not the case.

McEnroe and Laver have both said how his height and small stature would make it very difficult to compete with a Pete Sampras for instance.

Who? McEnroe or Laver? Laver has one bad habit. He continually deflects attention away from himself. He's an Aussie :) . Laver said he was "honored" to be mentioned in the same breath as McEnroe when McEnroe was #1. He said Sampras was the best ever, he's said the same thing about Federer. Laver is a great ambassador of the game who builds up the current champion because it's good for the game in his view. He's not like some of the guys who talk about their day.

Everyone has an opinion and that's fine. But fact is, Laver competed during a time when the average height (including Laver & Rosewall) shown here was 6'. I don't think 2 inches is going to make a ton of difference. Laver would be a force in any generation as would Federer, Pancho Gonzalez, Bjorn Borg, Jack Kramer, Bill Tilden, or any other champion. Denigrating Laver or any other champion as non-competitive is just plain wrong.

CyBorg
06-04-2009, 02:04 PM
McEnroe and Laver have both said how his height and small stature would make it very difficult to compete with a Pete Sampras for instance.

This is all fine, but we have to be aware of the fact that synthetic changes in the game have also changed the kind of athlete that thrives in the game.

I have made this point a number of times. Technology that favours power will also favour a power powerful athlete and there most likely a taller athlete and thus most likely a bigger server.

Conversely, technology that favours more touch and feel will allow shorter players (not necessarily smaller ones, if we look at build) to compete and even dominate the sport.

hoodjem
06-04-2009, 02:13 PM
Yeah, but why do you think those guys had all those slams? It's because the era was so weak. The sign of a strong era is less slams for the top players.
Wrong! (Faulty logic.) The sign of a strong era is greater distribution of slam titles among the top players (that's why they are the top players).

This is a greater distribution:
Top FIVE in 1969
1. Laver (20 Slam titles: singles, doubles, mixed doubles)
2. Rosewall (17 Slam titles: singles, doubles)
3. Roche (15 Slam titles: singles, doubles, mixed doubles)
4. Ashe (5 Slam titles: singles, doubles)
5. Newcombe (26 Slam titles: singles, doubles, mixed doubles)
*career totals

than this:
Top FIVE in 2009
1. Nadal (6 Slam titles: singles)
2. Federer (13 Slam titles: singles)
3. Murray (0 Slam titles)
4. Djokovic (1 Slam title: singles)
5. del Potro (0 Slam titles)

35ft6
06-04-2009, 02:48 PM
Since 1985:

Lendl had a huge serve that one him free points outright and also set up weak replies.

Becker's game was based around his monster serve.

Edberg's whole game revolved around his kicker to get him into net.

Sampras probably had the best service game ever.

Federer - when his serve is on he crushes people.

Wilander- a clear exception. In my opinion 1988 was the last year before outright power became the norm at the top.

Rod was immortal but no 5'9" player is going to be near the top of his peers in serving in today's game.You're more right than wrong, and definitely describing accurately the general trend, but there's somebody like Rios, who is one only one inch taller. He's weird cuz he both supports and undermines your theory. When he reached number 1, he was serving incredibly well. Agassi, the best returner in the history of the game, said after losing to him that he wasn't expecting him to serve so big. I think "big" is the word he used, but at the time more often his serve was praised for how well he mixed it up. Speaking of Agassi, I once read that Brad told Agassi all he had to do was protect his serve and he would become number 1. Agassi didn't have a huge serve either but he learned to use it perfectly to suit his strengths. Hewitt didn't have a huge serve either, but not exactly attackable, and in general, people who don't have huge serves, the ones who reach the top, do so by being stronger in other areas. And I include Edberg in that category. He said he used to serve flat bombs like everybody else until he got injured around 17, and I just wonder if he would have developed into the best serve and volleyer I've ever seen if he could still hit bombs.

I'm sure Laver would be a fantastic player today, but it's kind of speculative what kind of player he would be with today's competition and rackets. Just knowing how limited the competition was back then... how there were two tours... how 3 slams were on grass... and finally, simply being able to watch him play on Youtube and TTC... not just him, but I give extra credit to the more recent slam winners.

CyBorg
06-04-2009, 03:09 PM
For those who are still interested in learning things, rather than regurgitate anti-Laver sentiment, the 1972 US Open had such "limited" competition that it had a 148-man draw.

Here's an earlier thread on this: http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/archive/index.php/t-125042.html

Speaking of "limited" competition: here are the 1969 Wimbledon participants: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1969_Wimbledon_Championships_-_Men's_Singles

Of course, let's not let the facts get in our way.

hoodjem
06-04-2009, 03:12 PM
^^^
no. 13 seed RP Gonzales vs. no. 3 seed T Roche
6-3, 10-12, 7-5, 6-0

Datacipher
06-04-2009, 04:19 PM
The best players ever since 1985 have either had the best serve or certainly had the highest hold %'s I would imagine. This is why Nadal does nothing except work on improving his to win cheap points.

Since 1985:

Lendl had a huge serve that one him free points outright and also set up weak replies.

Becker's game was based around his monster serve.

Edberg's whole game revolved around his kicker to get him into net.

Sampras probably had the best service game ever.

Federer - when his serve is on he crushes people.

Wilander- a clear exception. In my opinion 1988 was the last year before outright power became the norm at the top.

Rod was immortal but no 5'9" player is going to be near the top of his peers in serving in today's game.

.

LOL! A new troll? Love how you contadict YOURSELF in the first 2 sentances above ie. best players = best serves....NADAL...UH...DOH!!!

NOT A SINGLE ONE OF THE PLAYERS YOU then mentioned had the best serve of their era, with the arguable exception of Sampras, and even then, his first serve was clearly not the best, his 2nd serve arguably was, but it was the entire package that made the difference.

In fact, Lendl, Becker, Edberg, Federer may not even be in the top 5-10 servers of their era. THEY DID HAVE GREAT SERVES, SERVE HAS BEEN THE MOST IMPORTANT STROKE FOR the last EIGHTY YEARS. Wow, IGNORANCE!!!!

And of course you forgot to mention Hewitt, Rios, Agassi, Chang, Muster, Courier, and many, many others.

And of course top players have high hold percentages...if you can't see the confounds and irrationality of making conclusions about their serve from that....well I just feel sorry for you.

pmerk34
06-04-2009, 04:40 PM
LOL! A new troll? Love how you contadict YOURSELF in the first 2 sentances above ie. best players = best serves....NADAL...UH...DOH!!!

NOT A SINGLE ONE OF THE PLAYERS YOU then mentioned had the best serve of their era, with the arguable exception of Sampras, and even then, his first serve was clearly not the best, his 2nd serve arguably was, but it was the entire package that made the difference.

In fact, Lendl, Becker, Edberg, Federer may not even be in the top 5-10 servers of their era. THEY DID HAVE GREAT SERVES, SERVE HAS BEEN THE MOST IMPORTANT STROKE FOR the last EIGHTY YEARS. Wow, IGNORANCE!!!!

And of course you forgot to mention Hewitt, Rios, Agassi, Chang, Muster, Courier, and many, many others.

And of course top players have high hold percentages...if you can't see the confounds and irrationality of making conclusions about their serve from that....well I just feel sorry for you.


Oh geez calm down buddy. I will take wager when the next 5'9" 150 lbs Laver type DOMINATES men's tennis with you any time you want.

Because I see a lot of 6'1" plus guys the last 20 years.

PERL
06-04-2009, 05:16 PM
This thread gets too much credit.

pc1
06-04-2009, 05:19 PM
Oh geez calm down buddy. I will take wager when the next 5'9" 150 lbs Laver type DOMINATES men's tennis with you any time you want.

Because I see a lot of 6'1" plus guys the last 20 years.

Not to compare her to Laver but Justine Henin at 5'51/2" tall dominated the Women's tour before she retired against tall players like Venus Williams, Serena Williams, Sharapova etc. And she overpowered a lot of players taller than her.

pmerk34
06-04-2009, 05:41 PM
Not to compare her to Laver but Justine Henin at 5'51/2" tall dominated the Women's tour before she retired against tall players like Venus Williams, Serena Williams, Sharapova etc. And she overpowered a lot of players taller than her.

The serve in the womens game is not nearly the factor it is in the men's game. There are almsot most as many breaks of serve in a WTA match then bathroom breaks :)

pc1
06-04-2009, 06:02 PM
The serve in the womens game is not nearly the factor it is in the men's game. There are almsot most as many breaks of serve in a WTA match then bathroom breaks :)
True, but I was trying to support your viewpoint by pointing out height is not the end all in tennis. Otherwise we may have a bunch of NBA height players playing tennis.

I like your analogy. lol.

Hey it occurred to me, how talented in tennis was the former NBA player John Lucas who was also a world class tennis player?

Edit-Just found this interesting link on Lucas.

http://vault.sportsillustrated.cnn.com/vault/article/magazine/MAG1010230/index.htm

Datacipher
06-04-2009, 06:54 PM
Oh geez calm down buddy. I will take wager when the next 5'9" 150 lbs Laver type DOMINATES men's tennis with you any time you want.

