Laver Overrated

Discussion in 'Former Pro Player Talk' started by pj80, Jun 10, 2007.

  1. pj80

    pj80 Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    Jan 27, 2007
    Messages:
    491
    The Goats are in a tie between federer and sampras. Maybe ill give pete a slight edge for now. borg is third on that list
     
    #1
  2. Fries-N-Gravy

    Fries-N-Gravy Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    Mar 23, 2007
    Messages:
    478
    Location:
    Boston, MA
    thank you. someone sane
     
    #2
  3. FedSampras

    FedSampras Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    Oct 27, 2006
    Messages:
    697
    I agree. It's just unfortunate that these two great champions never got a chance to play each other in their prime. That would have been the ultimate rivalry in tennis.

    Sampras has great respect and admiration for Roger and vice versa. It's really impossible not to like Federer--he is classy, friendly, down to earth and extremely talented.
     
    #3
  4. fastdunn

    fastdunn Legend

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2004
    Messages:
    6,294
    His 1st gland slam is certainly overrated (when everybody was banned
    because they all played in pro circuit) but hsi 2nd one (in 1969) was
    genuinly rare record nobody ever did (although 3 of 4 slams were played
    on grass ? correct me if I'm wrong).
     
    #4
  5. kimizz

    kimizz Rookie

    Joined:
    Jan 6, 2007
    Messages:
    353
    I dont like when the achievments of the old greats are being belittled. Laver was the greatest of hes time. And he did some remarkable things with the racquet. I wonder how the kids in the 2030(assuming global warming hasnt killed us LOL) think of Federer or Sampras.
     
    #5
  6. WhiteSox05CA

    WhiteSox05CA Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Sep 23, 2006
    Messages:
    2,013
    Well, the competition today is much stronger. I think the players today are more talented and physically stronger. The game has changed a lot- but it's not Laver's fault.
     
    #6
  7. CyBorg

    CyBorg Legend

    Joined:
    Mar 8, 2007
    Messages:
    5,544
    Location:
    Atlanta, GA
    Federer's play on clay disappoints me greatly. I had him rated as a close 2nd to Borg, but he goes down a notch after today's performance.

    The greatest player ever dominated on all surfaces - it's either Borg or Laver. Not Sampras. Not Federer.

    In a better clay era Federer probably wouldn't even be a RG finalist. Imagine him up against Costa, Corretja, Kuerten, Ferrero, Norman. The current clay era is a mixed blessing for Roger - he gets good draws which get him to the final, but he gets his heart broken in ridiculous fashion by Nadal. I feel bad for him.

    1. Borg .. French Open/Wimbledon combo three years in a row .. in the two surrounding years there was 1977 where he won Wimbledon but did not play at the FO where he surely would have won and 1981 where he won the French but lost in the final of Wimby .. the US open losses were not surface issues.
    2. Laver .. a bit of a late-bloomer, much like Roger; I think this gives hope to Roger in the future .. Rod took a young Borg to five sets in several matches in his mid-30s.
    3. Federer .. I think he may still win the French, but he'll need some good luck .. his appalling serving is a stain on his greatness - let's hope he can erase this with a great Wimbledon.
    4. Sampras .. sucked on clay
    5. McEnroe
     
    #7
  8. VolklVenom

    VolklVenom Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    May 20, 2005
    Messages:
    535
    1.
    4.
    3.
    5. (annoying at times)
    2. (deserves 5th place, but so do so many others: P.Gonzales, etc...)

    PS, Nice spoiler.
     
    #8
  9. VikingSamurai

    VikingSamurai Banned

    Joined:
    Dec 15, 2006
    Messages:
    3,498
    Location:
    F ukuoka Japan, via Atlanta GA, originally Brisban
    The competition today is not much stronger?.. There is just more of it.. Skill wise, tennis has only gotten harder and faster. Not better....

    Big difference...
     
    #9
  10. CyBorg

    CyBorg Legend

    Joined:
    Mar 8, 2007
    Messages:
    5,544
    Location:
    Atlanta, GA
    I typically leave out pre-open era players so no Gonzalez. It's just easier to stick to the open era.

    P.S. Not intentional.
     
    #10
  11. Fries-N-Gravy

    Fries-N-Gravy Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    Mar 23, 2007
    Messages:
    478
    Location:
    Boston, MA
    you can't really compare the GS tournies of today with the old GS tournaments that were mostly on grass.
     
