PDA

View Full Version : Roger Federer is not the Greatest of All Time.


JeMar
06-07-2009, 10:52 AM
Roger Federer is not the Greatest of All Time.

He isn't... the game is too different and there are too many variables when you stack him up against greats like Laver.

He is, however, the most accomplished player of all time, at least for the moment. I wish that all these threads about a GOAT and whatnot would get the terminology right. There will never be a greatest of all time because the discussion is far too subjective. We can, however, compare numbers.

TennisDawg
06-07-2009, 11:15 AM
Roger Federer is not the Greatest of All Time.

He isn't... the game is too different and there are too many variables when you stack him up against greats like Laver.

He is, however, the most accomplished player of all time, at least for the moment. I wish that all these threads about a GOAT and whatnot would get the terminology right. There will never be a greatest of all time because the discussion is far too subjective. We can, however, compare numbers.

That's why we look at numbers and surfaces and the level of competition because it's the only way to avoid being subjective. Federer has some very stiff, mean, talented, comeptition to deal with. Much much tougher than Laver's era and Fed has won all 4 Slams. Something the great Sampras could not do. I admire Rod Laver, but I really believe the players are far more talented nowadays then Laver's era, just take a look at some of the ole film clips. You can't honestly say that Laver would have been in the top 10 even. So many players can blow Laver off the court, it would be embarrasing. I agree that Federer is the GOAT for right now, but his reign may be for a long time.

geese_com
06-07-2009, 12:01 PM
Very hard to compare over generations but his resume is one of the best ever.

TennisDawg
06-07-2009, 12:12 PM
Very hard to compare over generations but his resume is one of the best ever.


What is hard about comparing to previous generations?? Not being disrespectful, but do you think Laver and his generation could really compete against this generation of players. Each generation has gotten better and better, it's like comparing the old NBA set shot shooters against todays slam dunk agile 7 foot athletes.

Take a look at 5 foot 7 Rod Laver beating guys like 5 foot 6 Ken Rosewall with his one handed slice back hand. Even John Newcombe with his serve volley game would have gotten blown off the court. Look at the old clips of Borg on clay it's like pitty pat tennis compared to todays game. I remember when it was rare for a player to hit aces on clay now it's almost like watching a hard court match. Even Rod the Rocket Laver would honestly admit that todays players would dominate previous genertions. Federer is the GOAT and will be for quite a few years until some other phenomen comes along.

TennisandMusic
06-07-2009, 12:17 PM
What is hard about comparing to previous generations?? Not being disrespectful, but do you think Laver and his generation could really compete against this generation of players. Each generation has gotten better and better, it's like comparing the old NBA set shot shooters against todays slam dunk agile 7 foot athletes.

Take a look at 5 foot 7 Rod Laver beating guys like 5 foot 6 Ken Rosewall with his one handed slice back hand. Even John Newcombe with his serve volley game would have gotten blown off the court. Look at the old clips of Borg on clay it's like pitty pat tennis compared to todays game. I remember when it was rare for a player to hit aces on clay now it's almost like watching a hard court match. Even Rod the Rocket Laver would honestly admit that todays players would dominate previous genertions. Federer is the GOAT and will be for quite a few years until some other phenomen comes along.

You do realize the effect equipment has had on the game right? :confused:

Guys today are not better than guys 20 and 30 years ago. Get real.

Dimitrov_Fan
06-07-2009, 12:18 PM
very diplomatic approach from the op

most accomplished is very true but greatest is a subjective term that is target for many arguments but most accomplished is basically bullet-proof.

R_Federer
06-07-2009, 12:18 PM
He has the most slams, a career slam, and the most weeks at #1...what more do you want for him to be GOAT? Let me know, thanks.

Turning Pro
06-07-2009, 12:26 PM
He certainly had the weakest field of competition with the only genuine threats and of reasonable talent were of Safin and Hewitt. Roddick was a flame who could only shine at Wimby 04. It was only until pre-prime Nadal came along, where he was challenged.

TennisDawg
06-07-2009, 12:30 PM
You do realize the effect equipment has had on the game right? :confused:

Guys today are not better than guys 20 and 30 years ago. Get real.

Yes, I do realize the equipment is better. So you have more powerful racquets with better technology. When you combine more powerful racquets with bigger, stronger athletes you have today's Tennis game. The racquets are better, but so are the tennis athletes. I think you're in denial.

TennisFan481
06-07-2009, 12:33 PM
What is hard about comparing to previous generations?? Not being disrespectful, but do you think Laver and his generation could really compete against this generation of players. Each generation has gotten better and better, it's like comparing the old NBA set shot shooters against todays slam dunk agile 7 foot athletes.

Take a look at 5 foot 7 Rod Laver beating guys like 5 foot 6 Ken Rosewall with his one handed slice back hand. Even John Newcombe with his serve volley game would have gotten blown off the court. Look at the old clips of Borg on clay it's like pitty pat tennis compared to todays game. I remember when it was rare for a player to hit aces on clay now it's almost like watching a hard court match. Even Rod the Rocket Laver would honestly admit that todays players would dominate previous genertions. Federer is the GOAT and will be for quite a few years until some other phenomen comes along.

And do you think those guys would've been so small if they'd grown up in the current era of nutrition + steroids + high-end modern physical training?

As time goes on, people have gotten bigger, stronger, and faster. Had these guys been born much later, they would've benefited from it the same way Federer has.

It's not a comparison you can make without an excessive amount of conjecture.

TennisDawg
06-07-2009, 12:41 PM
And do you think those guys would've been so small if they'd grown up in the current era of nutrition + steroids + high-end modern physical training?

As time goes on, people have gotten bigger, stronger, and faster. Had these guys been born much later, they would've benefited from it the same way Federer has.

It's not a comparison you can make without an excessive amount of conjecture.

Oh please you're post seemed to be a reasonable argument, until you "gotta bring up roids". Federer is on steroids, now. Just accept that he is a classy, stylish champion, a true gentleman that just played the greatest tournament ever and surpassed all other's before him. You really shouldn't make those types of claims about steroid use, you have no proof that Federer is on steroids and the rest of the players (xcept for a few non significant isolated cases) also and that's dishonest!!

emerckx53
06-07-2009, 12:45 PM
And do you think those guys would've been so small if they'd grown up in the current era of nutrition + steroids + high-end modern physical training?

As time goes on, people have gotten bigger, stronger, and faster. Had these guys been born much later, they would've benefited from it the same way Federer has.

It's not a comparison you can make without an excessive amount of conjecture.

Well said...cannot compare era's sorry just can't. You better believe Laver in his prime with all things being equal...nutrition, equipment etc....would have given the Fed all he wanted.

ambro
06-07-2009, 12:48 PM
What is hard about comparing to previous generations?? Not being disrespectful, but do you think Laver and his generation could really compete against this generation of players. Each generation has gotten better and better, it's like comparing the old NBA set shot shooters against todays slam dunk agile 7 foot athletes.

Take a look at 5 foot 7 Rod Laver beating guys like 5 foot 6 Ken Rosewall with his one handed slice back hand. Even John Newcombe with his serve volley game would have gotten blown off the court. Look at the old clips of Borg on clay it's like pitty pat tennis compared to todays game. I remember when it was rare for a player to hit aces on clay now it's almost like watching a hard court match. Even Rod the Rocket Laver would honestly admit that todays players would dominate previous genertions. Federer is the GOAT and will be for quite a few years until some other phenomen comes along.IThank you for this post. It's nice to see someone who is not delusional about the past.

ambro
06-07-2009, 12:52 PM
Well said...cannot compare era's sorry just can't. You better believe Laver in his prime with all things being equal...nutrition, equipment etc....would have given the Fed all he wanted.
Fed would wipe the floor with him. Nutrition is not that different. The training and equipment is, though, but that is no fault of theirs. If they had been brought up in the same era, they may not even have been noteworthy. Maybe this era's style of play would not be their fit, and they wouldn't even be top 100. Who knows. But to say that Laver would even put up a fight against Fed, just because of his results in his era, even with modern equipment, is ridiculous.

matchmaker
06-07-2009, 12:52 PM
To the OP,

I agree with you and I am Fed (pun intended) up with the whole GOAT debate.

Surely Federer is one of the most accomplished players overall of all time, but there are players who were better than him at specific things.

He does not have the best BH of all time, he does not have the best serve of all time, he does not have the best volleys of all time, but he does have a general package that shields his weaknesses rather well and emphasizes his strengths.

Funny how one year ago, all his deficiencies were brutally exposed, and now it is as if nothing was ever wrong with him.

Truth is, he has improved certain things (especially his dropshots) surfing on a wave of confidence, but there are certainly still flaws in his game (BH high up).

psYcon
06-07-2009, 01:08 PM
What is hard about comparing to previous generations?? Not being disrespectful, but do you think Laver and his generation could really compete against this generation of players. Each generation has gotten better and better, it's like comparing the old NBA set shot shooters against todays slam dunk agile 7 foot athletes.

Take a look at 5 foot 7 Rod Laver beating guys like 5 foot 6 Ken Rosewall with his one handed slice back hand. Even John Newcombe with his serve volley game would have gotten blown off the court. Look at the old clips of Borg on clay it's like pitty pat tennis compared to todays game. I remember when it was rare for a player to hit aces on clay now it's almost like watching a hard court match. Even Rod the Rocket Laver would honestly admit that todays players would dominate previous genertions. Federer is the GOAT and will be for quite a few years until some other phenomen comes along.

totally agree. In fact I'm willing to bet that even a strong 5.5 player of today would be able to take on Laver and players from older generations. Tennis in today's world has evolved amongst players, they have access to strong coaching, better health choices, improved fitness routines, in-depth analysis of what to play, when to play and how to play.

drakulie
06-07-2009, 01:29 PM
You do realize the effect equipment has had on the game right? :confused:


Yeah, it doesn't allow players today to hit 163 mph serves like Tilden, or frequently hit ground strokes over 100 mph like laver, gonzalez, etc. :roll:

Guys today are not better than guys 20 and 30 years ago. Get real.

Yes, they really are.

TennisDawg
06-07-2009, 01:34 PM
Well said...cannot compare era's sorry just can't. You better believe Laver in his prime with all things being equal...nutrition, equipment etc....would have given the Fed all he wanted.

Hats off to Laver, but frankly he is fortunate to have competed in an early time. Laver would just be another player hopefully making a decent living at tennis, but that's about it, he would have been a non-factor.

