Looking again at Laver's 1969 - Exploding the Grass/Clay only Myth

[Mustard]

The criticisms I see of Laver are that he won 6 majors when only amateurs could play, and won his professional majors in small fields.

I then say that this is how tennis was before the open era, so how can we judge how good players were from before the open era?

[krosero]

Originally Posted by pc1

Like I've written before, does anyone hold it against Nadal and Federer that they did NOT win a major on wood like Laver did with a Pro Major?

Fans of Nadal and Federer don't fault them for never winning a major on wood, because they feel it would be unfair to hold those players to past standards that today's players can never meet. There are no majors on wood in today's game, so it's impossible for Federer and Nadal even to try to match that.

But that sense of fairness has to run both ways. Laver could not play a major on hard court because such a thing did not exist in his time. It would have been impossible for him even to try -- and in his case he couldn't predict the future so he had no way of knowing that one day he would be judged against the standards of a game in which two of the four majors are being played on hardcourt.

It has to run both ways.

[Limpinhitter]

Originally Posted by drakulie

^^yes, you are correct. Perhaps he should get double major credit for that.

Additionally, being that Laver is given credit for winning majors against amateurs, perhaps players today should also be given credit for winning the Junior Majors. You know, to put things into proper context.

FYI, a few of the "open" majors were won by those amateurs.

[drakulie]

Originally Posted by pc1

All I was trying to write was that Laver was excellent on all surfaces. Nothing more than that.

OK. My apologies. I also agree that Laver was amazing, and what he achieved was nothing short of incredible. That said, it is completely and utterly foolish and irresponsible to try and hold todays players to the standards he set when winning the 69 Calendar Slam, because as I have said, it is absolutely impossible for any players today or into the future to have a chance at it, unless 3 slams are again played on grass, and one on clay.

[Moose Malloy]

Its funny to hear todays players whine so much about this 'unsafe' clay in Madrid. I can't see any one them daring to play on the old Forest Hills grass Laver played on. Or the laid down carpets they used to have (you can see many old matches where the courts actually start to come apart & players sometimes tripped on them)

Yeah that Laver had it so easy...3 majors on grass....all grass clearly plays the same. they should have come up with a different term for what they played on at the '69 USO, it sure as hell was unlike any grasscourt that Fed or Sampras has ever played on or will ever play on.

And its funny to see how we've changed, so much emphasis on these hardcourt majors. back when the USO switched to hardcourts the purists(and many of the players - esp the Europeans) were blasting it as joke surface that had no business being used at majors(it was called way worse than blue clay)

I look forward to see what changes happen in tennis in the next 30 years that will cause stupid fans to devalue Fed & Nadal's achievements(maybe neither will win a major on blue clay?)

[krosero]

Originally Posted by Moose Malloy

Its funny to hear todays players whine so much about this 'unsafe' clay in Madrid. I can't see any one them daring to play on the old Forest Hills grass Laver played on. Or the laid down carpets they used to have (you can see many old matches where the courts actually start to come apart & players sometimes tripped on them)

Well this is what I don't get. Laver had to manage some challenges that today's players will never face -- like playing on that grass at Forest Hills, or playing top tournaments on wood. You could then say, "That's a plus in Laver's column, and a zero in Federer's column." But the objection is that this is unfair to Federer, since the conditions of Laver's time no longer exist.

Okay, but then why is Laver being faulted for not facing some of the challenges of today's game, like playing majors on hard courts?

How exactly does this work? We're not supposed to bring up the variety of Laver's surfaces because some of those surfaces don't exist today. Yet that does not stop people from bringing up something that did not exist in Laver's time -- hardcourt majors -- and putting that as a plus in Federer's column, and a zero in Laver's.

We're not supposed to bring up the difficulties and varieties of Laver's surfaces, yet everyone brings up the difficulties and varieties of today's surfaces.

Why?

[drakulie]

Originally Posted by krosero

We're not supposed to bring up the difficulties and varieties of Laver's surfaces, yet everyone brings up the difficulties and varieties of today's surfaces.

Why?

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.

[Mustard]

Originally Posted by Limpinhitter

FYI, a few of the "open" majors were won by those amateurs.

Yes. Arthur Ashe won the 1968 US Open as an amateur. Stan Smith won the 1971 US Open and 1972 Wimbledon as an amateur. Any more? Was Kodes amateur?

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?

