Discussion in 'Former Pro Player Talk' started by bonga77, Feb 6, 2010.
Laver was number 3 in August of 1974, so not too long before.
Laver was number 3 in August of 1974, so not too long before.
August 1974 is not 1975. Why do you defend a wrong statement?
I'm aware that Former pro Player Talk is a Laver forum but my request to the posters is: Please try to stay reasonable and objective!
Laver just was not the best player in the early 1970s.
The Rocket is great enough. He does not need any exaggeration of his great achievements.
BobbyOne, once called "The Vienna Visionary" by Bud Collins.
Clear cut? Rosewall was officially ranked No.1 for 1964 because he won the long world tour. In 1965 Rosewall won two of the three majors. Most experts ranked Laver No.3 or 4 for 1970. I rank Rosewall and Laver tied No.1 with Newcombe as Co.-No.1.
It's a blame for any player to fail at the majors. Laver lost 7 out of 7 majors in the 1970s and even did not reach a SF. All only by injuries and little money involved?? Laver lost also the events with the most money involved at Dallas.
Laver was arguably the greatest (and is in my opinion equal with Rosewall as No.1), but he was not superhuman...
Yes he was.
Do you have any proof or argument for this claim?
Regarding 1970 to 1974: Rosewall reached 8 out of 8 major SFs while Laver reached 0 out of 6....
Your claim that Laver did not win the majors (or even did not reach a SF) because he wanted to get the big money is a case of sour grapes and a blame of yours for Rod. Do you really think that Laver voluntarily did not try to win the damned things (majors and WCT Finals)?
Rod was very upset to lose the first two Dallas finals to Rosewall.
Rosewall has a much better record than laver at majors starting in 1970 onwards.he was probably the best player from 1970 till 1972 although newcombe can have a claim to be the best in 1970 and 1971 and Nastase in 1972.
But laver had won the greatest prize in tennis in 1969 and he just wanted to make as much money as possible as he could before his time was over.This could also be the main motivation for Rosewall but the big difference is, Rosewall had missed many majors due to his becoming a pro in 1957 and wanted some reward in terms of the traditional major titles.
Laver, instead, was motivated exclusively for the pursue of the big backs since his record at majors was, at that point, arguably the best for a tennis male in the history of the game.I think I am serious enough when affirming that the Rocket´s only aim for titles were the WCT finals, from 1970 onwards, and he felt much more dissapointed losing the 1971 and 1972 finals ( to Rosewall) than losing to Gorman and Taylor at Wimbledon or Ralston at Forest Hills.He just didn´t feel so bad there because his focus was, exclusively on money and ,maybe, the Dallas major.
I provided the proof in the other thread and you responded to it. Yes, Laver was upset to lose the two WCT finals in Dallas because it was the highest paying event in tennis history and more prestigious than the majors at that time. You'll note that, in both matches, Laver was the heavy favorite because of his record during the WCT season. Those were great wins for Rosewall and they surely support Rosewall's greatness into his late 30's. But, IMO, Laver was still the greater player in early 70's.
Thanks , kiki, that you rank Rosewall maybe as the top player for the 1970 to 1972 period. You learnt history...
Yes, Rosewall won 5 big events in that period. No other player could claim this.
And thanks that you write that Laver severely wanted to win at Dallas.
Yes, Laver dominated the 1971 and 1972 WCT circuit. But Rosewall was a typical player for big events. Look at 1965: Laver won more tournaments than Rosewall but the latter won two pro majors, Laver only one.
I'm sure the Rocket would have given away his 1971 and 1972 WCT victories glady in order to get Rosewall's two Dallas wins...
Strange to see a thread wondering why a guy didn't win a slam after the year he turned 31.
It is relevant though, isn't it? Fed turned 31.
Of course it's not a shame for any player not to win a major after 31. But maybe for a GOAT candidate (or the all-time greatest) Laver it looks like a shame considering that his closest rival, Rosewall has won 5 majors after 31.
And if Nadal comes back it's unlikely that Federer wins another one.
Well, Ken Rosewall was Laver's biggest rival, and Rosewall won 4 majors after turning 31, and was in 2 finals at the age of 39. However, BobbyOne is on a crusade to lobby for more respect and prestige for Rosewall as "the GOAT." True he had more success at the majors in his late 30's than Laver did. He was a great player whose game was not particularly physically demanding, as Laver's was, and he was fortunate to be relatively injury free. But, IMO, Laver was still the better player from 1964 until his retirement.
