Vijay Amritraj considers Rod Laver the greatest

[jackson vile]

Federer is the sun around whom the lives of many ****s spin and spin and spin...in their fedsolar system

Except for when he loses then he becomes an old man again with sickness and injuries LOL

 

[treblings]

OOOOOOOO...thanks treb.

you´re welcome

 

[kiki]

Except for when he loses then he becomes an old man again with sickness and injuries LOL

hahahahahaha

 

[kiki]

Now, back to Vijay...he was one of the most talented guys of the 70´s...he was not that consistent ( like Lutz or Pecci) to make his talent regualr top ten meat...but he owned all of the great players, from Laver and Rosewall to Connors and Borg, at leats for a few matches...

take 1984 " perfect " John Mc Enroe season...he lost to Amrtitraj ( he just lost 2 matches in the whole year) t Cincinnati. that proves the greatness of Vijay ( by then, much more involved in producing big Hollywood movies that improving his ranking).

Oh¡¡ in 1987, he and Krishan met the unvincibles Swedes at the DC finals...I knew they were gonna lose, but I can´t think of a more exciting DC team than Vijay and Ramesh...pure,pure talent.

 

[marcub 2.0]

:mrgreen: Hey you, the two respectable octogenarians in this thread...

The fun I'm having at your expense beats all the bans I get because of your reporting me!

 

[jackson vile]

Now, back to Vijay...he was one of the most talented guys of the 70´s...he was not that consistent ( like Lutz or Pecci) to make his talent regualr top ten meat...but he owned all of the great players, from Laver and Rosewall to Connors and Borg, at leats for a few matches...

take 1984 " perfect " John Mc Enroe season...he lost to Amrtitraj ( he just lost 2 matches in the whole year) t Cincinnati. that proves the greatness of Vijay ( by then, much more involved in producing big Hollywood movies that improving his ranking).

Oh¡¡ in 1987, he and Krishan met the unvincibles Swedes at the DC finals...I knew they were gonna lose, but I can´t think of a more exciting DC team than Vijay and Ramesh...pure,pure talent.

That is rather impressive, I have to admit I did not know much about him until now.

 

[kiki]

That is rather impressive, I have to admit I did not know much about him until now.

he also played Wimbledon classics, against Borg in 79 ( Vijay lost it rather than Bjorn won it) and Connors in 81 ( the same thing)

 

[jackson vile]

he also played Wimbledon classics, against Borg in 79 ( Vijay lost it rather than Bjorn won it) and Connors in 81 ( the same thing)

I will have to look him up, this is getting really interesting now. Seems like he has played all of the GOATs

 

[kiki]

I will have to look him up, this is getting really interesting now. Seems like he has played all of the GOATs

and beaten all of them (Ashe,Nasty,Connors,Laver,Rosewall,Mac,Borg) except
Lendl and Wilander.

 

[pjonesy]

Well, with marcub, it's unclear if his mama isn't also his cousin, or sister, being from the Appalachians and all!

Jeez. I was duped, Limpinhitter. Been away for a while.

Now I see where marcub got his ammunition. Obviously, he/she is a *****. But the real problem is his/her reaction to being proven wrong. Instead of accepting the information and presenting a reasonable response, he calls me out as a red neck from the Southern US. I have had some knock down drag outs on this forum, but I have never had anyone, from anywhere, call me out in that manner when I proved my point or strongly disagreed with them. Personal attacks used to deflect attention from the truth. The truth, which tends to make him/her look like an idiot. Marcub is a red neck!!! He hates himself and he thought it might hurt me, since I'm in close proximity. Well, I'm not ashamed of it. But I think you make a good case for him being inbred.

 

[pjonesy]

he also played Wimbledon classics, against Borg in 79 ( Vijay lost it rather than Bjorn won it) and Connors in 81 ( the same thing)

Kiki, i"ve been away for a while and I hate to respond to a post from 8 months ago, but I've got some thoughts.

1)LAVER: I've watched more clips and matches of Laver from the 60s and 70s. I will now admit that he had a tremendous baseline game. I was wrong to assume that the power baseline game of Borg and Connors, was too evolved for Laver to compete. He just got older and maybe lost a step. But he was still competitive in the mid 70s. It certainly was a difficult style for Laver to play against, but he would have adjusted in his prime.