I'll make it as simple as I can. Laver won 6 amateur majors

1. 1960 Australian Championships
2. 1961 Wimbledon
3. 1962 Australian Championships
4. 1962 French Championships
5. 1962 Wimbledon
6. 1962 US Championships

Then Laver turned professional, and won 9 professional majors:

1. 1964 Wembley Pro
2. 1964 US Pro
3. 1965 Wembley Pro
4. 1966 Wembley Pro
5. 1966 US Pro
6. 1967 French Pro
7. 1967 Wembley Pro
8. 1967 US Pro
9. 1967 Wimbledon Pro

Then the open era arrived in April 1968, after which Laver won 5 majors with open fields:

1. 1968 Wimbledon
2. 1969 Australian Open
3. 1969 French Open
4. 1969 Wimbledon
5. 1969 US Open

Laver won the biggest hardcourt titles that existed back then. Laver also won 200 tournaments in total, the most by some way. That is an absolute phenomenal record. Although, of course, it was only in the 1960s that tournaments became more important in the professional game than the pro tours.

[drakulie]

^^So like I said, according to you guys, there were approximately 30 majors a year when laver played.

Here are a list of the Majors played today:

Brisbane,
Auckland,
Hobart,
Australian,
Memphis,
Indian Wells,
Miami,
Estoril,
Madrid,
Rome,
French
Eastbourne,
Wimbledon,
Cincy,
US Open
Beijing,
Moscow,
etc.
etc,
etc.

Lets also not forget the challengers and futures, and Junior Slams.

[krosero]

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.

I wouldn't say that Rebound Ace doesn't count. But it doesn't count according to your own logic. Laver never had a chance to play on it, never could have had a chance to face that challenge -- just as Federer can't possibly win any tournaments on wood, or win 3 majors on grasscourt venues that played very differently.

You said it is "completely and utterly foolish and irresponsible to try and hold todays players to the standards he set when winning the 69 Calendar Slam, because as I have said, it is absolutely impossible for any players today or into the future to have a chance at it, unless 3 slams are again played on grass, and one on clay."

Then it follows that it is completely and utterly foolish and irresponsible to try and hold yesterday's players to the standards of today, because as we said, it was impossible for any players of Laver's time to have a chance at it, since none of the Slams were played on hardcourt.

[krosero]

By the way, Drakulie, I'm all for talking about the variety of surfaces today (eg, Deco and Rebound Ace) and the variety of surfaces back then. If someone doesn't want to talk about these things because the surfaces have changed too much and such comparisons are unfair to certain players, fine, but that cuts in both directions.

[drakulie]

Originally Posted by krosero

I wouldn't say that Rebound Ace doesn't count. But it doesn't count according to your own logic. Laver never had a chance to play on it, never could have had a chance to face that challenge -- just as Federer can't possibly win any tournaments on wood, or win 3 majors on grasscourt venues that played very differently.

You said it is "completely and utterly foolish and irresponsible to try and hold todays players to the standards he set when winning the 69 Calendar Slam, because as I have said, it is absolutely impossible for any players today or into the future to have a chance at it, unless 3 slams are again played on grass, and one on clay."

Then it follows that it is completely and utterly foolish and irresponsible to try and hold yesterday's players to the standards of today, because as we said, it was impossible for any players of Laver's time to have a chance at it, since none of the Slams were played on hardcourt.

I think you forget that I am not the one holding Laver to todays standards, nor holding todays players to Lavers standards.

People like you are the ones to quickly point out that no player since laver has won the calendar slam, and yada, yada, yada to talk about his greatness, and put everyone else down as if players today could even attempt to win 3 majors on grass and one on clay in one given year.

[Mustard]

Originally Posted by drakulie

^^So like I said, according to you guys, there were approximately 30 majors a year when laver played.

Here are a list of the Majors played today:

Brisbane,
Auckland,
Hobart,
Australian,
Memphis,
Indian Wells,
Miami,
Estoril,
Madrid,
Rome,
French
Eastbourne,
Wimbledon,
Cincy,
US Open
Beijing,
Moscow,
etc.
etc,
etc.

Lets also not forget the challengers and futures, and Junior Slams.