    #11
  12. Lion King

    Lion King Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    Jul 12, 2004
    Messages:
    460
    Location:
    Land of OZ
    Have you guys ever seen Laver play? In 1977, when he was 39, he lost a very close match to Borg on green clay... just think about it. I mean, he had 2 Calendar Grand Slams, and lots of pro equivalents in between. As for measuring him against modern days, it's just stupid. Every athlete measures against his/her generation, given that the sport is developed enough. And Laver beat all of his peers so many times on so many different surfaces. Until someone wins a calendar slam, Laver will always be #1 for me. Sampras and Borg are very close (to each other) #2 and #3. Federer is #4 so far.
     
    #12
  13. vsgut

    vsgut Rookie

    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2004
    Messages:
    139
    You never saw or hit against Laver

    I had the opportunity to hit against Mr. Laver when he was 45. I was a solid 5.0 player and could not handle him. He was hitting with an aluminum frame.

    He hit a heavy topspin on his forehand and backhand and could really knife his slice backhand approach shot. Volleys were awesome.

    No telling what the guys back in their day had access to the dietary knowledge and fitness knowledge that todays players have to say nothing about the graphite frames and polyester strings.

    vsgut1954
     
    #13
  14. laurie

    laurie Guest

    I've never seen Laver play but I wouldn't dream about making such a derogatory statement.

    I think Tennis fans are among the worst when it comes to lack of respect for the past. I know great cricketers, footballers, and I'm sure basketbal players and baseball players in the States are looked on with affection.

    However, when it comes to Tennis, give someone a titanium racquet with luxillon strings and all the players from the last 50 years are suddenly not worth watching.

    Maybe that's why us Tennis fans have to come on message boards to talk Tennis because you can't really have dumb conversations like this with friends or work colleagues. Imagine this conversation at work - "Hey, guess what? Laver was overated because he happened to play in the 1960s and they only had wood racquets then" Who would entertain such a stupid remark?
     
    #14
  15. lambielspins

    lambielspins Banned

    Joined:
    Aug 21, 2006
    Messages:
    2,715
    People are familiar with either now(Federer and Nadal)or recent(Sampras and Agassi). So they want to believe what they are familiar with is the best, and the past is lesser. It seems the majority of sports fans today always want to believe current or very recent is the best, and better then the past, as that is what they actually experienced and witnessed as a fan. Even analysts and experts are guilty of this, hyping athletes in some sports who have only won a few big things as the best ever before their records come anywhere near some others from past eras. Less achievements is just brushed off with the so much more competition now slogan, often without any in depth look at that.
     
    #15
  16. krosero

    krosero Legend

    Joined:
    Dec 3, 2006
    Messages:
    5,645
    Laver did something in 1969 which Federer was not able to do today, when he beat Ken Rosewall in the French final. Unlike Federer, Laver reversed the result of the previous year's final, but that's really the small part of his accomplishment. Laver's real achievement was in beating the man who, at the time, may have been the tour's best player on clay, perhaps even the clay-court GOAT.

    Federer was unable today to beat the man who is the best claycourter on the tour and who has a good shot at being the claycourt GOAT.

    It's a direct comparison with Laver, in which Federer, for now, has come up short. Not to say he won't do it in the future.

    Others who know Rosewall and Laver better than I do can chime in. I have only seen snippets of these two playing. I'm basing my comments on a Tennis magazine interview in the 1980s, where an older champion (can't remember the name) rated Rosewall just below Borg as the claycourt GOAT.
     
    #16
  17. lordmanji

    lordmanji Guest

    nadal cannot be considered in the same breath of borg on clay until he wins at least two more french opens. period.
     
    #17
  18. tennis_hand

    tennis_hand Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Jul 28, 2006
    Messages:
    4,427
    I think comparing with history is such a crappy idea, but we people like it and media fancy it. As everything develops, the conditions are never the same.

    In tennis, winner all 4 majors are much more difficult than those early days, due to the development of everything. Some are even imposed by ATP to improve the variety of the game. All of these, whatever they are, increases the difficulty to win all 4. People wanna see variety and sparkle, not to create a GOAT of all centuries. In Golf, Tiger Woods also couldn't win all 4 majors in a calendar year. But he is the best you can find in modern golf. In F1, Shumacher's 7 victories (5 victories in a row) are not going to be surpassed, no matter how good Alonso or Hamilton is going to be. I bet on this. Time has changed. Conditions are different. In the IT world, Microsoft's success is not going to be replicated either.

