Originally Posted by Mustard
That is all speculation. You could just as easily say that Federer doesn't stand a chance in the era of wooden racquets, no tiebreaks and no sitdowns at the change of ends against Laver. No modern player could just play the game that they do today with 1960s equipment, because wooden racquets didn't have the power to dictate from the baseline with the authority and depth of today's game. You had to go into the net a lot back then.
You say Laver couldn't cope in today's game, but you don't seem to ask about Federer in Laver's day.
Originally Posted by sonicare
The idea that a 5 foot 10 Laver could compete with today's players even if he was born in this era is ridiculous. His career would be slightly better than Ferrer's because he has the advantage of being a lefty. Would not win a slam GAURANTEED
sonicare is generous to say Laver is 5'10" who's really 5'8". And while he maybe exaggerating, his post is closer to reality than yours.
There are players from 5'6" to 6'5" who have dominate/number #1 in the wooden era. If all the greatest players in the wooden era hovering around 5'8", you got a strong argument. Unfortunately, you don't. There's no facts to even worth speculating Roger at 6'1" wouldn't have dominated the field, especially when tennis wasn't a global sport as today and only have to deal with 1 of the 2 fields.
In this era, how many players at 5'8" dominated the sport during Sampras and Federer's generations? None. Over 20+ years it was all about players hovering around 6' to 6'3". Go check out all the slam winners and year end #1. numbers don't lie!
This is not to say Laver wouldn't be able to compete in the atp tour. Of course he can, but he wouldn't be one of the elite group. Tennis today demands a lot more than just talent alone to be at the top. Optimal height is one of the major attribute.