ubermeyer
Hall of Fame
Um... Laver would probably beat you at 70, unless you're a 6.0.
Phau versus Laver
- Thread starter Chopin
- Start date
Um... Laver would probably beat you at 70, unless you're a 6.0.
Well, I don't think he plays tennis anymore due to health reasons.
So are you accepting my challenge as a matter of honour?
CyBorg
Legend
Challenge to play chess? Maybe one day, man.
But what if you wanted to make a living in the sixties?
You're taking Laver's abilities and playing style out of context. And the sad part is you seem smart enough to know better.
We could play via an online service. It would be big news on the boards. What do you say?
Amen. Or at least have the moderators merge all of Chopin's threads on Laver into one volume of his Master Works. Short of that:
Chopin,
Why not just go out in a blaze of glory with one master thread and say what you feel?:
"Everybody today is better than Laver!"
Hasn't going down the current rankings become tedious? Even for you? That way you can also cover the players at your local park that you may view as moderately talented but who are armed with the latest, cutting edge technology. Go for it.
5
Yeah, I know I am. But so are the posters who argue that his game "as is" could possibly translate into major success in the modern game. I agree that I'm taking it out of context, but honestly, I think I'd still take Phau with the wood.
Yes, his western grip would not be as effective with wood, but his actual mechanics just make so much more sense. I mean, players did use western with wood, but not continental with graphite (today) so I think the transition would be easier into the olden days with the slower pace, but I'm not saying it wouldn't be competitive.
Just my opinion.
Bilbo
Semi-Pro
Russo-Canuck, for your information.And a former hockey scout to boot.
Also, Mussorgsky owns Chopin's lilly-white ass.
Chopin seems like a nice guy... you guys dont have to be so mean... do you
?Ask yourselves... what would Alberto Berasategui do?
Last edited:
Don't worry, I have some new threads planned. I've been quite busy recently, but I'm planning on creating a series of interesting threads for your debating and reading pleasure. And yes, they will be of higher quality than the Venus-Laver poll thread.
Chopin seems like a nice guy... you guys dont have to be so mean... do you
Yeah, I've been told that my threads are "cruel" and that I "fall on the level of scum." Seems a little bit harsh...
ubermeyer
Hall of Fame
plus phau is one of the fastest players around.
CyBorg
Legend
Simple question: why?
For fun (and honour).
I think that, as usual, you read Chopin better than anyone. These are not debates in the normal sense of the word. They're set up as games. Chess would just be another.
If Phau tried to hit with small wood racquets the way he does with large graphite ones (i.e. lots of torso rotation, kneebend, high racquet head speed), he'd shank every other shot. If players in the sixties could have hit the way modern players do, they would have. They used the optimum technique that their equipment allowed.
Henry Kaspar
Rookie
What a promise.
Rabbit
G.O.A.T.
And it's wrong. Players in Laver's day used milder grips for a reason. The majority of tennis was played on surfaces and with strokes which yielded a lower bounce. Because of this, the Continental or a milder grip was of advantage.
A player like Phau would have a hard time indeed digging slices, both forehand and backhand, off a grass court with his extreme grips. A player like Phau then would not make much of a living. If a player like him could have, he would have even then.
And you're wrong. A recent report said that Laver still plays more than once a week.
And you're wrong. I don't know what your obssession is with the Continental grip. Hitting groundstroke with that grip, or the Australian, really isn't that hard to do. I do it every time I play.
Don't worry, I have some new threads planned.
I can hardly wait.
Chopin said:
Yes, we've all noticed the influx of wasted bandwidth.
Chopin said:
the best laid plans of mice and men...
Chopin said:
that shouldn't be much of a stretch. Why don't you really impress the boards and make them of lower quality, that would be an accomplishment as you've already scraped the bottom numerous times.
And you've proved yourself consistent. "Cruel" was exactly the word. Not to Laver, but to the other members of the boards. Your first thread was enough to deliver your point. But it wouldn't appear enough for you. No, you want to rub others' noses in your point. Where you say 'debating and reading pleasure', I think more succinctly you can insert the word 'tedium'. You have no new thoughts and recycle the same garbage over and over to the point that it's tedious. We get it, you think Rod Laver is a mediocre player by today's standards. You think he'd be a total and dismal failure. We get it. I personally think you're full of crap, and denigrating the past of the game because the current game is so lopsidedly dominated by two players which would indicate that the fields aren't nearly as strong as they used to be, but whatever.
