Looking again at Laver's 1969 - Exploding the Grass/Clay only Myth

Discussion in 'Former Pro Player Talk' started by timnz, May 6, 2012.

  1. timnz

    timnz Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Oct 17, 2008
    Messages:
    4,643
    Some have depreciated Laver's open Grand Slam year - by saying - "yes but he only played it on Grass and Clay" - as if that takes anything away from it.

    However, it is worth looking at Laver's 1969. Did he in fact win the top hard court titles of the year and why we are talking about it, did he win the top indoor events? Did he in effect make a clean sweep of the top tournaments on all surfaces?

    The top hard court titles in 1969 were:

    The South African Open - Laver won that in the March over Frew McMillan
    The US Pro Championship (played on Outdoor Uni-Turf). Laver won that over John Newcombe

    The top indoor court titles in 1969 were:

    British Covered Court Championships - Laver won that over Tony Roche
    Philadelphia - Laver won that over Tony Roche

    One might throw in the BBC2 World Professional Championship & the Madison Square Garden Invitational - Laver won both of them also.

    ------------------

    What do people think? Should people get off Laver's back about his Grand Slam 'only being on Grass and Clay'? Were there more prestiguous hard and indoor titles in 1969 that I have missed (perhaps in 1969 the Pacific Southwest which Laver didn't win (he won it in 1968 and 1970) - was it more prestigous hard court event than the ones I listed)?
     
    Last edited: May 6, 2012
    #1
  2. hoodjem

    hoodjem G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2007
    Messages:
    12,764
    Location:
    Bierlandt
    Here's Laver speaking to the tournament directors in 1969 at each of the Australian and US Opens:
    "You need to change the surfaces of these tournaments. One day some newby bloggers will say my legacy is worthless because I did not win a slam on hard-court."

    Tournament director: "Huh? What's a blogger?"

    Laver: "But they'll say I could win the Grand Slam because it's on only grass and clay."

    Tournament director: "Sorry Mr. Laver, we are not going to change the surface of our tournament."

    Laver: "Then I refuse to play."

    Tournament director: "Then, in that case, you never will win an open-era Grand Slam."
     
    Last edited: May 7, 2012
    #2
  3. pc1

    pc1 Legend

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2008
    Messages:
    9,442
    Didn't that conversation actually happen??:confused:

    Like I've written before, does anyone hold it against Nadal and Federer that they did NOT win a major on wood like Laver did with a Pro Major?
     
    Last edited: May 7, 2012
    #3
  4. timnz

    timnz Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Oct 17, 2008
    Messages:
    4,643
    One has to judge an era by the standards of the time, not current standards

    That is the bizarre thing. The historical revisioning. It will be really interesting when one of the current Grand Slam tournaments that is highly valued now - that many be not in the future - then the person who did well at that tournament career will be downgraded eg the French Open. If in the future people say that only hard court slams count then they will look at Nadal - look only 2 hard court slams - those other grass and clay ones don't count!

    One has to judge an era by the standards of the time, not current standards.

    That is partly why I just can't understand why the ITF/ATP doesn't recognize the World Hard Court championship as a major win now - since it was the ILTF gave it major status back in 1913. Historical revisioning. Just judging past tournaments by the current view of things.....
     
    #4
  5. timnz

    timnz Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Oct 17, 2008
    Messages:
    4,643
    Top Hard Court tournament of 1969

    Was it the:

    South African

    US Pro

    Pacific Southwest

    or some other tournament??
     
    #5
  6. Mustard

    Mustard Talk Tennis Guru

    Joined:
    Nov 12, 2009
    Messages:
    25,114
    Location:
    Cwmbran, Wales
    I think the tennis authorities do a very poor job in promoting the history of the sport, to the point where even tennis enthusiasts struggle to understand who were the best players in certain years in the past, and what all the dynamics were in past eras.

    The World Hard Court Championships and the World Covered Court Championships were both majors, as the Australian (or Australasian, as it was up to 1926) didn't become a major until 1924 and the French didn't become a major until 1925 when they opened their doors to non-French tennis club members. The WHCC was the French amateur major pre-1925, as it opened its doors to international tennis club members. There's also the pro/am split from 1927-1967, which is explained very poorly. For example, many people make out that Laver was the best player in the world in 1962 because of the CYGS, when the reality is that the 1962 CYGS was amateurs only and it was clearly Rosewall who was the best player in the world in 1962, after Gonzales had gone into an 18 month retirement at the end of 1961.