Because I see a lot of 6'1" plus guys the last 20 years.

OH THE HUMANITY.

First, great counterpoint ie "calm down buddy".

Second, Considering the number of "dominant players" (about 1 per generation), and considering people have increased in average height, waiting for the next 5'9 dominant player may indeed take a while. Gee, what a bet. Love how you immediately (again) weaken your own argument by your very next line, you've noticed the players are generally taller have you??

Nobody said that height cannot be an advantage in tennis, what is idiotic is your blanket dismissal of Laver or anybody else due to height. But your reasoning is so poor I'm sure you can't see this and the many other holes in your argument.

Third, I can predict your next counterargument: "sez you!"

CyBorg
06-04-2009, 06:56 PM
Again, as I've already mentioned - all of this height talk is irrelevant, because tennis is a much different game than it used to be.

Some posters here are fallaciously judging the game of past based on contemporary standards. This is nonsense.

Federer is taller and has a bigger serve. So what? Laver had a better lob and superior volleys. Big deal. Different time. Different skills. Different body types.

pmerk34
06-04-2009, 07:03 PM
OH THE HUMANITY.

First, great counterpoint ie "calm down buddy".

Second, Considering the number of "dominant players" (about 1 per generation), and considering people have increased in average height, waiting for the next 5'9 dominant player may indeed take a while. Gee, what a bet. Love how you immediately (again) weaken your own argument by your very next line, you've noticed the players are generally taller have you??

Nobody said that height cannot be an advantage in tennis, what is idiotic is your blanket dismissal of Laver or anybody else due to height. But your reasoning is so poor I'm sure you can't see this and the many other holes in your argument.

Third, I can predict your next counterargument: "sez you!"

There really is no argument to weaken: being 5'9" is going to put you at a huge disadvantage in the men's game due to the limitations it puts on the serve. That doesn't mean 5'9" men are bad people or bad players.

pmerk34
06-04-2009, 07:06 PM
Again, as I've already mentioned - all of this height talk is irrelevant, because tennis is a much different game than it used to be.

Some posters here are fallaciously judging the game of past based on contemporary standards. This is nonsense.

Federer is taller and has a bigger serve. So what? Laver had a better lob and superior volleys. Big deal. Different time. Different skills. Different body types.

There is a clip on youtube of Laver playing I think Rosewall. Everytime Laver serves to the ad court he gets back and easy sliced bh reply that he punches away with a volley. Everytime no exceptions.

darthpwner
06-04-2009, 07:10 PM
dont discredit laver he played in the wood era when u couldnt hit the ball as hard as u can now b cuz of poly, giant headsizes, and extreme grips. also laver couldnt play the slams for 5 years cuz he turned professional and this was pre-open era.

CyBorg
06-04-2009, 07:12 PM
There is a clip on youtube of Laver playing I think Rosewall. Everytime Laver serves to the ad court he gets back and easy sliced bh reply that he punches away with a volley. Everytime no exceptions.

Not sure what you're getting at here, but I'm glad you've learned so much from youtube clips.

pmerk34
06-04-2009, 07:19 PM
Not sure what you're getting at here, but I'm glad you've learned so much from youtube clips.

It was what what is was. Serve, sliced reply, volley point over. Pretty much looked as like a joke compared to today's game.

CyBorg
06-04-2009, 07:26 PM
It was what what is was. Serve, sliced reply, volley point over. Pretty much looked as like a joke compared to today's game.

Um, okay. Thanks for chiming in.

zagor
06-04-2009, 07:28 PM
Can someone explain to me if someone like Nalbo who is 5'10" can beat the crap out of both Nadal and Fed in TWO tourneys in a row(with Nadal barely winning games from him)how is that somehow Laver would not be able to compete with today's players because of his height?

CyBorg
06-04-2009, 07:31 PM
Can someone explain to me if someone like Nalbo who is 5'10" can beat the crap out of both Nadal and Fed in TWO tourneys in a row(with Nadal barely winning games from him)how is that somehow Laver would not be able to compete with today's players because of his height?

I don't know, but the answer is probably in one of those youtube clips some of the kids here are talking about.

pmerk34
06-04-2009, 07:32 PM
I don't know, but the answer is probably in one of those youtube clips some of the kids here are talking about.

Kids LOL. Is under 45 a kid. hahahahha

pmerk34
06-04-2009, 07:33 PM
Can someone explain to me if someone like Nalbo who is 5'10" can beat the crap out of both Nadal and Fed in TWO tourneys in a row(with Nadal barely winning games from him)how is that somehow Laver would not be able to compete with today's players because of his height?

Explain how Laver could dominate now when every dominate player of recent vintage has been 6'1" or taller?

zagor
06-04-2009, 07:39 PM
Explain how Laver could dominate now when every dominate player of recent vintage has been 6'1" or taller?

So Hewitt wasn't a dominant player of recent vintage? He was number one for 2 years and won Wimbledon and USO.

Despite his height IMO Nalbandian could have been a multiple slam winner if he was more dedicated and mentally stronger,height was never his main problem.

PCXL-Fan
06-04-2009, 10:03 PM
Well you have to admit that in Laver's time period the weaker field, less people playing tennis, people not utterly dedicating themselves to tennis, professional tennis being in its infancy, only 2 surfaces, less prize money motivating people, inferior training/dietary conditioning/psychological training/physical conditioning would put Laver's GOAT status into question.

Zagor... comeon Hewitt never dominated like Federer or Sampras. Hewitt would never be considered even one of the top ten greats. Neither would Nalbandian. Sure both Nalb and Hewitt are 5'10, but when you start going below 5'10 those nonexistant inches really start to take their toll. Your smaller, your leg stride is smaller and you are often less powerful then your larger framed counterparts. When was the last time there was a 5ft7- 5ft9 champion? Chang was probably the last.

pmerk34
06-04-2009, 10:18 PM
well you have to admit that the in Lavers time period the weaker field, less people playing tennis, people not utterly dedicating themselves to tennis, professional tennis being in its infancy, only 2 surfaces, less prize money motivating people, inferior training/dietary conditioning/psychological training/physical conditioning would put Laver's GOAT status into question.

Zagor... comeon Hewitt never dominated like Federer or Sampras. Hewitt would never be considered even one of the top ten greats. Neither would Nalbandian. And when you start going below 5'10 those nonexistant inches really start to take their toll. When was the last time there was a 5ft7- 5ft9 champion? Chang was probably the last.


It's not a knock on Laver to suggest he wouldn't win the Grand Slam in 2009 (if we could make Rocket 25 again) standing 5'9". It's reality.

Hewitt was kind of an "in between" number one. Just after Sampras but before Roger really took off. Leyton was always entertainign to watch but to suggest he as dominant or was ever going to really rule mens tennis for any lenth of time is silly given his physical stature which made it necessary for him to kill himself physically. Sampras and Fed could sometimes almost lose interest until 4-4 in a set then get the break and serve it out in 90 secs as the opponent looks up and realizes the set is over.

CyBorg
06-04-2009, 10:23 PM
Well you have to admit that in Laver's time period the weaker field, less people playing tennis, people not utterly dedicating themselves to tennis, professional tennis being in its infancy, only 2 surfaces, less prize money motivating people, inferior training/dietary conditioning/psychological training/physical conditioning would put Laver's GOAT status into question.

All of this pulled straight out of your ***. My favorite part is professional tennis being in its infancy. A good laugh. Yes.

PCXL-Fan
06-04-2009, 10:37 PM
Open era pro tennis fool.

CyBorg
06-04-2009, 11:03 PM
Open era pro tennis fool.

Right. Because tennis began with the open era. Nothing at all went on before that.

Thanks for clarifying.

Datacipher
06-05-2009, 12:08 AM
Well you have to admit that in Laver's time period the weaker field, less people playing tennis, people not utterly dedicating themselves to tennis, professional tennis being in its infancy, only 2 surfaces, less prize money motivating people, inferior training/dietary conditioning/psychological training/physical conditioning would put Laver's GOAT status into question..

No.
1.the players in Laver's time WERE utterly dedicated to tennis, perhaps more so than many pros today. They worked/practiced VERY hard, they were NOT out partying or doing commercials or playing video games

2.2 surfaces: so? The adaptability was there, the most extreme surfaces.

3.LESS PRIZE MONEY MOTIVATING PEOPLE??? WOW. How incredibly misguided. Even some pros from the last few generations have admitted that this may have HURT motivation for some of their peers

4.inferior training/dietary conditioning/psychological training/physical conditioning? IS THIS A JOKE? Although, I note, this has been part of the long running myth in athletics, that we "train harder/smarter" now, and that we "know more". REALITY: a great many "trainers'/"coaches" love to scam people into believing this. Simply not true. The more we learn, the more we realize how silly many of the current "trends" are. No, you don't need a rubber beach ball to develop core strength or balance. Meanwhile, we revinvent old-school methods and promote them as if they were new. CHOP WOOD YOU SAY?? WOW! FUNCTIONAL TRAINING??? In any case, the pros from Laver's era were in FANTASTIC shape. Very few who know the era dispute that. Hopman's boys were TOUGH and ABSOLUTELY FIT, by any standards.

