Myth: Laver would not be competitive if he were at the top today

[pat200]

people are ridiculous when downplaying a legend's skills to pump up today's players. Those legends would do wonders in any era. Put Fed Rafa and Djoko in the 60s and they would probably fail to impress as much. Goes both ways!

 

[Anyone4tennis?]

In 1975, Laver, at 36, pushes a young Connors, who was 23 at the time, four sets in an exciting match that Laver ends up losing, 6–4, 6–2, 3–6, 7–5. Connors performed amazingly, but age, obviously, was a huge factor against Laver that cannot be ignored. The outcome may have been different had Laver been in his prime.

In 1989, Connors, now 37, reaches the quarterfinals of the US Open and takes Andre Agassi, who was 19 at the time, five sets, but loses 6-1, 4-6, 0-6, 6-3, 6-4, and then, in 1991, Connors, at 39, gets to the semi-finals of the US Open. Again, age, obviously, was a huge factor against Connors that cannot be ignored. The outcome may have been different if Connors was in his prime.

In 2004, Agassi, now 34, reaches the quarterfinals of the US Open and takes Roger Federer, who was 23 at the time, five sets, but loses 6-3, 2-6, 7-5, 3-6, 6-3. Age, obviously, a huge factore agains Agassi that cannot be ignored. The outcome may have been different if Agassi was in his prime.

So do I believe that a young Laver in his prime could compete against today's top players? Based on the time link that I just set up between Laver and Federer, I wholeheartedly say yes. I even think a young Bill Tilden in his prime would be able to compete against today's players.

 

[timnz]

In 1975, Laver, at 36, pushes a young Connors, who was 23 at the time, four sets in an exciting match that Laver ends up losing, 6–4, 6–2, 3–6, 7–5. Connors performed amazingly, but age, obviously, was a huge factor against Laver that cannot be ignored. The outcome may have been different had Laver been in his prime.

In 1989, Connors, now 37, reaches the quarterfinals of the US Open and takes Andre Agassi, who was 19 at the time, five sets, but loses 6-1, 4-6, 0-6, 6-3, 6-4, and then, in 1991, Connors, at 39, gets to the semi-finals of the US Open. Again, age, obviously, was a huge factor against Connors that cannot be ignored. The outcome may have been different if Connors was in his prime.

In 2004, Agassi, now 34, reaches the quarterfinals of the US Open and takes Roger Federer, who was 23 at the time, five sets, but loses 6-3, 2-6, 7-5, 3-6, 6-3. Age, obviously, a huge factore agains Agassi that cannot be ignored. The outcome may have been different if Agassi was in his prime.

So do I believe that a young Laver in his prime could compete against today's top players? Based on the time link that I just set up between Laver and Federer, I wholeheartedly say yes. I even think a young Bill Tilden in his prime would be able to compete against today's players.

This is a very good point. The myth that the players today 'are so much more athletic' gets often stated with no evidence. Track and Road Runners have hardly improved in many decades - (Marathon record only improved by less than 5% in nearly 45 years, mile record hasn't been improved upon in 16 years). If runners have hardly improved in decades physically - why would tennis players?

It goes further back than Tilden. Norman Brookes gave a strong battle and lost to prime Tilden 10-8 6-4 1-6 6-4 at the age of 42! Brookes was a contemporary and Davis Cup team mate of Anthony Wilding - the world number 1 before the first world war.

 

[Mick]

This is what Rod Laver had to say about this last year:

Rod Laver: ‘We were pretty darn good – but today’s level is different’

______________________________

....While he agrees the basics of tennis have not changed, the method and the implements have – to the point where he is not sure how he would fare today. “It’s really hard to put yourself in that position,” he says.

“Yes I hit with heavy top-spin but when you look at the little rackets I played with, the Maxply Dunlop, you had to hit the very centre all the time. I had my share of miss-hits. I was accused of hitting them off the wood, winners over their head, drop shots, whatever, and I’d say ‘Well that’s the way it is, guys!’

“At the same time, the tennis is twice as good [today], the points they play. Just watching Murray returning serves at 125 miles an hour the other day, he was just pushing them back all the time. You’ve got to be more of an athlete probably today. We were pretty darn good – fit and ready to play – but today’s level is different. Those ground strokes are ever so much faster, coming back at you at a pretty good speed. Footwork-wise, you’ve got to be ready to hit that next shot. It’s a tough time. Plus, the guys are 6ft 3in to 6ft 6in – and that’s the norm. There are some big differences.”

http://www.theguardian.com/sport/2014/jul/02/rod-laver-wimbledon

 

[ultradr]

But this era called "modern power baseline" (probably from around 2003)
is very different from tennis of any era prior to ~2003.

You would have to run a lot, grind a lot. You would still have to be a shot maker
but that's after you can run a lot.

I think Borg has better chance to make in today's tennis than Laver, IMHO.

 

[NLBwell]

Why do some people think that being 2" shorter than someone else would make a superior player with a big serve, big groundstrokes, perhaps the greatest volleys ever, terrific movement, maybe the best mental strength ever,and the ability to play any type of tennis lose to an inferior player?
In fact, with less emphasis on serve and volley, height is not as much of an advantage as it used to be in the grass era.

 

[90's Clay]

Laver is probably the most talented player in the history of the game. He would take a lay a giant sized turd on this tour today.

You can't stop talent. And there was no one better than Laver. Talent is the true constant in all of sports. He was just too crafty, smart, and surgical with a tennis racket to lose to most of these clueless putzes on tour today.

For as talented as Federer, Nadal, Djokovic are with a tennis racket. They can't sniff Laver

 

[Anyone4tennis?]

This is what Rod Laver had to say about this last year:

Rod Laver: ‘We were pretty darn good – but today’s level is different’

______________________________

....While he agrees the basics of tennis have not changed, the method and the implements have – to the point where he is not sure how he would fare today. “It’s really hard to put yourself in that position,” he says.