    Also, a big deal was made when Sampras equalled and then overtook Roy Emerson's 12 majors, yet they seldom mentioned that those 12 majors Emerson won were against amateur only fields and that the best players in the world were the professionals like Laver, Rosewall, Gonzales and Gimeno.
     
    Last edited: May 6, 2012
    #6
  7. timnz

    timnz Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Oct 17, 2008
    Messages:
    4,643
    Majors vs Grand Slam tournaments

    That is why we should be resisting the term 'Grand Slam tournament. Or even worse 'Grand Slams' by which some people mean individual tournaments eg 'Sampras won 14 slams'. The much better term - which golf uses is the term 'Major'. And golf has had an understanding that what tournaments are 'majors' has changed throughout the years. This current bad habit of calling the 4 top tournaments 'Slams' encourages people to view all tennis history through the current top 4 tournaments only. If the term 'major' was used with the understanding that the current majors are different than what was historically the case, then things would be easier and clearer.
     
    #7
  8. Mustard

    Mustard Talk Tennis Guru

    Joined:
    Nov 12, 2009
    Messages:
    25,114
    Location:
    Cwmbran, Wales
    I always call them majors now.
     
    #8
  9. timnz

    timnz Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Oct 17, 2008
    Messages:
    4,643
    Any thoughts on this?

    Just would like to understand what the number 1 hard court and number 1 indoor court tournament was for 1969 (I think that latter is probably Philadelphia).
     
    #9
  10. Mustard

    Mustard Talk Tennis Guru

    Joined:
    Nov 12, 2009
    Messages:
    25,114
    Location:
    Cwmbran, Wales
    Wasn't the South African the number 1 hardcourt tournament of 1969?
     
    #10
  11. borg number one

    borg number one Legend

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2007
    Messages:
    7,668
    Location:
    Houston, Texas
    Timnz,

    Good thread. The results on surfaces other than grass and clay definitely look like they support the contention that Laver won on all surfaces in that unique year.

    See this link on the 1969 South African Championships. It had a 64 draw that included great players such as Laver, Emerson, Drysdale, Gimeno, Gonzalez, Stolle, Roche, Richey, Ralston, Okker, and McMillan. Rod Laver won the final over Tom Okker 6-3 10-8 6-3.

    http://www.tennisarchives.com/voorloopfiche.php?wedstrijdvoorloopid=4949

    The 1969 Philadelphia Open had a 32 draw, with Laver beating Bucholz in the 2nd round, Pasarell in the 3rd, Rosewall in the SF and then Roche in the final.

    http://www.tennisarchives.com/voorloopfiche.php?wedstrijdvoorloopid=4449
     
    Last edited: May 6, 2012
    #11
  12. timnz

    timnz Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Oct 17, 2008
    Messages:
    4,643
    Comparison to other top hard court titles

    Thanks very much. Just the info. I was after. Do you or anyone know how that tournament compared in field depth and prize money with the other hard court contenders for the top hard court tournament of the year eg the US Pro and the Pacific Southwest?
     
    #12
  13. borg number one

    borg number one Legend

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2007
    Messages:
    7,668
    Location:
    Houston, Texas
    http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showthread.php?t=344482

    Per Scott_tennis in the thread above Timnz:

     
    #13
  14. urban

    urban Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Apr 22, 2005
    Messages:
    4,376
    South Africa open did very well under the influence of promoter Owen Williams, and was the number one hard court event ahead of US pro, which had a good tradition at Longwood and changed to hard court in 1969, and the South West Pacifik at LA. Premier indoor event was imo Wembley with a great 64 draw in October, ahead of Phladelphia and Madison Square Garden Open. There was also a Madison Square Garden pro in May 1969, (Laver over Emerson), which had the best prize money outside Forest Hills (12ooo $ for the winner).
     
    #14
  15. NadalAgassi

    NadalAgassi Guest

    The Master of Fail/DjokovicFakeFanWin not here with his first trolling post yet in a Laver related thread. That is something new. No need to worry though, I am sure it will arrive soon.
     
    #15
  16. hoodjem

    hoodjem G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2007
    Messages:
    12,764
    Location:
    Bierlandt
    You heard it here first: Fed cannot be the GOAT, because he did not win a major on slick, indoor wood. (Never mind that they don't exist as major tournaments anymore. If he were truly the GOAT, he'd find a a way.)
    :razz:
     
    Last edited: May 7, 2012
    #16
  17. pc1

    pc1 Legend

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2008
    Messages:
    9,442
    Incidentally I meant to write did NOT win a major on wood. I just corrected it.
     