JeMar
06-07-2009, 01:35 PM
That's why we look at numbers and surfaces and the level of competition because it's the only way to avoid being subjective. Federer has some very stiff, mean, talented, comeptition to deal with. Much much tougher than Laver's era and Fed has won all 4 Slams. Something the great Sampras could not do. I admire Rod Laver, but I really believe the players are far more talented nowadays then Laver's era, just take a look at some of the ole film clips. You can't honestly say that Laver would have been in the top 10 even. So many players can blow Laver off the court, it would be embarrasing. I agree that Federer is the GOAT for right now, but his reign may be for a long time.

I see your point, but even here you're being extremely subjective. Who's to say that if someone like Laver had come along right now that he would not have adapted to the current men's game? Even more, the average height of the men's game has increased steadily over the years, so who's to say that if someone of Laver's talent had come along today that he would have been five feet eight inches?

Looking at how they played is also not very much help, as even the most inside of tennis insiders will tell you that what the players are able to do today is due to superior training science and better technology. If you give tools that important to someone of the past, they would've been able to achieve the near super-human feats that players today perform every day.

We cannot compare the Federer to today to the Laver of the 1960s because they train and compete with vastly different tools. What we need to look at is what they accomplished with what they were given.

You cannot possibly understand how psyched I was when Federer won today, but all this GOAT talk is getting somewhat ridiculous. Yes, Federer is certainly the best tennis player I've ever seen weild a tennis racquet, but Laver did so many years ago with so little is also really special. Keep in mind that I'm not saying that Laver is the GOAT over Federer, because what I'm really saying is that there can be no fair contest between the two. People will say that Federer cannot be the GOAT because of a bad H2H against Nadal or that his "career grand slam" is inferior to Laver's calendar-year grand slam, which he won twice; Laver critics will say that his calender-year slams are tainted because of the prevalence of grass during those days.

Hence, I believe it's best to just leave the comparison alone and worry about comparing athletes to their own generation. At this moment, Federer certainly stands as the best player in this generation, even though Nadal may have some say in that in the future.

The tennis guy
06-07-2009, 01:36 PM
Well said...cannot compare era's sorry just can't. You better believe Laver in his prime with all things being equal...nutrition, equipment etc....would have given the Fed all he wanted.

You better hope Laver would grow taller with better nutrition...

JeMar
06-07-2009, 01:37 PM
totally agree. In fact I'm willing to bet that even a strong 5.5 player of today would be able to take on Laver and players from older generations. Tennis in today's world has evolved amongst players, they have access to strong coaching, better health choices, improved fitness routines, in-depth analysis of what to play, when to play and how to play.

This is just silly.

Now, I may just be a lowly 4.0, but if a 5.5 is strong enough to be competing with someone like Laver, he's no 5.5.

JeMar
06-07-2009, 01:37 PM
You better hope Laver would grow taller with better nutrition...

He certainly could've been taller if his parents had had better nutrition. It's not that hard of a conclusion to reach?

TennisDawg
06-07-2009, 01:41 PM
To the OP,

I agree with you and I am Fed (pun intended) up with the whole GOAT debate.

Surely Federer is one of the most accomplished players overall of all time, but there are players who were better than him at specific things.

He does not have the best BH of all time, he does not have the best serve of all time, he does not have the best volleys of all time, but he does have a general package that shields his weaknesses rather well and emphasizes his strengths.

Funny how one year ago, all his deficiencies were brutally exposed, and now it is as if nothing was ever wrong with him.

Truth is, he has improved certain things (especially his dropshots) surfing on a wave of confidence, but there are certainly still flaws in his game (BH high up).


Okay, let's compare Federer's slice backhand to the supposed "gold standard" Kenny Rosewall slice backhand. Federer accelerates through the slice and the ball comes back with a ridiculous curve that is not defensive in the least instead it is an offensive weapon that keeps his opponent back and allows Fed to be on the agressive. Ken Rosewall hit a nice clean well-slice backhand, but it was not a weapon. And as far as a clear, pure drive Feds slice backhand looks more correct and textbook. No comparison, and also Rosewall hit only slice because he couldn't even hit a topspin backhand. Imagine that a top tennis professional today not being able to hit topspin off both sides, lights out, man!!

The tennis guy
06-07-2009, 01:42 PM
He certainly could've been taller if his parents had had better nutrition. It's not that hard of a conclusion to reach?

Some people do, some people don't. It has a lot to do with genetic.

Gorecki
06-07-2009, 01:46 PM
Roger Federer is not the Greatest of All Time.

He isn't... the game is too different and there are too many variables when you stack him up against greats like Laver.

He is, however, the most accomplished player of all time, at least for the moment. I wish that all these threads about a GOAT and whatnot would get the terminology right. There will never be a greatest of all time because the discussion is far too subjective. We can, however, compare numbers.

Brilliant JE. i've been saying the same thing for long time...

Fedace
06-07-2009, 01:52 PM
Yeah, it doesn't allow players today to hit 163 mph serves like Tilden, or frequently hit ground strokes over 100 mph like laver, gonzalez, etc. :roll:



Yes, they really are.

Roger isn't the Greatest. He only won the French open cause Rafa was injured. Rafa's Knee gave out on him. so he lost early. So This in turn allowed Roger to win the French. so this is a FAKE win.:)

JeMar
06-07-2009, 01:55 PM
Roger isn't the Greatest. He only won the French open cause Rafa was injured. Rafa's Knee gave out on him. so he lost early. So This in turn allowed Roger to win the French. so this is a FAKE win.:)

I dunno if you're being sarcastic or not, but Federer's win had nothing to do with Nadal. He can't control who's at the other side of the net. A win is a win is a win.

okdude1992
06-07-2009, 02:00 PM
You do realize the effect equipment has had on the game right? :confused:

Guys today are not better than guys 20 and 30 years ago. Get real.

on the contrary they are much better athletically, stronger, more fit, and they have more variety. its no contest.

to the OP: federer is not quite the difinitive goat imo. but if he gets to around 16 or 17 slams before he retires then there will be no contest. then it will be undisputed.

jjl
06-07-2009, 02:00 PM
Roger is the GOAT. And he's not done quite yet...

okdude1992
06-07-2009, 02:02 PM
Roger isn't the Greatest. He only won the French open cause Rafa was injured. Rafa's Knee gave out on him. so he lost early. So This in turn allowed Roger to win the French. so this is a FAKE win.:)

your an idiot. no win is fake. his draw was made easier by the losses of his 3 main rivals murray, nadal, and djokovic, however there will be no asterisk next to fed's win. he deserved this French Open as the other guys were upset while he wasn't

emerckx53
06-07-2009, 02:03 PM
Fed would wipe the floor with him. Nutrition is not that different. The training and equipment is, though, but that is no fault of theirs. If they had been brought up in the same era, they may not even have been noteworthy. Maybe this era's style of play would not be their fit, and they wouldn't even be top 100. Who knows. But to say that Laver would even put up a fight against Fed, just because of his results in his era, even with modern equipment, is ridiculous.

Sorry Ambro...just can't agree. As I said, "all things being equal" which they are not I know....but you have no idea what kind of athlete Laver was. I also said he would give Fed all he wanted not that he would beat him. It simply is not a "given" Fed would crush Laver with equal equipment. Please go do some homework and listen to what people who have seen both players have to say.

ninman
06-07-2009, 02:21 PM
Wasn't it Tiger Woods who said that you can't ever really be the greatest ever, but if you manage to get your name in the discussion for who is the greatest ever then you've done the best you can. I think Federer has had a wonderful career, and is a wonderful player, and I think all the GOAT talk is really meaningless in a lot of ways, but we can all admire and appreciate what a talented and remarkable player he is.

rogerfederer26
06-07-2009, 03:05 PM
Roger Federer is not the Greatest of All Time.

He isn't... the game is too different and there are too many variables when you stack him up against greats like Laver.

He is, however, the most accomplished player of all time, at least for the moment. I wish that all these threads about a GOAT and whatnot would get the terminology right. There will never be a greatest of all time because the discussion is far too subjective. We can, however, compare numbers.

Rod Laver won all four grand slams in one year in two different years--8 slams in two years, divided by 7 years that he wasn't allowed to play--having turned pro and pros being excluded from open play. Might not he have added 6 or more in those years? One must assume he was at his peak in those years.

Gonzalez, Newcombe, Rosewall, and Kramer might all have won more majors if the rules hadn't excluded them because they were playing their best.

Monica Seles won eight slams before she was taken off the pinnacle by a knife wielding madman.

Whose the greatest of all time--still and always an open question, but Federer is the best I've seen and I've seen Conners, Borg, McEnroe, Becker, Agassi, Courier, Evert, Graf, Navratilova and Sampras....did I mention Sampras.

uNIVERSE mAN
06-07-2009, 03:14 PM
You do realize the effect equipment has had on the game right? :confused:

Guys today are not better than guys 20 and 30 years ago. Get real.

5'7" players don't win titles against 6'+ players, I don't give a **** what era or what equipment you use.

Blue Drop
06-07-2009, 03:26 PM
Roger isn't the Greatest.

Right, you know more than Sampras, Agassi, Johnny Mac, etc., etc., etc. :roll:

bruce38
06-07-2009, 03:34 PM
And do you think those guys would've been so small if they'd grown up in the current era of nutrition + steroids + high-end modern physical training?

As time goes on, people have gotten bigger, stronger, and faster. Had these guys been born much later, they would've benefited from it the same way Federer has.

It's not a comparison you can make without an excessive amount of conjecture.

This is not true. Height is mainly determined by genetics. It's not like guys like Laver were malnourished, they were world-class athletes. Even in today's "better nutrition" (although this is quite arguable in itself), there are many people 5'7 or less. Height is generally an advantage in most sports. Laver probably would have been squashed by some of today's top tennis players.

jukka1970
06-07-2009, 03:37 PM
Roger Federer is not the Greatest of All Time.

He isn't... the game is too different and there are too many variables when you stack him up against greats like Laver.

He is, however, the most accomplished player of all time, at least for the moment. I wish that all these threads about a GOAT and whatnot would get the terminology right. There will never be a greatest of all time because the discussion is far too subjective. We can, however, compare numbers.

BS

I'm so sick of people not giving Federer the credit that is due. Just give it up JeMar, there's nothing you can say that is going to alter what Federer just accomplished by winning that French Open. Personally, he already had the goat status as far as I'm concerned before winning the French Open. And there are to many former pros that believe he is the GOAT.

He's made
15 out of the last 16 finals, and 20 straight semi's of slams. (Is anyone even close to this, I'd be surprised if anyone has 1/2 of those two numbers)

Of all the finals he's made at a slam, he's either won it, or lost it to Nadal.

He has 5 Wimbledons in a row, 5 US Opens in a row, and for 4 consecutive years he won them both.

I mean, there's not enough room on this board to list all the accomplishments and records that Federer has done.