    Time advances. Environment and conditions become more stable and more mature, making greater achievements more difficult. Are we going to see another Einstein? Not!
     
    #18
  19. Shaolin

    Shaolin Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Feb 11, 2004
    Messages:
    4,190
    Location:
    Kansas
    What was the score?
     
    #19
  20. VGP

    VGP Legend

    Joined:
    Oct 6, 2005
    Messages:
    6,311
    Location:
    Location: Location
    Rod Laver may be overrated.

    Lew Hoad is the best......and The Rocket agrees with me.
     
    #20
  21. lilxjohnyy

    lilxjohnyy Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Apr 16, 2007
    Messages:
    1,759
    Location:
    Somewhere Over the Rainbow
    i think federer is great... but a little overated
     
    #21
  22. FarFed

    FarFed Rookie

    Joined:
    Jun 22, 2006
    Messages:
    290
    From the precious little I've seen of Laver on youtube, he was a fantastic player. So much variety, the current lot would be put to shame if they saw what he could do with this slices and volleys.
     
    #22
  23. SgtJohn

    SgtJohn Rookie

    Joined:
    Dec 5, 2006
    Messages:
    230
    Your comparison seems quite right to me, except for one 'small' detail: in 1969, Rosewall was 35, 4 years older than Laver. So between 1968 and 1969, time was in favour of Laver. It is of course the opposite for Federer. I doubt that Laver could have beaten Rosewall on clay some years earlier (as a matter of fact, he never did).

    John
     
    #23
  24. urban

    urban Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Apr 22, 2005
    Messages:
    4,380
    Sgt. John, You certainly know the result of the Kitzb├╝hel pro tournament summer 1963 (7-12 Aug.): Laver-Rosewall 63,64,64. And that was on clay, and Rosewall was 28 or 29.
     
    #24
  25. SgtJohn

    SgtJohn Rookie

    Joined:
    Dec 5, 2006
    Messages:
    230
    You got me urban :) I should have known better before posting unobjective facts around here...

    I talked only about very big tournaments...Then again, Fed beat Nadal in Hamburg. The French Pro was not on clay that year, so maybe we could say that Kitzbuehl was the main clay event of the year, I don't know about that.

    What I meant was that clay is the surface that favours young players the most, I think it's easy to prove statistically. Then the fact that Laver's archrival and clay nemesis was 4 years older than him made his task a little easier than Federer, who faces an opponent who gets tougher and tougher every year. He may have already missed his chance by now...But who knows? and in 1998, who would've thought Agassi would end up a career-slamer?

    Of course, all this is not to belittle Laver's achievement in 1969 which was immense...

    Jon
     
    #25
  26. atatu

    atatu Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2004
    Messages:
    3,363
    Location:
    Austin, Texas
    Sorry, Borg is maybe top 5. You don't get points for quitting at the peak of your career, you get points for longevity, which is why Agassi and Connors are ahead of Borg in my book. I give the guy tons of credit for winning Wimbledon and the French back to back....but how often did he win the US Open ? When someone better came along, he quit and blew his fortune on cocaine and strippers. Not the GOAT, not the top 5.
     
    #26
  27. krosero

    krosero Legend

    Joined:
    Dec 3, 2006
    Messages:
    5,645
    Good point. It makes me wonder, which age difference is greater in tennis? When do the legs start to go? I would think that you lose a step in the early 30s, as you approach Rosewall's age in '69 -- and that there's no real difference in leg speed between a 21-year-old and a 25-year-old.

    Anyway, some years from now when Nadal turns 26, for example, we'll be able to imagine whether a 22-year-old Federer would have beaten him.

    One thing we can do right now, though, is to imagine Laver at 31 and Rosewall at 27. Would Laver have taken the French in '69?
     
    #27
  28. Bassus

    Bassus Rookie

    Joined:
    Jun 17, 2006
    Messages:
    249

    Did Borg dominate on hard courts? I know he never won the US Open, though it wasn't always on hard courts. I know he never won the Australian, but that is not a fair knock against anyone from that era since it wasn't a true major.


    As to imagining Federer against those other clay courters you mention; well Kuerten is the only one on that list I agree with you on. I think the Federer playing good on clay would beat all of those other guys more than he'd lose to them.