    #17
  18. Limpinhitter

    Limpinhitter Legend

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2010
    Messages:
    9,277
    Having seen Laver win a WCT hard court event, singles and doubles, it's my opinion that Laver's best surface was hard court. It only stands to reason why this is so. His ground game was even greater than his net game, and his return game greater than his service game.
     
    #18
  19. Limpinhitter

    Limpinhitter Legend

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2010
    Messages:
    9,277
    I think DFW is a "her."
     
    #19
  20. Limpinhitter

    Limpinhitter Legend

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2010
    Messages:
    9,277
    Exactly! I've been making that argument since I joined TT. The term "Grand Slam" was imitated by tennis from the golf "Grand Slam," which has always referred to the individual events comprizing the Grand Slam as "majors." The use of the word "slam" or "grand slam" to refer to a single major cheapens the term and disrespects the achievements of the greats who actually won Grand Slams.
     
    #20
  21. adidasman

    adidasman Professional

    Joined:
    Aug 22, 2008
    Messages:
    1,459
    Location:
    Frederick, MD
    I don't recall hearing anyone refer to the four major tournaments as "Slams" until Pete Sampras started using that expression - so I blame him for unintentionally (unless he was trying to cover up the fact that he would never achieve a Grand Slam since he couldn't win at RG) diminishing the meaning of the phrase.
     
    #21
  22. Mustard

    Mustard Talk Tennis Guru

    Joined:
    Nov 12, 2009
    Messages:
    25,114
    Location:
    Cwmbran, Wales
    I was watching McEnroe's win over Lendl in the 1989 WCT Dallas semi finals last night, and one of the commentators said "Grand Slam" when saying that McEnroe had a good chance to win another major, so it was going on before Sampras.
     
    #22
  23. Moose Malloy

    Moose Malloy Legend

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2005
    Messages:
    7,912
    lendl used to call them slams all the time in the 80s.
     
    #23
  24. urban

    urban Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Apr 22, 2005
    Messages:
    4,376
    Interesting and surprising, considering the grass-clay- myth for 1969 is, that Laver probably played only 6 grass, 3 majors and 3 minors (Sydney, Brisbane AO, NZ, Queens, Wim, Forest Hills) and 2 clay tournaments (Amsterdam, Paris FO) all year, out of 32 tournaments overall played. The rest was indoor carpet and hard court.
     
    #24
  25. timnz

    timnz Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Oct 17, 2008
    Messages:
    4,643
    Pacific south west 1969

    Anybody got information on the draw and prize money of the pacific south west?

    Just want a definitive conclusion as to what was the premier hard court tournament that year. South african seems to be the front runner.
     
    #25
  26. krosero

    krosero Legend

    Joined:
    Dec 3, 2006
    Messages:
    5,639
    I've continued using the term "Slam", or "Grand Slam event", to refer to a single title. I do that when I'm referring to the championships of Australia, France, Wimbledon and the U.S. The term "majors" is not specific enough if you need to specify those four tournaments.

    And there are any number of reasons you would want to specify those tournaments. For example you may want to refer to the record for longest final at one of the Grand Slam events. Or you may want to discuss how the number of rounds has varied at the four Grand Slam events. They are, after all, very different from the pro tournaments, not just in format and in dates; they are historically linked to one another. On the most basic level, they are the tournaments that the ILTF designated as majors. On the historical level, they are the majors that make up the traditional Grand Slam of tennis.

    Now it's true that the "Grand Slam" of tennis has not always referred to the 4 majors designated by the ILTF; the term has been defined in innumerable ways. But today there is universal agreement on which 4 tournaments comprise the Grand Slam (there has been universal agreement for some time, maybe as far back as Laver's first Grand Slam). And if you want to refer to those 4 tournaments, and you want to refer to that particular concept of the Grand Slam (not the pro Grand Slam, or any other number of Grand Slams that have existed), the term "major" obviously will not do. That term encompasses the 4 majors designated by the ILTF as well as the pro majors -- and any other majors that we wish to designate.

    I'm all for the use of the term "major." But we're a long way off from universal agreement about which tournaments are the majors. We've talked about including the Dallas WCT, or the New York Masters, as majors. We've talked about dropping the Australian Open during the period when it attracted so few of the top players, and replacing it with the WCT or Masters championships.