“Yes I hit with heavy top-spin but when you look at the little rackets I played with, the Maxply Dunlop, you had to hit the very centre all the time. I had my share of miss-hits. I was accused of hitting them off the wood, winners over their head, drop shots, whatever, and I’d say ‘Well that’s the way it is, guys!’

“At the same time, the tennis is twice as good [today], the points they play. Just watching Murray returning serves at 125 miles an hour the other day, he was just pushing them back all the time. You’ve got to be more of an athlete probably today. We were pretty darn good – fit and ready to play – but today’s level is different. Those ground strokes are ever so much faster, coming back at you at a pretty good speed. Footwork-wise, you’ve got to be ready to hit that next shot. It’s a tough time. Plus, the guys are 6ft 3in to 6ft 6in – and that’s the norm. There are some big differences.”

http://www.theguardian.com/sport/2014/jul/02/rod-laver-wimbledon

Just after saying all this, Laver added:

“But you get one of those big-headed rackets, it’s so easy to play with them. Just beyond the end of my career, I started playing with one of these rackets and I thought ‘Jeez, I can get back on Tour again!’ It was huge.​

“If you were smashing, you couldn’t put the ball away with a Dunlop, but these metal and composite rackets, you have so much more speed, easier to volley, get the depth on ground strokes without any effort. And that’s where I see today’s players having an advantage over those of us who used wooden rackets.”​

As you can see, what he really believes in his heart is not as clear as it may seem at first glance.

It's not so much that the players are more athletic nowadays. The newer rackets may have a way of creating that perception. IMHO, the aging greats simply get to a point where they are just too old to compete with the upcoming future greats.

 

[Anyone4tennis?]

In fact, with less emphasis on serve and volley, height is not as much of an advantage as it used to be in the grass era.

Very true! Federer at 6'1", Nadal at 6'1", Ferrer at 5'9", Wawrinka at 6'0" and Nishikori at 5'11" are all in the top ten. Up until recently, Federer and Nadal were the dominant top 2 for a decade despite the giants they were competing against.

 

[KineticChain]

laverer would crush all the players today. thats just how gud lavr was. crush!! the 70s were unreachable. lavdr would run down every ball these noobs hit and crush them! he'd also come to net and not get passed cause he'd win

 

[dante1976]

Well.. myth is that he would be competitive today deal with that and let past time legends be
For reference just watch for example Nadal/Djoko matches from 2011 and try to imagine how many points (not games and for sure not sets) any player from the past could actually won?
I hate myself for repeating but... for another example just try to imagine Owens/even Carl Lewis/whoever with Bolt on a track and Weissmuller/Spitz/whoever with Phelps in lane
Sport evolves deal with it

 

[snvplayer]

Why do some people think that being 2" shorter than someone else would make a superior player with a big serve, big groundstrokes, perhaps the greatest volleys ever, terrific movement, maybe the best mental strength ever,and the ability to play any type of tennis lose to an inferior player?
In fact, with less emphasis on serve and volley, height is not as much of an advantage as it used to be in the grass era.

2'' is enough of difference to make an impact. Take Donald Young who's 5'10 or so. I think he's an example of a promising junior player who physically didn't develop (also mentally as well).

Just as an analogy, longbody rackets that are extended by even an inch adds extra pop on the serve and groundstrokes..

 

[encylopedia]

Just after saying all this, Laver added:

“But you get one of those big-headed rackets, it’s so easy to play with them. Just beyond the end of my career, I started playing with one of these rackets and I thought ‘Jeez, I can get back on Tour again!’ It was huge.​

“If you were smashing, you couldn’t put the ball away with a Dunlop, but these metal and composite rackets, you have so much more speed, easier to volley, get the depth on ground strokes without any effort. And that’s where I see today’s players having an advantage over those of us who used wooden rackets.”​

As you can see, what he really believes in his heart is not as clear as it may seem at first glance.

It's not so much that the players are more athletic nowadays. The newer rackets may have a way of creating that perception. IMHO, the aging greats simply get to a point where they are just too old to compete with the upcoming future greats.

Ol' Muscles would be smacking the ball pretty hard, yes. Great footwork and impeccable timing can do wonders in terms of speed.

Same goes for Ol' Pancho. The guy could blast 110-115 mph serves with a small-headed wood racquet. Give the big man a modern racquet with poly strings and... what, his serve is going to be slower? Really? :shock:

Reminds me of a quote from Pancho (Laver as I said many times, is famous for downplaying himself and his game...just the kind of guy he is)....Vic Braden asked him how he would have played with a graphite racquet....Pancho said: I'd have served 140mph and NEVER have missed a volley. lol

Let me add however, that Pancho probably was serving in the 130mph range at his top end. The speed of serves at the top end has barely moved - if at all.

 

[pmerk34]

With all due respect to the possible GOAT how many players under 5 foot 10 since Rosewall in the early 70s have actually won a slam? Is it none?

Of course, he is the best small player ever, so would stand a better chance. The best comparison would be perhaps combining Rios and Ferrer into one player.

That was way before power took over completely. With the racquets and poly strings of today there is no way a 5'9" Laver is going to be able to serve and volley his way to anything. Now you are asking a 5'9" player to grind it out vs Novak, Fed and Rafa. These guys are just going to deep kick serve a guy like Laver and then take over the rallies. Before you scream I have seen plenty of Laver on film and the tennis back then is much different to the game we see now.

 

[mattennis]

It is impossible to know. Some people say that 2015 Federer, Nadal and Djokovic would tripple-bagel (because of modern strings and racquets, mainly) an hypothetical 1965 Federer, Nadal or Djokovic (so that had Federer, Nadal or Djokovic been born 50 years earlier, they say, they would have not won much, compared to Laver, Pancho or Rosewall during the 60s). Exactly the same, impossible to know.

