Why are Laver's 2 GrandSlams held with sugh high regard?

Discussion in 'Former Pro Player Talk' started by dima, Feb 28, 2007.

  1. dima

    dima Banned

    Joined:
    Oct 16, 2006
    Messages:
    727
    I mean, did he win slams on clay, hardcourts, and grass on the same year? No he didn't, thus making it not that good.
     
    Last edited: Feb 28, 2007
    #1
  2. Moose Malloy

    Moose Malloy Legend

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2005
    Messages:
    7,889
    The more people diminish the achievements of the past greats, the less impressive the achievements of the current greats are imo.
    If we have disclaimers, like surface, etc(1st hardcourt slam was only in 1978), so how impressive is it to call Federer the best ever? Guess that means the best ever means only the best ever since 1978. Not much to get excited about since its only a 28 year period. Who knows, the Australian may change to velcro in the next 28 years & the current players will be dismissed since they didn't play on all surfaces.

    Tennis is the only sport that does this. Baseball has been played since the 1800s & Babe Ruth regularly tops all polls of past greats, current players, fans etc as who the best player of alltime was & he played primarily in the 20s. Imagine if they decided on 1978 as the starting point for historical discussions, it would be a joke.

    Also, the only reason a hardcourt slam became a reality in 1978 was that the USTA wanted to pick a surface that favored Americans. They certainly weren't trying to contribute "all surface players" to the game.

    Here's an impressive win from Laver on hardcourts. The 1969 South African Open. 64 player draw, best of 5 all rounds. Sounds pretty similar to a Grand Slam to me.

    http://www.itftennis.com/mens/tournaments/tournamentresults.asp?tournament=1010002576&event=

    and keep in mind if its so easy, or "not good" to win all 4 slams in one year on only 2 surfaces, how come in the 60+ years that slams were played on only 2 surfaces, did this only happen 3 times?
     
    #2
  3. dima

    dima Banned

    Joined:
    Oct 16, 2006
    Messages:
    727
    Because Federer didn't play back then.
     
    #3
  4. tricky

    tricky Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Sep 27, 2006
    Messages:
    3,305
    Tennis has a unstable element, namely the racquet issue. Had baseball switched to aluminum with ever progressive metal technologies, most of the records would be meaningless. Even now with the steroid issue, many are arguing how to contextualize the 90s hitting stats within the proper context.
     
    #4
  5. fastdunn

    fastdunn Legend

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2004
    Messages:
    6,294
    Well, surfaces could be issue but still winning all 4 slams is amazing.
    3 of slams were on grass but the fact that every single player
    wanted to win it.

    Current surface conditions are somewhat homegeoneous too.
    Slowed grass and homegenized hard court surfaces.
    But still Federer's winning just about everything is amazing.
     
    #5
  6. Progressive10s

    Progressive10s Rookie

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2004
    Messages:
    394
    The layoff

    Yes, The US Open, Wimbledon, and Australia were all played on grass. What impresses me about the grand slams Laver won is that they are seven years apart. Laver, Rosewall, and others were banned from the slams because they were playing professional events for little money in these out-of-the-way places. When the US Open became the first tennis event of the Open era in 1968, the first full year of Open tennis was 1969.

    Laver probably spent the best years of his career toiling in obscurity, therefore we don't know how dominant he would have been because he could not play those events. I cannot take anything away from Roy Emerson, but Laver would have won many of the slams he accumulated and Laver could have won 20+ slams if allowed.
     
    #6
  7. rossholster

    rossholster New User

    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2011
    Messages:
    3
    I have to agree as well. Let's not forget Laver didn't play any Slam events during the prime years of his career- that's about 24 that he didn't play in. If you figure he won only 25% of those, that would give him an additional 6 Slams...still ahead of Roger.
    Food for thought...
     
    #7
  8. timnz

    timnz Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Oct 17, 2008
    Messages:
    4,547
    Note

    Three out of four were on grass which made it harder because there was so many grass court specialists. Besides, it has been said many times - in 1969 he won the top hard court tournaments, indoor tournaments that year as well as winning the Grand Slam. So he was the total surface player in 1969 - he won everything that counted that year on all surfaces. Not his fault the slams weren't spread like they are now.
     
