The Goat: Laver vs. Federer

TheTruth

G.O.A.T.
I'm not into the GOAT theory, because many times the debate seems vague to me. I don't know how anyone would quantify who's better, or the greatest, but it would be better to have facts to debate rather than opinions and emotions. So, for those who like to compare I think they did a great job of assembling the actual facts.


Dare to Compare? Rod Laver vs. Roger Federer
By
TIM RUFFIN
(Featured Columnist) on February 05, 2010
5,781 reads
193 comments
2 likes
Cameron Spencer/Getty Images

I come to you in the spirit of reason, and understanding. Fascinated by the constant debate over whether Roger Federer is the single greatest player of all-time or not, I have decided to examine the compare him to nine players who are also on that top level of all-time greats.
In the minds hearts and minds of millions of fans, Roger Federer is without peer. Federer is loved unconditionally, his dominance unquestioned and his humanity is often questioned. After-all, only a divine being, a son of the tennis god’s could do such things as he. Only a superior being could string together his run of Major finals and an even more ridiculous run of consecutive semifinal appearances.
If the people want to crown him, then let’s go ahead and crown him! Let us initiate the process of anointing Roger Federer the greatest tennis player of all time. But, before any coronation or inauguration, there must be a vetting process.
Numbers do not lie. They are constant and they are enduring. They are a traceable, quantifiable marker that can be used to substantiate any claim. But, while numerical statistics certainly have their role, we must not give in to the temptation to believe that they alone are capable of telling the whole story. Only the simplest mind would believe so. There are also intangibles to consider. Health, longevity, competition, heart and desire. All of these things factor into building a legend, a legacy.
Let’s meet the contenders. The ten players nearly universally agreed upon as the crème de la crème of the tennis world. To be fair, only player from the Open Era have been included. After-all, few have lived to see Bill Tilden or Don Budge play live. We honor their genius, but for the purposes of this exercise they will be excluded. The list looks like this: Laver, Connors, Borg, McEnroe, Lendl, Wilander, Becker, Agassi, Sampras, Federer .
The Maestro vs. The Rocket

http://bleacherreport.com/articles/340274-stacking-up-federers-career-in-light-of-lavers
 

Bud

Bionic Poster
I'm not into the GOAT theory, because many times the debate seems vague to me.

http://bleacherreport.com/articles/340274-stacking-up-federers-career-in-light-of-lavers

This sentence says it all:

"For instance, if we go by Major Championships alone then Ken Rosewall has 23 Majors (8 grand slams, 15 pro slams) Laver sits second with 19 (11 grand slams, 8 pro slams) Federer is third on the list with 16 (all Grand Slams). Keep in mind that the Grand Slams were not as lucrative, or valued prior to 1968."

- - - - -

Continuing:

"But wait, there’s more. After winning the calendar slam in 1962, Laver turned professional in 1963. As a pro, he faced the men considered to be the best players in the world at the time on the professional circuit. In these pre-open era days, only amateurs were permitted to compete in Grand Slam competition."

"Therefore, Laver lost his Grand Slam eligibility during his best years from 1963-1968. However, during that span he managed to capture the Professional equivalent of Wimbledon, the Wembly Pro Championship (four times) and the U.S. Open, the U.S. Pro Championships (three times) as well as the French Pro Championship (one time). In these finals he defeated the likes of multiple slam winners Ken Rosewall, and Pancho Gonzales."

- - - - -

These guys weren't even allowed to play the grand slam tournaments once they turned pro. It appears they played the professional equivalent... the pro slam.
 
Last edited:

muzza123

Banned
Correction: 2 (TWO) Grand Slams .

Indeed.

This is a rare moment - a TTW poster is using the term "Grand Slam" in its plural form but in the correct way!

None of this "6/12/16 Grand Slams" rubbish!

Let this be a lesson to all you other posters who wish to denigrate the holy grail of the Grand Slam! Shame on you all!
 

joe sch

Legend
He'd probably have done it a third time as well, had he been allowed to play in the GS tournaments during his best years.

