PDA

View Full Version : Laver V Fed, fast grass court, 60's equipment, who would win?


timnz
06-08-2009, 06:23 PM
Hello,

I thought up this thread in response to the thread 'Laver V Fed, fast grass court, modern equipment, who would win?'.

That is often how people compare in their minds - comparing people with current equipment - but why? It gives an unfair advantage to current players.

If Federer and Laver played with 60's wooden rackets, 60's balls etc - then what would be the result.

Have to say Laver - as much as I like Federer. A lot of Federer's power and control and spin would be blunted by the old rackets.

namui
06-08-2009, 07:53 PM
They each will win some, and lose some. With an edge to Laver.

.....Agree.

tennisdad65
06-08-2009, 08:17 PM
2009 equipment - Fed wins
1960s equipment - Laver wins

joeri888
06-08-2009, 10:48 PM
They are used to their own equipment.. Anyways, I think it's not only equipment that has changed a lot. The way people train today compared to the 60s is just impossible. Players are much fitter, stronger, faster..

shawn1122
06-08-2009, 11:15 PM
Fed would demolish him with the dropper he was using at the FO

380pistol
06-08-2009, 11:30 PM
2009 equipment - Fed wins
1960s equipment - Laver wins

Agreed. In the 60's Laver goes to work, in 2000's it would be Federer. Equal playing field, equipment etc., etc., would be fun to watch.

P_Agony
06-08-2009, 11:32 PM
Hello,

I thought up this thread in response to the thread 'Laver V Fed, fast grass court, modern equipment, who would win?'.

That is often how people compare in their minds - comparing people with current equipment - but why? It gives an unfair advantage to current players.

If Federer and Laver played with 60's wooden rackets, 60's balls etc - then what would be the result.

Have to say Laver - as much as I like Federer. A lot of Federer's power and control and spin would be blunted by the old rackets.

Fed also has a huge natural talent and great hands. I think if there is a player of today that could adapt his strokes to the old rackets, it's Federer.

timnz
06-08-2009, 11:34 PM
They are used to their own equipment.. Anyways, I think it's not only equipment that has changed a lot. The way people train today compared to the 60s is just impossible. Players are much fitter, stronger, faster..

I have to dispute this. All the evidence is that the players back then were if anything fitter than today's players. A lot of tennis was played with best of 5 set matches. Often no sitting down on change overs. And the volume of matches seems to be around twice as much a year. Forinstance the head to head lifetime of Laver vs rosewall is over hundreds of matches vs a head to head of a 90's or 2000's player often the top guys plays each other say 30 to 40 times in a career.

Cenc
06-08-2009, 11:35 PM
laver definitely

380pistol
06-08-2009, 11:36 PM
Fed also has a huge natural talent and great hands. I think if there is a player of today that could adapt his strokes to the old rackets, it's Federer.

And Laver had no talent and bad hands?? Equipment favour Laver as it's generraly acknowledged as easier to from wood to graphite, than graphite to wood. I see Fed having some issues adapting his strokes to wood. The semi western grip, top spin hitting, tremendous racquet head speed.

Now if one were to take his natural ability and have him grow up, or hone his game with wood, that would be different. I summize he'd hold his own.

crazylevity
06-08-2009, 11:38 PM
I have to dispute this. All the evidence is that the players back then were if anything fitter than today's players. A lot of tennis was played with best of 5 set matches. Often no sitting down on change overs. And the volume of matches seems to be around twice as much a year. Forinstance the head to head lifetime of Laver vs rosewall is over hundreds of matches vs a head to head of a 90's or 2000's player often the top guys plays each other say 30 to 40 times in a career.

While that may be true for stamina, in terms of explosive fitness you'd have to give the edge to the modern era. Not that it would be very useful with wooden racquets and old balls, I have to admit.

Besides, until someone invents a time machine, such speculation is pointless.

Chelsea_Kiwi
06-08-2009, 11:44 PM
And Laver had no talent and bad hands?? Did you even read his post? What he said had absolutely nothing to do with Laver but to do with Fed and how it would be easy for him to adapt to the 60's game compared to other people in the current era.

No surprised it's you who has completly misunderstood someones post (Once again). :???:

P_Agony
06-08-2009, 11:46 PM
And Laver had no talent and bad hands?? Equipment favour Laver as it's generraly acknowledged as easier to from wood to graphite, than graphite to wood. I see Fed having some issues adapting his strokes to wood. The semi western grip, top spin hitting, tremendous racquet head speed.

Now if one were to take his natural ability and have him grow up, or hone his game with wood, that would be different. I summize he'd hold his own.

Never said that, nor did I say he would lose. All I said is Federer can adpat his game.

380pistol
06-08-2009, 11:51 PM
Never said that, nor did I say he would lose. All I said is Federer can adpat his game.

The way you worded didn't seem hat way. Also if I stated I just stated certain things that make more difficult going back than going forwad. It's tougher to regress as you lose something, but usually one gains with progression.

I just gave my opinion on games and if/how Roger could/would adapt.

BorisBeckerFan
06-08-2009, 11:51 PM
Fed is almost as fast as Laver was and is much taller. Slight edge to FED on physical prowess due to height advantadge but Laver was about as atheletic as they come. They didn't call him the rocket for nothing. I think Fed has ability/talent/work ethic to adapt to 60's game. I think if FED grew up volleying more often and stayed with that style of game for most of his career he would have done well in the 60's. Who would have won? Who Knows...

RCizzle65
06-08-2009, 11:52 PM
Dumbass did you read the rest of post after that one line???

You took it out of line, nowhere in their previous posts did they say Laver had bad hands....