What has changed is:
1.widespread doping
2.larger athletic pool entering tennis

#2 has enhanced the average athleticism of the average player, I doubt very much it has changed the bar at the elite level much. #1 is a factor but it's an external one that cannot be quantified...if anything, it's allowed less talented players to compete at a higher level relying on pure physical characteristics.

Yet, still, somehow this, troglodyte, Rod Laver, who, wandered into a country club and found a racquet, while training part-time, with no real knowledge of conditioning etc. managed to have a FAR MORE COMPLETE game than almost any pro today. Managed to have a game, that Mcenroe and Sampras (among others) looked up to. Even though, he was really nothing in terms of talent or effectiveness by today's standards right? TROLLS.

Datacipher
06-05-2009, 12:10 AM
Let me also remind you newbs. That Laver's game was good enough for Pete Fischer to model several aspects of Sampras' game after, including the volley, the second serve(!), the backhand, and general stratgey.

Young Pete
06-05-2009, 04:00 AM
Let me also remind you newbs. That Laver's game was good enough for Pete Fischer to model several aspects of Sampras' game after, including the volley, the second serve(!), the backhand, and general stratgey.

double post

Young Pete
06-05-2009, 04:01 AM
Let me also remind you newbs. That Laver's game was good enough for Pete Fischer to model several aspects of Sampras' game after, including the volley, the second serve(!), the backhand, and general stratgey.


thank you very much! even sampras constantly refers to laver as the GOAT.

Josherer
06-05-2009, 04:41 AM
true

plus he lost so often

16 times in 1969, so much for TOTAL DOMINATION

he wasn't tall enough to be a GOAT

he's a second tier player that got lucky with his era and technology

to put it bluntly, Sampras would beat Laver on clay even though Laver won RG

you have to remember, in Laver's day people S&V'd on CLAY!!!!!!!!!

Pete would have loved that

Pete is so unlucky, if he played in the 60s he would have 40+ slams

Lol tall enough. The average height of man has increased since then. He was probably average where as now Fed is averageish.

CyBorg
06-05-2009, 05:28 AM
Lol tall enough. The average height of man has increased since then. He was probably average where as now Fed is averageish.

Laver was definitely of a below-average height.

grafselesfan
06-05-2009, 10:14 AM
Laver was definitely of a below-average height.

Which makes what he did even more impressive.

CyBorg
06-05-2009, 10:25 AM
Which makes what he did even more impressive.

It happens. Steve Nash is below-average for NBA, even much below-average for the point guard position. And yet he is a great player.

ormynameisntbill
06-05-2009, 11:00 AM
but is steve nash a lebron james??

hoodjem
06-05-2009, 11:23 AM
I think Laver gets pretty good credit--about exactly what he deserves.

Don't forget that he couldn't play in any slams from 1963 until the Open era began. In 1969 he was beyond the peak of his career. His highpoint would have been probably 1967.

If you ask Laver how good he was, then you will hear a humble gentleman say "ohh, I think I was pretty decent."

Leelord337
06-05-2009, 11:43 AM
have u even seen laver play? he's amazing, check out this video against tony roche

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wHaN2h21ANs

TrueFanOfTheGame
06-05-2009, 12:39 PM
Players from that era deserve some credit. Everyone talks about the wooden racquets, but everything was tougher. The surfaces, the shoes, training equipment & technology, etc. They struggled to make any kind of living. Today's top players are tremendously wealthy and enjoy an incredible amount of support in comparison. Everything is done to enhance every last aspect of their play. Today's players can be fabulously wealthy before they turn 20. Players from earlier eras had to pay some serious dues.

IMHO the whole GOAT subject has been done to death though. There's no point in comparing eras looking for the GOAT. It's like asking which point guards would make the best quarterback. I guess I lose on that one because GOAT theory is about all the announcers talk about these days.

Steve F.
06-05-2009, 01:03 PM
I'm normally pretty tolerant of ignorance. Many say "ignorance is bliss."

I say, "Do not post new threads in a state of bliss."

We all have a learning curve. Some are steeper than others.

This is a tennis forum.

And the op has thrown up a stinking lob with his eyes closed.

A lob is the steepest curve possible in tennis.

(A stinking lob is even steeper.)

My friend, the op, don't think of this thread as a beating, think of it as a clue, which the TW forum is giving you. (except for Chopin, locked in his personal nocturne) :)

It's really not about GOAT, or height, or era.

Stop posting, and play tennis! :)

...No really. Play more tennis. (Post less.)

Play matches. Lose matches. Win matches. Keep score. Learn tennis.

Post less.

FiveO
06-05-2009, 04:01 PM
Explain how Laver could dominate now when every dominate player of recent vintage has been 6'1" or taller?

Some say this as if the entire world was 5'8" in Laver's time.

These are just some Hall of Famers who crossed Laver's path:

6': Emerson, Newcombe, Nastase
6'1": Olmedo, Gimeno, Ashe
6'2": Gonzales
6'3": Stolle
6'4": Stan Smith

Some other Major seeds at the outset of the Open Era:

6'1": Riessen
6'2": Drysdale, Ralston, Dibley, Graebner
6'3": Nikki Pilic, John Alexander

and there were many more 6' plus guys in and out of draws, like Gene Scott and Herb Fitzgibbon along with many lesser knowns.

The prevailing belief of the time was in fact that the 5'8"-ish had a distinct advantage over the 6' to 6' plus players of the era due to the extreme low bounces of the majority of venue surfaces of the day.

On the other hand it is highly likely that today's slower, higher bounce yielding surfaces and the ever increasing use of heavy to heavier topspin tour wide, favored by the prevailing playing conditions today have served to raise player's optimal strike zone much higher favoring taller players.

5

World Beater
06-05-2009, 04:29 PM
So Hewitt wasn't a dominant player of recent vintage? He was number one for 2 years and won Wimbledon and USO.

Despite his height IMO Nalbandian could have been a multiple slam winner if he was more dedicated and mentally stronger,height was never his main problem.

height does have something to do with leverage on shots though.

nalbandian is talented but one of the main reasons he could never win at slams was because he lacked a major weapon. It wasn't just because of his physical or mental frailties.

there were a few slams that nalbandian entered with good form but couldnt win.

height gives one more leverage on strokes especially the serve. if nalbandian had a bigger serve, he would have won a slam by now. the serve is the most imp stroke in tennis.

hewitt did well too with his height but he is not really a legend anyway.

the point is laver would have been a fine player in any era, but i doubt he would dominate the tour today.

BUT HE gets credit for dominating his era, and that is what counts in the end.

mental midget
06-05-2009, 07:43 PM
laver was a freak with serious SKILLZ. who knows what strokes he might have developed in a modern context, but the raw material of his athleticism would make for a formidable player in any era.

rios was around in a big-hitting era, and clowned a lot of those guys, when he felt like playing. it can be done.

Chopin
06-05-2009, 08:19 PM
Guys, I just wanted to let you know that a certain Polish composer of prodigious talent just posted his GOAT list in another thread (word on the street is that George Sand had some input). As you read it, I'd like all you guys to listen to Chopin's "Revolutionary" Etude.

Here's a really technically sharp performance of it by Pollini:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C-VjFKLCKwM

Rabbit
06-05-2009, 08:31 PM
Can someone explain to me if someone like Nalbo who is 5'10" can beat the crap out of both Nadal and Fed in TWO tourneys in a row(with Nadal barely winning games from him)how is that somehow Laver would not be able to compete with today's players because of his height?

Excellent question. I think his victories have all been figments of our collective imaginations! Oh my....it's mass hysteria.

I don't know, but the answer is probably in one of those youtube clips some of the kids here are talking about.

^This is priceless...you owe me a monitor my friend. :)

Kids LOL. Is under 45 a kid. hahahahha

Ohhh OK..not a kid, but incredibly uninformed.

Explain how Laver could dominate now when every dominate player of recent vintage has been 6'1" or taller?

How recent? Agassi? 5'11" Rios 5'8" Hewitt 5'9"

This week?

#7 Gilles Simon 5'11"

#11 Nikolay Daveydenko 5'10"

#12 Fernando Gonzalez 6'

#14 David Ferrer 5'9"

#15 David Nalbandian 5'11"

#17 Tommy Robredo 5'11"

#18 Stan Warwrinka 6'

So 7 out of the top 25 are 6 foot or under. That's 28% of the top 25 who are 6 foot or under.

BTW, let's look at how they've fared recently....every one of these guys went pretty damn far in the French open.

Hello theory meet holes.

Let me also remind you newbs. That Laver's game was good enough for Pete Fischer to model several aspects of Sampras' game after, including the volley, the second serve(!), the backhand, and general stratgey.

Don't forget another left hander who based his game on Laver, John McEnroe. Sampras has repeatedly said he watched footage of Laver. Arthur Ashe threw up en route to his semifinal against Laver at the Open because he was so nervous.

Laver was definitely of a below-average height.

Not if you factor in the entire world. :)

Some say this as if the entire world was 5'8" in Laver's time.