Rod Laver actually has the equivalent of 3 grand slams since he won every significat pro event in 1967. If it had been an open tennis year, I feel that Laver would have won the Grand Slam plus all the major titles outside of the Grand Slam as well. (Equivalent to today to winning the Grand Slam and all of the Super 9 events).
 

Bud

Bionic Poster
Rod Laver actually has the equivalent of 3 grand slams since he won every significat pro event in 1967. If it had been an open tennis year, I feel that Laver would have won the Grand Slam plus all the major titles outside of the Grand Slam as well. (Equivalent to today to winning the Grand Slam and all of the Super 9 events).

The more I hear about the earlier generations of tennis players, the more I respect what they accomplished.

It would be amazing to witness a modern player do a calendar year GS sweep and win all 9 MS titles :D

That would be a truly impressive feat!
 
Last edited:

Breaker

Legend
Indeed.

This is a rare moment - a TTW poster is using the term "Grand Slam" in its plural form but in the correct way!

None of this "6/12/16 Grand Slams" rubbish!

Let this be a lesson to all you other posters who wish to denigrate the holy grail of the Grand Slam! Shame on you all!

Federer has 16 slams and is GOAT.
 

urban

Legend
The article isn't solid in all numbers. He relies on the wikipedia article a lot, which i know for many parts quite good.
 

Camilio Pascual

Hall of Fame
Rod Laver actually has the equivalent of 3 grand slams since he won every significat pro event in 1967. If it had been an open tennis year, I feel that Laver would have won the Grand Slam plus all the major titles outside of the Grand Slam as well. (Equivalent to today to winning the Grand Slam and all of the Super 9 events).
The key word to your argument being "IF".

What you are conveniently overlooking:
"IF" 1962 was in the Open Era, Rod Laver would clearly not have won the Grand Slam.
 

FlamEnemY

Hall of Fame
I have a big question for all historians here.

What is the time period, in which Laver won his total of 19 Majors/Pro Slams/Whatever, and what is the time period in which Rosewall won his 23 ?
 

drakulie

Talk Tennis Guru
4 of Lavers majors (the 1962 Grand Slam) were won against amateurs, as the best players in the world weren't allowed to play.

I love how these momos never include that, and always give credit for both amateur and pro slams, as if they were one.
 

urban

Legend
Rosewall won 4 amateur majors between 1953 (2) and 1956. After his Forest Hills win of 1956, he turned pro. He won his first Wembley pro, the biggest title of the pro tour in 1957, as an outsider over Segura, who had beaten Gonzalez. He won the Wembley title also in 1960-63, mostly over Hoad. He won 8 times the French pro, which was played until 1962 on clay at RG, later at Coubertin stadium indoors, just one week before Wembley. In 63 and 65 he won the US pro at Forest Hills resp. Boston (and added 1 in 1971). In open majors between 1968 and 1972, he won 4 further titles at French, US and AO.
Laver won 6 amateur majors 1960- 1962 (including 2 Wimbledons), then won the Wembley title, the unofficial World pro champs 1964-67. He also won the Wimbledon pro in 1967, also 5 US pros at Boston between 64 and 69, and 2 French pro 67/68. In 1968/69 he won 5 open majors (out of 7 played), including 2 Wimbledons.
 
Last edited:

Limpinhitter

G.O.A.T.
Laver is by far the greatest ever!

No! Laver was my idol. He may be the greatest ever. But, overstatements like "by far," have no place in this conversation. IMHO, Laver, Sampras, Borg, Gonzalez and Federer all have a claim to being the best ever. If they were all using the same equipment, they'd all be very, very close. I give Laver the edge based on his athleticism, conditioning and completeness as a player - the lack of any weaknesses. Again, JMHO!

It's too soon to consider if and where Nadal fits in this conversation. When he's near the end of his career, it'll be easier to look at his accomplishments as a whole. At this point, he hasn't done enough to be considered among this group.
 

muzza123

Banned
The more I hear about the earlier generations of tennis players, the more I respect what they accomplished.

It would be amazing to witness a modern player do a GS and win all 9 MS titles :D

That would be a truly impressive feat!