JeMar
06-07-2009, 03:55 PM
Rod Laver couldn't play the majors for 7 years.

prefab
06-07-2009, 03:58 PM
I generally think that it is impossible to compare eras as distinct as Federer's and Laver's and to a lesser extent Federer's and Borg's... We've all witnessed how the game of tennis has evolved, not only in technology... but fitness and style of play. Players are for the most part a product of their era. If Federer played in the 60's, he'd play as a player of that era.

To another point... this business about Federer dominating a weak era is TOTAL NONSENSE. His era wasn't weak.. he (Federer) was simply superb. We all witness 2003-2007 with our own eyes. And by the way... Even McEnroe and other former pros have talked about majors in their era not really "starting" until the second week because the disparity in talent between players in the top 20 and those outside of it was considerable. This dynamic does not exist anymore. If a top player is not careful they can easily get bounced in the 1st-4th rounds. We saw it this week and we see it to some extent in every major. Every player in the top 100 can hit montrous forhands, big serves, extreme angles and are ridiculously consistent... the biggest difference is mental and what happens at 4-all against a top player on a day in day out basis.

By the way... I think Federer is the Greatest to date. In my opinion he has the fewest caveats... their have been no walk-thru first week of slams, he has 14 majors, he's won on 3 distinct surfaces, 20 consecutive semis, most consecutive weeks at number 1, 5 straight Wimbledon's, 5 straight USOpen's (are you kidding me).

Also, I only think it bolster Fed's claim to greatest to have pure and out-and-out fighter like Nadal standing in his way of total and utter domination of his era. With as much riding on history, how many players would have come back to win the USOpen after the way Fed was defeated and Wimbledon... and how many would have come back to capture the French as Fed did after another devastating loss at the AO.

oberyn
06-07-2009, 04:01 PM
This is just silly.

Now, I may just be a lowly 4.0, but if a 5.5 is strong enough to be competing with someone like Laver, he's no 5.5.

Maybe he meant competing with Rod Laver today, as in June 7, 2009. The Rocket is going to be turning 71 in a couple of months. :)

Rhino
06-07-2009, 04:18 PM
Roger isn't the Greatest. He only won the French open cause Rafa was injured. Rafa's Knee gave out on him. so he lost early. So This in turn allowed Roger to win the French. so this is a FAKE win.:)

http://i125.photobucket.com/albums/p46/soundreece/FedRafa.jpg

World Beater
06-07-2009, 04:23 PM
What he's done over the past five years has never, ever been done — and probably will never, ever happen again," Sampras said. "Regardless if he won there or not, he goes down as the greatest ever. This just confirms it."

On hand to give Federer the French Open trophy on Sunday was Andre Agassi, the last player to complete a career Grand Slam sweep, in 1999.

"How do you sort of argue with his numbers? It's pretty incredible," Agassi said of Federer. "A lot of people say it's better to be lucky than good. I'd rather be Roger than lucky."

For a long time, Sampras pointed to his idol Rod Laver, 11-time Grand Slam champ, as the best tennis player in history. Laver was the last man to win all four Grand Slam titles in a single season, a feat he accomplished in both 1962 and 1967.

Laver was barred from competing in those tournaments from the time he turned professional in 1963 to the start of the Open era in 1968.

Federer is now Sampras's choice for best ever.

"Now that he's won in Paris, I think it just more solidifies his place in history as the greatest player that played the game, in my opinion," said Sampras, who retired in 2002.

"I'm a huge Laver fan, and he had a few years in there where he didn't have an opportunity to win majors. But you can't compare the eras, and in this era, the competition is much more fierce than Rod's."


Pete sampras, and andre agassi disagrees with this thread.

GameSampras
06-07-2009, 04:31 PM
http://www.charlierose.com/view/interview/9205


Sampras wasnt saying the same thing here when asked if Fed would be GOAT if he won the RG.

So Pete is just being politically correct right now and going with the media sheep

Blue Drop
06-07-2009, 04:38 PM
So Pete is just being politically correct right now and going with the media sheep


Whatever. Why would he bother?

It's silly that people here are now getting themselves worked up arguing against the people who really do know. You think you know better than John McEnroe? Pete Sampras, for chrissakes? Andre Agassi?

Please.

jukka1970
06-07-2009, 05:14 PM
http://www.charlierose.com/view/interview/9205


Sampras wasnt saying the same thing here when asked if Fed would be GOAT if he won the RG.

So Pete is just being politically correct right now and going with the media sheep

Um, well Charlie got one thing wrong right off the bat. He said that Sampras held the number 1 ranking for 286 consecutive weeks, which is a record. WRONG!!!, the record is 235 held by Federer. Was up to 3 minutes, and Sampras still hadn't corrected that error made by Charlie.

Also in the video, Sampras talks about how everything was tennis for him, and I find that to be quite sad. While Federer not only does this well, but does other things.

GameSampras
06-07-2009, 05:15 PM
Um, well Charlie got one thing wrong right off the bat. He said that Sampras held the number 1 ranking for 286 consecutive weeks, which is a record. WRONG!!!, the record is 235 held by Federer. Was up to 3 minutes, and Sampras still hadn't corrected that error made by Charlie.

Also in the video, Sampras talks about how everything was tennis for him, and I find that to be quite sad. While Federer not only does this well, but does other things.

But the point was, Pete was definitely not echoing the same sentiments then when asked. So who knows what side Pete is really on. Im sure Sampras is very supportive of Fed as they are both buddies, but does he really think Fed is the undisputed GOAT? Does he really believe there is one? TOday he said Fed was. In this interview he said there wasnt one. So who knows.


Is there really one? Maybe a most achieved which Fed no doubt is. But the "greatest?" We will never know since we cant prove it beyond a reasonable doubt. Competition, rackets, surfaces, all change

dh003i
06-07-2009, 05:39 PM
One thing that annoys me is the lack of respect paid to pre-Open Era players other than Laver. It's like Laver is he only guy who played prior to the Open Era. While Laver is a tremendous player, one of the all-time greats for sure, I think that real experts in tennis history like Jack Kramer don't consider Laver to be the best of the pre-Open Era. A 41-year old Gonzales beat Laver at a big-money tournament right after Laver won the calendar year slam. Gonzales and Vines (at his peak) ought to be considered ahead of Laver. Along with many others. While great, Laver didn't have to play a lot of the players who were consistently beating him when he won those calendar year slams. And it wasn't because they didn't make it that far; it was because they were prohibited from playing.

World Beater
06-07-2009, 05:42 PM
http://www.charlierose.com/view/interview/9205


Sampras wasnt saying the same thing here when asked if Fed would be GOAT if he won the RG.

So Pete is just being politically correct right now and going with the media sheep

you can read pete's mind, eh? BTW, pete was the FIRST to say federer is the greatest ever after this recent RG win - he was not following the pack. not only that but he says it CEMENTS his status - meaning he thought it was apparent before the RG win.

what other excuses are you going to come up with?

pete doesn't have to do anything...its his decision what he puts out in the media - he could have been like some others and said "well there really is no GOAT but federer is one up there"...but he didn't...he said it unequivocally.

again these are pete's words, not mine.

Morpheus
06-07-2009, 05:45 PM
Fed may be one of the most durable players of all time, considering how many matches he plays and how he stays injury free in an era where careers are getting shorter and shorter.

Dean
06-07-2009, 05:56 PM
One thing that annoys me is the lack of respect paid to pre-Open Era players other than Laver. It's like Laver is he only guy who played prior to the Open Era. While Laver is a tremendous player, one of the all-time greats for sure, I think that real experts in tennis history like Jack Kramer don't consider Laver to be the best of the pre-Open Era. A 41-year old Gonzales beat Laver at a big-money tournament right after Laver won the calendar year slam. Gonzales and Vines (at his peak) ought to be considered ahead of Laver. Along with many others. While great, Laver didn't have to play a lot of the players who were consistently beating him when he won those calendar year slams. And it wasn't because they didn't make it that far; it was because they were prohibited from playing.

Of course Kramer didn't consider Laver the best. He isn't an American. Apart from early on in Lavers pro career Laver owned gonzales and for that matter rosewall and everyone else that was put in front of him.

wangs78
06-07-2009, 06:03 PM
The thing has pushed the envelope in tennis over time has been technology. Each succeeding generation uses technology that allows them to push the threshold for speed or power. I saw they implement strict equipment rules in tennis NOW (on materials used for racquets and strings, on weight etc.) so that the game doesn't change so much. I think some change is fine. But the current game is significantly different from the game played until the mid 80s. I think from mid 80s through late 90s, the game hasn't changed THAT much. Racquets are still largely made of some kind of graphite however strings have changed a lot, allowing for players to take huge cuts at the ball. But still, I think the best players from the 90s could probably be at least competitive against today's top players.

BullDogTennis
06-07-2009, 06:19 PM
id go as far as say. you take federer back in time, give him a wood racquet, let him play his game (no continental forehand, and ONLY slice backhand) hed kill all those players.

ambro
06-07-2009, 06:55 PM
Sorry Ambro...just can't agree. As I said, "all things being equal" which they are not I know....but you have no idea what kind of athlete Laver was. I also said he would give Fed all he wanted not that he would beat him. It simply is not a "given" Fed would crush Laver with equal equipment. Please go do some homework and listen to what people who have seen both players have to say.That's fine with me. Opinions are fine, but i just think that athletes get better and better every year, every generation. At some point, it catches up and there is a huge difference. This isn't just tennis, either. In all sports, this type of thing happens. Take a look at the NHL, for example. Goalies, specifically. If a current goalie, even the worst one in the NHL, played back in the 1960s, he wouldn't get scored on. Now, admittedly, a lot of it has to do with equipment, but still. They are better athletes. I'll also say that "all things being equal" argements are futile to begin with, but for the sake of the argument, people are just better athletes now than when Laver was playing. That's really all there is to it.

EPaps
06-07-2009, 07:03 PM
Roger Federer is not the Greatest of All Time.

He isn't... the game is too different and there are too many variables when you stack him up against greats like Laver.

He is, however, the most accomplished player of all time, at least for the moment. I wish that all these threads about a GOAT and whatnot would get the terminology right. There will never be a greatest of all time because the discussion is far too subjective. We can, however, compare numbers.

You've had too much http://www.epaps.com/haterade.gif

JeMar
06-07-2009, 07:07 PM
You didn't have enough

http://icouldcrybutidonthavetime.files.wordpress.com/2009/04/smarties1.jpg

EPaps
06-07-2009, 07:09 PM
You didn't have enough

http://icouldcrybutidonthavetime.files.wordpress.com/2009/04/smarties1.jpg

nice try man.

hoodjem
06-11-2009, 04:19 PM
He has the most slams, a career slam, and the most weeks at #1...what more do you want for him to be GOAT? Let me know, thanks.