These are just some Hall of Famers who crossed Laver's path:

6': Emerson, Newcombe, Nastase
6'1": Olmedo, Gimeno, Ashe
6'2": Gonzales
6'3": Stolle
6'4": Stan Smith

Some other Major seeds at the outset of the Open Era:

6'1": Riessen
6'2": Drysdale, Ralston, Dibley, Graebner
6'3": Nikki Pilic, John Alexander

and there were many more 6' plus guys in and out of draws, like Gene Scott and Herb Fitzgibbon along with many lesser knowns.

The prevailing belief of the time was in fact that the 5'8"-ish had a distinct advantage over the 6' to 6' plus players of the era due to the extreme low bounces of the majority of venue surfaces of the day.

On the other hand it is highly likely that today's slower, higher bounce yielding surfaces and the ever increasing use of heavy to heavier topspin tour wide, favored by the prevailing playing conditions today have served to raise player's optimal strike zone much higher favoring taller players.

5

Excellent post. BTW those who crossed Laver's path usually fell to him too.

CyBorg
06-05-2009, 09:08 PM
Hello theory meet holes.

There's this saying in Russian - don't juggle a diamond necklace in front of a pig's face. It won't do much good.

I think there's a similar one in English too.

One could accumulate as many facts as one wishes, but those who choose to be ignorant will simply deflect them. It's easy to do. Twist the facts or subtly change the subject. Reinforce the agenda. Distort opposing positions.

There's a good deal of posters here who don't know a lot about the Laver days, but they present themselves with a great deal of modesty. They ask questions, engage in discussions and are open to new discoveries. If there's here to stay, chances are that they will gradually change as posters - their beliefs gradually altered by others here and they themselves somehow shaping points of view of everyone.

Conversely, certain other folks are always the same. They already have their minds made up. Even worse, they aggressively pursue their agenda - or, in certain cases, passively-aggressively. Typically they're just in it to disturb the flow of things - to upset people, to get on their nerves, push some buttons.

It's a shame. Tennis message boards have a less religious attitude towards past players. This is completely different than, say, baseball boards - go there and say something disparaging about Joe DiMaggio and they'll rip you to shreds.

Chopin
06-05-2009, 09:11 PM
There's this saying in Russian - don't juggle a diamond necklace in front of a pig's face. It won't do much good.

I think there's a similar one in English too.

One could accumulate as many facts as one wishes, but those who choose to be ignorant will simply deflect them. It's easy to do. Twist the facts or subtly change the subject. Reinforce the agenda. Distort opposing positions.

There's a good deal of posters here who don't know a lot about the Laver days, but they present themselves with a great deal of modesty. They ask questions, engage in discussions and are open to new discoveries. If there's here to stay, chances are that they will gradually change as posters - their beliefs gradually altered by others here and they themselves somehow shaping points of view of everyone.

Conversely, certain other folks are always the same. They already have their minds made up. Even worse, they aggressively pursue their agenda - or, in certain cases, passively-aggressively. Typically they're just in it to disturb the flow of things - to upset people, to get on their nerves, push some buttons.

It's a shame. Tennis message boards have a less religious attitude towards past players. This is completely different than, say, baseball boards - go there and say something disparaging about Joe DiMaggio and they'll rip you to shreds.

You're right, Cyborg. It's a true shame that we don't have "religious" attitudes towards people who play tennis. Great post!

CyBorg
06-05-2009, 09:25 PM
Yeah - you got me. That's exactly what I meant. Remarkable reading comprehension skills.

Chopin
06-05-2009, 09:34 PM
Yeah - you got me. That's exactly what I meant. Remarkable reading comprehension skills.

Hey, I respect Laver more than I do the Pope (that's another can of worms though). Seriously.

Also, you might want to check out my thread on Federer & Art.

!Tym
06-06-2009, 12:56 AM
For the brief moment in time when Rios got himself in tip-top shape and actually allowed himself to be governed by a disciplinarian, and actually followed orders, and actually adhered to the plan, and actually wasn't injured or half-injured but still playing...he did alright for himself. Actually, he did better than alright. He DOMINATED and actually believe it or not (for the "moment" in time was so "short") SCARED other players.

Yup, that's right, for a short spell, Rios struck the same dominant #1 in the world level fear in other players as guys like Agassi and Sampras and Becker on fast stuff or Bruguera, Guga, and Muster on slow stuff did.

It was fleeting for sure, but during that time I just remember it being and feeling REALLY surreal, that a guy listed at 5'9" (because lets face it, many pros just like with all sports are actually listed a bit taller than they really are), could strike fear in the hearts of other players that way in the MODERN era.

And yet it happened. If you have the talent, you can equalize. Laver had undisputed GOAT level talent according to his peers. Take that into consideration. Take Rios' talent...now add HALF a brain and an ounce of effort, and what do you got? A player ranked number one in the world...and THEN SOME.

It's not THAT hard to believe unless you consider yourself to rationale to believe something as foolish and fool hardy as that.

Come on now, yeah right! Like a guy with one of the worst ethics and one of the most frequently injured and/or breaking down bodies on tour who was maybe 5'9" with a mohawk and who couldn't break the sound barrier with his serve and who didn't use radical extreme grips or swings, who took very metered, controlled, swings at the ball, who didn't swing like Tarzan at everything in sight, who didn't jump out of his skin to serve, who was very fast and athletic but let's be real here not necessarily tour-leading fast or athletic like a Borg or a Chang or a Nadal or Coria, who...HOW could someone like this EVER reach #1 in the modern age?

Nah...it never happened.

Ok, so it never happened. One of the most notorious tankers and bad seeds of all time somehow managed to strike fear into other players' hearts for a short spell. How does that happen? It doesn't happen. It never happens. So why ask why? I don't know why. Dah-dah-DUH....

Young Pete
06-06-2009, 12:58 AM
have u even seen laver play? he's amazing, check out this video against tony roche

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wHaN2h21ANs


unbelievable!

Young Pete
06-06-2009, 01:12 AM
For the brief moment in time when Rios got himself in tip-top shape and actually allowed himself to be governed by a disciplinarian, and actually followed orders, and actually adhered to the plan, and actually wasn't injured or half-injured but still playing...he did alright for himself. Actually, he did better than alright. He DOMINATED and actually believe it or not (for the "moment" in time was so "short") SCARED other players.

Yup, that's right, for a short spell, Rios struck the same dominant #1 in the world level fear in other players as guys like Agassi and Sampras and Becker on fast stuff or Bruguera, Guga, and Muster on slow stuff did.

It was fleeting for sure, but during that time I just remember it being and feeling REALLY surreal, that a guy listed at 5'9" (because lets face it, many pros just like with all sports are actually listed a bit taller than they really are), could strike fear in the hearts of other players that way in the MODERN era.

And yet it happened. If you have the talent, you can equalize. Laver had undisputed GOAT level talent according to his peers. Take that into consideration. Take Rios' talent...now add HALF a brain and an ounce of effort, and what do you got? A player ranked number one in the world...and THEN SOME.

It's not THAT hard to believe unless you consider yourself to rationale to believe something as foolish and fool hardy as that.

Come on now, yeah right! Like a guy with one of the worst ethics and one of the most frequently injured and/or breaking down bodies on tour who was maybe 5'9" with a mohawk and who couldn't break the sound barrier with his serve and who didn't use radical extreme grips or swings, who took very metered, controlled, swings at the ball, who didn't swing like Tarzan at everything in sight, who didn't jump out of his skin to serve, who was very fast and athletic but let's be real here not necessarily tour-leading fast or athletic like a Borg or a Chang or a Nadal or Coria, who...HOW could someone like this EVER reach #1 in the modern age?

Nah...it never happened.

Ok, so it never happened. One of the most notorious tankers and bad seeds of all time somehow managed to strike fear into other players' hearts for a short spell. How does that happen? It doesn't happen. It never happens. So why ask why? I don't know why. Dah-dah-DUH....

wow great post, makes me want to find out more about "el chino"!

nfor304
06-06-2009, 04:41 AM
It's not a knock on Laver to suggest he wouldn't win the Grand Slam in 2009 (if we could make Rocket 25 again) standing 5'9". It's reality.

Hewitt was kind of an "in between" number one. Just after Sampras but before Roger really took off. Leyton was always entertainign to watch but to suggest he as dominant or was ever going to really rule mens tennis for any lenth of time is silly given his physical stature which made it necessary for him to kill himself physically. Sampras and Fed could sometimes almost lose interest until 4-4 in a set then get the break and serve it out in 90 secs as the opponent looks up and realizes the set is over.

To suggest he wasnt dominant is just plain silly. Did you even watch tennis in 2001 and 2002? he was number 1 for 2 years straight. How can that not be ruling mens tennis? I believe 2 years more than qualifies as "any length of time"

hoodjem
06-06-2009, 05:56 AM
Guys, I just wanted to let you know that a certain Polish composer of prodigious talent just posted his GOAT list in another thread (word on the street is that George Sand had some input). As you read it, I'd like all you guys to listen to Chopin's "Revolutionary" Etude.

Here's a really technically sharp performance of it by Pollini:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C-VjFKLCKwM

Pollini is really pretty sad at Chopin. His late Beethoven is much better.

