Quote:
Originally Posted by Dean
The fact that none of the '67 pro slam titles were on clay is irrelevant.
|
Of course it is relevant as clay was Laver's weakest surface. Imagine instead of clay, if the French were played on indoor HC/carpet, federer might have had 3 Grand Slams (2k4,2k6,2k7 )
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dean
You forget that as great as the other pros like Gonzales, Rosewall etc were, they never accomplished the feat in the pro ranks. Only Laver did.
|
Well, not exactly the same, but Rosewall held 3 different pro majors on 3 different surfaces from 62-63 ( clay, grass, indoor(wood ) )
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dean
I agree with you that the '62 slam is less impressive for the reasons you stated but you have to admit that just in case Laver agreed with you, he went a did it again in '69 in case anyone may have doubted the first was a lucky fluke.
|
Don't disagree. Just that I wouldn't place the 62 one on the same pedestal as the 69 one , its not that close even IMO