View Single Post
Old 11-28-2011, 08:01 AM   #48
stringertom
G.O.A.T.
 
stringertom's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: In a sureshsian vortex
Posts: 11,092
Cool

Quote:
Originally Posted by joeri888 View Post
We are talking evolution of the game right? Murray will be faster, stronger, quicker, leaner then Laver. Give Laver a 95 inch hybrid shizzle whizzle racquet any he will get destroyed by Murray any day of the week. You should control for that however. The no. 10 of year 2100 will be waaaay stronger, fitter, leaner, quicker than Federer ever was and would destroy him. Does that make him a better player? No. Records and achievements count, not the absolute level of play really.
I guess we will have to agree to disagree on this "evolution" issue bcoz we have no Marty McFly/Back to the Future Delorean to transport Muzza to the 60's nor Laver to the new millenium. Suffice to say, were Laver born in the postwar era, scientific studies have shown he would be 2-4 cm taller (likewise Murray would be that much shorter). As to strength, have you ever seen pictures of Laver and his "lobster-like" appendage hanging from his left shoulder? The guy had blacksmith forearms! Fitness? Again, an evolutionary argument. Give Laver the earnings potential Murray enjoys and I'm sure a dietary/exercise team would have surrounded him? Equipment? Laver could do things with an 80-inch wood frame Murray can't even dream of?

Want me to go on? Laver>>>>>>>>Murray in a laugher, probably with a bagel and a breadstick!
__________________
Despite all of life's bumps and bruises, I'm still committed to making this world better one smile, one laugh at a time, every day!
stringertom is offline   Reply With Quote