Discussion in 'Former Pro Player Talk' started by urban, Oct 7, 2012.
yeah, that's a good point .... I agree with this ...
Now, how many other of your crush players wouldn´t exchange their micky mouse titles to Kodes...just 3 majors?
most don't regard Kodes that much and because they know he won weakened slams ........ deal with it ...
guys like hewitt, safin, roddick, stich, krajicek etc will always be regarded higher and rightly so ........ Stop crying and learn to deal with it ...
(Actually we talked a great deal about probability theory--and its limitations--in logic classes.)
Super-determinism? A universe populated by only Calvinists?
Pray, do tell?
Living in a universe that isn't deterministic in the classical sense doesn't mean that everyone has free will. There is no need for any kind of hidden variables in order to make this so.
If (in principle) the final state of any system can be predicted with certainty, then free will is a tough sell. Being able to only predict the probability distribution of the final states doesn't make it any better. In principle, all of the potential final states can be predicted and they will follow the predicted distribution when you have a large ensemble.
To make it really simple: If you have a deterministic universe and you hook a (true) random number generator up to it that effects measurements at the smallest scale, then you are going to have the same degree of free will in your modified universe as you did in the deterministic one.
Superdeterminism is just an extension of determinism that seeks to work around Bell's Theorem.
newtards daddy and mom were probably teeny whoppers when Kodes was playing.
Kodes 3 majors, Safin and Hewitt 2 Stich,Krajicek,Roddcik 1
Learn to live with that.
I'm talking even about those who watched kodes play live .... Very few , if any regard him close to someone who's won 3 majors - that's because he wasn't that good and lucked out with truly weakened fields ..... only 8 titles overall ... that's "pathetic" ...
also, federer 17 majors, laver 11 majors ... learn to live with that ...
yes, but Laver was smart enough to put 8 out those 11 majors together in the same year, twice.
Learn to live with that
17 >> 11
and 3 Gran Slams are certainly better than 0.
...even in India reach the same conclusion
you mean 1 grand slam > 0 ..
but I'm sure federer will be plenty happy knowing he is the GOAT with 17 majors, 300+ weeks at no1, 2 majors won 5 times consecutively , 6 YECs etc etc ...
He has only 1 in '69 despite it was 3 grass and 1 clay. The '62 was a joke.
Federites you will never overcome it, will ya?
...and playing in an all time weak era and being owned by Nadal certainly tops his hapiness¡¡¡what else can life offer?
He won the Pro Grand Slam in 1967.
Don Budge is gonna hunt you down.
keep telling that if it stops you from crying every day that federer is the GOAT ...
oh and nadal would own laver pretty much the same on clay ......
and federer leads nadal off clay ...
but then your tiny little brain can't process that, can it ?
Rod and Roger together, both honored to be in each other's presence:
Actually, it is very very boring to keep keyed on the same stuff.If it makes you happy and not frustrated, I will admit that Fed is God on Land, the new Messiah of Mankind, the Abraham of the Chosed people, the lovely sheppard that leads the Noe´s Ark and, probably, the start of a superior, happier, richer, perfect specimen of the human being that will not be affected by disease, hunger, suffering,murdering and will reach the Heavens while finding the right way to hit the backhand off nadal´s high bouncing forehand.
After this, I´ll be happy that you just be humble enough to praise a little bit Kodes, the guy who so undeservedly and probably due to an abnormal process of abduction of his competitors, was so unmoraly lucky to win 3 majors that nobody, absolutley nobody on earth wanted to win bar him.
WILL THAT COST HIM FEDERER´S PARADISE AND WILL CONDEMN HIM TO PERPETUAL SUFFERING IN THE DARK SIDE OF THE FEDERER MOON?
Was there any talk of a Pro Grand Slam in 1967? How many clay events were part of this slam?
It was played on two surfaces: grass and wood.
I don't think so but it really doesn't matter but the accomplishment is great nevertheless. I don't think there was much talk (some but not much) of Don Budge's Grand Slam in 1938 either.
BobbyOne already answered the second question.
When Rosewall won the Pro Grand Slam in 1963 I believe the French Pro was on clay.
Today there is so much more emphasis on records, cumulative totals, or greatness by statistics.
In this interview Laver suggests (and Fed agrees) that in 1960s after he had won his two Grand Slams, no one thought of it as that significant. Some discussion of slams and Grand Slams. (Fed calls the totals "silly.")
They simply said Laver had won four major titles that year.
pc1, No it was played indoors (probably wood). Clay only till 1962.
No, 1963 was the year the pros abandoned Roland Garros for Stade Coubertin, a big comedown, a small court indoor on wood. No more clay biggy on the pro tour, what was left of the pro tour.
Laver won te most important pro tournament on clay in 1967, Oklahoma, anyway. He won Johannisburg, probably the most important pro outdoor hardcourt tournament in 1967, too. Plus the Wimbledon pro on grass, US pro on grass, French pro (indoor), Wembley (indoor) and US pro Indoor at New York.
Where in Oklahoma?
Where in N.Y. City? Not Forest Hills, for sure.
Let's face it, the pros laboured in obscurity after 1959, until rescued by Open tennis. The pullout of major funders Ampol and Qantas in early 1960 sealed the fate of the tour.
The US pro was played at Old Armory hall at New York before a crowd of some 5000 or 6000 people. The final was a famous match between Laver and Gonzalez, maybe the best match between these two, which Laver won in four sets, after having a shouting match with Gonzalez in the third. Gonzalez had accused Laver for early serving.