How about a Grand Slam?

You're welcome.

hoodjem
06-11-2009, 04:28 PM
That's fine with me. Opinions are fine, but i just think that athletes get better and better every year, every generation. At some point, it catches up and there is a huge difference.
Well, I guess the GOAT has yet to be born.

S H O W S T O P P E R !
06-11-2009, 04:39 PM
What is hard about comparing to previous generations??

It's hard because over time, tennis has evolved. The rules have relatively been unchanged since its inception (major exception being the tiebreak) while the entire game has evolved around it. Wood rackets to steel to the graphite sticks. The surfaces have changed in composition and speed over the years and athletes are better. If there is a GOAT (and there is none,) then it can't be any recent player like Fed or Sampras because they had better tech to use rather than the wood players in their rackets.

Now, I'm not trying to bash Fed. His career has been brilliant and he is one of the greatest players to step on a court. But he isn't the best. The best player has to be the best in EVERY WAY POSSIBLE, which means a GOAT has to be able to dominate with wood, steel, graphite rackets, etc. on a vast variety of surfaces (fast/slow grass, f/s hardcourts, f/s clay, carpet, etc.) No one has ever done that and no one ever will.

Finally, I'll make one last argument: who said the GOAT has to be a pro player? What if there's a guy somewhere who is better than any GOAT candidate but no one's ever heard of him? What if he didn't want to play professionally even though he had the skills to?

Bilbo
06-11-2009, 04:41 PM
That's why we look at numbers and surfaces and the level of competition because it's the only way to avoid being subjective. Federer has some very stiff, mean, talented, comeptition to deal with. Much much tougher than Laver's era and Fed has won all 4 Slams. Something the great Sampras could not do. I admire Rod Laver, but I really believe the players are far more talented nowadays then Laver's era, just take a look at some of the ole film clips. You can't honestly say that Laver would have been in the top 10 even. So many players can blow Laver off the court, it would be embarrasing. I agree that Federer is the GOAT for right now, but his reign may be for a long time.
Although i agree that federer's competition is better than laver's, it's definently not tougher than Sampras'. Hell, i'd have goran ivanisevic over any of today's players with the exception of... Federer and Nadal. When we look at the players who won slams in Sampras' era the list of the ones that have won in today's game are as follows: Federer, Nadal, Djokovic... um... Safin if u wanna count him, and Hewitt too (both of those guys are past their prime). I mean, here is the list of Sampras' contemparies who won slams off the top of my head:

Goran Ivanisevic
Andre Agassi
Jim Courier
Richard Krajicek
Sergi Bruguera
Gustavo Kuerten
Patrick Rafter
Michael Chang
Yevgeny Kafelnikov
Petr Korda
Thomas Muster
etc. etc.

I understand that the list can go even farther than that, however this is off the top of my head, without surfing the web. If we strictly look at the stats Sampras' competition was far steeper than Federer's.

CyBorg
06-11-2009, 04:55 PM
Infidel! Jihad!

jimbo333
06-11-2009, 04:58 PM
Although i agree that federer's competition is better than laver's, it's definently not tougher than Sampras'. Hell, i'd have goran ivanisevic over any of today's players with the exception of... Federer and Nadal. When we look at the players who won slams in Sampras' era the list of the ones that have won in today's game are as follows: Federer, Nadal, Djokovic... um... Safin if u wanna count him, and Hewitt too (both of those guys are past their prime). I mean, here is the list of Sampras' contemparies who won slams off the top of my head:

Goran Ivanisevic
Andre Agassi
Jim Courier
Richard Krajicek
Sergi Bruguera
Gustavo Kuerten
Patrick Rafter
Michael Chang
Yevgeny Kafelnikov
Petr Korda
Thomas Muster
etc. etc.

I understand that the list can go even farther than that, however this is off the top of my head, without surfing the web. If we strictly look at the stats Sampras' competition was far steeper than Federer's.

I'm really hoping you are joking, either way this is really funny:)

By the way LAVER is the GOAT!!!

BounceHitBounceHit
06-11-2009, 05:11 PM
It seems to me that durability and consistency have to be taken strongly in to account when one considers a 'GOAT' argument. On these fronts FedEx has NO peer.

Why did so many other players win Slams in Sampras' era? Because he couldn't DOMINATE them the way Fed has his (EQUALLY TALENTED) competition. And part of that is mental.

Fed is the GOAT. Ask Pete Sampras, who said so this week during an interview with CNN.

BHBH

jimbo333
06-11-2009, 05:21 PM
This is a good point, has Federer made at least 20 Grand Slam Semis or better in a row? Or something impressive like that! If so that is great consistency, but only for 5 years. He needs to do it for another 2 or 3 to be up there with LAVER the true GOAT, in my opinion:)

bakla
06-11-2009, 05:24 PM
Let's face it guys, back in Laver's day they had to stuff the draws with club players just to make 128. The first week of the tournament was a walkover.

Even today's qualifiers would have a shot at title if they played back then.

No contest, Fed is the GOAT!

thalivest
06-11-2009, 05:26 PM
The top 100 probably wasnt as deep in Laver's day but his top 10 competition was far superior to either Federer or Sampras.

MT319
06-11-2009, 05:26 PM
In terms of everyone citing the equipment circa 1960’s as a disadvantage compared to the equipment nowadays it goes both ways…sure the wooden framed smaller head racquets are more difficult to hit a ball with than todays racquets but Laver’s “inferior equipment” was also only capable of hitting the ball lets say 90mph on serves and 60 mph on groundstrokes compared to the 130+ today on serves and 90-100 mph groundstrokes …due to that it puts a lesser premium on athleticism in Laver’s day compared to today’s game and at greater ball speeds (aside from obviously being much more difficult to play the game at higher ball speeds on the same sized court) it also causes the different surfaces to have a more significant impact on the ball than would be the case in lavers generation (not to mention laver’s generation played 3 of 4 majors on grass and none on hardcourts) so sure playing with wooden racquets and smaller frames are more difficult than playing with todays racquets in terms of just raw ball striking capacity, but today’s racquets also allow for much greater ball speed and spin in today’s game compared to previous generations which has it’s own sets of inherent difficulties therefore Laver’s “equipment inferiority” has both it’s advantages as well as disadvantages.

bakla
06-11-2009, 05:29 PM
The top 100 probably wasnt as deep in Laver's day but his top 10 competition was far superior to either Federer or Sampras.

Haha, no.

The top 10 of Laver's era would struggle to make the top 100 today.

thalivest
06-11-2009, 05:33 PM
Haha, no.

The top 10 of Laver's era would struggle to make the top 100 today.

Yeah the likes of Ken Rosewall, Roy Emerson, Pancho Gonzales, John Newcombe, Arthur Ashe, Stan Smith, woud all struggle to even make the top 100 today. :roll: They would also never stack up to some of the amazing names you pulled from the Sampras era like Kafelnikov, Chang, grass/carpet only players like Krajicek and Ivanisevic, clay only players like Bruguera and Muster, Rafter, young Kuerten, Korda. :lol:

JeMar
06-11-2009, 05:33 PM
Although i agree that federer's competition is better than laver's, it's definently not tougher than Sampras'. Hell, i'd have goran ivanisevic over any of today's players with the exception of... Federer and Nadal. When we look at the players who won slams in Sampras' era the list of the ones that have won in today's game are as follows: Federer, Nadal, Djokovic... um... Safin if u wanna count him, and Hewitt too (both of those guys are past their prime). I mean, here is the list of Sampras' contemparies who won slams off the top of my head:

Goran Ivanisevic
Andre Agassi
Jim Courier
Richard Krajicek
Sergi Bruguera
Gustavo Kuerten
Patrick Rafter
Michael Chang
Yevgeny Kafelnikov
Petr Korda
Thomas Muster
etc. etc.

I understand that the list can go even farther than that, however this is off the top of my head, without surfing the web. If we strictly look at the stats Sampras' competition was far steeper than Federer's.

It's cool that those guys won slams and all, but it might also mean that Sampras wasn't as dominant as Federer and Nadal. It might speak to Federer's greatness that he and one more person were able to have an iron grip on practically all slams between 2004 and 2009.

jimbo333
06-11-2009, 05:34 PM
Let's face it guys, back in Laver's day they had to stuff the draws with club players just to make 128. The first week of the tournament was a walkover.

Even today's qualifiers would have a shot at title if they played back then.

No contest, Fed is the GOAT!

And what about:-
Sitting down and having a 2 minute break when changing ends.
Taking 30 seconds between points.
Having Graphite racquets.
Having training team.
Having a dietician.
Having computer analysis of opponents.
etc etc etc.
It's easier now for sure!!!

LAVER is the GOAT:)

Federer may be in the future, once he has retired, we will see!!!

imalil2gangsta4u
06-11-2009, 05:35 PM
Most accomplished of all time? yes

Best of all time? you can argue yes and no

thalivest
06-11-2009, 05:38 PM
It's cool that those guys won slams and all, but it might also mean that Sampras wasn't as dominant as Federer and Nadal. It might speak to Federer's greatness that he and one more person were able to have an iron grip on practically all slams between 2004 and 2009.

Exactly. Those arent amazing players. Chang is a weaker version of prime Hewitt. Kafelnikov is a Davydenko clone of sorts. Rafter is a lightweight serve/volleyer who was a total journeyman until his mid 20s. Krajicek and Ivanisevic are Roddick clones with more natural talent but weaker minds and weaker health. Bruguera was an absolutely nothing outside of his favorite turf, couldnt even made a single quarterfinal in his career at any of the other 3 slams. One would think this was a field of legends the way some people go on, LOL!

bakla
06-11-2009, 05:54 PM
And what about:-
Sitting down and having a 2 minute break when changing ends.
Taking 30 seconds between points.
Having Graphite racquets.
Having training team.
Having a dietician.
Having computer analysis of opponents.
etc etc etc.
It's easier now for sure!!!

LAVER is the GOAT:)

Federer may be in the future, once he has retired, we will see!!!

That's some backwards logic. So because Laver rolled outta bed and went out for a quick beatdown of a club player he'd never heard of somehow he had a tougher time than today's players?

All of those things you listed must be done by all players just to even stand a chance! The amount of training done in one week just to make it into today's top 100 is more work than any of those old casual players put in over an entire year.

We're talking about a bunch of 5'7", cardigan-wearing, country club, weekend warriors against today's full-time, 52 weeks a year professional athletes.

Sorry, it's no contest.

