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

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

  1. arche3

    arche3 Banned

    Joined:
    Aug 29, 2009
    Messages:
    5,389
    Feds bh is goat. It might fail at times but Laver just pushed the ball around with his bh. The granpa slice. Sure it was fast and skidded but it looked like a nice stroll on the court. "Put it there, put it here..." Fed on the other hand in boss mode the bh is goat. Cross court bh battle Laver could very well best fed but the fed bh is like poetry.
     
  2. pc1

    pc1 Legend

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2008
    Messages:
    9,411
    Do you really believe that?
     
  3. BobbyOne

    BobbyOne Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2012
    Messages:
    7,773
    kiki, good joke. And I congratulate to the new name Butcholz...
     
    Last edited: Dec 10, 2012
  4. BobbyOne

    BobbyOne Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2012
    Messages:
    7,773
    kiki, Cooper played only till 1962 due to an injury, Olmedo played virtually till 1964 but finished the 1964 world tour only at seventh place.

    Anderson played longer and not bad but always finished behind Buchholz. (By the way, I'm an Anderson admirer).
     
  5. arche3

    arche3 Banned

    Joined:
    Aug 29, 2009
    Messages:
    5,389
    Yes. Fh too.
     
  6. BobbyOne

    BobbyOne Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2012
    Messages:
    7,773
    kiki, you are right, I focussed to Rosewall's superb record. Of course I also like and admire his extraordinary strokes. Maybe I will write about them a bit in the future.

    I guess that Kodes' best stroke was his superb return. Do you agree?
     
  7. pc1

    pc1 Legend

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2008
    Messages:
    9,411
    Okay. Fine.
     
  8. BobbyOne

    BobbyOne Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2012
    Messages:
    7,773
    kiki, even though I like you, I must say that your political opinions, especially about Austria, are a bit strange....
     
  9. pc1

    pc1 Legend

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2008
    Messages:
    9,411
    I'll give you my opinion about Kodes' game and Rosewall's game. Excellent backhand which was his best shot. Forehand good but not to the level of his backhand. Excellent mover with excellent reflexes. Good volleyer with a good but not great serve. Top player and capable of great streaks of tennis. Hit with one grip for all shots, the continental grip.

    Rosewall-Arguably the best backhand in history. Very versatile with his backhand when he can drive, dink, lob with great disguise. Very consistent on the backhand and forehand with the backhand his better shot. Forehand is an excellent shot but as with Kodes, not at the level of the backhand. Great slice lob off the forehand which as someone once wrote that once you figured out Rosewall lobbed on the forehand, the ball is bouncing on the baseline. At least it was words to that effect.

    Super footwork and movement which enables him to get to shots early and disguise his shots better. Great volley and overhead. Great errorless groundies with one of the best returns in tennis history. Doesn't attack the return like Connors does but I believe it comes back more often than even Connors' return and he does hit his share of return winners.

    Serve okay but not great. Better stamina than you would think considering he often seems tired but once the rally starts he's moving very well.
     
  10. BobbyOne

    BobbyOne Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2012
    Messages:
    7,773
    arche3, I'm still convinced that Emerson (and maybe Laver and Rosewall) could run as fast as Nadal and jump as highly.

    Federer' s backhand better that Laver's is the joke of the century!!!
     
  11. pc1

    pc1 Legend

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2008
    Messages:
    9,411
    I think he is joking but if he isn't I don't think he's watched much of Djokovic or Murray or Nadal for that matter who I believe have superior backhands. But it is amazing that if Federer has the best forehand and backhand in the history of tennis. That should make him unbeatable in the baseline type game tennis is nowadays. Considering all that how does Rafael Nadal has a better lifetime winning percentage than Federer??

    I guess it's one of the anomalies that we have now in tennis. The laws of physics or mathematics have been changed somehow.
     
    Last edited: Dec 10, 2012
  12. BobbyOne

    BobbyOne Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2012
    Messages:
    7,773
    arche3, You are wrong twice: Laver did seldom slice his backhand and Federer does often slice his bh. The latter is a certain weakness against Nadal's answer to it...

    Laver's forte was a topspin backhand.
     
  13. BobbyOne

    BobbyOne Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2012
    Messages:
    7,773
    pc1, I agree. I could maybe add that Muscles also has fantastic drop shots, stop-volleys and half-volleys...
     
  14. arche3

    arche3 Banned

    Joined:
    Aug 29, 2009
    Messages:
    5,389
    Laver BH against nadal fh is worse than fed matchup.
     