    If it's such a free-for-all, the term "major" becomes even more vague. I hear that such-and-such player has X number of majors, and I can't really assume that I know which tournaments are being counted. For all I know I can ask the speaker what tournaments he is including, and he might be counting events that I don't consider majors. Or not counting events that I regard as majors.

    At least if you refer to the longest final ever played at the 4 Grand Slam events, you know exactly what is being referred to. You can have confidence that you know where the data -- whatever data that might be -- is coming from. With "majors", there's just a long way to go before any tennis fan, hearing a stat, or a story, or an analysis, will know exactly which tournaments are being talked about. I'm not sure we'll ever get there, due to the fact that tennis history has been so messy.
     
    #26
  27. Limpinhitter

    Limpinhitter Legend

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2010
    Messages:
    9,277
    I disagree. I think the term "major" works perfectly when referring to 1 of the 4 tournaments of the "Grand Slam," e.g. Jack Nicklaus won 18 major titles in his career, and Tiger Woods has won 14 major titles so far. There is no doubt or confusion about which tournaments comprise the "majors" in golf: The British Open, the U.S. Open, the Masters and the PGA Championship. There is no doubt that winning all 4 majors in the same year is a "Grand Slam" in golf. In 1930, Bobby Jones won all 4 majors thereby winning the only "Grand Slam" in the history of golf. Granted the 4 golf majors in 1930 were the British Amateur and Open Championships, and the U.S. Amateur and Open Championships because the Masters and PGA Championship didn't exist yet. But, the meaning of "major" and "Grand Slam" has not been in doubt or a source of confusion in golf. Any confusion there is in tennis is probably created by the indiscriminate use of the terms slam or grand slam when the term major is what is meant.
     
    Last edited: May 7, 2012
    #27
  28. krosero

    krosero Legend

    Joined:
    Dec 3, 2006
    Messages:
    5,639
    That's certainly true, a "major" today is one of the four tournaments that were historically designated by the ILTF: Australia, France, Wimbledon, USO. They can certainly be described as majors, because that's what they are.

    And today there are no other tournaments that could be majors.

    But that's not true in tennis history. "Major" applies to the traditional 4 amateur majors, and to the pro majors (and there's not universal agreement about which tournaments were the pro majors). "Major" can also refer to the World Hard Court Championship, or the World Covered Court Championship -- or any number of big tournaments, pre-Tilden, that tennis fans have called majors. I've seen major counts given for HL Doherty, which surely consist of events other than the 4 that were designated later by the ITF; if you go back that far in history and start talking about which events were the majors of that time period, you're probably going to include events that no longer exist.

    The word "major", in short, can refer to a LONG list of events in tennis history. Other events that have been called majors are the WCT and Masters championships; and the Dunlop Open of 1970.

    So here's the issue I was raising. If you just want to refer to the set of Australia, France, Wimbledon and the US, how do you refer to them concisely, without listing all of them each time?

    If you want to say that the longest Grand Slam final in history was played today, but you're not allowed to use the term "Grand Slam" or even the single word "slam", how do you refer to such a thing concisely?

    Or if you want to refer to the youngest person ever to win a Grand Slam event, but you can't use those words, how do you refer to such a thing concisely?

    There is certainly a lot of indiscriminate use of the kind you're talking about, mostly from new or young fans. But a great deal of this confusion is caused because older fans are not in agreement about which tournaments, historically, were majors. Everyone agrees that the 4 events designated by the ILTF are majors; but beyond that there is constant disagreement. We keep debating which of the pro events were majors. We keep talking about the Dunlop Open, Dallas, the New York Masters, as possible majors.

    That is really the reason that I have not often used the term "major" on this board. It is too vague and too open to interpretation -- on this board. When composing my posts I've often considered using the term "major" rather than "Slam", but I routinely choose not to use "major" because I know I will be making a vague statement rather than a specific one.

    For example, if we're debating the top player of 1972, I can say that this-and-this happened in the Slams -- or in the Grand Slam events. No possible confusion what that means. If someone else wants to bring up other tournaments, they can. I can do the same, if I want to. No confusion. But if I claim that this-and-this happened in the majors that year, I KNOW that on this board, not everyone will know exactly what I'm talking about. Some will assume that I'm talking just about the traditional four events. Some might suspect that I'm including the Dallas WCT, in place of the Australian Open. Others will wonder whether I'm including Dallas in addition to the traditional four.