If you want good Chopin, listen to Rubinstein or Moravec, or Pires.

As I read your poll, I'll listen to K. 626.

hoodjem
06-06-2009, 06:00 AM
have u even seen laver play? he's amazing, check out this video against tony roche

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wHaN2h21ANs

And Roche looks pretty good too (but not good enough)--I guess that's why Lendl and Fed hired him as a coach.

Chopin
06-06-2009, 10:15 AM
Pollini is really pretty sad at Chopin. His late beethoven is much better.

If you want good Chopin, listen to Runinstein or Moravec, or Pires.

As read your poll, I'll listen to K. 626.

I agree that Pollini's late Beethoven sonatas are stunning. The recording with the Hammerclavier is awesome.

I personally think Pollini fares well with Chopin's etudes and opus 28 preludes (better than with the nocturnes), even though some accuse him of being a little "icy" at times. He certainly let's the music speak for itself, which is nice, and technically, he's very clean (one of the reasons I like the his playing of the Revolutionary etude).

Probably my favorite recording of Chopin's studies is by Murry Perahia though--you should check it out if you can get a copy from a library. The playing is extremely musical and very well recorded. I really love Rubenstein's recording of the ballades though. I could care less that it's not "note-perfect."

I think I have Pires recordings of the nocturnes, which is very good.

Good stuff!

Rabbit
06-06-2009, 10:29 AM
I like the nocturns by Van Morrison personally.

hoodjem
06-07-2009, 06:52 AM
I agree that Pollini's late Beethoven sonatas are stunning. The recording with the Hammerclavier is awesome.

I personally think Pollini fares well with Chopin's etudes and opus 28 preludes (better than with the nocturnes), even though some accuse him of being a little "icy" at times. He certainly let's the music speak for itself, which is nice, and technically, he's very clean (one of the reasons I like the his playing of the Revolutionary etude).

Probably my favorite recording of Chopin's studies is by Murry Perahia though--you should check it out if you can get a copy from a library. The playing is extremely musical and very well recorded. I really love Rubenstein's recording of the ballades though. I could care less that it's not "note-perfect."

I do find Pollini a bit too detached or "icy" with his Chopin, and yes the Nocturnes are worse. (Castro is also very good here.)
I have the Perahia recording of the Etudes--yes, excellent. M. Perahia is excellent at almost everything he touches. My only disappointment with him was his recording of the Schubert B-flat sonata. Alas, perhaps my expectations were too high.

P.S. I also have the Rubinstein Ballades/Scherzos. Wonderful. With Chopin Rubinstein is the GOAT.)

hoodjem
06-07-2009, 09:17 AM
I like the nocturns by Van Morrison personally.


I saw Van Morrison live once in Glasgow. But I don't remember any nocturnes.

35ft6
06-07-2009, 10:27 AM
Come on now, yeah right! Like a guy with one of the worst ethics and one of the most frequently injured and/or breaking down bodies on tour who was maybe 5'9" with a mohawk and who couldn't break the sound barrier with his serve and who didn't use radical extreme grips or swings, who took very metered, controlled, swings at the ball, who didn't swing like Tarzan at everything in sight, who didn't jump out of his skin to serve, who was very fast and athletic but let's be real here not necessarily tour-leading fast or athletic like a Borg or a Chang or a Nadal or Coria, who...HOW could someone like this EVER reach #1 in the modern age? Mac had a terrible work ethic, too, but like Rios, had insane talent. Rios had it all. What did Nick B say about Rios? Something about god gave him eyes, hands, and feet. And he was the Greg Maddux of serving when he reached number 1. Your description of him, I get what your point, is kind of misleading. He was a freakish talent. He had number 1 in the world level of talent, but it should come as no surprise that his attitude and injury prone body would make his time at the top short lived.

35ft6
06-07-2009, 10:29 AM
thank you very much! even sampras constantly refers to laver as the GOAT.This is what Pete said today:“Now that he has won in Paris, I think it just more solidifies his place in history as the greatest player that played the game, in my opinion.”Notice, he said "more solidifies" not "today he became."

hoodjem
06-07-2009, 10:31 AM
Source for this quotation?

CyBorg
06-07-2009, 10:39 AM
Looks like we can talk talking about it. Pete Sampras said it after all.

This reminds me of that something-something... oh, right. Appeal to "authority".

Can you imagine someone going on record now and saying that Roger isn't the best of all time? I can't either. Would be in bad taste.

35ft6
06-07-2009, 10:40 AM
Source for this quotation?From Yahoo! article (http://sports.yahoo.com/ten/news;_ylt=Ary3fLbzfdqZZQYXRRrjor84v7YF?slug=ap-frenchopen&prov=ap&type=lgns).

rwn
06-08-2009, 01:54 AM
If the professionals had been allowed to play Laver probably wouldn´t have won slams before 1964. He also didn´t win slams after 1969, so it is very unlikely he would have won much more than Federer.

Rabbit
06-08-2009, 05:13 AM
I saw Van Morrison live once in Glasgow. But I don't remember any nocturnes.

And it stoned me....

hoodjem
06-08-2009, 06:19 AM
If the professionals had been allowed to play Laver probably wouldn´t have won slams before 1964. He also didn´t win slams after 1969, so it is very unlikely he would have won much more than Federer.True; that would give him only 24 chances over 1964-69 to win slams when he was undisputably the world's no. 1 player.

Would he have more than 11 or less?

If pros were allowed to play at the majors like Fed today, maybe Rosewall or Gonzales would be the GOAT.

hoodjem
06-08-2009, 06:39 AM
Overrated:
"What Laver did is god-like," said Andre Agassi, who completed his career Slam at Roland Garros in 1999 and who handed Federer his coveted Coupe des Mousquetaires men's trophy Sunday. "To win all of them in the same year twice — how do you argue with that?"

grafselesfan
06-08-2009, 07:02 AM
True; that would give him only 24 chances over 1964-69 to win slams when he was undisputably the world's no. 1 player.

Would he have more than 11 or less?

If pros were allowed to play at the majors like Fed today, maybe Rosewall or Gonzales would be the GOAT.

My guess would be that Laver would win around 15 had it been Open tennis then, but that is largely a guess although I do look at his pro slam results those years too. Probably all 15 would be from 1964-1969. Although possibly he matures even a bit faster facing the greats like Rosewall, Gonzales, and Hoad sooner. He seemed to be a quick study when at the very start he getting hammered, but he improved so fast once exposed to the true best opposition which is extremely impressive and speaks highly to his willingess to learn, adapt, and grow. As well without the rise of exhibition tennis in the 70s he probably wins a few more in the first half of the 70s too, although no longer dominant of course. I think you are right that it could be Rosewall or Gonzales as the GOAT if it had been Open tennis all those years.

hoodjem
06-08-2009, 07:20 AM
Well, I know one good result from yesterday: the 1HBH is not completely dead. And maybe the drop shot is back.

Maybe the all-court game will come back too?

urban
06-08-2009, 07:50 AM
That Lver would have won no major until 1964, if all pro were eligible, is imo very unlikely. He adapted fast and would have been a strong factor at all majors since 1960. Hoad wasn't the player anymore, he was around 1959, in the early 60s, Gonzales was semiretired in 1962-63. Rosewall would be a very strong rival, but Laver would win a share of prices. Its also said, that many political struggles prevented contract pros like Laver, to take part in majors in the early 70s. The real open era begins imo only in 1974.

pc1
06-08-2009, 08:29 AM
That Lver would have won no major until 1964, if all pro were eligible, is imo very unlikely. He adapted fast and would have been a strong factor at all majors since 1960. Hoad wasn't the player anymore, he was around 1959, in the early 60s, Gonzales was semiretired in 1962-63. Rosewall would be a very strong rival, but Laver would win a share of prices. Its also said, that many political struggles prevented contract pros like Laver, to take part in majors in the early 70s. The real open era begins imo only in 1974.

Urban,

I agree with you.

That being said I'm not sure if Laver would have been as great a player if Open tennis was around since the very beginning. When Laver first entered the Pro Tour in 1963, he regularly played great players like Rosewall, Hoad, Gimeno and others who were superior to anyone that he would have played in the amateur ranks. There were no easy touches and virtually everyone was a majors winner. I would think the level of play in those days on the old pro tour was amazingly high and Laver had to improve immensely to become number one on that pro tour.

My guess would be that if Open tennis was around in the beginning that Laver would have won far more majors but at his best would have been not quite as strong a player because he would not have had to play the Rosewalls, Gonzalezs, Hoads etc as much.

urban
06-08-2009, 11:00 AM
I fully agree with this, pc1. The old pro tour was a very hard exercise in honing your game to the last ounce. To stay in the game, the players needed to carve out their weaknesses. It was do or die. If you failed to make it on the pro tour, there was no way to return to the amateur tour. Some talented ones like Ashley Cooper couldn't cope with the rigors and simply went out of tennis. Rosewall, a baseliner as amateur, had to learn to play volleys and halfvolleys, to see some land on ultra fast indoor courts against big guys like Gonzales or Trabert. Laver had to tighten his second serve, shorten his backswing on the volley, and to play more percentage tennis overall, to get to the very top. Honing their game was the central thing of those pros. They had nothing else, no media exposure, no entourage, no commercial contracts. They played more for pride than for big money. In some sense, those pros were the real amateurs of the game.