    #8
  9. Rattler

    Rattler Rookie

    Joined:
    Aug 23, 2009
    Messages:
    297
    Location:
    On the fringe
    Really?

    Some of the things people post on message board boggle the mind
     
    #9
  10. Mustard

    Mustard Talk Tennis Guru

    Joined:
    Nov 12, 2009
    Messages:
    25,114
    Location:
    Cwmbran, Wales
    This thread is nearly 6 years old.
     
    #10
  11. helloworld

    helloworld Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Jul 5, 2006
    Messages:
    4,670
    Laver would have won 30+ slams if pros were allowed to play in a grand slam event during that time. Yep, 30+ SLAMS!!
     
    #11
  12. 90's Clay

    90's Clay Legend

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2012
    Messages:
    7,346
    Because no one has ever done it and will NEVER do it?
     
    #12
  13. zam88

    zam88 Professional

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2009
    Messages:
    1,341
    Laver didn't pick the surfaces.

    It's like we want athletes to do more than just beat the players in front of them to win the title.


    Guys get criticized for weak draws, not getting slams on proper surfaces, etc.

    If you win you did all you could do.

    Laver won.... the other players practiced hard on the surfaces that the tournaments were played on i'm guessing.
     
    #13
  14. 6-1 6-3 6-0

    6-1 6-3 6-0 Banned

    Joined:
    Jun 27, 2012
    Messages:
    4,657
    And who is the only player to win slams on clay, grass and hard-court all in a calendar year?

    Rafael NADAL.
     
    #14
  15. SQA333

    SQA333 Professional

    Joined:
    Jun 16, 2012
    Messages:
    1,446
    Who is the player to rank #2 for the most weeks?

    Rafael NADAL

    Who is the player to rank #1 for the most weeks?

    Roger FEDERER

    Who is the player to lose to the same guy for three straight Grand Slams?

    Rafael NADAL

    Who is the world #4, and out of the top 3?

    Rafael NADAL

    Who only won one match in Wimbledon this year?

    Rafael NADAL

    Who lost embarassingly to the world #100?

    Rafael NADAL

    Who can't reach more than a few Grand Slam finals in a row without damaging some part of his body?

    Rafael NADAL
     
    #15
  16. jokinla

    jokinla Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2011
    Messages:
    2,705
    If we're comparing Roger and using ifs, if 3 of the 4 slams were on grass now, Roger would have won more and most likely gotten a couple of calendar slams as well. As it is now, it took the GOAT on clay to stop him from doing this.
     
    #16
  17. urban

    urban Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Apr 22, 2005
    Messages:
    4,374
    Yes of course he would have won 7 RGs, if 3 majors were played on grass.
     
    #17
  18. Djokodal Fan

    Djokodal Fan Professional

    Joined:
    Mar 8, 2012
    Messages:
    1,288
    Thanks for the facts.
     
    #18
  19. kiki

    kiki Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2010
    Messages:
    18,714
    Laver won wood majors which Fed never did and in 69 also took the biggest hc event which was SA OPEN
    Plus the three gc events were even more different bounces than today where there is almost no difference
     
    #19
  20. kiki

    kiki Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2010
    Messages:
    18,714
    The 69 slam is the biggest feat in tennis history given the level of competition
    It is like if Fed had won the big 4 with a compettion that was the addition of his era and that of Sampras
     
    #20
  21. Phoenix1983

    Phoenix1983 Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2012
    Messages:
    2,540
    I agree. Look at the quarter-finalist line-up in the 1969 US Open, the tournament Laver needed to win (and did so, of course) to complete the Grand Slam;

    Rod Laver
    Roy Emerson
    Arthur Ashe
    Ken Rosewall
    Butch Buchholz
    Tony Roche
    Fred Stolle
    John Newcombe

    All eight of these men had already won majors (either amateur or pro).
     
    #21
  22. NatF

    NatF G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    May 10, 2012
    Messages:
    13,843
    Location:
    On the road from would of to would have
    It's hard to overrate an achievement that's so hard to accomplish it hasn't been done since.
     
