Laver V Fed, fast grass court, 60's equipment, who would win?

Discussion in 'General Pro Player Discussion' started by timnz, Jun 8, 2009.

  1. timnz

    timnz Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Oct 17, 2008
    Messages:
    4,643
    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.
     
    #1
  2. namui

    namui Rookie

    Joined:
    May 20, 2007
    Messages:
    242
    .....Agree.
     
    #2
  3. tennisdad65

    tennisdad65 Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Feb 29, 2008
    Messages:
    3,060
    Location:
    somewhere in calif
    2009 equipment - Fed wins
    1960s equipment - Laver wins
     
    #3
  4. joeri888

    joeri888 G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Jan 23, 2008
    Messages:
    13,120
    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..
     
    #4
  5. shawn1122

    shawn1122 Professional

    Joined:
    Dec 29, 2005
    Messages:
    1,131
    Fed would demolish him with the dropper he was using at the FO
     
    #5
  6. 380pistol

    380pistol Banned

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2008
    Messages:
    1,903
    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.
     
    #6
  7. P_Agony

    P_Agony Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2008
    Messages:
    13,186
    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.
     
    #7
  8. timnz

    timnz Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Oct 17, 2008
    Messages:
    4,643
    Dispute this

    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.
     
    #8
  9. Cenc

    Cenc Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Jul 29, 2007
    Messages:
    2,267
    Location:
    Croatia
    laver definitely
     
    #9
  10. 380pistol

    380pistol Banned

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2008
    Messages:
    1,903
    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.
     
    #10
  11. crazylevity

    crazylevity Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Jul 27, 2005
    Messages:
    1,978
    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.
     
    #11
  12. Chelsea_Kiwi

    Chelsea_Kiwi Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Mar 23, 2009
    Messages:
    1,526
    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). :???:
     
    #12
  13. P_Agony

    P_Agony Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2008
    Messages:
    13,186
    Never said that, nor did I say he would lose. All I said is Federer can adpat his game.
     
    #13
  14. 380pistol

    380pistol Banned

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2008
    Messages:
    1,903
    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.
     
    #14
  15. BorisBeckerFan

    BorisBeckerFan Professional

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2009
    Messages:
    1,164
    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...
     
    #15
  16. RCizzle65

    RCizzle65 Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2008
    Messages:
    1,932
    You took it out of line, nowhere in their previous posts did they say Laver had bad hands....
     
    #16
  17. ChanceEncounter

    ChanceEncounter Professional

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2009
    Messages:
    1,269
    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.
     
    #17
  18. Alafter

    Alafter Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Oct 4, 2005
    Messages:
    2,472
    I would suspect Fed will find the balls slower than what he's usually up against. That should give him an edge.
     
    #18
  19. Chelsea_Kiwi

    Chelsea_Kiwi Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Mar 23, 2009
    Messages:
    1,526
    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.
     
    #19
  20. 380pistol

    380pistol Banned

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2008
    Messages:
    1,903
    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.
     
    Last edited: Jun 9, 2009
    #20
  21. Chelsea_Kiwi

    Chelsea_Kiwi Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Mar 23, 2009
    Messages:
    1,526
    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?
     
    #21
  22. crazylevity

    crazylevity Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Jul 27, 2005
    Messages:
    1,978
    Chill pill time, folks.
     
    #22
  23. Chelsea_Kiwi

    Chelsea_Kiwi Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Mar 23, 2009
    Messages:
    1,526
    Ok I see you misunderstood his post like I said.
     
    #23
  24. BorisBeckerFan

    BorisBeckerFan Professional

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2009
    Messages:
    1,164
    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.
     
    #24
  25. Ambivalent

    Ambivalent Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Jul 5, 2007
    Messages:
    2,864
    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.
     
    #25
  26. Eviscerator

    Eviscerator Banned

    Joined:
    Apr 15, 2006
    Messages:
    1,709
    Location:
    S. Florida
    :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.
     
    #26
  27. tennisplaya

    tennisplaya Rookie

    Joined:
    May 20, 2009
    Messages:
    269
    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.
     
    #27
  28. BorisBeckerFan

    BorisBeckerFan Professional

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2009
    Messages:
    1,164
    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?
     
    #28
  29. billnepill

    billnepill Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Jun 8, 2009
    Messages:
    2,079
    Location:
    UK
    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.
     
    #29
  30. tennisplaya

    tennisplaya Rookie

    Joined:
    May 20, 2009
    Messages:
    269

    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.
     
    #30
  31. grafselesfan

    grafselesfan Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 23, 2009
    Messages:
    3,594
    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
     
    #31

Share This Page