    And no writer, or speaker, wants to be vague, and possibly misunderstood, when he can be specific. If you're making a statement of any kind, you want people to know exactly what you're referring to, rather than leaving them with questions about what you mean.

    I'll ask this again because it's a real problem. If you want to say that the longest Grand Slam final in history was played today, but you're not allowed to use the term "Grand Slam" or even the single word "slam", how do you refer to such a thing concisely?
     
    #28
  29. drakulie

    drakulie Talk Tennis Guru

    Joined:
    May 3, 2004
    Messages:
    24,466
    Location:
    FT. Lauderdale, Florida
    No, it doesn't take anything away from it, but it did in FACT occur. 3 were on grass, one on clay. So, it was much different than the tour today.

    Fact is, people in support of Laver's achievements want to hold players of today to Laver's standards, when the fact is, it is impossible, because 3 were on grass and one on clay.
     
    #29
  30. TMF

    TMF Talk Tennis Guru

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2009
    Messages:
    21,361
    I agree. It's unfair to hold today's players to Laver's standards. If that persist, we have to keep remind them that it was 3 grass and 1 clay.
     
    #30
  31. hoodjem

    hoodjem G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2007
    Messages:
    12,764
    Location:
    Bierlandt
    I agree. His standard is not about surfaces, it's about the achievement.
     
    #31
  32. pc1

    pc1 Legend

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2008
    Messages:
    9,442
    Drakulie,

    At the same time the reverse is true. Some want Laver to fit the standards of today and say he didn't win a hard court major which in fact was impossible for the classic majors.

    The point some are trying to express is that Laver was great on hard courts as proven by his winning of around 30 hard court tournaments. If you count wood as a hard court Laver did win a Pro Major in 1967 on hard court.

    The other point is that Laver's accomplishments were limited because he couldn't play the classic majors from 1963 to 1967.

    I think some people are just trying to put it into context.
     
    #32
  33. drakulie

    drakulie Talk Tennis Guru

    Joined:
    May 3, 2004
    Messages:
    24,466
    Location:
    FT. Lauderdale, Florida
    Yes, it is an unbelievable achievement. Something players today will never be able to even try and duplicate because 3 were on grass and one on clay.

    What "context" would that be? That the tournaments on wood and hard courts should be counted as majors?

    Federer won a MAJOR on rebound ace, deco, clay, and grass. Not to mention several more on grass, hard, carpet, and clay. Should we count these other wins as majors to put it into context?
     
    #33
  34. pc1

    pc1 Legend

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2008
    Messages:
    9,442
    You're also putting it into context with Federer. :)

    I think a number of people here are trying to point out that Laver was great on all surfaces and as Federer. These guys won strong tournaments on every surface.

    This is why these players are considered GOAT candidates, because of their ability to win on all surfaces against the strongest competition.
     
    #34
  35. monfed

    monfed Guest

    plexicushion too.

    Sorry for the bother, just thought I'd add it. Since he's the only player in history to have won AO on both RA and PC.
     
    #35
  36. drakulie

    drakulie Talk Tennis Guru

    Joined:
    May 3, 2004
    Messages:
    24,466
    Location:
    FT. Lauderdale, Florida
    ^^yes, you are correct. Perhaps he should get double major credit for that.

    Additionally, being that Laver is given credit for winning majors against amateurs, perhaps players today should also be given credit for winning the Junior Majors. You know, to put things into proper context. :roll:
     
    #36
  37. TMF

    TMF Talk Tennis Guru

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2009
    Messages:
    21,361
    Laver GS is great but it can only measure to his era, not the future when it's way more challenging. The problem is his fans wants to use it as it equal to the standard today which is silly. Even Laver said the GS today is equal to 2 of his GS in 1969. That's twice as hard!

    Go out on the basketball court and try to hit 10 straight free throws. And then try to hit 20 straight free throws. Going from 10 to 20 is a HUGE difference. That's how it is when you compare a GS in the 60s to today.
     
    #37
  38. TMF

    TMF Talk Tennis Guru

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2009
    Messages:
    21,361
    Which is harder to achieve, hitting 10 straight free throws to 20 straight free throws ?
     
    #38
  39. pc1

    pc1 Legend

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2008
    Messages:
    9,442
    Oh come on. I'll admit that the amateur Grand Slam in 1962 wasn't as impressive as the Open Grand Slam or his Pro Grand Slam in 1967 but he did face top opponents like Roy Emerson, Neale Fraser, Santana, Mulligan and Osuna. It's not a junior tournament and certainly stronger than many pro tournaments.