  15. arche3

    arche3 Banned

    Joined:
    Aug 29, 2009
    Messages:
    5,389
    Those guys might be better now. But does not mean their fh or BH are goat.
     
  16. pc1

    pc1 Legend

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2008
    Messages:
    9,411
    But if Federer's backhand is the greatest ever, why does Djokovic handle the Nadal forehand with his backhand so well? Should Federer handle the Nadal forehand with his backhand better than Djokovic handles it?

    And Laver did have the equivalent of Nadal in his time with Bjorn Borg who had heavy topspin and he was fine.
     
  17. pc1

    pc1 Legend

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2008
    Messages:
    9,411
    Don't understand your logic. We're talking about lifetime percentages?

    It's doesn't matter. You and I disagree and that's okay. But think about it. If Federer has the best forehand and best backhand EVER should he ever lose? You realize his lifetime winning percentage is around 82% so he does lose about 18 times out of 100 on average. To be exact 81.59%.

    I can see a very good argument for Federer's FOREHAND to be the best in the history of the game but the backhand, don't think so. It's a solid shot and fits in wonderfully with his game but it is not a major attacking weapon. It is a shot that can hit winners but it's not the highlight videos winners we see on youtube. It is hard to attack and he uses it as a way to disrupt the opponents game often setting the opponent up for his killer forehand.
     
    Last edited: Dec 10, 2012
  18. arche3

    arche3 Banned

    Joined:
    Aug 29, 2009
    Messages:
    5,389
    I'm just saying I like the way fed uses his BH. And the highlight reels aspect of it. I think its hard to base it on math.
     
  19. pc1

    pc1 Legend

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2008
    Messages:
    9,411
    You have to remember that highlight reels just show winners on his backhand. You can show another player who doesn't have as good a backhand as Federer and make it look spectacular also. There are a trillion backhand highlight reels it seems. Not all of them hit winners all the time like the highlight reels seem. Here's a few of them.

    Here's a Nalbanian backhand highlight reel
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6XBdNRP2J9k

    Here's a Gasquet highlight backhand reel.
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hGWkwaMWaDk

    Here's a Murray backhand highlight reel
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cuGwWsIhWgU

    Here's a Djokovic backhand highlight reel
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5nbmevsrpJc

    Here's an Agassi backhand highlight reel
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b3uiZvHN9f8

    Here's an Edberg backhand highlight reel
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zpZnZlXWxQw

    Lendl backhand highlight reel
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CQIrH-wfO6k

    And of course Federer backhand highlight reel
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bByvWPmMZ_8

    My greatest wish is that they start a Francoise Durr backhand highlight reel or maybe a highlight reel of Francois Durr's greatest second serves. And in my opinion any of Frankie Durr's second serves are highlights to me. :)
     
    Last edited: Dec 10, 2012
  20. hoodjem

    hoodjem G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2007
    Messages:
    12,743
    Location:
    Bierlandt
    This is a travesty od fabrications, untruths, and wild dreams. Laver did not have a "grandpa slice." He had some slice-drives, slice-lobs, slice-drops.

    His main backhand was the topspin drive, which i would argue was the equivalent to Fed's forehand: hit almost any angle from anywhere with incredible power It was point-ending.

    You must be thinking of someone else.
     
    Last edited: Dec 12, 2012
  21. arche3

    arche3 Banned

    Joined:
    Aug 29, 2009
    Messages:
    5,389
    Tsongas are great. As they all are. My point is also that goat is subjective to the person and there is no way mathematically to determine goat.
     
  22. arche3

    arche3 Banned

    Joined:
    Aug 29, 2009
    Messages:
    5,389
    Untruths? If I watch Laver play on the old videos and fed play. Laver is playing grand pa tennis. Very good tennis but grand pa tennis non the less. And the top spin bh of his i saw is not on par with feds goat fhs. Maybe the videos just look lame because there really isn't many of them and the quality does not show though.
     
  23. TMF

    TMF Talk Tennis Guru

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2009
    Messages:
    21,230
    You can't be anymore wrong. The NBA today are flooded with foreign players, unlike there were a few back then. Managers, agents, coaches all scouting athetes from other countries because there are a lot of talent out there !

    According to kiki, the growing number of athletes playing in the NBA where it consists only the best players in the world means internationl basketball got worse. Haha, good one !
     
  24. NadalAgassi

    NadalAgassi Guest

    Most people on this forum believe Federer in his prime was faster and a better mover than Nadal. Dont underestimate the ****ism diseases of Planet TW, and the level of genuine stupidity it evokes.
     