    We shouldn't forget that Federer's first breakthrough at a major was not when he beat Sampras at the 2001 Wimbledon, but a few weeks earlier when he made the quarters at the French. Then the next two years he inexplicably flamed out in the first (or second???) rounds. If he never wins the French, I'm sure he'll think about those losses almost as much as he does the Nadal losses.
     
    #28
  29. Rabbit

    Rabbit G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Feb 11, 2004
    Messages:
    12,606
    Location:
    at the bottom of every hill I come to
    Borg dominated on pretty much every surface. He was, in the late 70's, unbeatable.

    Back on topic, Laver is the undisputed King. Lots of folks try to discredit his first Grand Slam, but the fact is, there weren't that many guys playing pro tennis. Kramer's circuit was limited and by invitation only. Laver played against some great compeititon. The arugment that he'd have lost to the pros doesn't hold any water either.

    When Open tennis hit in '68, the winners of that year's Grand Slams were: Bowrey, Rosewall, Laver and Ashe. Half of the majors that year were won by amateurs. Laver defeated Tony Roche who was, I believe an amateur the year before, and Ashe defeated fellow former amateur Okker in the US Open. Of the eight Grand Slam finalists in 1968, 5 were amateurs the year before, Bowery, Gisbert, Roche, Ashe, and Okker. In 1969, when Laver won his second Grand Slam, two of the pros were on the pro tour for their second year, Tony Roche and John Newcombe. Point being, if the pros were so much better than everyone else, why didn't they show in the finals?

    It's very easy to say the competiton was a breeze back then, it's harder to prove it. The only objective measure we have is the results of those tournaments and the supposition that pros were hands down better than amateurs just doesn't show up in the results.

    Rod Laver was/is a great player by any measure and his accomplishments are just as stand out now as they were then. The first round matches may not have been as tough as today, but the competition at the top of the game was much keener and stronger I believe.
     
    #29
  30. tomahawk

    tomahawk New User

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2004
    Messages:
    60
    I don't think Sampras 'sucked' on clay. I just think that his game just didn't translate on clay. If you call getting the the QF's and one SF and winning the Rome Masters 'sucking' I'll be you a lot of pro's would have taken those results.
    If that's the way we look at his game, then you would have to say that every other player that hasn't won the French 'sucked' on clay and all the clay courters 'suck' on grass and hard courts. Let's be fair.

    As far as Laver goes, if we just go on how many Grand Slams were won, I think if you take into account the 5-6 years Laver was not allowed to play Slams, and figure he was dominating the game back in 1962, I'd say he would have had about 20-22 Grand Slam wins, and we wouldn't be having this conversation. It's unfortunate that he wasn't allowed to play, but that's the way it goes.
     
    #30
  31. Fries-N-Gravy

    Fries-N-Gravy Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    Mar 23, 2007
    Messages:
    478
    Location:
    Boston, MA
    while i do agree that laver is great, i feel that people just have no faith that there's a chance federer could one day achieve his greatness.

    i would say that federer has a similar dominance most of the time especially at slams. he might just need some advice from him about that backhand

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7-VeBIal8TU
     
    #31
  32. tHotGates

    tHotGates Rookie

    Joined:
    Apr 5, 2007
    Messages:
    227
    Overrated?

    Tough to argue that Laver is not the GOAT.
     
    #32
  33. rasajadad

    rasajadad Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2006
    Messages:
    1,993
    Location:
    Western MA
    While I don't want to cause controversy, anyone who says Laver is "over-rated" isn't familiar with his accomplishments and almost certainly never saw him play.
     
    #33
  34. CEvertFan

    CEvertFan Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Mar 5, 2007
    Messages:
    2,060
    Location:
    NJ, USA

    You do know that only 5 men EVER in the history of tennis have won all 4 majors? Out of those 5 Laver and Budge have won the calendar year Grand Slam (Laver did it twice) and only one man from the modern Open Era has managed a career Slam during his career (Agassi). I think it would be much more difficult now for the men to win a Grand Slam or a career Slam because the majors are played on 4 different surfaces unlike Pre-Open Slams, which had 3 on grass and one on clay. Still only 4 pre Open men managed to win a career Slam, even though 3 of the majors were played on grass. It's an extremely rare thing and an extremely difficult task to accomplish in the men's game, whether it's pre or post Open we're talking about. I guess you could include Laver in the Open Era as 1969 was the 1st year that tennis became "open", but I don't think it was fully integrated until the 70's. All due respect to Laver though for coming back after turning "pro" and winning another calendar Grand Slam.