 

[Enga]

Think you guys obsessing too much over whether he would be the best today. That's impossible to know. But it isnt a big stretch to think past top players could be competitive with todays top players. And by "competitive", I mean that if theres sizable hope for winning, that player is competitive. Top players of the past have more than a sliver of hope for winning against today's.

Still, people ought to simply admire the past great's games, and acknowledge their skill. The game is different today, thats all.

 

[DMP]

I don't think your arguments stand scrutiny.
Well I disagree and given evidence to show that Laver's size for ability/success was not a "Red Herring". I have identified numerous players that where within 1/2" taller or less than him that literally dominated two decades of tennis, the wooden racquet era. If there was only one or two others that might be considered an anomaly, 1 in 1,000,000, abnormality, etc. But in his era and going up to the end of the wooden era, 1981, I've identified players his size or near too that have won or come runner up in the majority of Majors in the professional league and dominated the open era. He is not a "Red Herring" he was the norm for champions of the 60-81. Ashe was more of an abnormality at 6'2", Necomb was 6'0" which was plentiful in the top 10 but not winning anything near the number of Majors the 5'10" bellow where. When you go back to the 60's which is is before my time Rosewell and Laver both dominated the game with Hoad being a big danger, though the amateur had many taller men.

I think this is where I would say your argument does not stand up to scrutiny. You are arguing that Laver and Rosewall were able to flourish because they played in an era (grass courts, wooden rackets) that were more beneficial in allowing smaller player to dominate, I assume you are arguing it is because the bounce was low. But if you look at the whole of tennis history (eg Wilding) you see that in general the dominant players have always been around 6 foot or a bit above. The 60s and 70s are exceptional because it was a period when players under 6 foot were dominant, from Rosewall right through to Borg/Connors/McEnroe. But if you go a bit further back to the 50s (Kramer, Gonzales, Trabert) or the 30s, or even the 20s, then you don't see short players dominating. There can only be 2 reasons

a) there was something unique about the 60s and 70s, or
b) it was random fluctuation. Great player don't come off an assembly line, they come at random.

Now I don't see anything that would give a reason for the 60s or 70s to be exceptional as compared with say the 50s or 30s. So I am inclined to say it was just random. Just as there being two multi-slam winners from Switzerland playing the game right now. Again there can be two reasons

a) there is something unique about tennis now that makes beneficial to be Swiss, or
b) it is a random fluctuation. Great players don't come of an assembly line, they come at random.

Which is what I believe is the reason, exactly as for two short players in the 60s.

I have just watched Queen's. Anderson cut a swathe through the field, including Wawrinka who is being touted as the hardest hitter in the game right now. And yet when he came up against Murray, not noted for being the hardest hitter on the tour, he folded. Why? Because it isn't all about power. Murray is a superb returner, and that neutralised Anderson's serving power.

Murray is 6'3" and built like a "brick **** house". Sorry this is not helping your theory that Laver 5'9.5" would also dominate. Or anyone else 5'10" regardless of their "feel".

You misunderstand my argument. I was pointing out that height and power do not always come out on top. Reflexes, anticipation, racket control can overcome apparent height and power advantages. Now I agree that a high bouncing ball can be difficult for a shorter man to handle. But a shorter man also has some advantages he can bring to the game. He can be quicker on his feet and more nimble. I would say that Laver was quicker than Murray, who in comparison is bit more ponderous. So Laver could do the obvious things to counter-act high-bouncing balls - move in and take it earlier. That way you avoid the ball getting too high, and you cut down on the angles available to your opponent. You also assume that Laver would play the same way as in the 60s, but why on earth would he. If playing now with modern rackets he would adapt to the modern technology. He could well play two-handed. But his basic tennis skills of anticipation, reflex, movement, racket control, and above all champion's mind would still be superb.

BTW I think that Rosewall might adapt even easier because it is the backhand that become most difficult with high bounces. But Rosewall had that unique backhand with an undercut drive which would actually become easier as the ball bounced higher, and the higher contact point would allow a bigger target over the net.

Just as Laver was, and would be now, able to neutralise power because he had superb reflexes and racket control and enough power on his own shots. That is all you need in any era.

No, there has not been any player with his statue able to compete in the top level since wooden racquet era was replaced with woven graphite era and latter the poly string era. Hewitt was an absolute genius counter puncher, still 2.5" taller and he struggled to hold position. Once poly became popuklar on the professional tour in 2002ish (That was the point Federer identified it as the common string, can prove him otherwise), the 5'11" players started to disappear at the Top 5 level and rarely made it to Major finals.
laver would be like all the 5'10" players of today and fail to make SF & Fin, and likely never win a Major. It's just how it is, the numbers show it, the game style demonstrates it, it just fantasy to believe otherwise. Regardless how talent a 5'10" player is a 6'2" player will have more power, more reach, better defense and stronger serve.

But... was there a player of his (or Rosewall's) stature before their time who was as dominant. I think the answer is NO, and the reason? It has always been more difficult for shorter men as compared with those of the ideal height. So the lack of short dominant champions just shows how difficult it still is. But if you get short players good enough, then they too can be champions. They are just an exception (but not as exceptional as dominant players of height 6 '4").

If you want to show me evidence otherwise please indicate a 5'10" player capable of winning a Major or Masters in the last 10 years. Ferrer is about it winning one Masters and making a French Final where he was killed by Nadal. He was the only Top 10 player under 6'0" so was a 'red Herring". Nishikori maybe, he had a USO final but otherwise is physically struggling with the pace of the 6'ers.

I don't think I can. But is that because it is inevitable that shorter men will never again be able to compete, or because tennis geniuses like Laver and Rosewall don't come along very often?