ChanceEncounter
06-08-2009, 11:52 PM
I have to dispute this. All the evidence is that the players back then were if anything fitter than today's players. A lot of tennis was played with best of 5 set matches. Often no sitting down on change overs. And the volume of matches seems to be around twice as much a year. Forinstance the head to head lifetime of Laver vs rosewall is over hundreds of matches vs a head to head of a 90's or 2000's player often the top guys plays each other say 30 to 40 times in a career.

The pace of today's game is so much faster than the 60's it's ridiculous. I think everyone will agree that modern racquet technology means that players hit the ball with much more spin and pace than the 60's. Consequently, players have to move much faster in order to react to the balls. They're much bigger and more explosive now.

How many successful pro's are 5'8" and 160? Is it because the entire demographic of 5'8" and 160 pounders have gotten less athletic over the years even as the population of 5'8" players have probably ballooned in similar proportion to the world population? Or is it because the more physical game of tennis favors larger, stronger, faster athletes? Unless you're very much delusional, it's the latter.

Laver dominated a classist and racist era of tennis where the tennis talent pool was much smaller than today's.

Alafter
06-08-2009, 11:56 PM
I would suspect Fed will find the balls slower than what he's usually up against. That should give him an edge.

Chelsea_Kiwi
06-09-2009, 12:02 AM
Dumbass did you read the rest of post after that one line??? As two other posters have already pointed out he didn't even say Laver had bads hands or no talent. :-|

I would expect an apology but it is you so I am not hoping.

380pistol
06-09-2009, 12:03 AM
As two other posters have already pointed out he didn't even say Laver had bads hands or no talent. :-|

I would expect an apology but it is you so I am not hoping.

Read what I told P Agony in response.... I'm tired of dumbing down to you.

I really don't get you. In another thread, your sick of me, I don't know this or that, but you're like a dope fiend you keep coming bakck. Why?? Why do you still converse with me?? I thought you were done. You're like those girls who say they hate me and I shouldn;t call them, but they stay calling me.

Chelsea_Kiwi
06-09-2009, 12:03 AM
Word of advice... Chill on the name calling. A lot of good posters have been banned recently. Your among my favorite posters and I would hate to see you get banned. You have many good points to share and your logic is usually sound which is why I love your posts. Are you being sarcastic? Btw if your not, good posters don't get banned for nothing but troll's do get banned so perhaps they are not good posters?

crazylevity
06-09-2009, 12:04 AM
Chill pill time, folks.

Chelsea_Kiwi
06-09-2009, 12:04 AM
Read what I tol P Agaony in response.... I'm tired of dumbing down to you. Ok I see you misunderstood his post like I said.

BorisBeckerFan
06-09-2009, 12:12 AM
Are you being sarcastic? Btw if your not, good posters don't get banned for nothing but troll's do get banned so perhaps they are not good posters?

I'm not being sarcastic. Asides from the name calling 380pistol is a great poster. Michael Jackson was a great entertainer despite all his other issues. Some of the greatest people have been very flawed. Do you not enjoy debating with 380pistol? I'm not here as often as you are but from the few times I've seen some of your posts, you are debating with 380pistol. Why would you waste time debating with him if wasn't a good antagonist? If he was just a troll I'm sure you would ignore him and just move on.

Ambivalent
06-09-2009, 12:13 AM
I'm sorry to Laver fans, but the competitive field in Laver's area was WAY weaker. And considering Federer is the number 1/2 in todays better than ever field, Federer would demolish Laver.

Eviscerator
06-09-2009, 01:40 AM
Laver dominated a classist and racist era of tennis where the tennis talent pool was much smaller than today's.

:roll:

The rest of your post was undermined by this comment. To try and diminish Laver's achievements by implying what you did is unacceptable.


````


As to my opinion on this thread, I'd say each player with their eras rules, equipment, surface, etc. would win.

tennisplaya
06-09-2009, 01:59 AM
Laver would win easy, Federer would have to come to net a lot under those conditions and he'd be totally outplayed at net by Laver. The difference in the volleys and net instincts between the 2 is astronomical.

BorisBeckerFan
06-09-2009, 02:03 AM
Laver would win easy, Federer would have to come to net a lot under those conditions and he'd be totally outplayed at net by Laver. The difference in the volleys and net instincts between the 2 is astronomical.

True as is but don't you think Fed would have a different game than he does now had he grown up playing back then? Same for Laver if he grew up playing now?

billnepill
06-09-2009, 02:28 AM
It's tricky to compare both players and a little bit unfair. One can say whatever they want to, but the point shall never be proven. Rod Laver is the greatest in his era, Federer is the greatest in his. Who is better with the old equipment - impossible to answer.

Btw, I would love to see to play exhibitions with the wooden rackets today, although it will be easily perceived as a matter of bad taste, because of these comparisons and the GOAT debate.

tennisplaya
06-09-2009, 02:43 AM
True as is but don't you think Fed would have a different game than he does now had he grown up playing back then? Same for Laver if he grew up playing now?


yes, He would probably have used a grip even more suited to fast grass and he probably would have spent most of his time playing on grass and playing at net since he was a kid and played loads of singles and doubles on grass for a large parts of the year every year and developed net skills and net instincts more like Laver. But he didn't and that's why Laver would win in the 60's conditions.

grafselesfan
06-09-2009, 04:00 AM
Laver is clearly the superior player:

Serve- Federer by a bit
Return- Laver by alot
Forehand- Federer
Backhand- Laver by a huge margin
Movement- Federer by a bit
Volleys- Laver by alot
Overhead- Dont know
Mental game- Laver by alot
Strategy- Laver
Intangibles- Laver