Bilbo
06-11-2009, 05:55 PM
I'm really hoping you are joking, either way this is really funny:)

By the way LAVER is the GOAT!!!

alright, that's all good and well, but say what u want, i'd take ivanisevic in his prime over djokovic, murray, or any of those other top ten suckers in todays game (except federer and nadal).Although u say that the players i mentioned only specialized in one surface, they still one more grand slams than todays players who i suppose u would consider "rennaissance men" today like andy roddick or novak djokovic :lol:. You also conveniently overlooked the fact that Ivanisevic made it to 3 french open quarterfinals,and lost to the likes of Thomas Muster, Jim Courier, and (my boy) Alberto Berasategui. Each of whom would own any of today's clay court specialist like Nicolas Almagro, or um... Nikolay Davydenko:lol: (except Nadal). Hey, it was a nice ran though...

nfor304
06-11-2009, 05:59 PM
totally agree. In fact I'm willing to bet that even a strong 5.5 player of today would be able to take on Laver and players from older generations. Tennis in today's world has evolved amongst players, they have access to strong coaching, better health choices, improved fitness routines, in-depth analysis of what to play, when to play and how to play.

I know a few 5.5s and they are nowhere near as impressive as this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SptdffCeVmM
And thats a 36 year old laver


He has the most slams, a career slam, and the most weeks at #1...what more do you want for him to be GOAT? Let me know, thanks.

He has not had the most weeks at number 1. Connors, Lendl and Sampras all had more weeks at number 1.


Whats with the height argument? tall people DID exist 30-40 years ago, and they DID play tennis. And I dont see Karlovic or Isner dominating the tour today, and by this height arguments logic, they should be.

Fed cant be called the greatest of all time but he's definately a one of the main contenders

JeMar
06-11-2009, 06:04 PM
That's some backwards logic. So because Laver rolled outta bed and went out for a quick beatdown of a club player he'd never heard of somehow he had a tougher time than today's players?

All of those things you listed must be done by all players just to even stand a chance! The amount of training done in one week just to make it into today's top 100 is more work than any of those old casual players put in over an entire year.

We're talking about a bunch of 5'7", cardigan-wearing, country club, weekend warriors against today's full-time, 52 weeks a year professional athletes.

Sorry, it's no contest.

Sir Federer would like a word with you. :P

http://thepreppyprincess.files.wordpress.com/2008/06/roger_federer__355897a.jpg

jimbo333
06-11-2009, 06:05 PM
That's some backwards logic. So because Laver rolled outta bed and went out for a quick beatdown of a club player he'd never heard of somehow he had a tougher time than today's players?

All of those things you listed must be done by all players just to even stand a chance! The amount of training done in one week just to make it into today's top 100 is more work than any of those old casual players put in over an entire year.

We're talking about a bunch of 5'7", cardigan-wearing, country club, weekend warriors against today's full-time, 52 weeks a year professional athletes.

Sorry, it's no contest.

Hahahahahahahaha Seriously are you joking?

Laver had it way harder in his day! Todays players at the top of the game are pampered beyond belief!

You are aware that top seeds have byes in all the early rounds of tournaments now, and Grand Slams have 32 Seeds to ensure they don't meet a difficult player in the early rounds!!!

Get real mate:)

nfor304
06-11-2009, 06:08 PM
The amount of training done in one week just to make it into today's top 100 is more work than any of those old casual players put in over an entire year.

We're talking about a bunch of 5'7", cardigan-wearing, country club, weekend warriors against today's full-time, 52 weeks a year professional athletes.

Sorry, it's no contest.


Sorry, but you have very little knowledge of what players did years ago. On the pro tour the best players would play each other over a hundred times in a year, and would play year round except for xmas. There was alot less cash and therefore alot more pressure to win. Players like emerson, Borg and laver trained harder than most pros do today. In Newcombes Biography for example he says he went to train with emerson for a few weeks and wasnt able to keep up for more than a few days. These guys used to train 8 hours a day when they werent playing, and just about the only players I've heard of doing that recently are nadal and Magnus Norman.
I have an article from a magazine written in the 70s about the world no. 1 junior at the time, Ivan Lendl. In it he states that he runs 20 miles a day on top of training 10 hours. And this is a junior in the 70's....

jimbo333
06-11-2009, 06:12 PM
Sorry, but you have very little knowledge of what players did years ago. On the pro tour the best players would play each other over a hundred times in a year, and would play year round except for xmas. There was alot less cash and therefore alot more pressure to win. Players like emerson, Borg and laver trained harder than most pros do today. In Newcombes Biography for example he says he went to train with emerson for a few weeks and wasnt able to keep up for more than a few days. These guys used to train 8 hours a day when they werent playing, and just about the only players I've heard of doing that recently are nadal and Magnus Norman.
I have an article from a magazine written in the 70s about the world no. 1 junior at the time, Ivan Lendl. In it he states that he runs 20 miles a day on top of training 10 hours. And this is a junior in the 70's....

Indeed mate:)

I think that bakla chap was joking, either that or he really just needs to read a few books:)

Bilbo
06-11-2009, 06:14 PM
And what about:-
Sitting down and having a 2 minute break when changing ends.
Taking 30 seconds between points.
Having Graphite racquets.
Having training team.
Having a dietician.
Having computer analysis of opponents.
etc etc etc.
It's easier now for sure!!!

LAVER is the GOAT:)

Federer may be in the future, once he has retired, we will see!!!
Bruh, you've got to understand... EVERYONE IN THE SIXTIES used wooden rackets and played under the same conditions as laver, just like EVERYONE now plays under the same conditions as federer and has the same advantages he does, and, therefore they're not advantages it's just the way things are. It's like Billy Van Egbul says, if everyone's cheating, than no one has the advantage do they (and know, the conditions u posted above are not unfair)? EV

Bilbo
06-11-2009, 06:18 PM
He certainly had the weakest field of competition with the only genuine threats and of reasonable talent were of Safin and Hewitt. Roddick was a flame who could only shine at Wimby 04. It was only until pre-prime Nadal came along, where he was challenged.
EXACTLY, thank you...

jimbo333
06-11-2009, 06:20 PM
Bruh, you've got to understand... EVERYONE IN THE SIXTIES used wooden rackets and played under the same conditions as laver, just like EVERYONE now plays under the same conditions as federer and has the same advantages he does, and, therefore they're not advantages it's just the way things are. It's like Billy Van Egbul says, if everyone's cheating, than no one has the advantage do they (and know, the conditions u posted above are not unfair)? EV

What's your point? I agree with the above!

So far in their careers LAVER the true GOAT has far better results than Federer. If Federer continues like this for another 3 years then we will see, until then, it's not even close, honestly mate:)

jimbo333
06-11-2009, 07:16 PM
Just put it this way, imagine Federer didn't play any Grand Slam tournaments between 2004-2009, how many Grand Slams would he have at end of his career?

That's what Laver did! At his peak, he missed 6 years of Grand Slam tournaments in a row, but still won 11!!!

LAVER is the GOAT:)

mcenroefan
06-11-2009, 08:12 PM
Different equipment, different athletes, different preparation...comparing them doesn't seem fair.

To those who think equipment doesn't make a difference, consider the cross-over years when McEnroe's reign was abruptly ended by Lendl's power tennis. No way Lendl could hit those forehands with a wooden racket. If wood rackets had remained the only option, McEnroe would have put together another few dominant years (IMO). The technology has been changing the game at a rapid pace.

That said, Federer is by far and away my favorite player to watch...his movement is sublime and graceful.

TiradPass
06-11-2009, 08:51 PM
I can't believe that so many people are under the illusion that players of Laver's era would be superior or even close to the level of players today (even when nullifying factors such as equipment, nutrition etc).

Tennis, like basically every professional sport in the world, is played at a significantly higher level than it was decades ago. There are MUCH more people playing tennis today than there were in Laver's era, due to various factors (population growth, more people being able to "afford" playing tennis in the first place, and of course the fact that as tennis became more and more lucrative, more and more talented people were able to embark on tennis from the beginning as a full-time career). Hence, the competition is clearly much greater today and as a result being a top 10 or top 100 player today means a LOT more than it did in Laver's day.

I would agree with others that the top 10 in Laver's day would probably struggle to break into the top 100 now. In fact I'd even be tempted to say that the top 20 women today would have them beat...

CyBorg
06-11-2009, 09:01 PM
I can't believe that so many people are under the illusion that players of Laver's era would be superior or even close to the level of players today (even when nullifying factors such as equipment, nutrition etc).

Tennis, like basically every professional sport in the world, is played at a significantly higher level than it was decades ago. There are MUCH more people playing tennis today than there were in Laver's era, due to various factors (population growth, more people being able to "afford" playing tennis in the first place, and of course the fact that as tennis became more and more lucrative, more and more talented people were able to embark on tennis from the beginning as a full-time career). Hence, the competition is clearly much greater today and as a result being a top 10 or top 100 player today means a LOT more than it did in Laver's day.

I would agree with others that the top 10 in Laver's day would probably struggle to break into the top 100 now. In fact I'd even be tempted to say that the top 20 women today would have them beat...

Your perception of human evolution is hilarious. Sandy Koufax threw like a girl.

urban
06-11-2009, 09:11 PM
Top Forty in the late 60s and early 70s:
Rod Laver
Ken Rosewall
John Newcombe
Tony Roche
Arthur Ashe
Tom Okker
Stan Smith
Roy Emerson
Andres Gimeno
Manuel Santana
Cliff Drysdale
Pancho Gonzales
Dennis Ralston
Fred Stolle
Butch Buchholz
Jan Kodes
Ilie Nastase
Marty Riessen
Clark Graebner
Nikki Pilic
Roger Taylor
Charlie Pasarell
Manuel Orantes
Alex Metreweli
Bob Lutz
Bob Hewitt
John Alexander
Dick Crealy
Mark Cox
Colin Dibley
Thomas Koch
Raul Ramirez
Nicola Pietrangeli
Ove Bengtsson
Jaime Fillol
Zejlko Franulovic

Maybe i forgot some, buts its quite a good bunch of players, two thirds of them hall of famers

TiradPass
06-11-2009, 09:18 PM
In fact I'd even be tempted to say that the top 20 women today would have them beat...
I meant to say top 2 women. Top 20 is probably stretching it!

Put it this way I think the likes of the Williams sisters, Safina etc would be able to break into the top 35 list back in Laver's day without a huge problem. Try saying that with the men's top 35 list today!

CyBorg
06-11-2009, 09:20 PM
I meant to say top 2 women. Top 20 is probably stretching it!

Put it this way I think the likes of the Williams sisters, Safina etc would be able to break into the top 35 list back in Laver's day without a huge problem. Try saying that with the men's top 35 list today!

Yeah - that makes perfect sense. Thanks for making it easy for me to ignore you in the future.

