Talk Tennis

Talk Tennis (http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/index.php)
-   Former Pro Player Talk (http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/forumdisplay.php?f=37)
-   -   Why are Laver's 2 GrandSlams held with sugh high regard? (http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showthread.php?t=120726)

dima 02-28-2007 09:36 AM

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

Moose Malloy 02-28-2007 10:04 AM

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/tourna...0002576&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?

dima 02-28-2007 10:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Moose Malloy (Post 1282638)

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?

Because Federer didn't play back then.

tricky 02-28-2007 10:12 AM

Quote:

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.
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.

fastdunn 02-28-2007 10:24 AM

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.

Progressive10s 02-28-2007 10:29 AM

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.

rossholster 12-02-2012 05:39 PM

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...

timnz 12-02-2012 05:42 PM

Note
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by dima (Post 1282589)
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.

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.

Rattler 12-02-2012 05:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dima (Post 1282589)
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.

Really?

Some of the things people post on message board boggle the mind

Mustard 12-02-2012 05:51 PM

This thread is nearly 6 years old.

helloworld 12-02-2012 05:55 PM

Laver would have won 30+ slams if pros were allowed to play in a grand slam event during that time. Yep, 30+ SLAMS!!

90's Clay 12-02-2012 05:56 PM

Because no one has ever done it and will NEVER do it?

zam88 12-02-2012 06:11 PM

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.

6-1 6-3 6-0 12-03-2012 01:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dima (Post 1282589)
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.

And who is the only player to win slams on clay, grass and hard-court all in a calendar year?

Rafael NADAL.

SQA333 12-03-2012 01:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 6-1 6-3 6-0 (Post 7043934)
And who is the only player to win slams on clay, grass and hard-court all in a calendar year?

Rafael NADAL.

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

jokinla 12-03-2012 10:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rossholster (Post 7043565)
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...

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.

urban 12-03-2012 10:38 AM

Yes of course he would have won 7 RGs, if 3 majors were played on grass.

Djokodal Fan 12-03-2012 10:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SQA333 (Post 7043935)
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

Thanks for the facts.

kiki 12-03-2012 10:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by timnz (Post 7043573)
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.

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

kiki 12-03-2012 10:44 AM

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


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 06:14 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
© 2006 - Tennis Warehouse