I see references to Laver's height, that imply he would have the same success as Ferrer if he was playing in this era. Now, I am in my early 40s, so I did not grow up watching Laver. But I know this. Ferrer, Hewitt, Nalbandian and Davydenko do not possess the talent, skill or tennis IQ of Rod Laver. Look at Laver's ability to hit the 1st volley and immediately put his opponent on defense. No matter how hard the passing shot was being hit. Nobody can hit a firm 1st volley better than Laver in his prime. Yes, the top 4 players are virtually the same size. 6'1" to 6'3" and 175 to 185 lbs. The perfect size for a modern male pro tennis player. But that does not mean that a sub 6ft player cannot have Grand Slam success in the future.

 

[kiki]

Kiki, i"ve been away for a while and I hate to respond to a post from 8 months ago, but I've got some thoughts.

1)LAVER: I've watched more clips and matches of Laver from the 60s and 70s. I will now admit that he had a tremendous baseline game. I was wrong to assume that the power baseline game of Borg and Connors, was too evolved for Laver to compete. He just got older and maybe lost a step. But he was still competitive in the mid 70s. It certainly was a difficult style for Laver to play against, but he would have adjusted in his prime.

I see references to Laver's height, that imply he would have the same success as Ferrer if he was playing in this era. Now, I am in my early 40s, so I did not grow up watching Laver. But I know this. Ferrer, Hewitt, Nalbandian and Davydenko do not possess the talent, skill or tennis IQ of Rod Laver. Look at Laver's ability to hit the 1st volley and immediately put his opponent on defense. No matter how hard the passing shot was being hit. Nobody can hit a firm 1st volley better than Laver in his prime. Yes, the top 4 players are virtually the same size. 6'1" to 6'3" and 175 to 185 lbs. The perfect size for a modern male pro tennis player. But that does not mean that a sub 6ft player cannot have Grand Slam success in the future.

Thanks for your thoughts and respsosnding to my mail.I don´t think it is a problem it is an old post, like it is never a problem bringing up an old time great, like Laver.

I have stated many times that, having seen tennis for more than 40 years, Laver is the most impressive guy I have seen according to my standarts of talent and enjoyment.This guy, like led Zeppelin for Rock and Roll are guys that, not only remain unmatched, but you appreciate more and more from a tecnichal standpoint as time goes by.

If the Laver I watched was clearly post prime, then I just cannot figure out how good peak Laver ( 1963-1969 ) might have been.

When I think of tennis, Rod Laver is the player that better fits my description.I respect other opinions, but I don´t think i will ever change mine ( although in the future we can see an improved version of Laver)

 

[Vrad]

Vijay Amritraj covers the AO and Wimbledon in India and he's the face of tennis here. His commentary is pulsating(don't have a link of his commentary) and hes pretty much always spot on about his predictions and tennis analysis(Indian fans would know). I personally think he's the best commentator with Mark Woodforde(RG commie) a close second.

I've noticed he calls Laver the greatest based on his 69 CYGS and 62 pro slam. Keeps raving about the calendar slam like it's the best thing since sliced bread. He also talks about how Laver would win sets 4 and 5(after being down 2 sets to 1) , 6-2,6-1 or something, emphasizing how relaxed/mentally tough he was.

Here's an interview of him with Federer(after Fed won RG) -

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gwxYXwvEg1E

So do you agree with his assessment that based on Laver's CYGS alone he's the greatest? Is he putting too much stock in the CYGS?

I am not going to comment on his claim, but Vijay Amritraj sucks as a commentator. He is just terrible. And I say this having listened to the pathetic commentary on ESPN in the US. Amritraj makes those guys sound good in the commentary box.

 

[RAFA2005RG]

Vijay Amritraj covers the AO and Wimbledon in India and he's the face of tennis here. His commentary is pulsating(don't have a link of his commentary) and hes pretty much always spot on about his predictions and tennis analysis(Indian fans would know). I personally think he's the best commentator with Mark Woodforde(RG commie) a close second.

I've noticed he calls Laver the greatest based on his 69 CYGS and 62 pro slam. Keeps raving about the calendar slam like it's the best thing since sliced bread. He also talks about how Laver would win sets 4 and 5(after being down 2 sets to 1) , 6-2,6-1 or something, emphasizing how relaxed/mentally tough he was.

Here's an interview of him with Federer(after Fed won RG) -

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gwxYXwvEg1E

So do you agree with his assessment that based on Laver's CYGS alone he's the greatest? Is he putting too much stock in the CYGS?