CyBorg
06-08-2009, 11:04 AM
This is what Pete said today:Notice, he said "more solidifies" not "today he became."

Notice how this guy will never point out how Bud Collins and Wilander disagree with media's anointment of Federer as the greatest of all time.

He'll just come here to report something that supports his point of view.

pc1
06-08-2009, 01:48 PM
Notice how this guy will never point out how Bud Collins and Wilander disagree with media's anointment of Federer as the greatest of all time.

He'll just come here to report something that supports his point of view.

A lot of people are going to anoint Federer the GOAT now. That's just expected. Federer's a great player but I actually think he has more stroke weaknesses than Nadal and at the same time I'm not sure if Nadal will have a long enough career to surpass Federer considering his injury problems.

Who do all of you think is the favorite for Wimbledon considering that Nadal may be hurt? A few months ago it would have been overwhelming for Nadal as the favorite, now I'm not sure. It may very well be close between Federer and Nadal. I'm not convinced about Murray and Djokovic on grass yet.

If Nadal's healthy clearly Nadal's the favorite for Wimbledon.

35ft6
06-08-2009, 02:52 PM
A lot of people are going to anoint Federer the GOAT now. That's just experted. Federer's a great player but I actually think he has more stroke weaknesses than Nadal and at the same time I'm not sure if Nadal will have a long enough career to surpass Federer considering his injury problems.Fed's strokes are different. Nadal's groundstrokes are weapons, but they're more like a Cesar Chavez, body blow style strokes, whereas Fed is more of a knockout artist, head hunter. Nadal's strokes may be more reliable overall but Fed is no slouch in the consistency department (really, it's only Nadal that manages to expose Fed's supposed weaknesses... and as far as that goes, Nadal makes a lot of backhands look shaky...) plus he's got an extra gear, he can really rip winners out of nowhere off his forehand. Plus, his volleys and serve are better, so overall, not sure if I would say he has more weaknesses than Nadal.

Young Pete
06-09-2009, 12:50 AM
This is what Pete said today:Notice, he said "more solidifies" not "today he became."


i distinctly remember in an interview pete sampras said its not fair to compare generations / goat. there is a great player for every generation. he says the greatest in his opinion goes: laver,borg,himself,federer

so there you go!

don't know what he is saying know but that is what he said not too long ago after his retirement..

hoodjem
06-09-2009, 05:52 AM
True; that would give him only 24 chances over 1964-69 to win slams when he was undisputably the world's no. 1 player.

Would he have more than 11 or less?

If pros were allowed to play at the majors like Fed today, maybe Rosewall or Gonzales would be the GOAT.That Laver would have won no major until 1964, if all pros were eligible, is imo very unlikely. He adapted fast and would have been a strong factor at all majors since 1960. Hoad wasn't the player anymore, he was around 1959, in the early 60s, Gonzales was semiretired in 1962-63. Rosewall would be a very strong rival, but Laver would win a share of prizes. Its also said, that many political struggles prevented contract pros like Laver, to take part in majors in the early 70s. The real open era begins imo only in 1974.


Urban has an excellent point: Laver adapted and raised his game relative to his competition. If the pros had been allowed to play in slams in the 50s and early 60s, then Laver would have been faced with much tougher competition than he was by the amateurs. He would have had to do from the outset exactly what he did in 1963, when he joined the pro ranks.

When he went from being an amateur to a pro, from 1962-63, it took him about a year to get his bearings and rise to the competition to become the world no. 1 by 1964. If he had faced pro competition all along, I believe that this year simply would have happened earlier, let's say 1959-60. So that he would have been among the world's best by 1961.

I would thus predict that he might not have won the Grand Slam in 1962, but that he would have won several majors in the 1961-63 period. I think he might have won a Grand Slam in 1965, 1967 (the year of his Pro Slam, and perhaps his career peak year), and 1969 when he did win an Open Grand Slam.

And he was still world no. 1 in 1971. This hypothetically projected span would have given him 10 years as world no. 1 and three Grand Slams.

And I believe that this period would have had the strongest field in the history of the game: Gonzales, Hoad, Rosewall, Trabert, and Laver then later Roche, Ashe, Newcombe. Heck, maybe even Emerson would have been required to get better to compete--and we'd really know how good or not good he was.

urban
06-09-2009, 06:35 AM
Hoodjem, i think it would be neck and neck with Rosewall in the early 60s, as it was on the pro tour. But we would have had an altogether different scenario. Not the elite pro draws and match-series, but big draws with 128 players more in the mood of the amateur circuit. I always thought, that Laver and Rosewall both would have won around 20 majors across all surfaces, with Gonzales, who was the master of the old 100 match series, close behind. Rosewall would have had a longer span of winning majors (from around 1957-1972), while Laver would have had more intensive peak years in the mid and late 60s. Gonzales had extraordinary qualities in longevity and especially in mano a mano matchplay situations, but wasn't quite that dominant across all surfaces. As i always stated, my big question mark is Hoad. All people have the highest respect for him, but going by facts i find his pro record a bit disappointing. Maybe caused by his back injury, maybe by a lack of willpower and training regimen.

pc1
06-09-2009, 07:05 AM
Urban,

Hoad's record is very disappointing considering how many people have called him the greatest of all time. Many have called him the greatest ever when he was on his game but you tend to wonder if that high risk style is worth it since he seemed to lose a lot more often then you would expect of a player of his great talent.

I have a hunch Hoad would have gotten a few majors if Open tennis was around but not nearly the amount he has in amateur tennis.

I also agree with Hoodjem that the Pro Tours of the 1950's to late 1960's had an incredible concentration of talent and the level of play may very well have been far higher than it is today. So many great players entered the pros in those days and had trouble winning matches, much less tournaments.

When you consider what players like Gonzalez, Rosewall and Laver did in those years in dominating the Pros, well it is astounding.

Rabbit
06-09-2009, 09:06 AM
Gonzalez himself said that Hoad was the one player who he feared. I have had the opportunity to talk to some of the old Aussie's and they really blame Hoad's love of partying for his lack of focus. Any way for Gonzalez to give him that kind of nod is a pretty good indication of how good Hoad was.

hoodjem
06-09-2009, 12:52 PM
Hoodjem, i think it would be neck and neck with Rosewall in the early 60s, as it was on the pro tour. But we would have had an altogether different scenario. Not the elite pro draws and match-series, but big draws with 128 players more in the mood of the amateur circuit. I always thought, that Laver and Rosewall both would have won around 20 majors across all surfaces, with Gonzales, who was the master of the old 100 match series, close behind. Rosewall would have had a longer span of winning majors (from around 1957-1972), while Laver would have had more intensive peak years in the mid and late 60s. Gonzales had extraordinary qualities in longevity and especially in mano a mano matchplay situations, but wasn't quite that dominant across all surfaces. As i always stated, my big question mark is Hoad. All people have the highest respect for him, but going by facts i find his pro record a bit disappointing. Maybe caused by his back injury, maybe by a lack of willpower and training regimen.
Yes, if the slams had been open to the pros, then Rosewall and Laver would probably have taken many in the 1960-63 period. Don't forget Emmo, he may have risen to the challenge.

Carlo Giovanni Colussi
06-11-2009, 12:43 AM
Urban has an excellent point: Laver adapted and raised his game relative to his competition. If the pros had been allowed to play in slams in the 50s and early 60s, then Laver would have been faced with much tougher competition than he was by the amateurs. He would have had to do from the outset exactly what he did in 1963, when he joined the pro ranks.

When he went from being an amateur to a pro, from 1962-63, it took him about a year to get his bearings and rise to the competition to become the world no. 1 by 1964. If he had faced pro competition all along, I believe that this year simply would have happened earlier, let's say 1959-60. So that he would have been among the world's best by 1961.

I would thus predict that he might not have won the Grand Slam in 1962, but that he would have won several majors in the 1961-63 period. I think he might have won a Grand Slam in 1965, 1967 (the year of his Pro Slam, and perhaps his career peak year), and 1969 when he did win an Open Grand Slam.

And he was still world no. 1 in 1971. This hypothetically projected span would have given him 10 years as world no. 1 and three Grand Slams.

And I believe that this period would have had the strongest field in the history of the game: Gonzales, Hoad, Rosewall, Trabert, and Laver then later Roche, Ashe, Newcombe. Heck, maybe even Emerson would have been required to get better to compete--and we'd really know how good or not good he was.

I do not completely agree your statement because I don't think he would have been the best as late as 1971 (however a debatable year about the #1) if open tennis had always existed. I'm not even sure he would have the best in 1969.
I think the pressure of being #1 for so long would have been physically and mentally gruelling.

But I agree that Laver would have probably been better earlier had open tennis existed since the beginning but he would also have declined earlier.