    I know you're trying to make fun a word I used but please try to understand I was trying to discuss this with you reasonably. I respect your opinions on this and I was hoping for a give and take on the subject. Far for me to be a spoilsport. If you want to repeat the word constantly that's fine with me. I'll wear it as a badge of honor. :)

    All I was trying to write was that Laver was excellent on all surfaces. Nothing more than that.
     
    #39
  40. Limpinhitter

    Limpinhitter Legend

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2010
    Messages:
    9,277
    What I see most often is people trying to discount Laver's amateur and open Grand Slams because none of the majors in his time were played on hard courts, stating expressly that if there were a hard court major, he wouldn't have done as well.

    However, as I have said several times (even in this thread), having seen Laver win a hard court WCT event (singles and doubles), knowing that he had over 30 hard court titles, and knowing that his ground game was better than his net game, and his return game was better than his service game, I submit that Laver's best surface was hard court.
     
    #40
  41. Mustard

    Mustard Talk Tennis Guru

    Joined:
    Nov 12, 2009
    Messages:
    25,114
    Location:
    Cwmbran, Wales
    The criticisms I see of Laver are that he won 6 majors when only amateurs could play, and won his professional majors in small fields.

    I then say that this is how tennis was before the open era, so how can we judge how good players were from before the open era?
     
    #41
  42. krosero

    krosero Legend

    Joined:
    Dec 3, 2006
    Messages:
    5,639
    Fans of Nadal and Federer don't fault them for never winning a major on wood, because they feel it would be unfair to hold those players to past standards that today's players can never meet. There are no majors on wood in today's game, so it's impossible for Federer and Nadal even to try to match that.

    But that sense of fairness has to run both ways. Laver could not play a major on hard court because such a thing did not exist in his time. It would have been impossible for him even to try -- and in his case he couldn't predict the future so he had no way of knowing that one day he would be judged against the standards of a game in which two of the four majors are being played on hardcourt.

    It has to run both ways.
     
    #42
  43. Limpinhitter

    Limpinhitter Legend

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2010
    Messages:
    9,277
    FYI, a few of the "open" majors were won by those amateurs.
     
    #43
  44. drakulie

    drakulie Talk Tennis Guru

    Joined:
    May 3, 2004
    Messages:
    24,466
    Location:
    FT. Lauderdale, Florida
    OK. My apologies. I also agree that Laver was amazing, and what he achieved was nothing short of incredible. That said, it is completely and utterly foolish and irresponsible to try and hold todays players to the standards he set when winning the 69 Calendar Slam, because as I have said, it is absolutely impossible for any players today or into the future to have a chance at it, unless 3 slams are again played on grass, and one on clay.
     
    #44
  45. Moose Malloy

    Moose Malloy Legend

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2005
    Messages:
    7,912
    Its funny to hear todays players whine so much about this 'unsafe' clay in Madrid. I can't see any one them daring to play on the old Forest Hills grass Laver played on. Or the laid down carpets they used to have (you can see many old matches where the courts actually start to come apart & players sometimes tripped on them)

    Yeah that Laver had it so easy...3 majors on grass....all grass clearly plays the same. they should have come up with a different term for what they played on at the '69 USO, it sure as hell was unlike any grasscourt that Fed or Sampras has ever played on or will ever play on.

    And its funny to see how we've changed, so much emphasis on these hardcourt majors. back when the USO switched to hardcourts the purists(and many of the players - esp the Europeans) were blasting it as joke surface that had no business being used at majors(it was called way worse than blue clay)

    I look forward to see what changes happen in tennis in the next 30 years that will cause stupid fans to devalue Fed & Nadal's achievements(maybe neither will win a major on blue clay?)
     
    #45
  46. krosero

    krosero Legend

    Joined:
    Dec 3, 2006
    Messages:
    5,639
    Well this is what I don't get. Laver had to manage some challenges that today's players will never face -- like playing on that grass at Forest Hills, or playing top tournaments on wood. You could then say, "That's a plus in Laver's column, and a zero in Federer's column." But the objection is that this is unfair to Federer, since the conditions of Laver's time no longer exist.

    Okay, but then why is Laver being faulted for not facing some of the challenges of today's game, like playing majors on hard courts?