 

[TennisCJC]

If Laver had been born 50 or so years later and just coming up, he would likely be 1 to 3 inches taller as almost each generation gets a little taller and he would be playing with modern rackets and strings. He would likely become number 1 in the world and win many slams.

Players are taller now because rackets and more importantly strings give the advance to big hitters. They can hit the ground strokes as hard as they do and keep them in with polyester strings adding more spin. If the ATP played with 65" head rackets and gut strings, the shorter guys would run the big guys all over the court and basically, use precision and shot making to wear them out. The bigger guys with 65" head and gut strings would not be able to blast the smaller guys off the court as effectively and that's why the shorter guys dominated well into the 1980's. Federer, Nadal and Sampras have the most slams in open era and all are 6'1" which isn't much taller Laver, Borg, Connors and McEnroe.

Also, lots of tourneys on grass in Laver's era _ USO, AO and W all were grass. Yes, tall guys would have big serve on grass but agility and movement are huge on grass and the ball stays really low. McEnroe and Laver would hit low slice approach shots and low slice serves and basically disect tall guys in their era. Return to wood racket and gut strings and the precision players would have the advantage over the power players.

 

[DMP]

A final comment of the rareness of two small men being champions at the same time, and the dangers of extrapolating what could be just a statistical anomaly into a universal truth. It is in the form of two questions...

Question 1: How long will we have to wait until two male players from Switzerland are again multi-slam champions at the same time?

Question 2: Which is most likely to happen first i) two male players under 5'10" as multi-slam champions at the same time, or ii) two male players from Switzerland as multi-slam champions at the same time?

 

[pc1]

A final comment of the rareness of two small men being champions at the same time, and the dangers of extrapolating what could be just a statistical anomaly into a universal truth. It is in the form of two questions...

Question 1: How long will we have to wait until two male players from Switzerland are again multi-slam champions at the same time?

Question 2: Which is most likely to happen first i) two male players under 5'10" as multi-slam champions at the same time, or ii) two male players from Switzerland as multi-slam champions at the same time?

Ironically they used to complain in the United States on how a country with such a small population like Australia could dominate tennis.

 

[hoodjem]

Ironically they used to complain in the United States on how a country with such a small population like Australia could dominate tennis.

True.

And remember the Monty Python skit about the world's worst tennis country . . .

. . . Scotland.

(What would Murray say to that?)

 

[West Coast Ace]

I know everyone is planted, firmly, on their side of this debate. But I'll throw this into the mix to see what the 'Laver Camp' says:

Tennis was an elitist sport when Laver ruled. In addition to the advances in size, the players today are pulled from a much wider swath of athletic talent.

 

[urban]

Isn't Tennis an elitist sport today? Why do so many African, Asian or US kids with great athletic ability choose other sports like Football (Soccer), Basketball, Cricket or whatever over Tennis? Are not mainly rich kids get to the top, because they can be sent with much Money to the Tennis Academies. In the 60s, over 100 countries participated in Davis Cup, and this without the dispersion of the USSR and Yugoslav states. In 1974 per Nielsen Rating over 30 Million People played Tennis in the US, this is far, far more than today. It was called the Tennis boom.

 

[pc1]

Isn't Tennis an elitist sport today? Why do so many African, Asian or US kids with great athletic ability choose other sports like Football (Soccer), Basketball, Cricket or whatever over Tennis? Are not mainly rich kids get to the top, because they can be sent with much Money to the Tennis Academies. In the 60s, over 100 countries participated in Davis Cup, and this without the dispersion of the USSR and Yugoslav states. In 1974 per Nielsen Rating over 30 Million People played Tennis in the US, this is far, far more than today. It was called the Tennis boom.

Of course. Tennis has always been a sport in which you have to have a good amount of money to teach the kids technique and the proper way to play.

How much of a pool do they have to draw on in Switzerland? I believe the current population is 8 million or so. That's about the same population as the suburb of Long Island in New York. Yet the Swiss have developed some super champions in recent years in Martina Hingis, Federer and Wawrinka.

Laver was a smaller champion. There is no doubt about that but he also was a very unique physical specimen. First of all he was extremely quick as many players are who are under 6 feet tall but he also had that unique huge left wrist that when measured was the size of the heavyweight boxing champion Rocky Marciano and bigger than some heavyweight champions. His left arm was in general huge compared to even World Class Tennis Players. Laver had the ability to flick the ball like he was playing Ping Pong and the tennis ball would go at fantastic speed. His stamina was superb so he didn't lose many five set matches and of course he had the great advantage of being a left hander. Because his wrist was so strong he could, unlike just about any player with a one hand backhand drive balls with power that were above his shoulder. Laver handled kick serves very well because of this and the intent of a kick serve is the high kicking annoying bounce.http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/31/sports/tennis/31anderson.html

Laver also could take the ball extremely well on the rise if needed. When he was in his zone (and I write HIS ZONE because Laver's zone was regarded as higher than anyone's in his prime but that's debatable) he could often take the ball on half volley and hit it for winners. It seemed so easy and I wondered often while watching him that it couldn't be that easy of him. Here's a quote from Arthur Ashe's great book "Arthur Ashe-Portrait in Motion" on Laver..Still, no one can feel secure against Rocket. People talk about me being a streaky player, but there is no one who can blow any hotter than Rocket. In 1968 in the finals of the Pacific Southwest, Rosewall beathim 7-5 in the first set and then didn't win another game--love and love, a double bagel. When Laver goes on one of those tears, it's just ridiculous. He starts hitting the line, nd then he starts hitting the lines harder--and harder and harder. No one can stop him.

