Originally Posted by drakulie
Those defending Laver do in fact always bring up the difficulties and varieties of Lavers surfaces, even though they weren't majors. They do this because most people recognize and point out that grass/clay were the two surfaces during Laver's era, so they then start naming carpet, wood, hard court tournaments as if these were suppose to be majors as well. Are we then to believe there weren't 4 majors during Laver's time, rather, 20 or 30 in a given year?
Moose points out that the grass during Lavers era was different from one another. Well, deco turf and rebound ace (two hard court majors) are much further apart than two different types of grass. Aditionally, Rebound ace was never any picnic to play on. But I suppose it doesn't count since Laver didn't play on it.
Forget which tournaments were played on which surface. Doesn't the fact that Laver played on crazy stuff like wood just mean his overall year would have been tougher for him to contend with? Didn't that mean he had more adjustments to make, more abrupt shifts between surfaces that would have messed with his game and his consistency? It's not just about the majors he won - it's about what he had to do in between those majors. Laver didn't have the luxury of picking and choosing his tournaments the way a guy like Federer does; he still had to pay the bills, so he had to play pretty much everything he was physically able to play. If you don't think that gives a decided edge to Laver in terms of his accomplishments, you're daft.