Easy there, buckwheat! I know you're an enthusiastic advocate. But, Rosewall turned 31 in 1965. He won 4 majors after that.
For sureshs, all things are relevant only in relation to "The Fed."
I have written that I rank Rosewall equal with Laver. Be exact. I'm not on a crusade. I just ask my readers to consider the facts.
You forgot French Pro 1966.
You can't be serious that Laver was the better player till his retirement which came in 1979. Rosewall was better in 1971, 1972, 1973, 1974, 1976, 1977, 1978 and 1979. You put the facts of history away!!!
That's a hard argument to make in light of the "facts." The facts are that Laver was the greater player by virtually every measure, including their H2H record in which Laver was 80-63 including before Laver was in his prime.
I meant until Laver's semi retirement. Here's the Laver/Rosewall H2H in the decade of the 70's. Laver has a 12-6 advantage, with 2 losses coming after Laver's semi retirement in 1976, despite the fact that Laver was injured and cut back on his schedule beginning in 1972:
Total: 12-6 in favor of Laver
Rosewall has many categories where he leads against Laver (winning majors in a row, years in top ten, record as a young player, record as an old player,WINNING MAJORS and so on).
HtH is not the only measure for dominating of a player. More important is ranking in the top ten! You should know this. Laver was ranked below Rosewall in most years of the 1970s.
Laver played against Rosewall mostly when the age was a handicap for Rosewall. Remember that Rosewall was already 28 when they first met. From 1965 onward Rosewall had that handicap.
You seem as stubborn as Dan Lobb in your idolization of your darling...
I watched more tennis in the 70´s than now, so I now what I am talking about.I didn´t think so to please your stubborn passion for Rosewall.I admire Rosewall as I admire Laver but still no player is perfect and themselves will aknowledge that ( both classy sportsmen)
IMO, the peakest Laver surpasses peakest Rosewall but it is fair to assume that records will tell that Rosewall had much better results than Laver, and the two Dallas finals were probably the biggest matches from 1970 to 1975 or 1976, as I recall.
After the torrid Hoad´s thread, this one looks to be in firelights even more....great enjoyment guys, keep on¡¡¡
I agree mostly. I think I don't have a stubborn passion for Rosewall. I just try to defend him against wrong arguments and against those who praise Laver but neglect Rosewall. Of course both players are giants of the game and worthy to be praised.
But should I discuss with a man who does not include Rosewall in the top ten and who back this his opinion with "arguments" like Laver was No.1 though 1973? ATP has Laver at place 8, Tingay at place 7...
Right. I have no stubborn views on Hoad, either. I agree with you completely.
I am not stubborn on Kodes, neither...but somebody has to defend him.
Rosewall has many admirers ( of course, deservedly so as myself am one of them) but poor Kodes, has none.Maybe, many posters who watched tennis in the Cold war days cannot overcome it...
Dan, I'm glad you agree with my views.
It's good you defend Kodes but PLEASE don't belittle Nüsslein, Plaa and others of that group!
But Rosewall's number here is not correct. He made the semis in 8 of 10 majors in that time period, losing in the second round at the '72 USO and '73 AO.
On the overall subject, I think Laver's commitment to his family was one of the key issues. Here's something in the NY Times in May '74, which explains why he missed all the Slam events that year:
He won't play again until August, passing up Wimbledon and other tournaments while concentrating on his tennis camps and his family.
At 35, Laver said, a time comes when a man must make choices.
"I feel fine and I think I'm playing as well as ever, now that I've got my timing back," he said, "but other things become more important than playing in every possible tournament."
krosero, thanks for your correction. My error. But still 8 out of 10 is much better than 0 out of 6...
Your quote is of May 1974 but I discussed with Limpinhitter the years before.
As far as I know Laver had a full year 1973.
I find it-with all my respect for the Rocket- a bit naiv or arrogant that Laver claimed he was playing as well as ever. A player at 36 is surely not as strong as in his peak years and Laver declined already after 1969, at least after 1970.
