kiki
Banned
Funny that the players themselves have made plenty of distinctions between them.
yes, they are all in sin
Funny that the players themselves have made plenty of distinctions between them.
yes, they are all in sin
I disagree with you on quite alot regarding modern tennis...but I like your flair.
Seems to be the view of contemporaries. I believe in the other thread there's a quote from Laver himself saying as much?
I think it has to do with the (true) Grand Slam of 1969--an awesome achievement.
NatF, Rosewall leads Laver 10:7 matches in big events. That even though Muscles had the disadvantage of being older than Rocket.
I was referring to his 2 finals in the amateurs. Why take my post out of context?
Surface distribution of the matches?
It's not out of context. The context was you downgrading Rosewall for not winning Wimbledon. But he only played Wimbledon as a very young player and as a very old player.
CyBorg, You are right regarding Rosewall's "flaw" at Wimbledon but Phoenix actually referred to Rosewall's amateur Wimbledons, to be fair.
Maybe he can explain what his point is, because amateur results have fairly negligible weight in the overall scheme of things - especially for a player of Rosewall's longevity.
Had Rosewall opted to remain an amateur a la Emerson, I'm sure he would have won his share of Wimbledons, amateur or otherwise. But that should not be considered a "good" thing.
Gee, who was that guy Laver beat in the finals of the 1969 French Open?...achieved in an age of life (31) when Rosewall could not enter the GS tournaments.
B1, Laver leads Muscles 80-63 in all events, even though Rod has the disadvantage of being younger and less experienced.NatF, Rosewall leads Laver 10:7 matches in big events. That even though Muscles had the disadvantage of being older than Rocket.
...achieved in an age of life (31) when Rosewall could not enter the GS tournaments.
Gee, who was that guy Laver beat in the finals of the 1969 French Open?
Must have been someone else.?:wink:
B1, Laver leads Muscles 80-63 in all events, even though Rod has the disadvantage of being younger and less experienced.
Uh? Rosewall played at all the majors in 1969. Rosewall lost in the Round of 16 of the 1969 Australian Open to Gimeno, lost in the final of the 1969 French Open to Laver, lost in the Round of 32 of 1969 Wimbledon to Lutz and lost in the quarter finals of the 1969 US Open to Ashe.
I think it has to do with the (true) Grand Slam of 1969--an awesome achievement.
You need a subject to your incomplete sentence....achieved in an age of life (31) when Rosewall could not enter the GS tournaments.
Okay....achieved in an age of life (31) when Rosewall could not enter the GS tournaments.
^^^Does anyone know what B1 is talking about?
You need a subject to your incomplete sentence.
Who was 31 years of age?
Rosewall was 31 in 1965, and as a pro he could not enter the slams.
Laver was 31 in 1969, (when he won the Grand Slam). And Rosewall could and did enter all the slams that year.
Please try to make clear sense, if that is possible.
Okay.
Finally I have deciphered the meaning here, which is not clearly expressed in the incomplete sentence in English as used.
Laver won his Grand Slam at the age of 31. When Rosewall was at the same age of 31, he could not enter the slam tournaments.
Rosewall was 35 when he could enter all four slams in 1969.
BobbyOne is saying that Laver, in 1969, was 31 years old, and that when Rosewall was 31, in 1965, he did not have the opportunity to enter the traditional majors. Thus he may have been denied the CYGS.
(I disagree with his assessment btw, but this is what he is saying)
Bbby1,hoodjem, I'm surprised that my English is so unclear. I'm sure my sentence was not incomplete: I just used your words "an awesome achievement".
I would have awaited that you grant a "visionary" the knowledge that Rosewall did enter the 1969 majors.
Bbby1,
You have an excellent sense of humor.
I have "awaited" that the Wienervisionär knew Muscles' schedule in 1969.
hoodjem, Exactly what I meant. I'm not sure if I had the same problem once with you or with Mustard. But it's okay now.
Yes, I use to hint that Laver, who is valued as the GOAT by Collins and others, has achieved all his great amateur and open achievements at 21, 22, 30 and 31. When Rosewall was in these ages, he was banned. I think it's worth to consider this but of course we will never know if Muscles would have done the same great things.
Muscles best year was probably 1963, IMO.
What we can say is that Rosewall at age 31 was one of the top 2 players in the world, but that Laver was the world's best player. Laver at age 31 was still the world's best player.
Are you suggesting that there is something magical about the age of 31?Therefore I still believe Muscles would have had a fair chance for a GS in 1965.
Laver was somewhat lucky to be regarded as GOAT.
But you need luck to be as successful as GOAT. That's life.
Are you suggesting that there is something magical about the age of 31?
Do you think, if he was allowed to compete, that he had a better chance in 1963 (when Muscles was younger, and before Laver improved)?
Laver was somewhat lucky to be regarded as GOAT.
But you need luck to be as successful as GOAT. That's life.