    #22
  23. TMF

    TMF Talk Tennis Guru

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2009
    Messages:
    21,230
    IF he wants to play more slam events then he would have to be an amateur instead of joining the pro. And even if he managed to win more, it's still an amateur slams(vastly below the value of the modern slam). Keep in mind people in here don't take Emerson's 12 slams seriously because the field was very weak. And Laver being an amateur will not be playing in the 3 pro majors. So either you want Laver to take his chance at the amateur slams or he keeps all of his 8 pro majors.
    Food for thought....
     
    #23
  24. 3fees

    3fees Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Jun 24, 2010
    Messages:
    2,039
    Location:
    NorCal
    Simply put Lavers accomplishment is way above what peeps think, no hawk eye, grass courts where the ball bounce was unpredictable,wet surfaces,ect. His style of play is not used any more,, his volleys were mostly to the center court , struck so that the bounce was below the net and dying in the opps service courts, then he came forward and challenged the opponent,, mano to mano to volleys for the point, bascially he was fearless. I seen all of his matches on PBS with Pub Collins calling the play by play, he has all the tools in spades. Mr. Pancho Gonzales thats an interesting life story he was fearless also, there are others as well.

    :mrgreen:
     
    Last edited: Dec 3, 2012
    #24
  25. BobbyOne

    BobbyOne Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2012
    Messages:
    7,773
    TMF, Laver, Rosewall and other greats turned pro not only for money reasons but also because they wanted to match the best pros and to become the top player of the world. Thus we should not blame them for leaving the amateurs.
     
    #25
  26. Blocker

    Blocker Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    Nov 5, 2012
    Messages:
    536
    Location:
    Melbourne
    The OP is a troll. And it appears, banned.
     
    #26
  27. JW10S

    JW10S Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Sep 27, 2006
    Messages:
    1,896
    If it were an easy thing to do, more players would have done it. They didn't, hence the esteem for Laver, who did--twice.
     
    #27
  28. Ronaldo

    Ronaldo G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2004
    Messages:
    14,229
    Yes, why is J-Mac record in 1984 held in such high regard? One match from a Grand Slam.
     
    #28
  29. jokinla

    jokinla Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2011
    Messages:
    2,705
    Same with Fed in 06, and even though he only won 2 slams in 09, he lost the other two in 5 setters, so technically he was 2 sets away from the grand slam twice.
     
    #29
  30. adil1972

    adil1972 Professional

    Joined:
    Oct 4, 2012
    Messages:
    1,435
    hey man cool down, both nadal and federer did good to tennis
    lets not critize nadal injuries

    only 3 players won the same slam 7 times. first sampras, second nadal and then federer
     
    #30
  31. NadalAgassi

    NadalAgassi Guest

    LOL please. Roger won only one French Open, so there is only 1 year he could have even possibly won any Calendar Slam with 3 of the 4 on grass, never mind "likely gotten a couple". As it was he was not a dominant enough a player anymore to win the Grand Slam by 2009 no matter what surfaces they were on, so that would mean "likely gotten a zero". Had he won a couple Frenchs from 2004-2007 you might have a case. Lastly despite that he has 7 Wimbledons and only 5 U.S Opens many would argue hard courts are Roger's best surface. He just has tons more competition on hard courts than the abysmal grass field of today, and even then he is more dominant in many of his hard court slam winning runs than many of his Wimbledon ones.
     
    #31
  32. kiki

    kiki Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2010
    Messages:
    18,714
    Correct and this is why you have to adition his pro slams from 63 to 67 both included
     
    #32
  33. kiki

    kiki Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2010
    Messages:
    18,714
    One set away
    But who knows what would happen in the AO in case he had won RG
     
    #33
  34. Dan Lobb

    Dan Lobb Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2011
    Messages:
    1,978
    That's a stretch.
    Bucholz won the World Professional Championship, in reality a second-rate event in Cleveland.
    The real challenges on this list are Newcombe, Roche, Rosewall, Ashe, Emerson (who gave Laver his toughest match in this tournament).
    I would suggest that the lineup for the 1959 Forest Hills Pro was much tougher, as all ten players had major titles.
     
    Last edited: Dec 4, 2012
    #34
  35. kiki

    kiki Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2010
    Messages:
    18,714
    Butcholz was a journeyman but rest of field is scaring
    I wish Hoad had his CYGS too.He is the guy who should have it besides Laver,Budge and Borg
     
    #35
  36. Dan Lobb

    Dan Lobb Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2011
    Messages:
    1,978
    Hoad had difficulty playing a full year without interruption due to injury or back trouble (he was playing after 1953 with two ruptured discs!).
    This would have made it difficult for him to win a calendar grand slam.