Among other things:
- Laver won: 1 amateur Grand Slam, 1 pro Grand Slam and 1 Open Grand slam. Rosewall has "0" Grand Slams.
- Laver had 200 career titles, Rosewall has about 130 career titles.
- Laver had a winning career H2H record against Rosewall, a winning H2H record during 4 years of Rosewall's peak, a winning H2H during 10 years of Rosewall's prime, and a winning H2H record in the 70's when Rosewall enjoyed better health than Laver who played a reduced schedule beginning in 1972 because of injuries.
- Laver was #1 in the World for 7 straight years, all of which were during Rosewall's peak and prime. Rosewall was #1 for 2 years, and only because Gonzales was past his peak and Laver had not reached his peak.
Hahaha! Yes you do. But, that's ok, you do a heroic job of standing your ground, especially considering that history is against you. Even when you stoop to calling me another Dan Lobb, I give you some slack because you have such a tough job.
I didn't say Laver should be ranked #1 through 1973. I said he should be ranked #1 through 1970, but that he was de facto the best player through 1973.
Yes it's somewhat like Tilden. In '34 he told the press he was playing about as well as ever.
I think Federer said something like that recently.
Rosewall has a pro Grand Slam in '63.
I stand corrected. Thanks.
This statement by Laver just proves he played selectively in the early 70's as he had done it all the previous decade. He made a choice to make as much as could with what little time he had left on the tour.
Whatever man. No competitive player wants to admit out loud to his peers that he's past it. That's why he said he's 'playing as well as ever'.
I remember Sampras not liking to talk about his Thalassemia Minor affiliation. He felt it made him look weak to rest of the tour.
I have said you good bye but I cannot stand your impertinent youngest post without disproving.
As the "Authoritative Austrian" (Bud Collins) I'm proud enough to refuse your arrogant advise: I do know that Laver has won at least 200 tournaments. I will not explain why Rosewall was handicapped to win only at least 137 tournaments. You would not follow me and my explanation. I never doubted these numbers. In contrary: I was one of those (McCauley, Sutter, Andrew Tas) who claimed that Laver has won many, many tournaments (I once counted 183 when the official number was 145)
I seldom have read a post with so many mistakes.
Why do you teach me?. I never belittled Laver as you belittle Rosewall. I just contradicted you that Laver is leading in most categories against Rosewall. I brought you examples but you stubbornly ignored them
Why do you think I rank Laver first together with Rosewall: Because I do know about his three GSs, his at least 200 tournament wins and so on. But it's a fact of history that, as I have explained you earlier, Rosewall leads in several other categories!
krosero has already corected you: Rosewall did the Pro GS. It's typically for you to "forget" this.
When Laver had a winning hth against Rosewall, Rosewall was NOT at his peak. He was at his peak (when they played each other) in 1963 and 1964 when these two years together Rosewall had the edge.
I have explained you that hth against one player is not the only measure for a player's domination. There is a reason why experts did not rank Laver No. 1 for several years when you rank him first. In fact they ranked Laver No.3 and 4 for 1970, No.3 for 1971, No.4 for 1972 and No. 7 and 8 for 1973...
Laver was not 7 years No.1 when Rosewall was in his prime and even peak: 1965 -1970 Rosewall was not in his peak.
You have written that Laver was best player through 1973. It's about the same as though you write he was ranked No.1. It's a case of hair-splitting.That latter statement shows me that you know nothing or very little about tennis history. In 1973 Laver was ranked No. 7 and No.8 for some reason.
I hate your kind of "discussing".
i´m sure you mostly enjoy the discussions. don´t let your blood pressure go up too much, it isn´t worth it
some posters seem to confuse the discussions with tennis matches where there has to be a winner and a loser.
treblings, you are right: I usually enjoy discussions but sometimes my "opponent" does not make it easy for me to stay calm. However, I take good medicine against high blood pressure...
Meanwhile I have found my peace with Dan Lobb. Maybe one day also with Limpinhitter...
limpinhitter is one of the good guys around here, just very opinionated
i´m sure you find common ground, and meanwile we others get to enjoy the heated discussions.
I have learnt that Limpinhitter has a good and a bad side. For instance I hate that he called TMF (I concede he is as biassed as Lobb is regarding Hoad and Limpinhitter regarding Laver vs. Rosewall) the "tt village idiot"...
that kind of name-calling is totally unacceptable. usually happens when someone is losing an argument, or at the least not winning it
Thanks that you agree in that point. krosero has also done.