Too much stock?

You are aware surely that nobody has achieved the Calendar Year Grand Slam since Laver. Are you really questioning how difficult it is?

In 2010 Nadal became the first man in history to win slams on clay, grass and hardcourt in a Calendar Year. Apart from that, nothing has been as impressive as the Calendar Year Grand Slam.

This really doesn't deserve a thread. I think we all know how insanely difficult it is to win the Calendar Year Grand Slam. Anyone who achieves it is on a higher level.

 

[3fees]

No doubt Rod Laver is the g.o.a.t. , in his era 3 slams were grass , US, Wimbledon, Australian and one was clay-French, US open was played at West Side Tennis Club-all grass courts, Grass was much more difficult then, uneven surface, inconsistent bounce, slippery here, dry there, the players hand speed was 2x-3x faster than today, it got so bad there players sought to change the surface, this prompted Arthur Ashe to promote the new stadium, he was the main promoter and pushed it thru, why its not named Arthur Ashe Tennis Center I have no clue, even 1.0 tennis player and spectators knows this.

:mrgreen:

 

[jrs]

Now, back to Vijay...he was one of the most talented guys of the 70´s...he was not that consistent ( like Lutz or Pecci) to make his talent regualr top ten meat...but he owned all of the great players, from Laver and Rosewall to Connors and Borg, at leats for a few matches...

take 1984 " perfect " John Mc Enroe season...he lost to Amrtitraj ( he just lost 2 matches in the whole year) t Cincinnati. that proves the greatness of Vijay ( by then, much more involved in producing big Hollywood movies that improving his ranking).

Oh¡¡ in 1987, he and Krishan met the unvincibles Swedes at the DC finals...I knew they were gonna lose, but I can´t think of a more exciting DC team than Vijay and Ramesh...pure,pure talent.

Very true - always wondered why those brothers didn't well in the pro ranks. Many years later after their retirement we finally found out why - apparently, they were very much into the night life and the ladies. Tennis was secondary.

 

[pjonesy]

Thanks for your thoughts and respsosnding to my mail.I don´t think it is a problem it is an old post, like it is never a problem bringing up an old time great, like Laver.

I have stated many times that, having seen tennis for more than 40 years, Laver is the most impressive guy I have seen according to my standarts of talent and enjoyment.This guy, like led Zeppelin for Rock and Roll are guys that, not only remain unmatched, but you appreciate more and more from a tecnichal standpoint as time goes by.

If the Laver I watched was clearly post prime, then I just cannot figure out how good peak Laver ( 1963-1969 ) might have been.

When I think of tennis, Rod Laver is the player that better fits my description.I respect other opinions, but I don´t think i will ever change mine ( although in the future we can see an improved version of Laver)

I can accept that. The Led Zeppelin reference hits home with me. As an American kid in the late 70s, I did not get exposed to any Zeppelin. My 1st memory of Robert Plant, was Big Log!!! But I fell in love with Zeppelin in middle and high school. I just picked up 'Celebration Day', the reunion show DVD from the 02 in '07. Amazing performance!! They still had the magic that night!!!

That's what everybody wants to see. Our heroes(way out of their prime) still being able to pull out a magical moment 1 more time. With everything on the line.

 

[zagor]

Rod Laver is not just the greatest player of all time but the greatest tennis analyst we've ever had as well, no doubt about it.

 

[pjonesy]

Now, back to Vijay...he was one of the most talented guys of the 70´s...he was not that consistent ( like Lutz or Pecci) to make his talent regualr top ten meat...but he owned all of the great players, from Laver and Rosewall to Connors and Borg, at leats for a few matches...

take 1984 " perfect " John Mc Enroe season...he lost to Amrtitraj ( he just lost 2 matches in the whole year) t Cincinnati. that proves the greatness of Vijay ( by then, much more involved in producing big Hollywood movies that improving his ranking).

Oh¡¡ in 1987, he and Krishan met the unvincibles Swedes at the DC finals...I knew they were gonna lose, but I can´t think of a more exciting DC team than Vijay and Ramesh...pure,pure talent.

Forgot to finish my comments. Armitraj was an excellent player. Certainly a phenomenal talent. I didn't realize he was 6'4". Great movement for a guy of his stature. Surprising that he didn't even get to a Grand Slam Final.