    How exactly does this work? We're not supposed to bring up the variety of Laver's surfaces because some of those surfaces don't exist today. Yet that does not stop people from bringing up something that did not exist in Laver's time -- hardcourt majors -- and putting that as a plus in Federer's column, and a zero in Laver's.

    We're not supposed to bring up the difficulties and varieties of Laver's surfaces, yet everyone brings up the difficulties and varieties of today's surfaces.

    Why?
     
    #46
  47. drakulie

    drakulie Talk Tennis Guru

    Joined:
    May 3, 2004
    Messages:
    24,466
    Location:
    FT. Lauderdale, Florida
    Those defending Laver do in fact always bring up the difficulties and varieties of Lavers surfaces, even though they weren't majors. They do this because most people recognize and point out that grass/clay were the two surfaces during Laver's era, so they then start naming carpet, wood, hard court tournaments as if these were suppose to be majors as well. Are we then to believe there weren't 4 majors during Laver's time, rather, 20 or 30 in a given year? :roll:

    Moose points out that the grass during Lavers era was different from one another. Well, deco turf and rebound ace (two hard court majors) are much further apart than two different types of grass. Aditionally, Rebound ace was never any picnic to play on. But I suppose it doesn't count since Laver didn't play on it.
     
    #47
  48. Mustard

    Mustard Talk Tennis Guru

    Joined:
    Nov 12, 2009
    Messages:
    25,114
    Location:
    Cwmbran, Wales
    Yes. Arthur Ashe won the 1968 US Open as an amateur. Stan Smith won the 1971 US Open and 1972 Wimbledon as an amateur. Any more? Was Kodes amateur?

    I'll make it as simple as I can. Laver won 6 amateur majors

    1. 1960 Australian Championships
    2. 1961 Wimbledon
    3. 1962 Australian Championships
    4. 1962 French Championships
    5. 1962 Wimbledon
    6. 1962 US Championships

    Then Laver turned professional, and won 9 professional majors:

    1. 1964 Wembley Pro
    2. 1964 US Pro
    3. 1965 Wembley Pro
    4. 1966 Wembley Pro
    5. 1966 US Pro
    6. 1967 French Pro
    7. 1967 Wembley Pro
    8. 1967 US Pro
    9. 1967 Wimbledon Pro

    Then the open era arrived in April 1968, after which Laver won 5 majors with open fields:

    1. 1968 Wimbledon
    2. 1969 Australian Open
    3. 1969 French Open
    4. 1969 Wimbledon
    5. 1969 US Open

    Laver won the biggest hardcourt titles that existed back then. Laver also won 200 tournaments in total, the most by some way. That is an absolute phenomenal record. Although, of course, it was only in the 1960s that tournaments became more important in the professional game than the pro tours.
     
    Last edited: May 8, 2012
    #48
  49. drakulie

    drakulie Talk Tennis Guru

    Joined:
    May 3, 2004
    Messages:
    24,466
    Location:
    FT. Lauderdale, Florida
    ^^So like I said, according to you guys, there were approximately 30 majors a year when laver played. :roll:

    Here are a list of the Majors played today:

    Brisbane,
    Auckland,
    Hobart,
    Australian,
    Memphis,
    Indian Wells,
    Miami,
    Estoril,
    Madrid,
    Rome,
    French
    Eastbourne,
    Wimbledon,
    Cincy,
    US Open
    Beijing,
    Moscow,
    etc.
    etc,
    etc.

    Lets also not forget the challengers and futures, and Junior Slams.
     
    Last edited: May 8, 2012
    #49
  50. krosero

    krosero Legend

    Joined:
    Dec 3, 2006
    Messages:
    5,639
    I wouldn't say that Rebound Ace doesn't count. But it doesn't count according to your own logic. Laver never had a chance to play on it, never could have had a chance to face that challenge -- just as Federer can't possibly win any tournaments on wood, or win 3 majors on grasscourt venues that played very differently.

    You said it is "completely and utterly foolish and irresponsible to try and hold todays players to the standards he set when winning the 69 Calendar Slam, because as I have said, it is absolutely impossible for any players today or into the future to have a chance at it, unless 3 slams are again played on grass, and one on clay."

    Then it follows that it is completely and utterly foolish and irresponsible to try and hold yesterday's players to the standards of today, because as we said, it was impossible for any players of Laver's time to have a chance at it, since none of the Slams were played on hardcourt.
     
    #50

Share This Page