Laver #2

[hoodjem]

Originally Posted by kiki

Sorry but it should be

1/Rocket
2/Rodney
3/George
4/Laver

in rigourous sequence...

Yep. I thought about that after posting.

[hoodjem]

Originally Posted by Mustard

Pancho Gonzales will never get his due recognition, because he "only won 2 majors" and spent 18 years as a professional before the open era had even started. Basically, his career from age 22 to 39 has been mostly ignored, with the bulk of the recognition for him coming for the 1948 and 1949 US Championship wins, and the 1969 Wimbledon classic with Charlie Pasarell when Gonzales was 41 years old.

The irony is that had Gonzales stayed amateur well into the 1950s and won majors elsewhere other than the US Championships at Forest Hills, he'd be more recognised today, yet his reputation misses out because he dominated the professional game instead (where all the best players were).

This is too true, unfortunately.

[kiki]

Originally Posted by hoodjem

Henry Austin!!!

You've got to be kidding.

and Kim Hughes...

[Chopin]

Originally Posted by floridatennisdude

Graf and Martina should have been ahead of Laver. And Graf should be #1 overall.

This is coming from a huge Federer fan.

I thought about this and on the one hand, Graf has accomplished more. Yet, on the other, I think the greatest of all time should honour the best and most accomplished tennis players who will always be men by virtue of the label "best." I don't think it's sexist, just the truth. How could the greatest tennis player of all time be Graf when she'd lose to a challenger we've never heard of?

[Dean]

Originally Posted by Chopin

I thought about this and on the one hand, Graf has accomplished more. Yet, on the other, I think the greatest of all time should honour the best and most accomplished tennis players who will always be men by virtue of the label "best." I don't think it's sexist, just the truth. How could the greatest tennis player of all time be Graf when she'd lose to a challenger we've never heard of?

I'd agree. They really should have spit the men and women up. As it really is a different game.

Not really sure why Laver's position is the subject of so much contention??

He did things that no else did and probably never will again.

Everyone speaks famously of the double Grand Slam. but really we should be speak of the triple. He did sweep the four major titles in the pro ranks in 1967 as well.

To me he exhibits everything that the greats should be measured on. Longevity, records held/broken, skill, consistency and adaptability over all surfaces and temperament under pressure.

[floridatennisdude]

Originally Posted by Chopin

I thought about this and on the one hand, Graf has accomplished more. Yet, on the other, I think the greatest of all time should honour the best and most accomplished tennis players who will always be men by virtue of the label "best." I don't think it's sexist, just the truth. How could the greatest tennis player of all time be Graf when she'd lose to a challenger we've never heard of?

Kind of irrelevant. Just like comparing eras. Look at accomplishments and domination and you can rank a GOAT in any sport, or anything. Don't judge head to head because it would never be a requirement nor has it ever been a constant reference point.

[krosero]

Originally Posted by TMF

They said Don Budge also won 8 slams in double and mixed double. That could be the reason why Don is ranked high.

They didn't actually mention or list his doubles titles.

Originally Posted by TMF

The Tennis Channel didn't mention a word about Laver's double slams when his name was mentioned as the #2. There were high praise for his Grand Slams from start to finish. If double slam doesn't have much influence in ranking, then I don't think Don Budge 8 double/mix slam is the reason he's ranked high, must be something else.

It was his Grand Slam in '38. Barrett said that you've got to give him one of the highest places on a GOAT list because he won the Grand Slam, and Wertheim echoed the sentiment.

[krosero]

Originally Posted by pc1

And that is extremely ignorant I might add that they are not even close. Gonzalez and Rosewall are two of the few players I would say are GOAT candidates. To put incredibly inferior players by record and talent over them is unbelievable to me.

At least during the Rosewall segment Bud Collins said that you could make an argument for Ken as GOAT. He added that he had Rosewall "just about" at the top of his list.

[krosero]

Originally Posted by urban

Poor Borgforever and Newmark. They put so much effort into their fine contributions on the Dohertys. But following Tennis Channel, they never existed, all their Wim, US, Davis Cup, Riviera and Olympics wins figments of our imagination.

Very strange considering both Wilding and Brookes made the list.

[abmk]

Originally Posted by kiki

Of course, which means you are a Laver disliker...

yes, in the Kiki world, anyone who likes federer or puts anyone other than Laver at no1 is a Laver hater ...... Jeez, get a life.....

Its possible that a person is a fan of both Fed/Laver and puts Fed over Laver, but you can't fathom that possibility, can you ?

[abmk]

Originally Posted by Dean

I'd agree. They really should have spit the men and women up. As it really is a different game.