    One player who should have won the calendar grand slam was Crawford in 1933, when he led Perry in the Forest Hills final two sets to one, and could not play further.
    His friends had, without his awareness, plyed him with alcoholic drinks during the match, in the mistaken belief that his minor asthma would be helped by it. He was inebriated and unable to play further.
     
    Last edited: Dec 4, 2012
    #36
  37. TMF

    TMF Talk Tennis Guru

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2009
    Messages:
    21,230
    I don't have a problem with him turned pro, but rossholster stated that Laver would have won more amateur slams, which he probably would had he stayed as an amateur. However, that would removed everything he achieved as a pro player. Being an amateur he would be another Emerson.
     
    #37
  38. TMF

    TMF Talk Tennis Guru

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2009
    Messages:
    21,230
    No. You either play in the amateur or the pro. Take your pick.
     
    #38
  39. jokinla

    jokinla Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2011
    Messages:
    2,705
    "If" 3 of the 4 were on grass now, he certainly could have completed one in 09, as it was he was 2 sets away, and if those finals were both on grass, he quite possibly could have. And prior to that, 'if" 3 of 4 were on grass, he could have started winning slams even more consistently in 04, and the confidence gained by winning more slams, certainly could have gotten him past Nads at one of those FO's. Of course this is usings "ifs", not reality, just as the poster I was replying to was.
     
    #39
  40. kiki

    kiki Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2010
    Messages:
    18,714
    Always liked Crawford
    Don' t ask me why but I did
    He beat Vines in an all time classic
     
    #40
  41. kiki

    kiki Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2010
    Messages:
    18,714
    Ok so add up Rod' s pro majors and see what happens
     
    #41
  42. TMF

    TMF Talk Tennis Guru

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2009
    Messages:
    21,230
    Like I said, you can't because you either a pro or an amateur. And it was better for him turing pro otherwise he would be another Emerson.
     
    #42
  43. pc1

    pc1 Legend

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2008
    Messages:
    9,411
    Here's the question. How many classic majors would Federer have had if he turned pro (let's say after 2003) in an era that didn't allow pros to play the majors? Obviously far fewer. It would not affect his greatness as a player. He would have been every bit as great but he would be hurt by the different standards of greatness today that is often very inaccurate.

    And I think Federer would want to play against the top players. The money wouldn't have hurt either.
     
    #43
  44. BobbyOne

    BobbyOne Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2012
    Messages:
    7,773
    kiki, "Butcholz", recte Butch Buchholz, was more than only a journeyman. He was a first class player. I rank him among the top five for four years (1963 to 1966).

    Buchholz almost beat Laver and Fraser in amateur majors and defeated Rosewall at least 12 times.
     
    #44
  45. BobbyOne

    BobbyOne Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2012
    Messages:
    7,773
    Yes, Laver would have won many more amateur majors. Of course we cannot count both amateur and pro majors of a given player for the same period.
     
    #45
  46. BobbyOne

    BobbyOne Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2012
    Messages:
    7,773
    TMF, Laver as an amateur would have won more than "only" eight majors from 1963 to 1967.
     
    #46
  47. Dan Lobb

    Dan Lobb Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2011
    Messages:
    1,978
    Buchholz in 1969? No longer a threat in a major.
     
    #47
  48. pc1

    pc1 Legend

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2008
    Messages:
    9,411
    I agree but for one match Buchholz was still dangerous and could beat anyone. I believe he beat John Newcombe several times in 1969.
     
    #48
  49. Dan Lobb

    Dan Lobb Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2011
    Messages:
    1,978
    Another monument to Newk's inconsistency.
     
    #49
  50. kiki

    kiki Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2010
    Messages:
    18,714
    He lost his most famous match...that being a mere W qf, to Neale Fraser.

    He was used to just fill the pro fields.

    Ayala, on the other hand had a RG final, at least.

    best pros were Laver,Rosewall, Hoad (when available), Gonzales (idem), Gimeno, Olmedo,Cooper and Anderson.In the 60´s, of course.
     
    #50

Share This Page