And that is also true for players such as Budge, Kramer, Gonzales, Rosewall and others.
Budge's greatest improvement occurred when he toured Vines in early 1939 in the pro tour.
Kramer's riskier but very efficient game changement was his serve&volley and return&volley play when he noted that he couldn't beat Riggs with his usual amateur style of play (closer then to Vines's or Budge's game). So Kramer was too really better in the pro ranks than in the amateur circuit.
Gonzales improved when he understood how to play Kramer's low volley game.
Rosewall saw the huge gap between pros and amateurs in early 1957 and then only began to develop his future superb volley game (whereas in the amateur he stayed almost always at the back of the court) and hugely improved his consistency to the point of regularly beating Segura.
Sedgman clearly explained in the "Art of Tennis" that Laver had many lapses of concentration in his first years (however not as many as Hoad) and that Rocket really improved only in 1962 and not before so I'm not so sure that Laver would have been the best in 1961 if tennis had been open. It simply took time for him to be mature (but I recognize once he was mature he was without any doubt).
So in conclusion all the greats would have raised up earlier and declined earlier if tennis had been always open.
Perhaps (but it is pure speculation) Gonzales or Rosewall would have retired before 1968 had they been allowed to show their great talent to the majority of the public and the media.
Perhaps Gonzales would have the best in the early 50's and Rosewall in the late 50's and perhaps Laver's last great years would have been the late 60's and not 1974-1975 (the last years when he was in the Top20 (he was even in the Top10 and a threat to everyone : still able to beat Ashe in 1975 and playing so great against Jimbo and Fortress respectively at Las Vegas and Dallas that same year)).

urban
06-11-2009, 01:03 AM
Interesting points, Carlo, though i am not sure about it. In the 50s and 60s there were other patterns for the career curves of great players. Mostly they had longer development periods, and peaked, when they were around 25 to 28. Maybe it was due to the longer education and evolving process, coming with the amateur and pro split. Kramer was 27, when he got to his peak, Gonzales around 25. Hoad and Rosewall were early birds, but reached the top of their form around 1959-61, when both were ca. 25. Same with Laver.

Since the 80s and 90s Top players grew up on on the pro circuit, and many had their best years earlier, around 22-25. See, Borg (who was an instant teen star, but burnt out early), Mac, Becker (who reached the top form around 20), even Sampras and now Federer, who came up a bit later, and Nadal, whose career resembles Borg's. In the past the players needed to play on in their thirties to make a living, in modern times with so much money in the game, sometimes the motivation went out of certain players. But on the oher hand, people like Connors, Lendl and Agassi showed, that with good work ethic, players could very well progress gradually to stay at the top.

Carlo Giovanni Colussi
06-11-2009, 03:40 AM
Interesting points, Carlo, though i am not sure about it. In the 50s and 60s there were other patterns for the career curves of great players. Mostly they had longer development periods, and peaked, when they were around 25 to 28. Maybe it was due to the longer education and evolving process, coming with the amateur and pro split. Kramer was 27, when he got to his peak, Gonzales around 25. Hoad and Rosewall were early birds, but reached the top of their form around 1959-61, when both were ca. 25. Same with Laver.

Since the 80s and 90s Top players grew up on on the pro circuit, and many had their best years earlier, around 22-25. See, Borg (who was an instant teen star, but burnt out early), Mac, Becker (who reached the top form around 20), even Sampras and now Federer, who came up a bit later, and Nadal, whose career resembles Borg's. In the past the players needed to play on in their thirties to make a living, in modern times with so much money in the game, sometimes the motivation went out of certain players. But on the oher hand, people like Connors, Lendl and Agassi showed, that with good work ethic, players could very well progress gradually to stay at the top.

Of course I have no certainties but if tennis had always been open, there would have been more money and more fame and so more motivation at early age (and less motivation at old age) and perhaps players of the past would have had possibly the same progression and decline curves as modern players.
On the other hand if Nadal, Mac, Wilander, Borg and al had been born half a century before in a "close" era perhaps they would have reached their peaks at 27 years old and not at 22 as they had.

In the particular cases of Connors, Agassi and Lendl you can note that Connors hadn't won a Slam for 3 consecutive years so perhaps his motivation has increased and boosted his late career.
Agassi's case was even worse : he was a very mean player in 1993 and 1997 so he was perhaps even hungrier than Jimbo in his late career.
Lendl had a long enough career though back injury almost completely stopped his career in 1993 (he played some matches until 1994).

pc1
06-11-2009, 04:38 AM
Of course I have no certainties but if tennis had always been open, there would have been more money and more fame and so more motivation at early age (and less motivation at old age) and perhaps players of the past would have had possibly the same progression and decline curves as modern players.
On the other hand if Nadal, Mac, Wilander, Borg and al had been born half a century before in a "close" era perhaps they would have reached their peaks at 27 years old and not at 22 as they had.

In the particular cases of Connors, Agassi and Lendl you can note that Connors hadn't won a Slam for 3 consecutive years so perhaps his motivation has increased and boosted his late career.
Agassi's case was even worse : he was a very mean player in 1993 and 1997 so he was perhaps even hungrier than Jimbo in his late career.
Lendl had a long enough career though back injury almost completely stopped his career in 1993 (he played some matches until 1994).

Of course it's all speculation but I think we all agree that Laver, Gonzalez, Rosewall, Gimeno and many others improved by leaps and bounds when they entered the old Pro Ranks. It's human nature for players to try to rise to the level of their competition. The conditions of that time were unique in that legends tended to play in the pros to make a living so you could meet a Rosewall, Hoad, Segura, Kramer, Gonzalez, Anderson just in the first round and regularly play all these greats over the course of a tennis year.

For example Mal Anderson was a great player but he lost on a tour to Gonzalez a score of 20 to 0! Gonzalez also defeated Ashley Cooper on that same tour by a score of 14 to 0! I don't think these players got any worse and most likely improved from their play in the amateurs but they weren't able to handle the greats like Gonzalez, Hoad and Rosewall. Yet if there was Open Tennis I believe Cooper and Anderson would have had excellent tournament records. In the Pros of that time they had trouble winning a match.

If you took a sport and you took all the best players out and had them play in a separate league, considering the high level of talent I believe you would have a level of player beyond what would normally occur if all of them played in a regular league, in this case the league was the Old Pro Tennis.

My opinion is that the old Pro Ranks of the 1950's to 1960's may have been the highest average level of play ever. For a Gonzalez, Rosewall and Laver to reach the top of that Pro Level is a great accomplishment.

TsongaEatingAPineappleLol
06-11-2009, 04:42 AM
Lleyton Hewitt stadium, anybody? ;)

hoodjem
06-11-2009, 06:22 AM
Lleyton Hewitt stadium, anybody? ;)

Maybe in 30 years when they add another covered stadium at the AO, given the current Aussie player drought.

hoodjem
06-11-2009, 06:34 AM
I do not completely agree your statement because I don't think he would have been the best as late as 1971 (however a debatable year about the #1) if open tennis had always existed. I'm not even sure he would have the best in 1969.
I think the pressure of being #1 for so long would have been physically and mentally gruelling.

But I agree that Laver would have probably been better earlier had open tennis existed since the beginning but he would also have declined earlier.

I respect your first statement as interesting, in not completely persuasive. I believe that it presumes a arbitrarily delimited period of time that a player (like Laver) can remain at his peak (for example, 8 years). If we start it earlier then it must end earlier--this is what I believe you are saying. I believe Laver's decline in 1972-73 was due to advancing age and accumulated wear and tear on his body. For him the limiting factor seems to have been reaching the age of 34-35. (When I saw him in the WCT finals in Dallas in 1972 he looked extremely fit, very quick indeed, and physically healthy, although he did suffer some back and knee problems.)

I see no reason to argue that if he had improved earlier (with an earlier Open tennis) in 1959-60 he could not have maintained this level until at least 1970-71, as in actuality. In other words, I believe that the quality curve of his career would have risen earlier but would have been maintained exactly as long as it was in reality. He was 20 years old at Wimbledon in 1959, and only 31 when he completed the Grand Slam in 1969. This would emcompass only an 11 year period.

I also believe that the "pressure of being world no 1" was less then and would not have taken a toll on Laver. He has always been a sane, humble, level-headed individual--not prone to place a lot of credence in the hype and adulation of the media. I think Laver would have succeeded because he concerned himself with his game and defeating his opponents--not all the other media drivel.

(P.S. I do wonder is it hypothetically possible that if tennis had been completely open, the "pros" of the time would not have needed to play the grueling schedule they did in the later 1950s and 1960s. If this was true, then could not the longevity of Gonzales, Rosewall, and Laver be increased--because of less wear and tear on their bodies?)

Q&M son
06-11-2009, 09:59 AM
true

plus he lost so often

16 times in 1969, so much for TOTAL DOMINATION

he wasn't tall enough to be a GOAT

he's a second tier player that got lucky with his era and technology

to put it bluntly, Sampras would beat Laver on clay even though Laver won RG

you have to remember, in Laver's day people S&V'd on CLAY!!!!!!!!!