Purostaff
06-11-2009, 09:26 PM
lol @ OP

how stubborn can ppl be?

14 GS on all surfaces? That's a definite GOAT.

nfor304
06-11-2009, 09:31 PM
I can't believe that so many people are under the illusion that players of Laver's era would be superior or even close to the level of players today (even when nullifying factors such as equipment, nutrition etc).

Tennis, like basically every professional sport in the world, is played at a significantly higher level than it was decades ago. There are MUCH more people playing tennis today than there were in Laver's era, due to various factors (population growth, more people being able to "afford" playing tennis in the first place, and of course the fact that as tennis became more and more lucrative, more and more talented people were able to embark on tennis from the beginning as a full-time career). Hence, the competition is clearly much greater today and as a result being a top 10 or top 100 player today means a LOT more than it did in Laver's day.

I would agree with others that the top 10 in Laver's day would probably struggle to break into the top 100 now. In fact I'd even be tempted to say that the top 20 women today would have them beat...



Ok, so I guess if you took a player from say the late 70's, 80's and asked them to play at the same level today they wouldnt succeed?
Then why did McEnroe win an Atp doubles tournament when he was 48 years old? He accomplished the same thing he did in the 70's and 80's in 2006 as a much older, less athletic version of himself. I would say thats pretty competetive.
McEnroes great rival was Borg, Borg had a few difficult matches with Laver when Laver was in his late 30's, such as this one:

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

Logic dictates that if Laver can be competitive with Borg at a relatively advanced age, he could have been competitive with McEnroe, and McEnroe playing even now would be a top 10 doubles player.

Prime laver, with equipment etc being equal as any peers, would be close to the top in ANY era.

FiveO
06-11-2009, 09:43 PM
Okay, let's compare Federer's slice backhand to the supposed "gold standard" Kenny Rosewall slice backhand. Federer accelerates through the slice and the ball comes back with a ridiculous curve that is not defensive in the least instead it is an offensive weapon that keeps his opponent back and allows Fed to be on the agressive. Ken Rosewall hit a nice clean well-slice backhand, but it was not a weapon. And as far as a clear, pure drive Feds slice backhand looks more correct and textbook. No comparison, and also Rosewall hit only slice because he couldn't even hit a topspin backhand. Imagine that a top tennis professional today not being able to hit topspin off both sides, lights out, man!!

No offense but the description of Rosewall's sliced backhand and the conclusion drawn from a comparison made to Fed's couldn't possibly be further from reality.

5

DownTheLine
06-11-2009, 09:47 PM
You can't compare generations but you can compare resumes and Federer has probably the GOAT so since you can't compare generations looks like Federer is the GOAT!

MT319
06-11-2009, 10:08 PM
What's also being overlooked is Laver played 3 of his 4 slams on grass since hardcourts didn't exist at the time...if Sampras and Fed played 3 out of 4 majors on grass I'm sure they'd both certainly have well above 14 majors a piece.

nfor304
06-11-2009, 10:17 PM
What's also being overlooked is Laver played 3 of his 4 slams on grass since hardcourts didn't exist at the time...if Sampras and Fed played 3 out of 4 majors on grass I'm sure they'd both certainly have well above 14 majors a piece.

That is true that Laver played 3 of the 4 on grass, but so did every other player from that period. If sampras and Federer did that they wouldnt be playing a bunch of hardcourt and claycourt specialists, they would be playing the same players they always have, only much better on grass.

Today there is maybe 3 or 4 players who play better on grass than any other surface, if 3 of the 4 slams were played on grass than the majority of players on the tour would have grown up with a game developed on grass rather than hard and would have grass as their best surface.

There's just as much reason to think if that was the case it would be less likely that sampras and fed (especially) would dominate Wimbledon the way they have.

nfor304
06-11-2009, 10:26 PM
As much as I like him, Sampras saying that Federer is the GOAT doesnt really hold that much weight. Just because he himself is a contender for the GOAT doesnt make him some kind of tennis historian. The guy had never even heard of Pancho Gonzalez until his early 20's because Gonzalez had never won Wimbledon, and Sampras only knew the former Wimbledon champs.

And no I do not think I am more qualified to give my opinion, I'm just saying Sampras stating that doesnt influence my thinking much.

edmondsm
06-11-2009, 10:46 PM
What's your point? I agree with the above!

So far in their careers LAVER the true GOAT has far better results than Federer. If Federer continues like this for another 3 years then we will see, until then, it's not even close, honestly mate:)

The point is Laver was a pro among amatuers. Federer is a pro among pros. Look it up. 95% of the guys that Laver played did not make their livings competing on a tennis court. Noone can debate this.

MT319
06-11-2009, 11:27 PM
If 3 of the 4 slams were played on grass than the majority of players on the tour would have grown up with a game developed on grass rather than hard and would have grass as their best surface.

Yes but then Federer and Sampras would also have games specifically suited for grass like that same majority...since Federer and Sampras are of superior skill to the rest of their competition (ie; they were better than the hardcourt specialist on hardcourts and they were better than the grasscourt specialists on grass) then how does taking all the hardcourt specialists and turning them into grasscourt specialists change the negative result received against Federer or Sampras if Federer and Sampras are now Grass court specialists as well...in other words if Federer and Sampras are of superior skill to the rest of the competition and now only have to specialize on one surface then how do you make the deduction that they would not be more dominant when someone like Federer who is a dominant all-court specialist (ie; dominates Grass court specialists on grass as an all-court specialist, dominates Clay court specialists on clay as an all-court specialist, and dominates hard court specialists on hardcourts as an all-court specialist) therefore how does Federer not dominate Grass court specialists as a grass court specialist to a greater extent when he is of superior skill to the competition and now only has to focus and mold his game for one surface instead of three?

FiveO
06-12-2009, 01:41 AM
Yes but then Federer and Sampras would also have games specifically suited for grass like that same majority...since Federer and Sampras are of superior skill to the rest of their competition (ie; they were better than the hardcourt specialist on hardcourts and they were better than the grasscourt specialists on grass) then how does taking all the hardcourt specialists and turning them into grasscourt specialists change the negative result received against Federer or Sampras if Federer and Sampras are now Grass court specialists as well...in other words if Federer and Sampras are of superior skill to the rest of the competition and now only have to specialize on one surface then how do you make the deduction that they would not be more dominant when someone like Federer who is a dominant all-court specialist (ie; dominates Grass court specialists on grass as an all-court specialist, dominates Clay court specialists on clay as an all-court specialist, and dominates hard court specialists on hardcourts as an all-court specialist) therefore how does Federer not dominate Grass court specialists as a grass court specialist to a greater extent when he is of superior skill to the competition and now only has to focus and mold his game for one surface instead of three?

Because the speed of surfaces almost to the end of Sampras's career and before the emergence of Fed was much more disparate than it is today. Today Wimbledon's grass is playing slower than the US Open which itself has been made slower in 2001 and then again in 2003. Grass was slick through Sampras's career and in prior decades. It's not anymore. The speeds are homogenized now, resulting in the players not being forced to alter their playing styles from surface to surface as drastically as for instance Borg did in his era. In short there are very, very, very few surface specialists any more as compared to during Sampras's time when if you ranked by surface there was a ton of movement in those rankings from grass to clay to hardcourts and even to indoor carpet. That was different in Laver's day when there were relatively few contract pros, and the majority of the "shamateurs" held in high esteem the Majors and Davis Cup which were predominantly played on grass or clay and groomed their games for same. So the reality was that those who did go pro prior to and during Laver's days, had been groomed for and had proven themselves while amateurs winning on one or both of those two surfaces. Even still some were much better suited and/or limited and prepared for one. Either clay or grass.

5

eugenius
06-12-2009, 02:22 AM
Not sure Federer would have done better if 3 of the surfaces were grass,as in Lavers day.At the moment you'd have to give it to Laver,but might be different if Federer wins a couple more Grand slams.You would'nt be able to argue against 16 or more GS's really,would you?Still,no shame in being the 2nd GOAT,behind Laver.

gpt
06-12-2009, 02:44 AM
totally agree. In fact I'm willing to bet that even a strong 5.5 player of today would be able to take on Laver and players from older generations. Tennis in today's world has evolved amongst players, they have access to strong coaching, better health choices, improved fitness routines, in-depth analysis of what to play, when to play and how to play.

If you've seen Laver compete with Connors on youtube at nearly 40 when Connors was at his best do you also say a 5.5 player would 'take' on prime Connors?

Federer lost to Agassi
Agassi lost to Sampras
Sampras lost to Lendl
Lendl lost to Borg
Borg lost to Connors
Connors lost to Rosewall
Rosewall lost to Laver

GOAT arguments are abstract and subjective and a waste of time

Federer is most probably the most complete player of all time.

thalivest
06-12-2009, 02:59 AM
What's also being overlooked is Laver played 3 of his 4 slams on grass since hardcourts didn't exist at the time...if Sampras and Fed played 3 out of 4 majors on grass I'm sure they'd both certainly have well above 14 majors a piece.

I disagree on Roger. Roger is pretty much equally good on hard courts as grass, I am not even sure if grass is his best surface. Since 2003 at Wimbledon he was a bit lucky in 2007 and lost in 2008, so could easily have only 4 Wimbledons now. He has won the Australian Open 3 times and got a bit unlucky in both 2005 and 2009 so could have easily won 5. He won the U.S Open 5 times. Really I dont see there being any difference probably.

Sampras yes would have even more slams if there were 3 on grass.

TiradPass
06-12-2009, 03:37 AM
Your perception of human evolution is hilarious. Sandy Koufax threw like a girl.

"Evolution"? lol. It's a plain and simple fact that far more people play tennis today than in say the 1950s when Laver's generation would have begun playing. In the U.S. there were 10 million who played tennis in 1970 (hence I imagine considerably less in the 1950s!), 30 million by the late 70s (at the height of the boom), and though the boom in the U.S. has declined somewhat, still about 25 million today. With other countries I'm sure the growth has been even more significant since the advent of the open era (which is credited with spreading tennis globally). To deny that this massive growth makes little or no difference to the quality of the top 10-100 tennis players flies in the face of logic.

Ok, so I guess if you took a player from say the late 70's, 80's and asked them to play at the same level today they wouldnt succeed?
Then why did McEnroe win an Atp doubles tournament when he was 48 years old? He accomplished the same thing he did in the 70's and 80's in 2006 as a much older, less athletic version of himself. I would say thats pretty competetive.
McEnroes great rival was Borg, Borg had a few difficult matches with Laver when Laver was in his late 30's, such as this one:

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

Logic dictates that if Laver can be competitive with Borg at a relatively advanced age, he could have been competitive with McEnroe, and McEnroe playing even now would be a top 10 doubles player.