Fixed for you ;) (no need for the words "Calendar Year" and "Sweep")
 

jackson vile

G.O.A.T.
This sentence says it all:

"For instance, if we go by Major Championships alone then Ken Rosewall has 23 Majors (8 grand slams, 15 pro slams) Laver sits second with 19 (11 grand slams, 8 pro slams) Federer is third on the list with 16 (all Grand Slams). Keep in mind that the Grand Slams were not as lucrative, or valued prior to 1968."

- - - - -

Continuing:

"But wait, there’s more. After winning the calendar slam in 1962, Laver turned professional in 1963. As a pro, he faced the men considered to be the best players in the world at the time on the professional circuit. In these pre-open era days, only amateurs were permitted to compete in Grand Slam competition."

"Therefore, Laver lost his Grand Slam eligibility during his best years from 1963-1968. However, during that span he managed to capture the Professional equivalent of Wimbledon, the Wembly Pro Championship (four times) and the U.S. Open, the U.S. Pro Championships (three times) as well as the French Pro Championship (one time). In these finals he defeated the likes of multiple slam winners Ken Rosewall, and Pancho Gonzales."

- - - - -

These guys weren't even allowed to play the grand slam tournaments once they turned pro. It appears they played the professional equivalent... the pro slam.

Laver has 3 different calendar slams
Pancho has 27 slams

Roger is more like 4th at best
 

Rippy

Hall of Fame
Laver has 3 different calendar slams
Pancho has 27 slams

Roger is more like 4th at best

Laver has 2 Calendar Slams. If you're going to include his "pro slam", then you have to bear in mind one of his "calendar slams" was against amateurs.

I'm sure Federer or Sampras could perhaps have dominated the Challengers/Futures if they put their mind to it.
 

drakulie

Talk Tennis Guru
Laver has 2 Calendar Slams. If you're going to include his "pro slam", then you have to bear in mind one of his "calendar slams" was against amateurs.

I'm sure Federer or Sampras could perhaps have dominated the Challengers/Futures if they put their mind to it.

exactly.fact is, during the period being discussed, many of the best players were playing amateur, and many were playing in the pro circuit, which dellutes both circuits of having the very best players in the world playing in the same tournaments.
 

kraggy

Banned
Basically, I think it is foolish for us to compare Fed and Laver when most of us have never seen Laver play. While it is true that athletes on average get better over time, one can't reach a conclusion about specific individuals. Borg's generation was less athletic than Nadal's but most people say Borg himself was as good an athlete, if not better, than Nadal.

The wider the generation gap, the harder the comparison. Sampras - Fed comparisons still make some sort of sense. But there are just too many variables when comparing people who played in the 60s and 70s.
 

Limpinhitter

G.O.A.T.
Basically, I think it is foolish for us to compare Fed and Laver when most of us have never seen Laver play. While it is true that athletes on average get better over time, one can't reach a conclusion about specific individuals. Borg's generation was less athletic than Nadal's but most people say Borg himself was as good an athlete, if not better, than Nadal.

The wider the generation gap, the harder the comparison. Sampras - Fed comparisons still make some sort of sense. But there are just too many variables when comparing people who played in the 60s and 70s.

I've seen them both play live and I dispute your premises.
 

Limpinhitter

G.O.A.T.
Care to elaborate?

I would, but, I've written so exhaustively on Laver, past champions, wood racquets, etc. on TW, in at least a dozen threads in the past 2-3 months, I don't see the point of repeating all here. It wouldn't do my previous efforts justice. If you're interested, you can do a search for my posts and Laver. The first thread I posted in was entitled: "Laver has a right to claim best of all time," or words to that effect, started by ProCoach. If you have something specific to debate, feel free to bring it up.
 
Last edited:

kraggy

Banned
I would, but, I've written so exhaustively on Laver, past champions, wood racquets, etc. on TW, in at least a dozen threads in the past 2-3 months, I don't see the point of repeating all here. It wouldn't do my previous efforts justice. If you're interested, you can do a search for my posts and Laver. The first thread I posted in was entitled: "Laver has a right to claim best of all time," or words to that effect. If you have something specific to debate, feel free to bring it up.