  25. THUNDERVOLLEY

    THUNDERVOLLEY G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Feb 1, 2007
    Messages:
    10,538
    Quoted for truth.

    Concentrated dominance in a single season's 4 majors is the proving ground, and in the many times Fed-fanatics must be reminded, their false notion that Laver had some "advantage" due to the so-called lack of surface diveristy at the time is patently illogical as his competition also played under the same conditions. Still, for any lingering Kleenex soaking about that, then there's Graf, who won her Grand Slam on 4 different surfaces, proving that the truly GOAT could win, no matter the surface or condition. Certainly, Federer was not in that league.
     
  26. pc1

    pc1 Legend

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2008
    Messages:
    9,411
    Kiki,

    Fischer had the highest rating in the history of chess before they changed the rating system so ratings can only drop so much. Fischer defeated Larsen and Taimanov by the incredible scores of 6-0 which is virtually impossible and unheard of in top chess competition. He was a contender for the World Title when he was 15!

    Korchnoi isn't underrated I believe. He was almost as great as Karpov and came close to defeating Karpov for the World Championship in several matches. Korchnoi may be the best chess player not to win the World Title. But even Korchnoi admitted if he played Fischer he probably would lose around the score of 10 wins to 3 with many draws.

    Kasparov against Karpov was perhaps the greatest chess rivalry ever.
     
    Last edited: Dec 12, 2012
  27. pc1

    pc1 Legend

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2008
    Messages:
    9,411
    Incidentally Laver had the wrist strength of a man far larger than him. He could flick shots with his left arm that an ordinary player would dream of. Perhaps Nadal is faster and may bench more but like I wrote before he may bench more than Djokovic and may be (maybe not) faster than Djokovic but that didn't mean much in 2011 didn't it?

    I think it's quite possible that Laver, with his huge left arm and wrist could do many things that Nadal can't do. Laver's wrist was bigger than the World Heavyweight Champion in boxing. Laver was stronger imo than Newcombe or perhaps even Pancho Gonzalez, at least with a tennis racquet but Newcombe or Gonzalez were probably far stronger men. There is a big difference there.

    Here's some info on Laver's left arm.
    http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/31/sports/tennis/31anderson.html?_r=0

    But I doubt if it will allow you to open your mind to the possibility that Laver was pretty good. Incidentally if Laver hit grandpa type backhands I would guess your backhand is superior to Laver's. It's pretty easy to hit grandpa backhands.

    Check out Laver's "Grandpa" backhands here.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2f60jJTbEps
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=43csIDKmkMk

    Please understand that especially in the first video at the West Side Tennis Club that the courts were so bad that the balls often took bad bounces and sometimes didn't bounce at all. You had to often slice the backhand which keeps the ball low on your opponent's side and makes it harder to drive the ball. Federer often slices the ball with his backhand so by your logic Federer uses a Grandpa backhand. The thing is that slices are often very effective whether as a change of pace or often as approach shots. Nadal often slices on his backhand side also but his slices tends to float more than Laver's in my opinion. Laver's was more of a heavy slice drive when he hit it.
     
    Last edited: Dec 12, 2012
  28. pc1

    pc1 Legend

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2008
    Messages:
    9,411
    Well if that's true I'm shocked because when Federer in his prime played Nadal it seemed to me most people thought Nadal had more mobility.
     
  29. forzamilan90

    forzamilan90 Legend

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2010
    Messages:
    5,516
    I don't like NadalAgassi's phrasing of that. I think he means footwork as opposed to raw speed (where Nadal has him beat).
     
  30. pc1

    pc1 Legend

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2008
    Messages:
    9,411
    That's why I use the term mobility. To me that covers footwork and speed.
     
  31. arche3

    arche3 Banned

    Joined:
    Aug 29, 2009
    Messages:
    5,389
    Of course Laver was good. He was a champion of tennis. But times change and athletes get better. Fact of sports. Faster Olympic times. More weight lifted. Everything improves incrementally as the years pass. to say it's because of the rackets is just not true. They 're better athletes and tennis players now. They face a higher variety of spins and pace. More of everything. Don't get stuck in the it was better in my day mentality. And yes those videos looked like grand pa tennis compared to the matches now.
     
  32. pc1

    pc1 Legend

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2008
    Messages:
    9,411
    You have to take into account that it's wood racquets. And by the way, please don't read anything into my comments. You make too many assumptions in your comments. I don't necessarily believe it's better in the past than now but why don't you put it in perspective. And I consider my day the present. Take into account that the female players can serve over 120 mph and hit the ball like lightning. Don't you think greats like Laver and other could use today's racquets and do well? Do you really think Serena would have any sort of chance against Laver in his prime if they both had the racquets of today? I think Serena would have problems winning a game.