I must confess that I once called Dan Lobb an idiot for his stubborness. But I apologized for that rather soon.
I would like to have discussions on a high level and with respect for the other side but I hate it when a poster tries to belittle a great player and to push the own "darling" with strange arguments and to answer questions I did not raise...
Admittedly some topics can get quite heated but it can be frustrating when a poster feels another poster isn't at least acknowledging his or her points.
I get sometimes get annoyed when you try to give facts and logical information to another poster and that poster refuses to acknowledge it, ignores the information and continues to give his or her undocumented theories.
And Kiki, I am not just thinking of you and Jan Kodes. I actually enjoy you pushing Kodes. And you are reasonable in putting him down on the all time greats list. The general statement above can be a lot of posters. I have no particular poster in mind.
Back to topic, I do think Laver was perhaps in a head to head basis the best player in the world in 1970 and 1971. By that I mean if he played a head to head tour of let's say 100 matches against anyone in the world, I believe he would win the majority of matches, assuming a variety of surfaces. I'm not sure about from 1972 and onward. Perhaps for just one match he MAY have been the best but in a long tour against let's say a Nastase in 1972 or 1973, well I'm not sure how Laver would have done. I could see the Rocket losing the overall tour against Nastase. It probably would be close and I can see either side winning.
Laver had some injury problems I believe during those years. I think it was some back problems (among others) that affected his serve and overhead. He also had some wrist problems I believe. I would guess that it came from all the wear and tear of the all the matches he played over the years plus aging.
First of all, you take yourself too seriously, and, you have an opinion that is not supported by the weight of all of the evidence. That is a recipe for frustration that you have imposed upon yourself.
Second, I think it's a fallacy to consider Rosewall's peak to be only 62' and 63' when he was winning pro majors from 57' to 67'. It is further a fallacy to say that Rosewall was not still in his prime until at least 1972 when he was still winning open majors, or even 1974 when he reached the finals of 2 open majors. During the time of Rosewall's peak and prime, Laver was the #1 player in the world for 7 straight years. The reason that Rosewall wasn't the best player in the world before 62' is because Gonzales was better than he was before Gonzales game began to decline. And the reason he wasn't #1 after 63' is because Laver was better than he was when Laver's game fully developed. It is not because Rosewall's game suddenly improved in 62', and 2 years later suddenly declined. Absent injury or some other objective basis, that is not a reasonable argument. Gonzales and Laver were just both better than Rosewall.
Third, I don't know why you rate Laver and Rosewall equally. They are objectively unequal. Laver's record is superior, his H2H is superior, and most importantly, his level of play was superior for an extended period of time. I never said that Laver's record was superior in every statistical catagory. That isn't necessary to have a superior record on the whole.
Fourth, I have never belittled Rosewall. To the contrary, as I have explained to you several times, I have defended Rosewall against numerous posters on numerous occasions before you joined the discussion. You are so obsessed with Rosewall that, in your mind, ranking him in the top 15 of all time rather than top 10, amounts to an insult. Sorry, that's not reasonable. Laver himself ranks Rosewall #6 in the pre-open era, and doesn't include himself. That means if there are 4 better players in the open era, then Rosewall is not in the top 10. I can easily think of 4: Laver, Federer, Sampras and Borg. There are also Connors, Lendl and McEnroe. Arguably, there are more. Looked at that way, I think that there are many, if not most, who would rank Rosewall out of the top 10 of all time.
Finally, my "kind of discussing" is the kind that is based on evidence, reason and rationality. If you hate that, then you are not thinking clearly. In any event, you are free to ignore my kind of thinking if it distresses you so much.
PS: Both Krosero and I corrected you about Rosewall's record in open majors.
Your arrogance is really remarkable. You not only belittle Rosewall like the posters of General Players Discussion, you also belittle my knowledge about Rosewall even though I'm an expert on Muscles as several other experts have confirmed.
You err: Most posters here do include Rosewall in the top ten.
I'm not too much impressed by Laver's lists. You should know that often a great player does not value his fellow greats reasonably.
Laver himself wrote that Rosewall was his toughest opponent.