Time to move on...
Polaris
Hall of Fame
Cruel? Too harsh, perhaps.
Scum? Maybe not. At least you can write reasonably well.
Humbug or BS? You bet! Your threads have proved without a doubt that you are the High Priest of Humbug on these forums.
Last edited:
pc1
G.O.A.T.
Incidentally Chopin thinks chessplayers of the past like Viktor Korchnoi wouldn't do well with the modern chesspieces of today. The grip for lifting the pieces in Korchnoi's time is now obsolete and technique to lift chesspieces has changed over the years according to Chopin.
Why would Cyborg even bother to play this guy in chess? Is winning or losing at chess going to do anything?
Good, move on.
OK. I'm going to disagree. Sampras hit with wood and Laver said that he was impressed. He said that the timing was still there. I know Sampras uses an eastern, but even so, more western grips have been used with wood (see early 20th century). I don't think strokes that are more efficient are going to be a bad thing. Maybe Nadal's forehand would have a tough time adapting, but I think most players could do it. Just my opinion.
Last edited:
This is a matter of honour--not a mere game played for the pleasure of kings. This is played for the gods.
CyBorg
Legend
You want to play chess for honour against a Russian guy.
I don't think you've thought this through.
Rabbit
G.O.A.T.
It would seem in more than just the chess challenge.
Russia has a grand chess tradition, my friend. And if we play online I won't have to worry about being poisoned or having my energy drained. Let us play the game, CyBorg. Let us play for the gods.
As a token of my goodwill I offer you the following scenario (if stakes are what you need, my friend). If you defeat me in a best of 7 series, I will never post in the former pro player talk again. But if I defeat you, you will never again participate in any of my threads.
Are these terms satisfactory?
pc1
G.O.A.T.
Online play can be dangerous, Chopin may enlist help. It wouldn't be fair to Cyborg, playing singles against doubles.
Chopin, shouldn't you stick to checkers??
Let's let CyBorg answer himself, shall we? It's a generous offer I gave him: defeat me and forever will I be banished from this sub-forum.
pc1
G.O.A.T.
I'd rather play you in person. Do you really know anything about chess?
CyBorg
Legend
They aren't satisfactory at all. I enjoy seeing you make a fool of yourself.
I need a greater incentive than this.
Name the terms, if you dare.
CyBorg
Legend
I dare you to formulate a coherent argument.
Ah, coward.
CyBorg
Legend
You give up quickly. I'm not that easily amused.
I don't give up--it's just that I've already won.
pc1
G.O.A.T.
Didn't write that. I just rather play someone in person. Are you Paul Morphy reincarnated?
pc1
G.O.A.T.
That's impossible since they didn't invent the title of Grandmaster yet. Not bad.
Do you have any favorite Grandmasters?
Last edited:
Excuse me. The event I referred to did happen, even if the term "grandmaster" was not in use.
Edit: Favorite masters? Well I enjoy the personalities more than anything else, to be honest. I'm not good enough to really appreciate the evolution of chess or like a particular master's opening. Fischer is interesting because he came across as such as a prejudiced fool despite being brilliant at chess. Boris Spassky is also entertaining.
Last edited:
pc1
G.O.A.T.
I didn't write it didn't happen. I wrote he couldn't have beaten a Grandmaster. They were simply Masters in those days.
So who's your favorite Grandmaster?
pc1
G.O.A.T.
I don't know about Spassky being entertaining. His chess was entertaining but I'm not sure of his personality.
You want entertaining, checking out Karpov-Korchnoi 1978. Check out the behind the scenes. Now that's entertainment.
http://www.mark-weeks.com/chess/78kk$$01.htm
Not only that, the match was great also and exciting.
Last edited:
pc1
G.O.A.T.
Of course you realize Karpov and Korchnoi use the continental grip to move their chess pieces and the style is outmoded.
Yes, like you I play for fun.
Cool. I played growing up and I've just gotten back into it recently. One of my friends (who is apparently a good amateur player) recommended I start playing timed games whenever possible to begin ingraining certain patterns in my head and start recognizing certain setups more "instinctively."
Do you ever play online?