Prime laver, with equipment etc being equal as any peers, would be close to the top in ANY era.

The best players, for instance Laver and McEnroe, certainly would be able to succeed (not #1 but maybe top 10), but things don't look so hot for those ranked say 5-10 in Laver's time. Do you really think they would break into the top 50 today?

One last point. When discussing the GOAT issue Federer vs Laver, in Laver's era a Grand Slam generally only really began in the second week, as has previously been stated by several others. Nowadays, it is obviously so much harder and the top 10 regularly crash out in the first week of play, hence I would say winning a Slam today is at a bare minimum 50% harder than it was in Laver's time. I won't draw conclusions on other candidates like Sampras, but Federer clearly has a decisive edge over Laver in the GOAT discussion.

Puma
06-12-2009, 05:15 AM
Okay, let's compare Federer's slice backhand to the supposed "gold standard" Kenny Rosewall slice backhand. Federer accelerates through the slice and the ball comes back with a ridiculous curve that is not defensive in the least instead it is an offensive weapon that keeps his opponent back and allows Fed to be on the agressive. Ken Rosewall hit a nice clean well-slice backhand, but it was not a weapon. And as far as a clear, pure drive Feds slice backhand looks more correct and textbook. No comparison, and also Rosewall hit only slice because he couldn't even hit a topspin backhand. Imagine that a top tennis professional today not being able to hit topspin off both sides, lights out, man!!


I disagree with your descriptions entirely. Fed does have variety in his slice, but he semi-floats the ball back quite often as his slice is often used as a defensive tactic. He rarely "drives" a slice. He may hit is low, but I don't see him driving it very often at all. In fact, in his technique you will see him take the racket to a high position in his backswing. This causes him to have a more "choppy" swing pattern into the ball, which is error prone, especially when it turns into a volley. BTW, others here have made comments about Feds slice technique before. And, I think the Text Book was written using Rosewall as "the" example.

Rosewall did have quite a nice driving slice. And of course he could float it or do anything he needed to do with it. And so can Fed, its just he has no real need to drive the slice from the baseline as much becuase of his topspin shot he has.

jimbo333
06-12-2009, 09:54 AM
One last point. When discussing the GOAT issue Federer vs Laver, in Laver's era a Grand Slam generally only really began in the second week, as has previously been stated by several others. Nowadays, it is obviously so much harder and the top 10 regularly crash out in the first week of play, hence I would say winning a Slam today is at a bare minimum 50% harder than it was in Laver's time. I won't draw conclusions on other candidates like Sampras, but Federer clearly has a decisive edge over Laver in the GOAT discussion.

You didn't read what I said did you? The top players have it way easier today!

They get byes in the early rounds and then top 32 are seeded, so top players avoid playing difficult matches until later in tournaments!!!

LAVER is the GOAT, if he had played Grand Slams throughout his career he definitely would have won over 20 for example:)

jimbo333
06-12-2009, 09:57 AM
Oh, and I think you'll find most athletes in the US now play baseball, basketball etc rather than tennis. It is way easier to be a professional tennis player now than in previous years, with a bit of dedication!

hewittboy
06-12-2009, 09:59 AM
jimbo, since it seems you are a Connors fan just curious where do you believe he ranks all time. :) Thanks.

mtommer
06-12-2009, 10:09 AM
What is hard about comparing to previous generations?? Not being disrespectful, but do you think Laver and his generation could really compete against this generation of players. Each generation has gotten better and better, it's like comparing the old NBA set shot shooters against todays slam dunk agile 7 foot athletes.


Okay, but what if we take today's players and have them grow up in Laver's era and vice versa? Would Laver still be "obsolete"? Would today's players back then have today's power game?

jimbo333
06-12-2009, 11:09 AM
jimbo, since it seems you are a Connors fan just curious where do you believe he ranks all time. :) Thanks.

He is definitely in TOP 10 of all-time:)

About 8th I would reckon!!!

drakulie
06-12-2009, 11:26 AM
You didn't read what I said did you? The top players have it way easier today!

Thats a laugh. It is well documented the tour was way easier in Laver days. The first couple of rounds, many of the top "pros/amateurs" were playing club players/teaching pros because the "Tour" didn't have enough players to fill draws. Therefore, when they arrived at a certain location, many of the local players would be in the draw the first week. It wasn't until deep in the draw that guys like Laver had to face stiff competetion.


LAVER is the GOAT, if he had played Grand Slams throughout his career he definitely would have won over 20 for example:)

Or he could have destroyed his knee in the first round match and won zero in his career. or taken his prize money from his first slam win, and drink himself to death. We'll never know.


....... everyone wants to compare Fed's achievements to Laver's, which is completely unfair. For starters, when Laver played 3 of the 4 slams were on grass, so it would be impossible to compare, since that is not the case anymore. Laver's achievements are not the "measuring stick" anymore, because what a player has to do today to win a calendar slam is different, and much harder. It is much harder to master 3 different surfaces than two. Period.

For that matter, I would hate to think what Sampras could have done if 3 slams were grass, and one was hard court. He would have 5-6 consecutive calendar slams and well over 20 total slams. But again, we'll never know, which is why it is ******** to use "what if" arguments.

AAAA
06-12-2009, 11:37 AM
I disagree with your descriptions entirely. Fed does have variety in his slice, but he semi-floats the ball back quite often as his slice is often used as a defensive tactic. He rarely "drives" a slice. He may hit is low, but I don't see him driving it very often at all. In fact, in his technique you will see him take the racket to a high position in his backswing. This causes him to have a more "choppy" swing pattern into the ball, which is error prone, especially when it turns into a volley.

All the above could be due to the fact that courts are generally higher bouncing or his opponents generally hit with more topspin than players in the past. Slice is much usually easier to 'knife' when the ball is coming at you fast and flattish. It's not really possible from the usual TV perspective to see how high the ball is when players hit the slice. Just saying.

spiderman123
06-12-2009, 11:40 AM
You do realize the effect equipment has had on the game right? :confused:

Guys today are not better than guys 20 and 30 years ago. Get real.

So you give Roddick a racquet that was used in the 70s and suddenly he will serve slower than the guys in the 70s?

[This is just an example.]

Game, players, training methods evolve. And players get better. That is the reason running and swimming records are broken. The fastest man of today will beat the fastest swimmer of 1909 if both are swimming in exactly similar trunks.

jimbo333
06-12-2009, 12:16 PM
Thats a laugh. It is well documented the tour was way easier in Laver days. The first couple of rounds, many of the top "pros/amateurs" were playing club players/teaching pros because the "Tour" didn't have enough players to fill draws. Therefore, when they arrived at a certain location, many of the local players would be in the draw the first week. It wasn't until deep in the draw that guys like Laver had to face stiff competetion.




Or he could have destroyed his knee in the first round match and won zero in his career. or taken his prize money from his first slam win, and drink himself to death. We'll never know.


....... everyone wants to compare Fed's achievements to Laver's, which is completely unfair. For starters, when Laver played 3 of the 4 slams were on grass, so it would be impossible to compare, since that is not the case anymore. Laver's achievements are not the "measuring stick" anymore, because what a player has to do today to win a calendar slam is different, and much harder. It is much harder to master 3 different surfaces than two. Period.

For that matter, I would hate to think what Sampras could have done if 3 slams were grass, and one was hard court. He would have 5-6 consecutive calendar slams and well over 20 total slams. But again, we'll never know, which is why it is ******** to use "what if" arguments.

Well apart from yourself, who do think is the GOAT?

I've said previously that Federer may well be considered the GOAT at the end of his career, but until then, he just simply isn't, fact:)

I'm not nornally one to look at head to head results, but Federer certainly needs to improve this against Nadal and Murray for a start!!!

In summary he needs to contnue this form for another 3 years or so, retire, and then probably be the GOAT:)

vtmike
06-12-2009, 12:22 PM
Thats a laugh. It is well documented the tour was way easier in Laver days. The first couple of rounds, many of the top "pros/amateurs" were playing club players/teaching pros because the "Tour" didn't have enough players to fill draws. Therefore, when they arrived at a certain location, many of the local players would be in the draw the first week. It wasn't until deep in the draw that guys like Laver had to face stiff competetion.




Or he could have destroyed his knee in the first round match and won zero in his career. or taken his prize money from his first slam win, and drink himself to death. We'll never know.


....... everyone wants to compare Fed's achievements to Laver's, which is completely unfair. For starters, when Laver played 3 of the 4 slams were on grass, so it would be impossible to compare, since that is not the case anymore. Laver's achievements are not the "measuring stick" anymore, because what a player has to do today to win a calendar slam is different, and much harder. It is much harder to master 3 different surfaces than two. Period.

For that matter, I would hate to think what Sampras could have done if 3 slams were grass, and one was hard court. He would have 5-6 consecutive calendar slams and well over 20 total slams. But again, we'll never know, which is why it is ******** to use "what if" arguments.

Very Good points Drak!! I personally don't believe in GOAT...I mean each person will have his own GOAT based on his/her personal preferences...

jimbo333
06-12-2009, 12:30 PM
The 4 surfaces for the Grand Slams were more different in about 1970 than they are now in 2009 (Grass courts can be and were VERY different, ask the players that played then). Ironically surfaces were most different in probably about 1995ish, when Sampras was invincible on grass and hopeless on clay!!!

jimbo333
06-12-2009, 12:34 PM
And what really makes me laugh is that until this years French Open, Nadal was many peoples GOAT, not Federer!!!

Until a persons career is over, it is not fair to compare players:)

fps
06-12-2009, 12:41 PM
they belong to different eras, so we should leave them there.

because there's no way of knowing how well federer would have done with old style racquets/nutrition etc

and there's no way in hell someone standing 5ft8 could challenge for grand slams on today's tour.

pound cat
06-12-2009, 01:37 PM
Not sure Federer would have done better if 3 of the surfaces were grass,as in Lavers day.At the moment you'd have to give it to Laver,but might be different if Federer wins a couple more Grand slams.You would'nt be able to argue against 16 or more GS's really,would you?Still,no shame in being the 2nd GOAT,behind Laver.





Federer may be the greatest of his generation, but judging and comparing beyond his makes absolutely no sense. Every generation in tennis is different...rackets, tournaments, court surfaces, balls, new techniques, stress or not on physical fitness, shoes, fabric of tennis outfits, emphasis or not on coaches and large support team, tournament sched. changes, rain relays or not due to lack of roof, etc etc.

beernutz
06-12-2009, 01:47 PM
He has the most slams, a career slam, and the most weeks at #1...what more do you want for him to be GOAT? Let me know, thanks.