Not really sure why Laver's position is the subject of so much contention??

He did things that no else did and probably never will again.

Everyone speaks famously of the double Grand Slam. but really we should be speak of the triple. He did sweep the four major titles in the pro ranks in 1967 as well.

To me he exhibits everything that the greats should be measured on. Longevity, records held/broken, skill, consistency and adaptability over all surfaces and temperament under pressure.

and how many of those 4 pro majors in 67 were on clay ? yes, zero. A fact conveniently glossed over .....

62 of course was the amateur one .... The best players, Rosewall and Hoad were in the pros , a fact highlighted by the beatdowns Hoad/Rosewall gave Laver when he joined the pros in 63

Both 62 and 67 great achievements of course, but neither of them a true Grand Slam ..... One thing to use them to show he was at the top of the game in amateurs first, then pros ( and then open era - 69 ) , another to equate the 62 and 67 to a Grand Slam .....

[Mustard]

Laver's 1967 was just as impressive as his 1969, if not more so.

[Dean]

Originally Posted by abmk

and how many of those 4 pro majors in 67 were on clay ? yes, zero. A fact conveniently glossed over .....

62 of course was the amateur one .... The best players, Rosewall and Hoad were in the pros , a fact highlighted by the beatdowns Hoad/Rosewall gave Laver when he joined the pros in 63

Both 62 and 67 great achievements of course, but neither of them a true Grand Slam ..... One thing to use them to show he was at the top of the game in amateurs first, then pros ( and then open era - 69 ) , another to equate the 62 and 67 to a Grand Slam .....

The fact that none of the '67 pro slam titles were on clay is irrelevant. 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.

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.

[Dean]

Originally Posted by abmk

and how many of those 4 pro majors in 67 were on clay ? yes, zero. A fact conveniently glossed over .....

62 of course was the amateur one .... The best players, Rosewall and Hoad were in the pros , a fact highlighted by the beatdowns Hoad/Rosewall gave Laver when he joined the pros in 63

Sure he struggled early on but by 1964 was No1 and it would be that way until 1971. A fact you seem to have conveniently glossed over.

[urban]

Laver won the Oklahoma World Pro on clay in 1967, too. This was the most preeminent clay event of the pros that year. I would echo Dean's last sentence in his fine post Nr. 45. For me, Laver has still the most complete record in mens tennis, regarding all aspects, and still is the measuring stick for all who will come.
It seems, that in the TV coverage, which i don't get, some respected experts like Collins and Barrett came to word. This would be good for the game. Their own lists would have more historical perspective. Collins 3 years ago, named his top five men: Tilden, Gonzalez, Laver, Borg, Sampras. If i remember it right from his book, then Steve Flink has Kramer and Gonzalez very high in his mens top five all time. So it must a bit strange for him, to find them at 34 and 35.

[Mustard]

Originally Posted by Dean

The fact that none of the '67 pro slam titles were on clay is irrelevant. 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.

Rosewall won the French Pro, Wembley Pro and US Pro in 1963, and at the peak of his powers. Gonzales won the 1954 and 1955 US Pro titles, the only Pro majors in those years, and was utterly dominant on the pro tour in both years.

[abmk]

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 )

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 ) )

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

[Dean]

Originally Posted by Mustard

Rosewall won the French Pro, Wembley Pro and US Pro in 1963, and at the peak of his powers. Gonzales won the 1954 and 1955 US Pro titles, the only Pro majors in those years, and was utterly dominant on the pro tour in both years.

Yeah i know i was just being facetious. '67 was the only year that they held 4 pro majors with only addition of the Wimbledon Pro.

Anyway my point was that he seemed to have a habit of winning ALL the biggest titles in the same year. Something one else has done since.

[abmk]

Originally Posted by Dean

Sure he struggled early on but by 1964 was No1 and it would be that way until 1971. A fact you seem to have conveniently glossed over.

I haven't glossed over it. I pointed that out to illustrate the difference b/w pro and amateur fields at that time ..... Laver inspite of the Grand Slam in 62 wasn't even the best player in the world at that time .....probably no 3 behind Rosewall and Hoad ....

[urban]

In his hth with Rosewall, Laver has in fact won more clay matches than he lost. I think, Mustard copied the list of the hth from wikipedia in a recent thread. Go to the years 1963-67, and look, which matches were played in Europe during the summer, at Geneva, Kitzbuhel,at the French, Belgian and Dutch seaside. Those were certainly clay court events. Cannes was played in the indoor pavillion. Rome in 1963 is difficult to tell, because it was played late in the year, and its not sure if on clay or indoors.