You also belittle Rosewall's best years. Are you aware that Rosewall keeps the record for majors won in a row (9 from 1960 to 1963)? Laver and others have not made that achievement.
You repeat wrong statements often and hope they convince the readers.
It's really senseless to discuss with a man who cannot discuss seriously.
Dan Lobb and TMF might be stubborn but they are not as mean as you are!
P.S.: You have not corrected me. Only krosero has and that was good.
P.P.S.: Since I'm not reasonable I will ask Bud to revoke his titles for me (Authoritative Austrian; Vienna Visionary). I will ask him to call you "The greatest expert on Laver and Rosewall"
I corrected you. In post #113 You said:
And, in post #115 I responded:
Now, I'll correct you again. In post #104 you said:
Laver played in 8 majors between 1970 and 1977.
seriously, why did the roehampton rocket not win a major after 69?
have you reached some sort of agreement/conclusion in this thread
Money.There is no other reason that explains that, a man that wins everythin g in 69, does not even reach one single final in 1970 (majors).Hey, even at the first Masters held in Tokyo 1970, he was clearly surpassed by Smith and nastase, who hadn´t peaked yet.
The only other guy that comes to mind in such a situation is Wilander.In his case, it is being completely burnt out.
Already won the Grand Slam
2 week events + Low prize money = Low motivation
Past his peak
Struggled with injuries from 1972
Only played 8 events in 8 years after 1969
You non-expert: Rosewall has won 5 majors after 31: French Pro 66, French Open 68, US Open 70, AO 71 and 1972. You just are ignorant and mean.
Do me a favor and turn off your computer now and listen to some good classical music instead
makes for a better sleep, otherwise you end up dreaming of limpinhitter
Huh? Do you mean majors?
Laver's post-1969 tennis event victories:
33. 156. 16 March 1970 Dunlop Slazenger International WCT, Sydney Grass Australia Ken Rosewall (9) 3–6, 6–2, 3–6, 6–2, 6–3
34. 157. 30 March 1970 South African Open, Johannesburg (2) Hard South Africa Frew McMillan 4–6, 6–2, 6–1, 6–2
35. 158. 25 May 1970 Rawlings Classic WCT, Saint Louis, Missouri, U.S. (2) Carpet Australia Ken Rosewall (10) 6–1, 6–4
36. 159. 15 June 1970 Rothman's Open, Queen's Club, London (2) Grass Australia John Newcombe (5) 6–4, 6–3
37. 160. 16 July 1970 (date of final) Tennis Champions Classic, Madison Square Garden, New York City (site of final) Indoor Australia Ken Rosewall (11) 6–4, 6–3, 6–3
38. 161. 27 July 1970 First National Classic, Louisville, Kentucky, U.S. Clay Australia John Newcombe (6) 6–3, 6–3
39. 162. 10 August 1970 Bretton Woods (4 man), U.S. Clay Australia Roy Emerson (2) 6–3, 6–3
40. 163. 10 August 1970 Rothman's Canadian Open, Toronto Clay United Kingdom Roger Taylor (2) 6–0, 4–6, 6–3
41. 164. 17 August 1970 National Invitation Tournament WCT, Fort Worth, Texas, U.S. (3) Hard Australia Roy Emerson (3) 6–3, 7–5
42. 165. 24 August 1970 Marlboro Open, South Orange, New Jersey, U.S. (2) Grass Australia Bob Carmichael 6–4, 6–2, 6–2
43. 166. 21 September 1970 Pepsi Pacific Southwest Open, Los Angeles, U.S. (2) Hard Australia John Newcombe (7) 4–6, 6–4, 7–6(7–5)
44. 167. 28 September 1970 Rothman's International WCT, Vancouver, Canada ??? Australia Roy Emerson (4) 6–2, 6–1, 6–2