    My point is that you don't know how they would play today and you don't know how the players like Federer would do in the past. Federer would have to revamp his whole game. Often all you can go by is the record. Pick up a old wood racquet and swing with it. Play a whole match with it. Play a series of matches with it. Make sure you use the old strings. So you'll be using a tiny head about 60 to 65 inches so you don't have the surface to hit as much topspin. You'll probably mishit a lot more. The racquet will be heavier than the current racquets, let's say 14.5 ounces. That doesn't seem much but over the course of thousands of swings it'll add up. It'll probably have far more vibration too. And it'll be wood instead of today's space age materials so you won't have the power and spin. Basically it'll like using a bike as opposed to a modern sports car.

    If you try the old wood racquet and still believe all you write. Fine. But at least test it out.
     
    Last edited: Dec 12, 2012
  33. BobbyOne

    BobbyOne Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2012
    Messages:
    7,773
    arche3, You seem to forget that in Laver's days the players played more volleys and touch shots. I claim that the current stars don't play as excellent volleys and dropshots and lobs as Laver, Rosewall etc did.
     
  34. arche3

    arche3 Banned

    Joined:
    Aug 29, 2009
    Messages:
    5,389
    A lot of players today can't volley properly its true. So yeah laver I'm sure is a more proficient net player than most top guys today. And they did it with wood rackets even. Johnny Mac is a better net guy as well.

    The game changed away from serve and volley due to court speed and better passing shots. Slower courts and booming top spin does not help the guy at net. Laver probably wanted to volley more so the ball didn't bounce all crazy off the speed grass.
     
  35. arche3

    arche3 Banned

    Joined:
    Aug 29, 2009
    Messages:
    5,389
    Laver would probably beat Serena in his prime using wood racket. WTA and ATP is not the same. It is hard to compare but it is not hard to see the difference between prime laver and top guys now. And it is a logical assumption fed djoko nadal are superior tennis players. Its not the rackets. Or the strings. Top players now are just better.
     
  36. pc1

    pc1 Legend

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2008
    Messages:
    9,411
    You cannot assume these things and you haven't given an answer on what Federer would do if he played with wood. Try a wood racquet.

    The point is not whether Laver would beat Serena with wood but how powerful would he be with the frames of today? If you assume he can beat Serena with wood, how much better would he be with a powerful racquet with modern strings. He did have tremendous racquet speed and strength. The Serena example was to let you understand how modern equipment gives the illusion the player is much better than you would think. Laver with a modern racquet would overpower Serena with ease. His serve would have much more power and spin as well as his groundies.
     
    Last edited: Dec 12, 2012
  37. pc1

    pc1 Legend

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2008
    Messages:
    9,411
    I think Laver wrote that many of the guys he played with almost felt it was cheating when they volley with the large light frames of today.

    And yes the players did want to volley more because of the awful bounces. You are absolutely correct there and that's not an assumption but fact.
     
  38. Feather

    Feather Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2012
    Messages:
    3,520
    Location:
    Bangalore, India
    very nice post and put it in a very polite manner.. Loved every word of it
     
  39. Feather

    Feather Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2012
    Messages:
    3,520
    Location:
    Bangalore, India
    I am a die hard fan of Roger Federer and I never once posted that Roger is GOAT. I feel that it's a disservice to legends of the game when you compare different eras and say that one player is GOAT.

    It's silly to use words like "grandpa" shots, I don't intend to offend you. Just my two cents
     
  40. qindarka

    qindarka Rookie

    Joined:
    Sep 11, 2009
    Messages:
    267
    No one believes that. You are setting up a strawman here.
     
  41. arche3

    arche3 Banned

    Joined:
    Aug 29, 2009
    Messages:
    5,389
    You assume I have not used a wood racket. I play in a yearly wood tourney. I can use a wood racket.

    I just think it is reasonable to assume as time and our sport progresses the level of tennis does as well.
     
    Last edited: Dec 13, 2012
  42. arche3

    arche3 Banned

    Joined:
    Aug 29, 2009
    Messages:
    5,389
    Not meant to make fun. It looks like that compared to tennis now. Watch evert Lloyd old matches. Watch Serena and azi video. Evert looks like slow motion. Things progress.
     