Where would height affect Laver? It would affect Laver on serve and overhead. Okay let's look at that. Laver had an excellent serve, clearly one of the better serves in tennis. Pancho Gonzalez called it a great serve. His left wrist and arm gave him excellent racquet speed unique for a player of his height. He was a lefty, always an advantage on serve. He could hit the ball with great pace but he was a master of slice and kick serves. His second serve was excellent and in fact Sampras tried to copy Laver's style. Frankly Sampras improved on it but still you get the picture. I would guess that Laver's serve was approximately on the level of Edberg's. Check Laver's at age 36 playing against the great Connors and his super return. Notice how Laver's serve is effective even against Connors.

With the overhead, Laver was super quick and got back rapidly to smash jumping overheads. He had one of the best overheads in tennis.

Laver said himself that with the racquets today he would take even more chances on serve because the new racquets allow greater spin for safety on second serve.

It's amusing to me how everyone seems to think that Laver (I guess that some making the assumption he was a tiny weaker player) would be overpowered today but they don't realize he was THE POWER PLAYER of his day.

Check out Laver's overheads here. Awful, aren't they? So yes I think Laver would be super today. He's a pretty modest guy so he'll give credit to other greats but he once said and that was just a few years ago that if he played someone with wood he wouldn't be afraid of anyone.

 

[snvplayer]

If Laver had been born 50 or so years later and just coming up, he would likely be 1 to 3 inches taller as almost each generation gets a little taller and he would be playing with modern rackets and strings. He would likely become number 1 in the world and win many slams.

Players are taller now because rackets and more importantly strings give the advance to big hitters. They can hit the ground strokes as hard as they do and keep them in with polyester strings adding more spin. If the ATP played with 65" head rackets and gut strings, the shorter guys would run the big guys all over the court and basically, use precision and shot making to wear them out. The bigger guys with 65" head and gut strings would not be able to blast the smaller guys off the court as effectively and that's why the shorter guys dominated well into the 1980's. Federer, Nadal and Sampras have the most slams in open era and all are 6'1" which isn't much taller Laver, Borg, Connors and McEnroe.

Also, lots of tourneys on grass in Laver's era _ USO, AO and W all were grass. Yes, tall guys would have big serve on grass but agility and movement are huge on grass and the ball stays really low. McEnroe and Laver would hit low slice approach shots and low slice serves and basically disect tall guys in their era. Return to wood racket and gut strings and the precision players would have the advantage over the power players.

If you compare top 20 players' height in 80s to 90s, or even now, there is a clear upward trend in tennis players' height.
(I did a stat project on this a few years ago.)

In the past (even in 90s), being tall (6'3 or even 6'4) usually meant clumsy or poor movement although they might have power. Today, guys who are 6'4 or 6'5 are great movers.
It just shows the improved level of athleticism, perhaps from better training.

Slice is important and effective in grass, but grass court matches used to be (when it was fast) determined by serve and return, maybe one volley.

 

[Enga]

To be honest, when I saw Laver's serve, it started inspiring my serve immediately, in the same way Sampras' serve inspired everyone for a whole generation. At his height, it is a more than useful serve, and I'm about the same height as him.

I wasnt alive until Laver was 3 decades past his best, but I buy the idea of him being competitive today. When watching his game, and his demeanor on court he had at times, its really easy to tell that he had it all. Mentality, a sort of killler instinct of champions. He had all the shots in the book, and seemed to execute them well. His footwork and anticipation were on level. And I totally buy the idea that he had the right mentality for a player to adapt to changes, and not be afraid to approach the game in different ways.

I want to see more videos of him, but theyre a bit rare in comparison to later players like Sampras.

 

[NonP]

It is of note that most of the posters who take this position typically display the same, or related characteristics to the one's you're describing! Their nature - the exact stereotype of one would imagine - is revealed in their own posts content aside.

The biggest problem with these jokers is their intellectual dishonesty. And by that I don't mean purposeful lying about what they do or don't know, but their refusal to engage you in a serious discussion like a grown-up. Last time I posted in the fanboy/girl playground aka GPPD I tried to explain why the usual talking points about serve and service games are often wrong and why one shouldn't trust the ATP site's service stats from the '90s or try to compare them to those from the '00s and the current decade, but not a single poster bothered to read my posts or address them in any systematic fashion. And you would think most of them are at least functionally literate and past the age of consent, so they really have no excuse for such lazy and puerile groupthink.

Since this is a tennis board you can just laugh it off, but it becomes pretty scary when you remember that these are the same geniuses that elect our leaders and raise our children.

First: Your get a point for the grammatical error. Good for you.

And you get a point for the passive-aggressiveness.

Second: You are wrong about Agassi and Djokovic, I just don't argue, there's no point. It does not mean you win, just I don't care about your view. When Agassi played his best tennis, around 2000, Gilbert and later Cahill had him stand back to where Djokovic stands today, Cahill has numerously pointed out that he had to teach Agassi to play each point and opponent on their merits. Sorry you're mainly wrong, as Agassi did take the ball earlier in the late 80's and early 90's but he was not No.1 or 2 then, it was not championship quality Agassi. Anyway that's another discussion. Sorry I don't remember you, i'm sure you can live with that.

First of all, whenever you start by saying you don't care but then go on and on about how right you are, you're not being exactly honest, which is frankly par for the course in your case. Second, you're still clueless and misrepresenting my actual contention, but since you pretend not to care I'll just leave it at that.

Third: The only point relevant to the post, go you smart thing. I did not compare Laver to Santoro, the poster did. As you can see by the quoted text.

I never took to you task for comparing Laver to Santoro, but rather for misrepresenting (again) the poster's actual argument. Here's the very post you yourself quoted:

It's not that simple.

Modern power players like Sampras and Safin couldn't outgun a player like Fabrice Santoro. As a matter of fact, Fabrice gave both of them fits; he practically owned Safin.