45. 168. ?? October 1970 Invitational Round Robin (4-man), Berlin, Bonn, & Saarbrücken, West Germany Carpet Netherlands Tom Okker (finished second) N/A
46. 169. 16 November 1970 British Covered Court Championships, Wembley Arena, London (5) Carpet United States Cliff Richey 6–3, 6–4, 7–5
47. 170. 22 February 1971 Rothman's International, London Hard (I) Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia Nikola Pilić 6–4, 6–0, 6–2
48. 171. 19 March 1971 Tennis Champions Classic, New York City, Madison Square Garden (site of final) (2) indoor Netherlands Tom Okker (2) 7–5, 6–2, 6–1
49. 172. 3 May 1971 Italian Open, Rome (2) Clay Czech Republic Jan Kodeš 7–5, 6–3, 6–3
50. 173. 16 August 1971 Colonial Championships WCT, Fort Worth, Texas, U.S. (4) Hard United States Marty Riessen (2) 2–6, 6–4, 3–6, 7–5, 6–3
51. 174. 23 August 1971 CBS Classic (4-man), Hilton Head, South Carolina, U.S. Clay Australia John Newcombe (8) 6–2, 7–5
52. 175. 27 September 1971 Redwood Bank Pacific Coast Open, Berkeley, California, U.S. Hard Australia Ken Rosewall (12) 6–4, 6–4, 7–6
53. 176. 7 November 1971 Rothman's Open WCT, Bologna, Italy Carpet United States Arthur Ashe 6–3, 6–4, 6–4
54. 177. 2 February 1972 Richmond WCT, U.S. Carpet South Africa Cliff Drysdale 2–6, 6–3, 7–5, 6–3
55. 178. 7 February 1972 Philadelphia WCT, U.S. Carpet Australia Ken Rosewall (13) 4–6, 6–2, 6–2, 6–2
56. 179. 14 February 1972 Toronto WCT, Canada Carpet Australia Ken Rosewall (14) 6–4, 6–1
57. 180. 3 April 1972 Houston WCT, U.S. Clay Australia Ken Rosewall (15) 6–2, 6–4
58. 181. 24 April 1972 Denver WCT, U.S. Carpet United States Marty Riessen 4–6, 6–3, 6–4
59. 182. 15 January 1973 Miami WCT, U.S. Hard United States Dick Stockton 7–6, 6–3, 7–5
60. 183. 30 January 1973 Richmond, U.S. Carpet Australia Roy Emerson (5) 6–4, 6–3
61. 184. 11 February 1973 Toronto WCT, Canada Carpet Australia Roy Emerson (6) 6–3, 6–4
62. 185. ?? March 1973 Hilton Head CBS Classic, U.S. Clay United States Stan Smith 6–2, 6–4
63. 186. ?? September 1973 Hilton Head World Invitational Tennis Classic (4-man), U.S. Hard United States Stan Smith 7–6, 7–5
64. 187. 29 October 1973 Hong Kong Hard United States Charlie Pasarell 6–3, 3–6, 6–2, 6–2
65. 188. 4 November 1973 Sydney Indoor, Australia Hard (i) Australia John Newcombe 3–6, 7–5, 6–3, 3–6, 6–4
66. 189. 21 January 1974 Philadelphia WCT, U.S. Carpet United States Arthur Ashe 6–1, 6–4, 3–6, 6–4
67. 190. 25 March 1974 Palm Desert WCT, U.S. Hard United States Roscoe Tanner 6–4, 6–2
68. 191. 8 April 1974 Tokyo WCT, Japan Other Spain Juan Gisbert 5–7, 6–2, 6–0
69. 192. 15 April 1974 Houston, U.S. Clay Sweden Björn Borg 7–6, 6–2
70. 193. 13 May 1974 Las Vegas, U.S. Hard United States Marty Riessen 6–2, 6–2
71. 194. 11 August 1974 Bretton Woods, U.S. Clay United States Harold Solomon 6–4, 6–3
72. 195. 13 January 1975 San Juan CBS Classic, Porto Rico Hard United States Arthur Ashe 6–3, 7–5
73. 196. 17 February 1975 La Costa WCT, U.S. Hard Australia Allan Stone 6–2, 6–2
74. 197. 10 March 1975 São Paulo WCT, Brazil Carpet United States Charlie Pasarell 6–4, 6–4
75. 198. 17 March 1975 Caracas WCT, Venezuela Hard Mexico Raúl Ramírez 7–6, 6–2
76. 199. 24 March 1975 Orlando WCT, U.S. Hard United States Vitas Gerulaitis 6–3, 6–4
77. 200. 23 January 1976 Detroit, U.S. Carpet United Kingdom Mark Cox 6–3, 6–4
Separate names with a comma.