Pete would have loved that

Pete is so unlucky, if he played in the 60s he would have 40+ slams

Now I know why this guy was banned...:twisted:

Q&M son
06-11-2009, 10:07 AM
Laver gets WAY to much credit. The guy played in a country club era of tennis. Any top ATP pro would crush a player of Laver's athleticism and skill level. Heck, a top 50 ATP pro would probably destroy him (even if they all were using wood racquets).

Same for Chopin.
Bach, Beethoven and Mozart would kill him. :evil:

hoodjem
06-11-2009, 10:20 AM
Schubert and even Haydn would trounce him--just too many weapons.

Q&M son
06-11-2009, 10:31 AM
Schubert and even Haydn would trounce him--just too many weapons.

Agree. :)

But you can't compare those musicians to the contemporary musicians, never.
Today are stronger.
Looke the longer and size of his fingers and the development of their brains.
Besides, how many musicians were back then???... only "a few"...they have no competition, not true competition :evil:

Rabbit
06-11-2009, 11:07 AM
and, with today's synthetic instruments, a guy with wood and cat gut just couldn't keep up.

Jean Luc Ponty would trounce anyone with a Strat....

Barry Manilow is way better than Mozart.....

Millie Vanillie would put a hole right through anything Beethoven could come up with....

hoodjem
06-11-2009, 12:34 PM
Bach? Hah! Madonna would blow his brains out with her amazing volume and pitch control.

No comparison!

pc1
06-11-2009, 12:39 PM
Bach? Hah! Madonna would blow his brains out with her amazing volume and pitch control.

No comparison!

Oh yeah. You know the these younger musicians and singers are physically stronger and more powerful today. It's better technique.

Bach would lose in the first round nowadays.

Tennis Dunce
06-14-2009, 01:32 PM
1) Yes 3 of the grand slams were played on grass, but they were all very different speeds. Today there is actually less disparity between the surfaces.

2)Laver actually won the equivelant of about 20 grandslams, he played most of his career on the pro circuit.

3)Laver was shot for shot better than Federer. He was like Hewitt with Federer's strokes and a much better backhand.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EpdPX9avs1M&fmt=18



/thread

Ashe was right there with him the whole match...and passed Laver like a million times. "GOAT"...BWAHAHAHAHA hardly. Great acumen yes, GOAT...not in a million years. That title belongs to Borg, Sampras or Federer ONLY.

hoodjem
06-14-2009, 02:50 PM
Ashe was right there with him the whole match...and passed Laver like a million times. "GOAT"...BWAHAHAHAHA hardly. Great acumen yes, GOAT...not in a million years. That title belongs to Borg, Sampras or Federer ONLY.

^^^Ashe was an excellent grass court player. Remember what Ashe did to Connors in the '75 Wimbledon finals.
Yes, he did pass Laver a bunch in this highlights video. But remember who won: 2-6, 6-2, 9-7, 6-0.



BTW nice moniker. I tells us a lot, for instance how to read your posts.

hoodjem
06-14-2009, 03:05 PM
Interesting list--

All Slams - Open Era (120+ sets, 60%+)
Rank Player W-L Career W/L% Career
1 Roger Federer 425-111 79.3%
2 Bjorn Borg 420-122 77.5%
3 Rod Laver 189-63 75.0%
4 Jimmy Connors 717-240 74.9%
5 Ken Rosewall 286-98 74.5%
6 Pete Sampras 638-222 74.2%
7 John McEnroe 522-183 74.1%
8 Rafael Nadal 174-61 74.1%
9 Ivan Lendl 713-252 73.9%
10 John Newcombe 300-111 73.0%

pc1
06-14-2009, 03:08 PM
Ashe was right there with him the whole match...and passed Laver like a million times. "GOAT"...BWAHAHAHAHA hardly. Great acumen yes, GOAT...not in a million years. That title belongs to Borg, Sampras or Federer ONLY.

Ashe has beaten Borg, Connors, Newcombe, Rosewall, Okker, Nastase, Stan Smith, Emerson, Gimeno, Gonzalez (at an old age of course but still good) and that first set was considered by some the finest set ever played by anyone. Jack Kramer wrote in his book that either player would have beaten anyone that ever lived in that set.

Laver cooled him off and won in four sets.

Tennis Dunce
06-14-2009, 03:26 PM
Before any more fanboys get their panties all bunched...just relax.

There's nothing wrong with being the fourth best tennis player ever.

hoodjem
06-14-2009, 03:34 PM
Before any more fanboys get their panties all bunched...just relax.

There's nothing wrong with being the fourth best tennis player ever.

Yep. After Tilden, Rosewall, Gonzales, and Budge.

julesb
06-14-2009, 03:36 PM
Laver would crush overrated greats like Federer and Graf if he played them. It would take the real greats like Nadal and Seles to give him a real match.

jimbo333
06-14-2009, 04:41 PM
LAVER the GOAT gets nowhere near enough credit!!!

Once Federer has retired, there is a chance that he will be the new GOAT, we will have to see:)

gpt
06-14-2009, 05:17 PM
LAVER the GOAT gets nowhere near enough credit!!!

Once Federer has retired, there is a chance that he will be the new GOAT, we will have to see:)

Laver doesn't get enough credit on this forum at least Jimbo.
Laver is the GOAT ( if there can really be such a thing ).

Laver was playing against Rosewall, Newcombe, Smith, Ashe, Roche all winners of majors.

Federer is definitely one of the greatest tennis players of all time and most likely the most complete player.
However apart from Nadal there are no other 'greats' he has to face.

heftylefty
06-18-2009, 06:38 PM
Ashe was right there with him the whole match...and passed Laver like a million times. "GOAT"...BWAHAHAHAHA hardly. Great acumen yes, GOAT...not in a million years. That title belongs to Borg, Sampras or Federer ONLY.

Actually Ashe was that good. Laver was an incredible player. IMHO Laver is always in the discussion for GOAT.

theagassiman
06-18-2009, 06:52 PM
Again..... dumb..

What has someones height got to do anything?

Are you like 12?

Hey!
Don't bag out 12 year olds!

Tennis Dunce
06-18-2009, 07:03 PM
Actually Ashe was that good. Laver was an incredible player. IMHO Laver is always in the discussion for GOAT.

Yeah...

No doubt that Laver now, and probably 45 years from now, will be mentioned as GOAT, regardless of the accolades others procure.

jimbo333
06-18-2009, 07:12 PM
Yeah...

No doubt that Laver now, and probably 45 years from now, will be mentioned as GOAT, regardless of the accolades others procure.

Let's hope so eh:)

gpt
06-19-2009, 02:14 AM
Up to this point in the history of tennis any GOAT discussion that does not include Laver is just dumb.

pc1
06-19-2009, 07:36 AM
true

plus he lost so often

16 times in 1969, so much for TOTAL DOMINATION

he wasn't tall enough to be a GOAT

he's a second tier player that got lucky with his era and technology

to put it bluntly, Sampras would beat Laver on clay even though Laver won RG

you have to remember, in Laver's day people S&V'd on CLAY!!!!!!!!!

Pete would have loved that

Pete is so unlucky, if he played in the 60s he would have 40+ slams

This thing about height with Laver tends to amaze me. Laver had an excellent left serve which he could hit with power, angle and spin so height didn't stop him from having a terrific serve. He was able to serve and volley against the great service return of Jimmy Connors.

He moved back very quickly and had an excellent overhead in his prime so height didn't matter there.

He had great quickness and covered the net like a blanket so height and reach doesn't hurt him there.

He could hit the ball on the rise and with his powerful left wrist could drive balls above his shoulder if he wanted to let it bounce that high so height didn't hurt him there.

He had extremely powerful wrists and as I mentioned before a tree trunk left arm so height didn't hurt on the power front.

And last but not least the man defeated everyone in his prime, many of them taller than him.

I love the play of Yannick Noah but aside from the overhead, Laver had much better volley and could handle heavy topspin to the backhand better than Noah and Noah was 6'4" tall.

By that logic Goran Ivanisevic who's 6'4" is a better volleyer and covers the net better than Sampras, who is 6'1".

I like Ivo Karlovic but by that logic Karlovic is a shoo in to be a candidate for GOAT at 6'10".

I understand Wilt Chamberlain (7'2") used to hit with Jennifer Capriati and lose to her.

kiki
11-01-2011, 05:21 AM
Same for Chopin.
Bach, Beethoven and Mozart would kill him. :evil:

Chopin is a minor compositor, in the XVII or XVIII century nobody would have heard of.

kiki
11-01-2011, 05:35 AM
Those that give so much importance to the sizes, probably have a size problem, be in their brains or...else

dafinch
11-01-2011, 12:35 PM
Lot of "out there" opinions in this forum...and I see it's a tough crowd as far as mods go, I see more than a few banned posters.

kiki
11-01-2011, 12:37 PM
Laver doesn't get enough credit on this forum at least Jimbo.
Laver is the GOAT ( if there can really be such a thing ).

Laver was playing against Rosewall, Newcombe, Smith, Ashe, Roche all winners of majors.

Federer is definitely one of the greatest tennis players of all time and most likely the most complete player.
However apart from Nadal there are no other 'greats' he has to face.

That is what hurts the *******s...who said that knowing the truth is not painful?