I personally give the edge to Laver over Rosewall since the head to head 79–63 in favour of Laver and since Laver is the only player to win two grand slams and also a professional slam.
Rosewall may just be the GOAT. There has been lots of recent talk of the tennis GOAT with Roger Federer breaking the record for open majors won and currently has 17.
Laver and Rosewall both have 19 Majors.
Both players far surpass Federer in career titles, Rosewall 133 and Laver 200 vs 76 for Federer. Don't think Roger will surpass either the career wins or majors won by either player.
I really do not think you can compare players of different era but since all three of these players have Open era experience, I will give the nod to Laver and Rosewall over Federer unless Roger wins 2 more slam majors and adds many more championships and victories to his impressive open career.
I think the below stats should be considered for open era GOAT decisions:
Tennis players with most titles since 1968
Player - championships - majors - overall
--------------------------------------------
Jimmy Connors 109 8 1243–277
Ivan Lendl 94 8 1071–239
John McEnroe 77 7 875–198
Roger Federer 76 17 891–202
I see no issue with Rosewall being viewed on a similar level as Laver, but its pretty tough to win the argument that he should be placed above him. I can't say because I've only seen a few clips of each. But, the consensus among past tennis players is that Laver was the best. That has to mean something.
We shall wait to see Federer influence on next generations
Laver was the role model from Borg to Sampras and it includes Mc Enroe and Edberg
That is a lot
Other trend trailblazers were Tilden,Kramer,Borg and certainly Lendl for the current generation
We shall wait to see Federer influence on next generations
Laver was the role model from Borg to Sampras and it includes Mc Enroe and Edberg
That is a lot
Other trend trailblazers were Tilden,Kramer,Borg and certainly Lendl for the current generation
If the next generations are going to be influenced by Nadal, Djokovic and Murray more than they will be by Federer then i will probably use some of your favourite statements :twisted:.
I have a feeling that you will appreciate Fed after his retirement much more than you do now
Obviously he will influence the next generation since he set the benchmark. The goal post has been established for future player to reach catch him. If any player manage to surpass him, then the throne will be handed to that player.
Past history the throne has been handed to the next great athlete in many sports. e.g. Largent --> Rice, Spitz --> Phelps
If the next generations are going to be influenced by Nadal, Djokovic and Murray more than they will be by Federer then i will probably use some of your favourite statements :twisted:.
I have a feeling that you will appreciate Fed after his retirement much more than you do now
Murray,Nadal and Djokovic are all 'children of Lendl' in the way they play. (Maybe Nadal is also a 'child of Borg')
I'm not sure Federer can influence future generations because there will hardly be anyone who has the all-round talent to play like him.
joe sch, I agree partly.
But Rosewall leads Laver in BIG events 10:7 and has won much more majors (23 or 25 : 19 if we add the WCT finals).
Bobby, Thanks for doing soo much research and really supporting these great threads.
Its difficult to do these analysis comparisons with the pre-open players since the stats are not clear. I thought both had 19 majors but as you point out, the WCT wins should be counted as majors. So Rosewall had 4 or 6 WCT wins and Laver none ??
I would really like to know the career won-loss ?? records for both Laver and Rosewall so a better comparison could be made to the top open greats ??
I do think that titles is a great barometer and will repeat the below from my prior page post:
Laver and Rosewall both have 19 Majors.
Both players far surpass Federer in career titles, Rosewall 133 and Laver 200 vs 76 for Federer. Don't think Roger will surpass either the career wins or majors won by either player.
Would really like to know how these two Aussies compare to Connors in total wins and championships ?
Usually the amateur majors are distinguished from the pro and open majors, because the top players where absent, and the field was thus significantly weaker.
If we count only the pro and open majors, Rosewall won 19 majors. 23 if we count his 4 amateur majors.
Laver won 14 pro and open majors. 18 if we count his 6 amateur majors. In both method of counting, Rosewall leads.
Rosewall won two WCT. If we count them as majors, he won 21 majors with full competition, + 4 with limited competition.
I looked at the result of their finals in pro majors, open majors, and WCT finals. Rosewall leads Laver 7-6. I don't know which are the other important events that Bobby counted that I did not.
Bobby, Thanks for doing soo much research and really supporting these great threads.
Its difficult to do these analysis comparisons with the pre-open players since the stats are not clear. I thought both had 19 majors but as you point out, the WCT wins should be counted as majors. So Rosewall had 4 or 6 WCT wins and Laver none ??
I would really like to know the career won-loss ?? records for both Laver and Rosewall so a better comparison could be made to the top open greats ??
I do think that titles is a great barometer and will repeat the below from my prior page post:
Laver and Rosewall both have 19 Majors.
Both players far surpass Federer in career titles, Rosewall 133 and Laver 200 vs 76 for Federer. Don't think Roger will surpass either the career wins or majors won by either player.
Would really like to know how these two Aussies compare to Connors in total wins and championships ?