Santoro is 5'10, c. Laver's size. But he wasn't 1/10 the player Laver was.

I believe Laver would be a great champion in any era.

As any half-awake moron can see, not only did RA101 compare Santoro to Laver he/she also said Rod would've done much better because he was the better tennis player by far. But then you followed up with this gem:

So your saying if Laver played an unorthodox game like Sanotoro, he too might reach 1-off QF at AO, 2-off FO & 1-off AO 4R, and several 3R at Masters events. Maybe just break into the Top 20 for a week, with a career YE high of 22 and mainly living around the 50th. I agree that would likely be what Laver can achieve also with the current style.

So you didn't just "agree" with RA's Laver-Santoro comparison, you made it look like he was saying the two players were of a similar caliber, when he explicitly said otherwise. And since I don't think even you are stupid enough to miss this obvious point after having been corrected not only by me but also by RA I can only assume you were being disingenuous. In any case you clearly misrepresented his actual contention.

He was not an exception to the rule, he was slightly under the norm for his era, wooden racquet era, for great players, for example
Rosewall - 5' 7"
Hoad - 5'10 1/2"
Borg - 5'11"
Connors - 5'10"
McEnroe - 5'10"
Kodes - 5'9"
Vilas - 5'11"
Okker - 5'10"
Roche - 5'10"
Orantes - 5'10"
Krishnan - 5'7"
Pietrangeli - 5'10"
Most of these players where from the 70's or played in the 70's such as Rosewell. I do not know off many players of the 60's other than those that either coached, Roach, or played into their twilight years, Krishnan. However, there are enough names of 5'10" players to dominate 10-12 years of the end of the wood era.
Therefore, i do not believe he was a "red herring".

First off I said Laver was an exception to the rule, and that your harping on his height was a red herring. You do know what a red herring is, right? Second your red herring still stinks. Here's the reality contrary to your cherry-picking:

In 1974 the year end top ten was:

1. Jimmy Connors 5'10"
2. John Newcombe 6'
3. Bjorn Borg 5' 11"
4. Rod Laver 5' 8"
5. Guillermo Vilas 5'11"
6. Tom Okker 5'10"
7. Arthur Ashe 6'1"
8. Stan Smith 6'4"
9. Ken Rosewall 5'9"
10. Ilie Nastase 6'

Average height 5'11"

In 1984:

1. Ivan Lendl 6'2"
2. John McEnroe 5'11"
3. Jimmy Connors 5'10"
4. Mats Wilander 6'
5. Jimmy Arias 5'9"
6. Andres Gomez 6'4"
7. Yannick Noah 6'4"
8. Johan Kriek 5'9"
9. Henrik Sundstrom 6'2"
10. Anders Jarryd 5'11"

Average height 6'

I had to take this week becaue it was the last week Arias had his highest ranking. He wasn't in the top ten at the end of '84.

This week:

1. Roger Federer 6'1"
2. Novak Djokovic 6'2"
3. Rafael Nadal 6'1"
4. Andy Murray 6'2"
5. Juan DelPotro 6'6"
6. Nikolai Davydenko 5'10"
7. Andy Roddick 6'2"
8. Robin Solderling 6'4"
9. Marin Cilic 6'6"
10. Jo Tsonga 6'2"

Average height 6'2"

Average change since 1974......a whopping 3 inches!


OK...you guys were right, this is the single most ridiculous thread I've ever responded to. Chopin's continued attempt to denigrate Laver is laughable.

If you look over the long haul, you'll find that the average tennis player's height ranged from 5'11" to 6'2". This seems to be the 1st deviation of most tennis players covering about 68% of professional male. Outside of that are exceptions, Laver was one and DelPotro is another.

However, the difference between Laver and DelPo as of right now is 10 majors.

Like I said, even in his own era Laver (and Rosewall) was an anomaly, and if not for him and Ken the average height of the top 10 in 1974 would be much closer to that of more recent years. And as other posters have pointed out on this very thread many if not most of the great champions throughout tennis history have been in the 6'-6'3" range. This is a fact, which in case you don't know is not something you can dispute. And the fact that you have yet to concede this point after having been corrected multiple times (again) is quite telling.

In relation to todays game there are 0 players 5'10" and under who have won a major or masters that I can recall in the last 15 years. The closest to this would be Hewitt at 5'11", Coria at 5'9" but he never won a Major but did win a couple of Masters. Both of whom struggled to remain at the top level.

What's happened to the 5'10" under players for the "modern poly game"? Maybe today's 5'10 players are just all born inferior unlike the 60-70's! I believe the current game is not suited to smaller men, especially on surfaces other than clay. Smaller players do exist, especially in the Boys competition, but they struggle to make ground in the men's competition. Those that do make it like Ferrer 5'9" struggle to beat the 6'1-6'2" such as Federer, Nadal, Djokovic and Murray.

Again, you and the rest of your posse can continue to believe that the likes of Ferrer, Coria and even Hewitt make for reasonable comparison with an all-time great like Laver and Rosewall. OTOH some of us prefer to live in reality and dismiss your comparison as wishful thinking at best. You like to present yourself as a live-and-let-live guy so I'm sure you can live with that.

PS: You can get some more points if you find my spelling errors or grammatical errors, you seem naturally gifted at pointing them out. Go you good thing.

Nah, I'll pass. I play the grammar police only when I feel like it, and your passive-aggressive shtick is growing stale.

You read posts like the Devil reads the bible.

My point was that modern power players like Safin and Sampras were unable to blow a relatively small player (about the same size as Laver) like Santoro off the court. I should have added that Santoro wasn't exactly the fittest or fastest player on the tour, either. In no way did I mean to suggest that Laver should copy Santoro's style of play. And, honestly, having re-read my post I don't think I DID suggest that. Fact is, you read that into my post to suit your own argument.