  43. hoodjem

    hoodjem G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2007
    Messages:
    12,743
    Location:
    Bierlandt
    I appreciate that.

    Maybe a "Grandpa shot" is anything hit more than 5 feet inside the baseline.? :wink:
     
  44. zagor

    zagor Talk Tennis Guru

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2007
    Messages:
    26,042
    Location:
    Weak era
    Or maybe the conditions (surfaces, balls), tech, training methods, nutrition etc. differ from era to era and players happen to simply be a product of their era?

    I know people will once again bring improved records in swimming, racing etc. but tennis is far more nuanced than those sports, bigger, stronger and faster athlete doesn't always win.

    Things like feel for the ball, anticipation, court sense etc. play a big role as well, tennis court isn't exactly big and thus isn't that hard to cover (making anticipation for example almost as much as a factor as raw footspeed).

    Did you watch the last match of 2012 season? Between Stepanek and Almagro who was the younger player who hit with more power? And yet he lost.
     
  45. Feather

    Feather Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2012
    Messages:
    3,520
    Location:
    Bangalore, India
    Probably, who knows. May be I will know once I become a grand pa, hehe
     
  46. arche3

    arche3 Banned

    Joined:
    Aug 29, 2009
    Messages:
    5,389
    But the best in tennis now is the fastest and strongest. Nadal, Djokovic. Declining Fed because he is getting slower. And I would say Fed has the most touch and feel of the top guys. And yet he still has trouble with the guys who are shot makers AND grinders like Djiko, Nadal, Murray. Skill can only make up for so much when the top guys all have skill. And the equipment theory goes both ways. If Laver at his prime level used the same gear as Nadal or Djoko I would still say Nadal or Djoko would win simply based on defense. Not to even bring their offense into the picture. Laver is not used to guys who get that many balls back and the transitions of defense to offense that happens now. If we are comparing and extrapolating based on skill sets and fitness levels of the players prime irregardless of gear then I say absolutely the guys now would win. The top guys are more developed athletes as well as very skilled tennis players.

    Amalgro is not the same level skill wise as Nadal Djoko or Fed. Not even close. Laver could probably beat him in this debate we are having.
     
  47. pc1

    pc1 Legend

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2008
    Messages:
    9,411
    It is reasonable to think that.

    It must be fun to play in a wood tournament. How long does it take you to adapt back to the old ways?
     
  48. arche3

    arche3 Banned

    Joined:
    Aug 29, 2009
    Messages:
    5,389
    Well I grew up playing ps 85. I only started using the wood rackets for the last 5 years. I like it actually. I serve and volley and try to hit using conti grip for EVERY stroke. It doesn't help that I borrow the rackets every year. So I do not get a good one all the time. This past summer I borrowed from a guy who grew up using the wood rackets and actually had the proper string setups and everything. My game improved using it. I have pretty good reflexes so I am actually quite good at the serve and volley using the wood rackets and adapted fast to them. And I feed a lot of balls to my son as his coach so I am comfortable hitting all shots using only a conti grip.
     
  49. pc1

    pc1 Legend

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2008
    Messages:
    9,411
    It's funny. A lot of people think in this forum I don't like current tennis. Fact is that I much prefer today's tennis to matches a few years ago. I wasn't fond of the big serve and volley with few rallies.

    I do think and how written in the past that a number of players today, Nadal, Djokovic and Federer all can accomplish or have already accomplished enough to be arguably in any GOAT conversation. Now some claim there is no GOAT. That's fine but GOAT conversations in any sport is some of the most fun AND heated conversations you can get. I think it would be a shame if you don't talk about it at least occasionally. Another player I think is fantastic but erratic is Andy Murray who I believe is as gifted as any player today and among the most talented I've ever seen.

    The question remains do I think the players today are the most talented ever? I really don't know. Perhaps the overall players may be today but I do think the top players in most eras can be at or near the top in other eras. I think Pancho Gonzalez was a super gifted athlete. I believe that of Lew Hoad, Bill Tilden, Edberg, Nastase, Becker, Sampras, Agassi, Lendl, Ashe, Borg, Laver, Sedgman and many others.

    I've read a poster that claimed Sampras stayed toe to toe with a world class splinter who played football. Sampras was a fantastic athlete. Should I eliminate him because his best years are over 15 years ago? Don't think so.

    It's a never ending question but yes in general I think believe that sports usually gets better but I also believe the top, given the same advantages should also general be at or near the top.
     
  50. BobbyOne

    BobbyOne Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2012
    Messages:
    7,773
    zagor, I agree. Fine analysis!
     

Share This Page