    The women have always been generally more consistent across the surfaces than the men and it is a more common thing for the best women to have won each of the 4 majors at least once.


    As for the GOAT, I would have to rank Laver 1st simply because his results against his peers were excellent, his longevity and because he did what no one else has ever done or even come close to doing, win TWO calendar Grand Slams.

    I would put Sampras 2nd and Borg 3rd. I would currently put Federer in 4th place (he will most likely move up the list before his career is through) and Emerson 5th because of his GS title count, which was the number to beat for many years.
     
    Last edited: Jun 11, 2007
    #34
  35. gmonfils

    gmonfils Rookie

    Joined:
    Jul 21, 2006
    Messages:
    110
    I don't agree with this at all! Players today are not more talented I think it is the opposite. Nadal and Federer dominate because of the lack of talent in the rest of the mens field. There are no players out there to push these 2. Just look at 3 countries that are in decline tennis wise... the U.S., Sweden and France all had far better players on tour in the 80's and 90's then they do now. Federer and Nadal would not be running away with everyhting if they were playing back then.
     
    #35
  36. Moose Malloy

    Moose Malloy Legend

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2005
    Messages:
    7,924
    Laver was supremely fit, that was a cornerstone of Hopman's training. Looking at film of him, his body is more impressive than Fed(who has no muscles & a soft belly) Laver's forearms are huge, not an ounce of fat on him, even without as much knowledge, he was always very careful about what he ate, drank, etc.

    as far as the op, its a shame so many fans are so ignorant, the information is easily available, I guess people are just lazy.

    some random facts:

    -Laver won 22 out of his 52 open era titles on hardcourt, so it is a bit silly to get so surface obsessed in this debate.

    -everyone(or at least I hope everyone) knows Laver was banned from the slams from '63-'67, but an equally important fact is that Laver was banned from the 1970 Australian & French Opens(the year after his calendar grand slam) due to some politics between the tours.

    -Laver beat Borg twice in 1974, once on clay. Borg won the French that year. Laver was almost 15 years older than Borg. So Laver did deal with some modern(topspin) players & did fine.

    -Laver won the 1971 Italian Open, beating Jan Kodes in the final. He was not allowed to play the French that year, due to politics. Guess who won the French that year? Kodes.

    -Laver was 31 when he won the calendar slam in 1969, a tennis players' prime is much younger(& most observers say that Laver's prime was '65-'67), so it is arguable that he won the Calendar Slam while past his prime, which is amazing.

    Even being robbed so many times in his career, he still has a case for being GOAT, which should tell you a lot.

    Borg did have longevity, he was a pro at 15, retired at 26. A 11 year career sounds pretty long to me. And Borg won at least one major per year for 8 straight years(a record with Sampras), that's impressive longevity, no other players were even close to that mark.

    The Australian Open that year wasn't open, only for amateurs.
     
    #36
  37. atatu

    atatu Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2004
    Messages:
    3,363
    Location:
    Austin, Texas
    Yes, but in terms of longevity, he can't stack up to Laver,Tilden, Connors, or even Agassi. And once again, he never won the US Open....
     
    #37
  38. Moose Malloy

    Moose Malloy Legend

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2005
    Messages:
    7,924
    I find it odd you rank Agassi higher because of his longevity, yet Agassi basically half-assed it in his 20s(the athletic prime of a tennis player) while at the same age Borg was putting his body through hell.

    So in essence Agassi gave up early in his career & got serious late, while Borg gave up late in his career when he was worn out by many years of top level tennis & wanted to move on.

    Longevity is one thing, but so is peak level & I think Borg's peak was higher than Connors or Agassi's. and what was Borg's head to head with Connors?
     
    #38
  39. FiveO

    FiveO Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2005
    Messages:
    3,260
    Hmmm. Interesting take. Who comprises your top 5? Are we doing the Tilden, Gonzalez, Budge, Kramer, et al ranking thing, or guys who played into or all of their careers in the Open era. I'll do the latter.

    Borg won 11 majors over a span of 8 years when at best he competed in 3 majors per year.

    For all their added "longevity"

    Agassi won three less majors (8 ) competing in 4 majors per year the majority of his career and spread over a span of 12 years.