If my posts (yes, there were two: you chose to ignore the second one) were muddled, I apologize. On the other hand, the poster you're now addressing (NonP) didn't seem to have any trouble 'deciphering' them, so maybe the problem lies with you?

If you should run into trouble reading/comprehending my posts in the future, please refrain from putting words in my mouth. It's disrespectful and truly annoying.

You're perfectly right to feel disrespected and annoyed. As I just demonstrated it's clear that PMChambers distorted your argument, as usual.

 

[RacquetAbuse101]

^Thank you, NonP.

Just read your post on the 'Better Server on Grass'-thread. Great clarity, highly informative and thoroughly readable.

Keep 'em coming!

oh,and I'm a 'he', btw.

 

[RacquetAbuse101]

Let me add however, that Pancho probably was serving in the 130mph range at his top end. The speed of serves at the top end has barely moved - if at all.

I can't believe I sold Pancho short on the serve!

But when you're right, you're right. And you are right.

 

[smoledman]

Laver would do well on the Challenger Tour, but he'd do no better than Oliver Rochus on the main tour.

You have to have some height and strength to compete. David Ferrer at 5'9" is the perfect example of that.

 

[coupergear]

Sometimes I wish they would have chosen a standard regulation racket size, and everyone had to play with the same. Even if strings and materials were allowed to change, but rackey head had to stay no more than say those old, what 75 inches were they?

 

[smoledman]

You mean Rafa wouldn't be allowed to play with a snowshoe with sticky hex strings that generate a million RPMs?

 

[encylopedia]

I can't believe I sold Pancho short on the serve!

But when you're right, you're right. And you are right.

Yeah, we have no real data on Pancho that I know of....certainly not in his prime except at one serve study where the players tried to serve in a wind tunnel while using high speed photography to estimate speed! lol. Kramer did 110, and Pancho 112 if memory serves, but I am skeptical of course. It would be hard to believe that those speed represent two of the biggest servers of the era....it's not hard to believe they may have hit serves like that in matches but not likely top speed. Braden though Pancho's serve much harder than that, he espoused in Tennis 2000 that he had "no doubt" Pancho would be in the 140mph range today....and with his excellent mechanics, rhythm, timing, and height, I am inclined to believe his speed potential would be very high. Braden of course spent a lifetime watching, studying, and analyzing big serves of pros and amateurs across generations! He knew a big serve when he saw it! So I certainly suspect that with today's mindset, and with today's racquets (despite the fact that I feel the flat serve can be hit close to as hard with wood), and with today's radar, he'd clock it right up there.....

Worth noting that Ashe, and many other pros have said they idolized Pancho's serve and modeled some of their mechanics after him - and Pancho would later coach none other than Roscoe Tanner on the serve. As hard as Roscoe served, I rather doubt Pancho looked at him and thought "wow, this "little" guy serves THIRTY TO FORTY MPH faster than I EVER did!" ;-)

Even in old footage you can occasionally see him blast quite a cannonball - this in spite of the fact that he claimed all his serves had at least a touch of slice or topspin for control - he felt that the flat serve was for the "crazy showoff" and was "stupid" lol. Strategy has indeed changed a bit for the big servers ;-)

 

[encylopedia]

accidental repost

 

[krosero]

Height is an advantage, it is not an absolute limiter.

Great way to put it. Succinctly stated and imo absolutely true.

 

[NLBwell]

What would Rocket do with high boucing balls to his 1HBH?

OK, I'll give Nadal an advantage on today's clay, similar to how it affects Federer. Anyone else dominate Federer with high balls to the backhand? Can Nadal do it on other surfaces?
Of course, this advantage Nadal has would be significantly reduced by the fact that Laver is also a lefty, so Nadal can't just hit crosscourt forehands into the weaker wing and he wouldn't have as much advantage on ad points as he does serving wide into Fed's backhand. In fact, Laver would probably handle that wide slice serve better than Federer ever did. It was a much more typical serve in Laver's day.

 

[goldenera]

Problem is..current players could play Laver's era?

 

[JW10S]

Problem is..current players could play Laver's era?

Yes, people often try to compare past players to current but I wonder how the current would do if they had to go back and play with small wood racquets, no fancy overgrips, no polyester strings and play in canvas tennis shoes on faster courts.

 

[Drob]

even before the 70s most slam winners were taller.

borg was 6 feet, Tilden was 6"2, budge was 6"1, gonzalez was 6"2, kramer was 6"2 too. emerson was 6 feet, ashe was 6"2, newcombe and nastase were 6 feet.

yes, there were some smaller slam winners in the past but most Multi slam winners of all eras have been 6"0-6"2, the small old day Tennis Player is a myth.

http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showthread.php?t=484174

You make a good point, but you take it too far. In fact, there were tremendous champions in quite small frames by today's standards. Genuine, multi-Slam champs of about 5' 8" or shorter include Lacoste, Cochet, Johnston.

"Big Jake" Kramer wasn't 6' 2" and Borg wasn't six-foot, notwithstanding if he were The Viking God. Arthur was not 6' 2", and I doubt Nastase was six-feet. I admit we can't know for sure until we get to guys like Newk, Ashe and Borg, where we can see and gauge with our eyes and compare to the heights of all these other people we have seen on television, video, DVD, steaming and so on.