What are you talking about? Laver couldn't play the 4 majors that exist today between 1963-1967, because they were only open to amateur players. Also, he didn't play at the 1970 Australian Open because of politics (NTL dispute with authorities), the 1970 French Open (WCT dispute with authorities), 1971 US Open (increasing hostility between the ILTF and the WCT), the 1972 French Open and 1972 Wimbledon (WCT players banned by the ILTF), and 1973 Wimbledon had the 81 player boycott over the ILTF banning Nikola Pilic.

Despite all this, Laver could still do the CYGS in the amateurs, professionals and in the open era.

[drakulie]

^^^^ Yawn.

I suppose he was the ONLY player during all that time you cite that was effected. Did tennis even exist back then, or was it a simple case of everyone outcasting him so he couldn't play?

[Mustard]

Originally Posted by drakulie

I suppose he was the ONLY player during all that time you cite that was effected.

I said that the professional players were banned from the 4 majors, as we know them today, before the open era started in April 1968, so no, it didn't just affect Laver. The point is, the criteria was different back then.

The best players back then didn't win Wimbledon 5 years in a row, because they would have turned professional long before that. Roy Emerson was the only player after the Second World War to dominate in the amateurs and resist turning professional for years on end. The other great players from the 1930s onwards all turned professional, players like Tilden, Nusslein, Vines, Perry, Budge, Riggs, Kramer, Gonzales, Sedgman, Trabert, Rosewall, Hoad, Anderson, Cooper, Olmedo and Laver, all turned professional before long. In Nusslein's case, he barely played any amateur tennis at all.

None of these great players ever had the opportunity to do things like win 5 Wimbledons in a row. Gonzales only once played at Wimbledon as an amateur (1949), and didn't set foot there again until the Wimbledon Pro tournament of 1967, when he was 39. Kramer played Wimbledon just twice, reaching the R16 in 1946 and winning the tournament in 1947. 1947 was the last time Kramer played at Wimbledon because he turned professional later that year, and the open era was more than 20 years away.

[krosero]

Originally Posted by drakulie

I think you forget that I am not the one holding Laver to todays standards, nor holding todays players to Lavers standards.

People like you are the ones to quickly point out that no player since laver has won the calendar slam, and yada, yada, yada to talk about his greatness, and put everyone else down as if players today could even attempt to win 3 majors on grass and one on clay in one given year.

Obviously you don't hold today's player to Laver's standards, because those standards including winning tournaments on wood, and facing the challenges of 3 grasscourt venues that played differently. And of course Federer can't do those things. There's no chance, no opportunity, for him to do it.

But you've always emphasized that the players of Laver's time did not have a hardcourt major -- even though there was no chance, no opportunity, for them to face that challenge.

And you've always emphasized how today's players not only have a hardcourt major, they've got radically different kinds of hardcourts that they've had to master. Deco, RA, Plexicushion. You give the players today credit for these things, and point out continually that Laver's time did not have even one hardcourt major.

All right, everyone. Gather around. Hush. If you listen closely, you can hear the sound of someone holding yesterday's players to the hardcourt standards of today, and judging yesterday's standard to be inferior.

Originally Posted by drakulie

Federer won a MAJOR on rebound ace, deco, clay, and grass.

Originally Posted by monfed

plexicushion too.

Sorry for the bother, just thought I'd add it. Since he's the only player in history to have won AO on both RA and PC.

Originally Posted by drakulie

^^yes, you are correct. Perhaps he should get double major credit for that.

[drakulie]

^^You have a serious comrehension problem and are taking my posts out of context. Go back, read, and try and follow the course of the conversation.

[krosero]

Originally Posted by drakulie

^^You have a serious comrehension problem and are taking my posts out of context. Go back, read, and try and follow the course of the conversation.

Listen, if you're really serious that you don't hold any players to the standards of another generation, then you won't fault Laver's generation for not having to win a hardcourt major, just as you won't fault Federer for not having won any titles on wood. But every statement I've ever seen you make in this forum, about surfaces, has been about how the surface variety of the Slams, back then, is inferior to what exists today -- and the reason you always give is that THEY did not have something that WE have TODAY (ie, a hardcourt major).

If that is not holding yesterday's generation to the standards of today, then nothing is.

[drakulie]

Originally Posted by krosero

Listen, if you're really serious that you don't hold any players to the standards of another generation, then you won't fault Laver's generation for not having to win a hardcourt major,

I don't, or do you not know how to comprehend what you read?

[krosero]

Originally Posted by drakulie

I don't

ok, fair enough.