I personally think Roger is the GOAT but unfortunately for my argument he doesn't have the most weeks at #1.

Sampras has the most weeks at #1 by a pretty big margin over Roger, and Roger is just #4 on the list being also behind Lendl and Conners. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_ATP_number_1_ranked_players#Weeks_at_numbe r_1

TiradPass
06-12-2009, 02:27 PM
Jimbo: I did read what you said about seeds being more protected nowadays, but as drakulie says, how can you believe winning a Grand Slam was harder in Laver's days? Any seed protection is more than outweighed by the FAR tougher field these days.

Oh, and I think you'll find most athletes in the US now play baseball, basketball etc rather than tennis. It is way easier to be a professional tennis player now than in previous years, with a bit of dedication!

I would now ask if you read what I said earlier. There are maybe 25 million tennis players in the U.S. today, compared to well under 10 million during Laver's formative years. How does that in any way make it way easier to break into the top 10-100? And in other countries the difference is more pronounced still, for example in Russia tennis is obviously big now whereas not long ago (and certainly in say the 1950s!) I believe it was frowned on by the Soviet authorities for being a bourgeois sport and was barely popular at all. Obviously if you compare the number of people playing tennis globally today vs the 1950s, the first number will be many times higher than the second.

ttwarrior1
06-12-2009, 02:30 PM
its kind of like the nba, the players can dunk and might be quicker and stronger, but they are not better .

Guamanian G
06-12-2009, 03:09 PM
So many pros, along with McEnroe have said he's the greatest
because he IS!
lol

jimbo333
06-12-2009, 03:56 PM
So you give Roddick a racquet that was used in the 70s and suddenly he will serve slower than the guys in the 70s?

[This is just an example.]

Game, players, training methods evolve. And players get better. That is the reason running and swimming records are broken. The fastest man of today will beat the fastest swimmer of 1909 if both are swimming in exactly similar trunks.

If you gave Roscoe Tanner a modern Babolat racquet at his peak, he would serve faster than Roddick!

(this is just an example)

OK, i'll ask you who is the greatest 400M hurdler of all-time? Is it Kevin Young the current world record holder, or is it Ed Moses? Yes almost everyone would agree it is Ed Moses:)

Federer may go on to be the GOAT. When he finally retires we will see!

Currently the GOAT is Rocket ROD LAVER:)

jimbo333
06-12-2009, 04:00 PM
So many pros, along with McEnroe have said he's the greatest
because he IS!
lol

McEnroe was a great player, but he does speak rubbish a lot of the time mate:)

If you did a poll of all tennis playing pros through history alive today, I bet LAVER would come come out as GOAT!!!

jimbo333
06-12-2009, 04:03 PM
its kind of like the nba, the players can dunk and might be quicker and stronger, but they are not better .

Absolutely mate:)

The thing is that I am sure Federer will go on to be the GOAT, but just because he won the French Open, a huge fuss is being made, which I think is very funny. If Nadal somehow wins Wimbledon, I'm waiting to argue against "Nadal is the GOAT" rubbish that no doubt I'll hear!!!

TiradPass
06-12-2009, 04:15 PM
its kind of like the nba, the players can dunk and might be quicker and stronger, but they are not better .

Well since speed, strength etc is all part of the game, just like in tennis, then yes the NBA players today are of course better. Do you really think a top 1970s NBA team would stand a chance against an NBA team today? The 1970s team would get thrashed.

Radical10is
06-12-2009, 04:30 PM
He certainly could've been taller if his parents had had better nutrition. It's not that hard of a conclusion to reach?

Tallness is based on genetics, and autosomal traits. To say his parents could have made him taller by eating better is just absurd.

nfor304
06-12-2009, 10:51 PM
Or he could have destroyed his knee in the first round match and won zero in his career. or taken his prize money from his first slam win, and drink himself to death. We'll never know.


....... everyone wants to compare Fed's achievements to Laver's, which is completely unfair. For starters, when Laver played 3 of the 4 slams were on grass, so it would be impossible to compare, since that is not the case anymore. Laver's achievements are not the "measuring stick" anymore, because what a player has to do today to win a calendar slam is different, and much harder. It is much harder to master 3 different surfaces than two. Period.

For that matter, I would hate to think what Sampras could have done if 3 slams were grass, and one was hard court. He would have 5-6 consecutive calendar slams and well over 20 total slams. But again, we'll never know, which is why it is ******** to use "what if" arguments.


Everyone wants to compare Laver's achievements to Feds, which is equally unfair to Laver. Federer is equally as good on grass as he is on hard court, and clay is clearly the surface he is least successful on. Yet he hasn't as yet managed to win a clay slam in the same year as another slam. Laver accomplished the feat twice, playing on grass that is faster and less consistent than it is today. When Laver won the USopen in 1969 he played most of the final wearing spikes, because the grass was loose and slippery.

If Fed had to play on the courts that Laver did during his grand slam years he would be less likely to win on the clay imo, because the disparity would be so much greater than playing year round on fast, inconsistent grass and incredibly slow clay.

Laver had to master 2 surfaces that at the time were as far apart in the way they played than 2 surfaces ever have been. Federer has had to master 3 surfaces, yes, but everyone knows the grass has been slowed from what it used to be, so I dont think the difference is as cut and dry as your making it out to be.

Your forgetting that the years Laver played on the pro tour he played on literally dozens of different surfaces and not only succeeded on all of them, against players far superior to the ones playing the grand slams at the time, he dominated. They played on indoor polished floor boards, cement, crushed shell courts etc etc. I dont think its unreasonable to say Laver would have handled hard court fairly well.

edmondsm
06-12-2009, 11:01 PM
its kind of like the nba, the players can dunk and might be quicker and stronger, but they are not better .

What a silly statement. Of course they are better. You just said, "they are quicker and stronger." Newsflash: they also shoot better and play better defense too. Give me a break. Are you trying to say that the Bulls of the 90's would lose to the Celtics of the 50's???

FiveO
06-13-2009, 07:03 AM
What a silly statement. Of course they are better. You just said, "they are quicker and stronger." Newsflash: they also shoot better and play better defense too. Give me a break. Are you trying to say that the Bulls of the 90's would lose to the Celtics of the 50's???

Two different conversations at once. The conversation is about the absolute elite of a generation. If one believes that a Jerry West, Wilt Chamberlain, Kareem Abdul Jabbar, Julius Erving, Magic Johnson, Larry Bird or Michael Jordan, developing and playing in this environment would not be stars in it, is to fail to see what makes a truly elite player. Teams as a whole are a different matter. "Defense"? ahem. Why do you think the rules were changed to allow once illegal zones to be played?

5

carlos djackal
06-13-2009, 07:22 AM
What is hard about comparing to previous generations?? Not being disrespectful, but do you think Laver and his generation could really compete against this generation of players. Each generation has gotten better and better, it's like comparing the old NBA set shot shooters against todays slam dunk agile 7 foot athletes.

Take a look at 5 foot 7 Rod Laver beating guys like 5 foot 6 Ken Rosewall with his one handed slice back hand. Even John Newcombe with his serve volley game would have gotten blown off the court. Look at the old clips of Borg on clay it's like pitty pat tennis compared to todays game. I remember when it was rare for a player to hit aces on clay now it's almost like watching a hard court match. Even Rod the Rocket Laver would honestly admit that todays players would dominate previous genertions. Federer is the GOAT and will be for quite a few years until some other phenomen comes along.



I agree....together with fitness, training, technology, the evolution of athletes would just make the present players tower over their past generation counterparts.......this however could not be applied to his airness Michael Jordan in basketball (and probably in other sports also), he is just a very special athlete but that is another story......

carlos djackal
06-13-2009, 07:27 AM
double post

maddogz32
06-13-2009, 08:03 AM
i think the most accomplished is the greatest

jimbo333
06-13-2009, 02:30 PM
Everyone wants to compare Laver's achievements to Feds, which is equally unfair to Laver. Federer is equally as good on grass as he is on hard court, and clay is clearly the surface he is least successful on. Yet he hasn't as yet managed to win a clay slam in the same year as another slam. Laver accomplished the feat twice, playing on grass that is faster and less consistent than it is today. When Laver won the USopen in 1969 he played most of the final wearing spikes, because the grass was loose and slippery.

If Fed had to play on the courts that Laver did during his grand slam years he would be less likely to win on the clay imo, because the disparity would be so much greater than playing year round on fast, inconsistent grass and incredibly slow clay.

Laver had to master 2 surfaces that at the time were as far apart in the way they played than 2 surfaces ever have been. Federer has had to master 3 surfaces, yes, but everyone knows the grass has been slowed from what it used to be, so I dont think the difference is as cut and dry as your making it out to be.

Your forgetting that the years Laver played on the pro tour he played on literally dozens of different surfaces and not only succeeded on all of them, against players far superior to the ones playing the grand slams at the time, he dominated. They played on indoor polished floor boards, cement, crushed shell courts etc etc. I dont think its unreasonable to say Laver would have handled hard court fairly well.

I agree. Thanks for making this point so clearly:)

Most people have no idea how different the surfaces were in the 60's/70's. The surfaces today are much more similar to each other.

JeMar
06-13-2009, 02:52 PM
Tallness is based on genetics, and autosomal traits. To say his parents could have made him taller by eating better is just absurd.

No, but it's only one of the aspects in which we've made strides in the last 30 years.

gpt
06-13-2009, 03:17 PM
Everyone wants to compare Laver's achievements to Feds, which is equally unfair to Laver. Federer is equally as good on grass as he is on hard court, and clay is clearly the surface he is least successful on. Yet he hasn't as yet managed to win a clay slam in the same year as another slam. Laver accomplished the feat twice, playing on grass that is faster and less consistent than it is today. When Laver won the USopen in 1969 he played most of the final wearing spikes, because the grass was loose and slippery.

If Fed had to play on the courts that Laver did during his grand slam years he would be less likely to win on the clay imo, because the disparity would be so much greater than playing year round on fast, inconsistent grass and incredibly slow clay.

Laver had to master 2 surfaces that at the time were as far apart in the way they played than 2 surfaces ever have been. Federer has had to master 3 surfaces, yes, but everyone knows the grass has been slowed from what it used to be, so I dont think the difference is as cut and dry as your making it out to be.

Your forgetting that the years Laver played on the pro tour he played on literally dozens of different surfaces and not only succeeded on all of them, against players far superior to the ones playing the grand slams at the time, he dominated. They played on indoor polished floor boards, cement, crushed shell courts etc etc. I dont think its unreasonable to say Laver would have handled hard court fairly well.

Very well put.
Laver had to beat Roche on wet slippery grass at Forest Hills in 69 to win the Slam. Todays player wouldn't have been allowed to walk across it.