Please stop equating 1960s tournaments with Open Era majors

Dan Lobb

G.O.A.T.
You will never admit that Kooyong was not a pro major.

The 1967 Wimbledon final was not the best pro final that year. In fact Wembley with or without smoke was clearly the best final: 5 set on the highest level...

Laver was hotter at Wimbledon. Rosewall was also brilliant at Wimbledon, but Laver was in the stratosphere, probably Laver's best ever performance.
 

BobbyOne

G.O.A.T.
Laver was hotter at Wimbledon. Rosewall was also brilliant at Wimbledon, but Laver was in the stratosphere, probably Laver's best ever performance.

I have read that Rosewall got injured during the Wimbledon final.

Regarding Laver's best performance: What about his 6-0,6-1,6-0 win over Rosewall at Wembley 1968?
 

Dan Lobb

G.O.A.T.
I have read that Rosewall got injured during the Wimbledon final.

Regarding Laver's best performance: What about his 6-0,6-1,6-0 win over Rosewall at Wembley 1968?

If Rosewall was playing injured, why did he get better as the match progressed?
It looks like Rosewall, who had already won at Wembley that season, was content to sleep that day.
 

BobbyOne

G.O.A.T.
correction : many of the open majors, not all . They would still be prone to the occasional upset. Wouldn't the best amateurs in emerson, santana have any shot at any of the majors ? really ?

emerson was 5-5 with laver for example in 68 though he was already on a rapid decline by then ....

obviously hoad would have had excellent chances in 63 , given he was thrashing Laver left right in that year ......

gonzales in 64 would have decent chance as well ....

abmk, Surprises are always possible. But it is meaning much that Laver and Rosewall won all pro majors 1963-1967 against strong competition of Gonzalez, Hoad and Gimeno...
 

3fees

G.O.A.T.
Nice,except-THEY PLAYED WITH WOOD RACQUETS,,much harder to win a major with wood,,the new racquets are much more forgiving,give power,,jrs with modern rackets hit as hard as many in the field with wood racquets did,
wood racquet slam is worth 2 or 3 modern racquet slams, also the string technology was different,,Textured nylon cost a mint in those days,,nylon was the major string for many players--nat gut was for those that had excess cash. The smaller field proves the point that tennis was much more difficult then as it is now, hitting with wood-either your arm was the size of a tiger leg or you would find another sport,,I seen many try with wood racquets and then quit as it was very tough to play with a wood racquet and there arms were sore all the time.
 
Top