I was just not sure which direction you are leaning towards. I guess you're saying that it IS possible to compare generations objectively?
 

Limpinhitter

G.O.A.T.
I was just not sure which direction you are leaning towards. I guess you're saying that it IS possible to compare generations objectively?

Of course it is! There's a recent thread on that, too. Then again, the value of your analysis and conclusions turns on the quality and reliability of your evidence. If you are an eye witness, your opinion carries more weight. If you're relying on video, a little less. If you're relying on someone else's written account, it depends on who did the writing. Jack Kramer's opinions and observation carry a lot more weight than Peter Bodo's.
 

TheTruth

G.O.A.T.
This sentence says it all:

"For instance, if we go by Major Championships alone then Ken Rosewall has 23 Majors (8 grand slams, 15 pro slams) Laver sits second with 19 (11 grand slams, 8 pro slams) Federer is third on the list with 16 (all Grand Slams). Keep in mind that the Grand Slams were not as lucrative, or valued prior to 1968."

- - - - -

Continuing:

"But wait, there’s more. After winning the calendar slam in 1962, Laver turned professional in 1963. As a pro, he faced the men considered to be the best players in the world at the time on the professional circuit. In these pre-open era days, only amateurs were permitted to compete in Grand Slam competition."

"Therefore, Laver lost his Grand Slam eligibility during his best years from 1963-1968. However, during that span he managed to capture the Professional equivalent of Wimbledon, the Wembly Pro Championship (four times) and the U.S. Open, the U.S. Pro Championships (three times) as well as the French Pro Championship (one time). In these finals he defeated the likes of multiple slam winners Ken Rosewall, and Pancho Gonzales."

- - - - -

These guys weren't even allowed to play the grand slam tournaments once they turned pro. It appears they played the professional equivalent... the pro slam.

I guess that's why I don't subscribe to GOAT theories, et al. The criterion is too subjective, and ultimately they select whomever they want it to be. Who knew Rosewall had 23 majors? They never mention it.

Good point!
 

TheTruth

G.O.A.T.
exactly.fact is, during the period being discussed, many of the best players were playing amateur, and many were playing in the pro circuit, which dellutes both circuits of having the very best players in the world playing in the same tournaments.

Why were the circuits split in the first place?
 

TheTruth

G.O.A.T.
Basically, I think it is foolish for us to compare Fed and Laver when most of us have never seen Laver play. While it is true that athletes on average get better over time, one can't reach a conclusion about specific individuals. Borg's generation was less athletic than Nadal's but most people say Borg himself was as good an athlete, if not better, than Nadal.
The wider the generation gap, the harder the comparison. Sampras - Fed comparisons still make some sort of sense. But there are just too many variables when comparing people who played in the 60s and 70s.

Agree. I can't go back in the past and accurately say anything when I didn't see these guys, understand the circumstances surrounding their wins, and the issues going on in the era.

I don't understand this either about Borg and Nadal's athleticism.

Agree. The gaps, different conditions, surfaces, and level of competition make it hard to quantify.
 

Jaitock1991

Hall of Fame
Well...

Comparing players' achievments from earlier generations with the achievments from the newer generations is hopeless. The game has developed soo much, both on and of the court. In many ways, it would be like comparing an aeroplane from the WW2 with an American aeroplane from the wars in Iraq or Afghanistan. It's impossible to know if a player like Rod Laver would be able to even compete at the ATP Tour today. Obviously, the level nowaydays is extremely high(much higher, yes, than it was back then), and extremely tight and tough. The difference between failure and success is practically blind to the human eye. So for a player to stick out the way a man like Federer has done during the last decade is really something special, and I cannot in my wildest dreams imagine that anyone will be able to do that again. Like I said, none of us will ever know how well Laver in his prime would be able to do it against todays' top players, but personally, I strongly doubt that he'd be a top 100. Strongly...
 

TMF

Talk Tennis Guru
Do you think the Open Era records should trump the older greats?

