OK, so you've taken the OP from "his height would have made him an average player" to "they use graphite racquets now and he couldn't play with graphite".
Pete Sampras had his ProStaffs weighted and balanced to match his original stick the wooden Jack Kramer ProStaff. How do you reconcile that? Roger Federer plays with basically the same frame. They have been described by more than one expert as close in power level, weight, and balance, to a wooden frame. How do you reconcile that?
Graphite frames, had you ever played with any early ones, were weighted and balanced like wood frames. Then, they became lighter and much more powerful. Today's frames are lighter, but have had much of the power taken out of them. They are in effect, counterparts of the old wooden frames without the weight and a more headlight balance. Ergo, there is no inherent advantage in graphite over wood save for the ability of mass manufacture and much cheaper cost to manufacture.
Let me be clear on the point I just made. Today's racquets do enable the players to play a different game. The angle of attack can be much greater, the head speed faster. But to say that this is better is purely subjective. Today's racquets are not inherently better or worse than their wooden counterparts, they are different.
As below.
Prove it. You can't, and to continue otherwise is simply an exercise in trolling.
Your original question did not specify equipment or spin. Your question centered around Laver's height. Your question has been answered with empirical data from 1973 versus 2009.
You have now opted to narrow the parameters of your premise to support an unsupportable argument. Not only that, the wording you use in your OP is clearly sarcastic and judgemental.
The fact is that the difference in height of player is not an issue. Laver faced players who were considerably over 6 feet in height and still he won.
If you now want to talk equipment and tactics, then let me answer your question with a question(s):
- How can Rochus have a winning H2H over Karlovic if height is so important?
- Considering the tactics used during Laver's day, the bounce was lower due to slices being the predominant shot, it's no wonder that taller players didn't fare as well. So we could conversely say that given the environment of yesteryear, today's players would be journeymen. This is due to the fact that their extreme grips and swings, would not translate well to a low, extremely fast bounce. The only conclusion then is that it isn't the player as much as it is the environment in which they play.
- As above in bullet #2, Laver's grip was the proper one for the tactic and surfaces being used. Your argument that it would be a hinderance is based on your inability to hit with the grip apparently. Laver had no problem dealing with anyone's game from Borg's extreme topspin to the other players of his day. But....if Laver were to play today, it wouldn't surprise me in the least if he played with more extreme grips.
- Your question about where the 5'8" players are today is stupid. As the data has shown, there is no significant difference between the average height of players in 1973 and now. The ability, or lack of ability, then has nothing, zero, nada, nil to do with a player's height. The fact then, that there are no "dominant" players of Laver's height is more conicidence than anything else. Chris Evert opined that the women's game would never see a Grand Slam champion under 6 feet tall again. Justine Henin came along and broke the mould. The same is entirely possible in the mens' game as the mens' game has there are currently 31 players in the top 100 less than 6 feet tall.
In 1973, Laver was the shortest member of the top ten. It is clear that he was an exception and not the rule. Were he in his physical prime in 2009, it is clear to me that he would be the exception and not the rule now as well. To make a frozen evaluation of his game without consideration of his environment then or now is clearly a troll.
We can take a modern day example. Andre Agassi was 5'11 inches tall. His ability to compete was not hampered by his height. His longevity was not due to his height or lack thereof. Agassi was an exception to the rule, just like Laver.
