Originally Posted by 6-1 6-3 6-0
If, during Laver's 1962 and 1969 calendar grand slam years, the grand slams were instead played on clay, grass AND hard-court, would Laver still have won the calendar grand slam, or would he have come up short (like federer)?
Or would Laver have been the first man to win slams on clay, grass and hard-court all in a calendar year? (Only Rafael Nadal has done this, in 2010.)
What do you think?
Same result: Laver wins the Grand Slam. Some TW members with a glass-clear agenda wish to reduce Laver's historic accomplishments by suggesting he had some sort of "advantage" due to surface. This irrational theory conveniently forgets that his rivals all played on the same surfaces
, so they were as experienced on/exposed to the surfaces at the same time, just as it would be in a 4-surface era. There's no getting around that level playinf field.
Laver's mastery of the sport was the result of supreme talent & understanding of the sport, not the wholly fictional "advantage" used to provide excuses for other players.
Federer--like Wilander before him--could not win the Grand Slam not due to surface changes (otherwise, it would have prevented Graf from winning her Grand Slam) but both being incapable of concentrated dominance in the calendar year--destined to fall short somewhere along the way.
This is the reason some in the tennis PTB, and sports media invented the latter-day "personal slam" nonsense: to grant a distinction to players who were not good enough to win the Grand Slam, so they need something--anything--to suggest they were of some legendary status never earned.
There was not, nor will there ever be or "personal slams" linked together over the years. Similarly, "almost," "coulda, woulda, shoulda" years like that of Federer, Wilander, Serena or Hingis are not substitutes for the Grand Slam.