I think current era should have more weigh than previous era. A player with 8 slams today should be place higher than a player with 8 slams say 40 years ago. If would be unfair for the current players if weigh the slam equal b/c we all know there's more athletes, countries completing over time. More obstacles to overcome thus more difficult to win. In 2006, Laver admitted that Roger's winning a calendar slam would be equivalent to his 2 calendar slams in the 60s. That speaks volume.
 

TheTruth

G.O.A.T.
^^^

I agree with Jaitock1991 and TMF. Competition is better, athletes are better conditioned, they are bigger and stronger. They should obliterate the GOAT theory, and just use the GOTE (Greatest Of Their Era). That would make the comparisons more valid.
 

Rippy

Hall of Fame
^^^

I agree with Jaitock1991 and TMF. Competition is better, athletes are better conditioned, they are bigger and stronger. They should obliterate the GOAT theory, and just use the GOTE (Greatest Of Their Era). That would make the comparisons more valid.

There's no fun in that though. :p

It's all about the subjective comparisons.
 

drakulie

Talk Tennis Guru
Why were the circuits split in the first place?


Basically, playing tennis and not earning enough money as an amateur caused many of the best players to leave the "amateur" circuit and tour the world as "Pros". Of course, many of the best players stayed loyal to the amateuer circuit, and stayed on.

So you see, when Laver won his first "Grand Slam" in 1962, many of the best players in the world were playing in the "pro" circuit.
 

TheTruth

G.O.A.T.
Basically, playing tennis and not earning enough money as an amateur caused many of the best players to leave the "amateur" circuit and tour the world as "Pros". Of course, many of the best players stayed loyal to the amateuer circuit, and stayed on.

So you see, when Laver won his first "Grand Slam" in 1962, many of the best players in the world were playing in the "pro" circuit.[/QUOTE]

Thanks, Drak. The bolded part I knew, but could never understand why the tour was split.

Wait a minute. I didn't see it until I bolded it. Need to rephrase my question.

OK. So, Laver won the 1962 slam on the amateur circuit, when the best pros had left?

However, he did achieve a grand slam on the professional tour as well?

The next question is, do you feel Laver is the GOAT, or do you ascribe to that theory at all?
 
Last edited:

timnz

Legend
1967

Actually I believe Laver 'Pro-only Grand Slam' of 1967 represented the best performance compared with the 1962 Amateur Grand Slam and the 1969 Open Grand Slam.
 

drakulie

Talk Tennis Guru
Thanks, Drak. The bolded part I knew, but could never understand why the tour was split.

Wait a minute. I didn't see it until I bolded it. Need to rephrase my question.

OK. So, Laver won the 1962 slam on the amateur circuit, when the best pros had left?

However, he did achieve a grand slam on the professional tour as well?

The next question is, do you feel Laver is the GOAT, or do you ascribe to that theory at all?

Yes, Laver achieved the Grand Slam in 1969 when the tour was already one (amateur and pro).

Do I think Laver is the greatest of all time. Nope. I don't think he has a prayer against today's players. That said, his achievements, for the players he had to face during his time, were as remarkable as the players like Sampras, Nadal, Federer and their achievements against the players of today.


One more thing, during Laver's time, many of the draws were fairly weak when you compare them to draws of today. Competition is way deeper today from top to bottom than it was during that period.
 
Last edited:

veroniquem

Bionic Poster
You cannot compare Laver's grand slam (winning all 4) to the grand slam today if only because Laver did it all on 2 surfaces: grass and clay. (Thanks for the correction Drak)
It's funny because noone has ever won all 4 slams at same age. The maximum anyone has won at any given age is 3 and the only ones who have done the 3 on 3 different surfaces are Nadal (at 22) and Federer (at 27). (Noone has done it in a calendar year either).
 
Last edited:

drakulie

Talk Tennis Guru
You cannot compare Laver's grand slam (winning all 4) to the grand slam today if only because Laver did it all on 1 surface: grass.

Laver won on 2 surfaces (grass and clay). 3 were played on grass, and one on clay. But I do agree one can't compare the achievements to today. Fact is, if a player today were to win a calendar slam, it would trump what laver did, being that there are 3 surfaces.
 
Top