 

[kiki]

Forgot to finish my comments. Armitraj was an excellent player. Certainly a phenomenal talent. I didn't realize he was 6'4". Great movement for a guy of his stature. Surprising that he didn't even get to a Grand Slam Final.

lacked discipline.Like many other supertalents like Lutz,Okker,Pecci,Rios,Mecir...

 

[treblings]

lacked discipline.Like many other supertalents like Lutz,Okker,Pecci,Rios,Mecir...

you rate Bob Lutz as a supertalent? i´ve only see him as one half of a legendary doubles did he achieve anything as a singles player? when i started watching tennis in the mid 70´s his singles days might have been over

 

[kiki]

you rate Bob Lutz as a supertalent? i´ve only see him as one half of a legendary doubles did he achieve anything as a singles player? when i started watching tennis in the mid 70´s his singles days might have been over

He was fantastic from 1970 till 1974 or 1975.he almost won a WCT Final ( lost in a close five setter to prime Ashe) but he was never consistent enough.back in 1969, he was clearly the second best US player behind Ashe and Laver and Rosewall saw in him a future nº 1.he wasted it, and injuries helped also.

 

[treblings]

He was fantastic from 1970 till 1974 or 1975.he almost won a WCT Final ( lost in a close five setter to prime Ashe) but he was never consistent enough.back in 1969, he was clearly the second best US player behind Ashe and Laver and Rosewall saw in him a future nº 1.he wasted it, and injuries helped also.

yes, i remember seeing him play with knee braces.

 

[kiki]

Lutz was the true match winner in the Smith/lutz team.But Stan was as solid and conduntent as a rock.Both needed each other.

 

[pc1]

you rate Bob Lutz as a supertalent? i´ve only see him as one half of a legendary doubles did he achieve anything as a singles player? when i started watching tennis in the mid 70´s his singles days might have been over

Believe it or not many thought that Lutz (when healthy) was the more talented of the Smith/Lutz doubles team and that was when Smith seemed invincible for a little while.

 

[treblings]

Believe it or not many thought that Lutz (when healthy) was the more talented of the Smith/Lutz doubles team and that was when Smith seemed invincible for a little while.

i can believe it alright when i started watching tennis in the mid 70´s i recognized Lutz solely as a doubles player. did he ever play daviscup singles for the u.s.?

 

[hoodjem]

Vijay Amritraj covers the AO and Wimbledon in India and he's the face of tennis here. His commentary is pulsating(don't have a link of his commentary) and hes pretty much always spot on about his predictions and tennis analysis(Indian fans would know). I personally think he's the best commentator with Mark Woodforde(RG commie) a close second.

I've noticed he calls Laver the greatest based on his 69 CYGS and 62 pro slam. Keeps raving about the calendar slam like it's the best thing since sliced bread. He also talks about how Laver would win sets 4 and 5(after being down 2 sets to 1) , 6-2,6-1 or something, emphasizing how relaxed/mentally tough he was.

Here's an interview of him with Federer(after Fed won RG) -

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gwxYXwvEg1E

So do you agree with his assessment that based on Laver's CYGS alone he's the greatest? Is he putting too much stock in the CYGS?

Vijay knows his tennis history.

For 60+ years the CYGS was the Everest of the tennis world, more highly respected than anything else--including the number of total slams. (Heck in 1970, Emerson didn't even know how many he had, much less that he had the record high at that time.) Sampras started the emphasis on slams total.

The career slam is very much of a newbie by comparison.

 

[Rabbit]

The career slam is very much of a newbie by comparison.

The "career slam" was coined when Agassi won the French, the only major he hadn't won. It has no historical significance really. At the time, much ado was made that there were only 5 men to have done so. I think nearly 5 have done it since. Now, the surfaces, balls, and games are all so homogenized it's not that big a deal.

 

[TMF]

The "career slam" was coined when Agassi won the French, the only major he hadn't won. It has no historical significance really. At the time, much ado was made that there were only 5 men to have done so. I think nearly 5 have done it since. Now, the surfaces, balls, and games are all so homogenized it's not that big a deal.

Biased.

Laver's GS was on 2 surfaces and gets all the praise but a career slam gets no love, especially when they are on 3 surfaces?

You can say GS has more value, but you can't discredit the career slam since only a few players that managed this feat. Homogenize or not, it's still 3 different surfaces.

Like one of the poster pointed out...give the Grand Slam 2 points and a career slam 1 point.