    Connors? Connors won his three less majors (8 ) over a 9 year span.

    So both Agassi and Connors won significantly less majors while playing significantly more of them.

    For added perspective:

    McEnroe won his 7 majors over a 7 year span.

    Similarly Lendl won his 8 over a 7 year span.

    Laver's 11 were won over a span of 10 years (with a long hiatus).

    Rosewall's 8 over an amazing 18 years (with an even longer hiatus).

    Sampras' 14 majors were won over a 13 year span. Throw out his first and last won before and after his prime, and that span comes down to 12 titles in 8 years.



    Keep in mind Federer has won his 10 majors over a scant 5 year span. Does that disqualify him from contention?

    Again Borg won 11 majors over 8 years playing for and winning them in bunches. 8 years. How long do you believe most champions stayed at the very top of the game in the Open era? Like "dog years" 8 is a big number at the top of the game. And as stated Borg won three back to back RG/Wimbledons 3 times, the only other player close is Laver who did that, and then some, twice.


    And to the OP:

    Laver "over-rated" seems the epitome of an oxymoron.
     
    Last edited: Jun 11, 2007
    #39
  40. chaognosis

    chaognosis Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    Nov 6, 2005
    Messages:
    694
    Location:
    Chicago
    Laver is overrated as the Beatles are overrated. Or Citizen Kane.
     
    #40
  41. chrisdaniel

    chrisdaniel Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2004
    Messages:
    425
    ...

    the beatles overrated???? Tell that to about a billion cds,tapes,records sold worldwide...

    Everyone who says Laver is overrated has no respect for the game. And saying players are more talented now is stupid as well....There will always be talented players, as the racquets improve,as the game gets faster,there will always be talent. There always has been. But there will always be a few players of every generation that rise above the rest. To take away from them because Nadal and Fed were born way later is just disrespectful and you will understand that many years from now Nadal and Fed will be the Borgs and Mcenroes.....I do agree that Fed should already be included in the top 5 of all time,as I think Nadal is the greatest clay court player ever..But Imagine Nadal(Now) Vs Agassi in a night match at the U.S Open in 99 or 95 with the crowd cheering on Agassi..Or Fed(now) Vs prime a game Sampras at Wimbledon...well you know what...Agassi had losses to Lendl who lost to Borg who was challenged by Laver.....As far back as Laver is the difference is not as much as you think...And all these guys have amazing talents that stand above the thousands and thousands that have played this game as pros....Respect People!!!!!
     
    #41
  42. Gizo

    Gizo Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    May 15, 2007
    Messages:
    1,699
    In 1969, Laver won the biggest tournaments available to him on every surface in one calendar year, grass (Wimbledon, Australian Open, US Open), clay (French Open), hard (Boston, Johannesburg, Los Angeles) and carpet (Wembley, Philadelphia). No-one in the open era, not even Borg, Sampras, Federer, Agass, Lendl etc has been able to match this feat. He is undoubtedly the greatest, and has been the most versatile player across all of the surfaces.
    Borg was very good on his weakest surface, the hardcourts; 3 finals and a quarter-final at the US Open from 1978-1981, and 4 titles (1974 - London WCT, 1979 - Las Vegas and Toronto, 1980 - Las Vegas). However he failed to win the biggest tournament available to him on this surface, which means that he behind Laver in the pecking order. All the great players in the open era have won the US Open (probably the most competitive grand slam of the lot) apart from Borg, so not winning that tournament is a blemish on his CV (equally as big as Federer not winning the French Open or Lendl's failure to win Wimbledon).
    Also to say that Borg doesn't pass the longevity test is ridiculous as many people have already said. He won at least one grand slam a year for 8 consecutive years from 1974-1981. Agassi won grand slam titles in 7 different calendar years, so I would say that Borg beats him in this department.
     
    #42
  43. Rabbit

    Rabbit G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Feb 11, 2004
    Messages:
    12,606
    Location:
    at the bottom of every hill I come to
    My bad, Moose, good catch.

    I do stand by my original point that if the pros were so much better than everyone else, they certainly didn't avail themselves in the Grand Slams when they were allowed to. The way everyone talks around here, Laver or Rosewall or Gonzalez or one of the other pros on Kramer's tour should have won every Grand Slam title from '68 until probably what, '74? It just didn't happen that way. The amateurs were world class athletes and players and worthy competition for the pros who combined with them in '68. Laver's two Grand Slams were valid.
     