Fine obscurity, especially when the pros drew packed crowds at Wimbledon, had the best tv ratings to this date 1967 on the BBC and did very well at Boston and Johannisburg.
I stand corrected.
A year like 69 Laver had WITHOUT any GS win would have looked great... now, jsut add the big 4...it is a heck¡¡¡
Laver was very lucky that Kodes matured just one year later... in his book he talkes about how much affliction 23 yrs old Kodes gave prime Newcombe at the French and, in a way, recognizes Kodes as being of their same breed....
You mean, the U.S. Pro INDOOR (not the U.S. Pro) was played at the Old Armory (wasn't that a military museum?), a smoky den in the middle of nowhere.
Boston was a poor substitute for Forest Hills, which the pros couldn't afford to rent, and Johannesburg was everyone's least favouite corner of the universe in 1967. The amateurs stayed away from that place.
Admittedly, the BBC Wimbledon was a breakthrough event, but was hugely atypical of what the pros experienced at that time.
LOL, ha ha ha ha ha ha
Even past his prime Laver owned prime Kodes and lead their H2H 5-2 ... prime Laver would just crush him even more, as would many other greats - rosewall, borg, connors, mac,lendl, edberg,wilander, becker,sampras, agassi, federer, nadal, djoker .....from the open era for starters ....
Djoker crushing the Prague's Lion?
Hahahaja your sense of humour is peerless I must admirat
The Prague Lion versus Bull of the Pampas--
1978 Monte Carlo WCT
Monaco Clay R32 Vilas, Guillermo
Austria Clay F Vilas, Guillermo
5-7, 6-2, 4-6, 6-3, 6-2
England Grass R128 Vilas, Guillermo
9-8, 7-5, 6-4
1975 US Open
NY, U.S.A. Clay R16 Vilas, Guillermo
6-2, 6-0, 6-0
1975 Roland Garros
France Clay R16 Vilas, Guillermo
6-1, 6-4, 6-2
Germany Clay Q Kodes, Jan
Spain Clay Q Vilas, Guillermo
1974 Houston, Texas,
U.S.A. Clay R32 Vilas, Guillermo
3-6, 6-3, 6-2
1974 Sao Paulo WCT
Brazil Carpet R32 Vilas, Guillermo
1-6, 7-5, 6-4
Canada Clay R16 Vilas, Guillermo
What about Kodes and the Virginia BlackKnight?
The GS is when a player win 4 grand slam events in one year, and that's only applicable to the time when there were 3 grass and 1 clay(not today). The '67 ARE NOT slam events plus it's only 3 pro majors. Added to the fact the number of draw is between 8-14 players.
Laver only has 1 GS and that's the only one that people care about. The top 10 greatest season only has Laver 1969. I know kiki is always desperate in defending Laver, but I'm surprise to hear this from you.
TMF, not the 1962 Grand Slam is a joke but you are a joke when thinking that way.
I don't believe the '62 was that impressive as some Laver supporters trying to put it. There's no reason not to believe any great player can win a GS from that weak field. Just winning 2 slams per year in this era is more difficult than having to win all 4 in '62.
TMF, I agree that two GS tournaments winning today could be more difficult than winning an amateur GS. But still the latter was a great achievement. Budge was great to win it and Laver was great.
Laver had to play some of the best players ever in 1967 when he won the Pro Grand Slam. Now imagine Federer playing Nadal, Murray and Djokovic in virtually every tournament. Wouldn't it be extremely tough to win a major?
One of the things that makes Federer a terrific player is that he is rarely upset by inferior players so he can win a tournament when some players that would be tough for him (and anyone else) like Nadal, Djokovic, Murray or Tsonga might be upset. But in this type of tournament Federer may face Murray in the first round.
Now also add the fact that there were other greats in these tournaments. In my opinion Laver's 1967 Pro Grand Slam was a great achievement and I believe he was a better player in 1967 than in 1969.
TMF is desperate to belittle Laver
There is a tournament similar to that style nowadays (where you only play the best players) and Federer has won that six times. I would go as far to say that Fed right now would be better off playing less rounds against better players than wasting energy against clearly inferior opponents. Each round takes too much of a toll on him now that he is getting older.
Federer's worst opponent (for him) generally has slow tournament starts and begins to play better after he gets some matches under his belt. I'm sure Fed would rather play Nadal on a fresh grass court before Nadal has found his footing rather than in the final when they are playing on dirt.
Good argument but that tournament is indoors.
Read my edited post.
Is it indoors? I found it hard to tell even though all I could see was a roof when I looked up
John Donald Budge disagrees.
So does Maureen Catherine Connolly Brinker.
The pro majors sound much like the WTF today where there's top 8 players with no easy match. Despite only having 1 event a year, Fed managed to win 6 titles. Laver won 8 titles but he gets to play 3 events per year.
For Laver, historical event will remember the most is 1969, not 1967. Fed was a better player in 2005 than in 2009, but most people will remember his 2009 year mainly because of his record breaking. I think '69 is the reason why The Tennis Channel had Laver at #2. Without the GS, many would have him below Sampras, even Borg..
How high do experts ranked Don's 1938 season when he won the GS?
Not high since the level of competition wasn't strong. I just randomly look at one of his slam event(AO), and most of the players in the draw are from Aussie. Not much depth, wouldn't you say so?
Not to mention that was was during the recession period, war/tension develop in Europe. Eastern world was concern about japanese imperialism. Sport was the last thing they have in mind.
Laver won the Wimbledon Pro in 1967 too, the first professional tennis event ever held at Wimbledon.
Separate names with a comma.