We really haven't seen that phenomenon in the last nearly half-century. Connor's was bit above 5' 10" and Agassi maybe five-feet-ten-and-one-half ( approx. or slightly < 180 cm). The idea of the short super-champ of old probably derives primarily from the narratives of Billy Johnston, Henri Cochet and Ken Rosewall. There was also Hans Nusslein, Karel Kozelu, Bobby Riggs, Nicky Pietrangeli, and, indubitably, Pancho Segura. But most champs were close to six-feet. Of the very greatest, Gonzalez was at least 6' 2", Tilden at least 6' 1" and probably taller (he slouched considerably), Kramer 6' 1" approx., Budge you probably have right. Vines was probably close to 6' 2", as well. In the middle, Perry might have just scraped six-feet, Sedgman 5' 11" and Hoad the same or even a half-inch shorter. At 5' 9" (175 cm) or shorter, we have Lacoste, Cochet, Rosewall, and Laver, who I put at approx five-eight and one-half inch, although he was said to be 5' 9" back in the day.

With all due respect to the possible GOAT how many players under 5 foot 10 since Rosewall in the early 70s have actually won a slam? Is it none?

So, as much as I'd like to, I cannot really answer this challenge, except textually. Yes, there have been a couple of Slam champs who fit the bill, but no true, significant champions.

But we are talking about Rod Laver (and by extension Ken Rosewall). We are talking about a Federer. This was a once-in-two generations player. You could almost think of Rosewall, Hoad and Laver as a little bit like the current "Big Three" in historical terms. Three preternatural, almost revolutionary, talents within 4-5 years of age difference. It is a different dimension.

So, Rod Laver has not returned. That does not mean he might not.

Acknowledged that players are getting taller still. Acknowledged that a 5' 9" genius worker of wonders could not rack up the 23 Majors or whatever Laver (and Rosewall) have.

Still, isn't it easy to imagine a Marcelo Rios talent, combined with the heart of - to stick with small guys - a David Ferrer? And 70s Hollywood makes this very suggestion.

How many Slams could such a player achieve? I think we should also consider relative height. If Gonzalez's 6' 2" was considered such a magnificence in the day, then we need to acknowledge that the short player of today has also grown taller. So we really should be talking about someone more like 5' 10" or five ten and a half, or 180 centimeters. Presto, we have Andre Agassi. How do you think he might fare?

Hyperbole's odd when it comes to discussing the legends of the game. Very rarely is there moderation; take the Rocket, in this case. It's rare that I see any middle ground - either Laver's a guy who would get slaughtered today or he's so talented that his two Grand Slams happen regardless of when or whom he plays.

But I agree with your opening post wholeheartedly; saying that Laver couldn't at the very least compete with the best in the game currently is absolutely absurd. He's Rod goddamn Laver, if there was anyone from back then who'd be a safe bet to walk in and give the top guns hell, it'd be him. Do I think he'd be equally as successful? I don't think so, no, but he certainly wouldn't get washed out.

This gentleman makes a good point about moderation. I revere Rocket too much. His height would create a difficulty. He would not be as bloody dominant. But he would be right there, perhaps right there at the 02 final in a few hours. He would be there at Slam finals.

 

[Karma Tennis]

But he would be right there, perhaps right there at the 02 final in a few hours. He would be there at Slam finals.

Need to remember that Laver was most dominant at a time when the court surfaces were very fast and quite choppy in comparison to today's manicured Hard Courts and "Not a blade out of place" Natural Grass.

In those days, I think the ability to make minute adjustments during strokes required a lot more talent and skill. For sure, the speed of the game is probably faster today due to the modern tech and athleticism. But it is also more consistent so perhaps the talents and skills of the past aren't as pertinent. The smaller hoops and natural gut of Laver's era forced the players to be very particular in how they hit the ball. Today, clean hitting is still very desirable, but the margin for error is much greater.

Laver would certainly adjust to the modern game. Question is, would he be as dominant? I don't think he would because he would be losing too much of the advantage he had in his era. Tennis has definitely been dumbed down over the past few decades for several reasons.

 

[davced1]

He is short but hey if Schwartzman can make the top 10 then so could Laver.

 

[NLBwell]

The "speed of the game" is now much slower now that in Laver's era.
The speed of the ball off the racket may be faster, but the time between shots is much less. Compare the time for a looping (even if hard-hit) topspin forehand from several feet behind the baseline until the other player hits it at the baseline, to a flatter passing shot hit to a volleyer at the net.
In the serve and volley era, quickness and reaction time were much more important than they are now.

Karma Tennis does have a point about the different skills required than versus now. Quick reaction time is one of the skills/inherent capabilities that were more important then than now.

In those days, I think the ability to make minute adjustments during strokes required a lot more talent and skill. For sure, the speed of the game is probably faster today due to the modern tech and athleticism. But it is also more consistent so perhaps the talents and skills of the past aren't as pertinent. The smaller hoops and natural gut of Laver's era forced the players to be very particular in how they hit the ball. Today, clean hitting is still very desirable, but the margin for error is much greater.

 

[urban]

Laver and hard courts. I often read, that Rod Laver could only play on grass and clay, and not on modern hard courts. Has anyone noticed the statistics, that are out on Ultimate Tennis Statistics and other sides. The ATP recognizes now 71 titles won by Laver in open era since 1968, including at least 25 open hard court titles. He won many indoor carpet events too. Grass had become obsolete and anachronistic in the early 1970s outside the majors. Going by the stats of UTS, Laver won 84,2 % of his hardcourt matches in open era (186-35). Only Djokovic had a better percentage at 84, 4, but this was before his 2-2 record at London. Others like Federer, Lendl, Connors, Sampras are sitting behind. Maybe Laver now had the best percentage of all open champions, and Laver won 41 % of all hard court events, he entered. which is certainly an open era record.

 

[Karma Tennis]

Laver and hard courts.

Laver played an incredible amount of Tournaments on hard courts and canvas layed over hard surfaces during the years he was a Professional in the 1960s. He certainly knew how to play and win on them.

We've all seen his matches at Hilton Head late in his career in the Mid 1970s. Those skills were crafted during his Professional career in the 1960s.

 

[Dan Lobb]

Problem is..current players could play Laver's era?

No.