    #43
  44. urban

    urban Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Apr 22, 2005
    Messages:
    4,380
    I agree here with Rabbit, even if the Kramer pros were getting a bit old by 1968. The top amateurs of the 50s or 60s were also some kind of pros, getting paid under the table. On the other hand, the Kramer pros were really good. When Stolle (ranked amateur Nr.1 by many in 1966) and Ralston (Nr.4 or 5) turned pro begin 1967, the ended as Nr. 5 and 6 on the pro tour, winning nothing agsinst the top dogs Laver, Rosewall or Gimeno. If you make a combined amateur-pro top ten list of the 60s, you have the pros Laver, Rosewall, Gimeno, Gonzales, and the amateurs Emerson, Santana, Newcombe, Ashe, Stolle and Roche. The missing link is of course Hoad, but he played very sporadically, with big ups and many downs.
     
    #44
  45. chaognosis

    chaognosis Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    Nov 6, 2005
    Messages:
    694
    Location:
    Chicago
    Think: sarcasm.
     
    #45
  46. atatu

    atatu Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2004
    Messages:
    3,363
    Location:
    Austin, Texas
    Longevity is a factor to be considered, just as Grand Slams won is a factor to be considered, just as the level of competition faced is a factor to be considered. If Federer quits tommorrow, is he the GOAT ? No way, no more that Hoad is....I think it's pretty hard to put together a top 5 list if you haven't seen these guys play in person. I saw Laver only late in his career, on a B&W TV. I saw Borg in person, along with Agassi, Sampras and Federer. Never saw Gonzalez, Budge, Tilden, obviously.
     
    #46
  47. Azzurri

    Azzurri Legend

    Joined:
    Mar 6, 2006
    Messages:
    7,884
    Location:
    Next door to Elisha Cuthbert.
    I agree with you 100%, but Cybog is either drunk all the time or just released from a Swedish mental hospital.
     
    #47
  48. FiveO

    FiveO Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2005
    Messages:
    3,260
    You're aware that Borg won his 11 Majors over the course of 8 years and played longer than that on tour, right?

    What's your cut-off for "longevity"? Less than 9 years? Again how long do you believe champions stay at the top actually vying for major titles?

    My point was while Borg's career was artificially shortened by an earlier than necessary retirement, he had a full and long playing career. Eight years winning majors is a long time. Borg also retired at 25 years of age after those 8+ years on tour. Keep in mind that most champions win a very small percentage of their Majors at 26 or older and these slam winners: Kafelnikov, Moya, Rafter, Hewitt, Stich, Kuerten, Bruguera and McEnroe are some that didn't win any after 25.
     
    #48
  49. atatu

    atatu Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2004
    Messages:
    3,363
    Location:
    Austin, Texas
    Yes, I am aware of that. I really don't know how long players can stay at the top of their games, I'm sure it varies from player to player. All I said was that Borg was no higher than top 5, in my opinion, - and that's all it is, he would be behind Laver, Sampras, Federer, and Agassi. Can't comment on Budge, Tilden, Kramer, etc. Do you disagree ?? And none of the guys you mentioned at the end of your post are on anyone's top 5 GOAT list, as far as I know.
     
    #49
  50. Arafel

    Arafel Professional

    Joined:
    Aug 3, 2004
    Messages:
    1,159

    Interesting stats. The one qualifier on Connors is that he was banned from the French in 74, while having one of the greatest years in tennis history, because Ashe was playing politics. Connors then skipped the French for the following four years in protest. In 75, Connors crushed Borg at the US Open, on clay. Borg won the French that year. Connors also beat Borg on Clay in 76 at the US Open.

    Connors also skipped the Australian from 75 on, so Connors 8 majors in 9 years comes while only playing 2 of the 4 for 3 of his prime years, and only 3 in the rest (he played the Aussie in 74-75, winning in 74 and runner up in 75). Connors was a very good clay court player; he won the US on clay once and was runner up twice on clay, and made the semis at the French in his first 3 appearances there when his career was actually at a stasis point. If he had played between 74-78, I think he gets one or two French Opens as well.

    Also, don't forget Borg beat Connors in 5 at Wimbledon in 77 when Connors was playing with a broken thumb; if he's healthy, Connors doesn't lose that match.
     
    #50

Share This Page