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

[TMF]

You can't hold Federer and Laver to the standard of another era because the conditions/situations weren't available. But there are some truth that you have to take into consideration. Fed doesn't get to play in a split fields, and he had to compete in a bigger pool. So if you want to compare title per title between Fed's era and Laver's era, Fed should have more weight. If you insist on they all have equal weight(e.g. Emerson 12 slams is equal to today's 12 slams), you are selling today's players short.

Wouldn't that be like saying the best soccer player in the English Premier League(EPL) can't consider be the better player than the best player in the USA Soccer League? With the EPL being a much bigger pool(and more countries) than the league in the USA, one has to consider(objectively) the player in EPL is a better player.

[Mustard]

Emerson won all his majors as an amateur when the world's best players were professionals. With Laver, who was the best player in the world from 1964 up to 1970, it is totally different.

[adidasman]

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.

[hoodjem]

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.

I have a comrehension problem also. (But then again, I don't even know what is "comrehension.")

[hoodjem]

Originally Posted by drakulie

Yes, it is an unbelievable achievement. Something players today will never be able to even try and duplicate because 3 were on grass and one on clay.

I might agree.

Do you mean that players today will be never able to duplicate the particular surfaces (of Laver's GS: 3 on grass and 1 on clay), or that they will not be able to win a Grand Slam today at all?

[krosero]

Originally Posted by adidasman

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.

That's a nice point, and easy to forget with all the focus on majors and the constant debates about the Grand Slam.

If you look at Federer's 2011 tournaments, he played different surfaces, but in solid uninterrupted blocks. He played all hardcourt tournaments through March, followed by a stretch of clay that ended at Wimbledon. From there all his remaining tournaments were hardcourt. He made the switched from outdoor to indoor tournaments once in the season (his last 3 tournaments were indoors).

That's not to say that he faced no changes in that time period. He went through different kinds of hardcourt (but that's true of Laver too). And he switched from outdoor to indoor (but that was certaintly true of Laver).

Laver's schedule in '69, I don't have the details of. But I doubt he got to play the different surfaces in uninterrupted blocks -- if only because it was such chaos at the start of the Open Era!

[kiki]

Originally Posted by TMF

You can't hold Federer and Laver to the standard of another era because the conditions/situations weren't available. But there are some truth that you have to take into consideration. Fed doesn't get to play in a split fields, and he had to compete in a bigger pool. So if you want to compare title per title between Fed's era and Laver's era, Fed should have more weight. If you insist on they all have equal weight(e.g. Emerson 12 slams is equal to today's 12 slams), you are selling today's players short.

Wouldn't that be like saying the best soccer player in the English Premier League(EPL) can't consider be the better player than the best player in the USA Soccer League? With the EPL being a much bigger pool(and more countries) than the league in the USA, one has to consider(objectively) the player in EPL is a better player.

Laver´s competition was 3 times tougher than Federer talking about the big boys, which are the ones that are able to win the majors.Nº 47 or nº 76 will never win a single major, they don´t count at all.Just top 10-15-20.

[kiki]

Originally Posted by timnz

Some have depreciated Laver's open Grand Slam year - by saying - "yes but he only played it on Grass and Clay" - as if that takes anything away from it.

However, it is worth looking at Laver's 1969. Did he in fact win the top hard court titles of the year and why we are talking about it, did he win the top indoor events? Did he in effect make a clean sweep of the top tournaments on all surfaces?

The top hard court titles in 1969 were:

The South African Open - Laver won that in the March over Frew McMillan
The US Pro Championship (played on Outdoor Uni-Turf). Laver won that over John Newcombe

The top indoor court titles in 1969 were:

British Covered Court Championships - Laver won that over Tony Roche
Philadelphia - Laver won that over Tony Roche

One might throw in the BBC2 World Professional Championship & the Madison Square Garden Invitational - Laver won both of them also.

------------------

What do people think? Should people get off Laver's back about his Grand Slam 'only being on Grass and Clay'? Were there more prestiguous hard and indoor titles in 1969 that I have missed (perhaps in 1969 the Pacific Southwest which Laver didn't win (he won it in 1968 and 1970) - was it more prestigous hard court event than the ones I listed)?

Just Laver haters ( Fed fans basically) don´t know that.Thanks for posting it.

[hoodjem]

Originally Posted by kiki

Just Laver haters (Fed fans basically) don´t know that.

Based on what he's stated, I believe that Laver is a Fed fan. Also, it appears that Fed has profound respect for Laver.

One can be a fan of both, as I am.

[pc1]

Originally Posted by hoodjem

Based on what he's stated, I believe that Laver is a Fed fan. Also, it appears that Fed has profound respect for Laver.

One can be a fan of both, as I am.

Of course you can enjoy the styles of both players. I like to enjoy the different playing styles of different players. Nadal and Federer have very different ways of play but I enjoy watching them both in action. Laver and Federer have very different styles but I enjoy both.

Sometimes I do think some believe it's impossible to like more than one player or perhaps just a few.

[TMF]

Originally Posted by kiki

Laver´s competition was 3 times tougher than Federer talking about the big boys, which are the ones that are able to win the majors.Nº 47 or nº 76 will never win a single major, they don´t count at all.Just top 10-15-20.

LOL at kiki. As usual, he's goofing around by saying the opposite.

[kiki]

Originally Posted by TMF

LOL at kiki. As usual, he's goofing around by saying the opposite.

actually, it is very easy to be right on this forum...just saying the opposite to you and that´s it...

[TMF]

Originally Posted by kiki

actually, it is very easy to be right on this forum...just saying the opposite to you and that´s it...

You are wrong in so many occasions, especially this one. *** goof off quite often too in the General Player Forum.

[kiki]

Originally Posted by TMF

You are wrong in so many occasions, especially this one. *** goof off quite often too in the General Player Forum.

Pietrangeli,Santana,Hoad,Gonzales,Emmo,Fraser,Stol le,Rosewall,Newcombe,Roche,Kodes,Nasty,Smith,Gimen o,Ashe plus Okker,Taylor,Drysdale,Richey,Lutz,Kodes,Franulovic ,Pilic,Ralston,Cox,Fillol,young Orantes,Froehling,Graebner...ALL OF THEM TRYING TO STOP LAVER´S RUN AT THE GRS...If Federer,Nadal or anybody else just sat down and looked up at a draw and saw ALL THOSE NMAES PUT TOGETHER, they´d probably faint right on the spot.No matter which size the draws ( rest are mere journeymen)....this is the final proof of Laver greatness.The toughest field ever and HE STILL WINS THE BIG 4 TH¡¡¡¡¡ IN A ROW¡¡¡¡¡

[timnz]

In another thread when discussing the top events of 1969 - the Pacific Southwest (won by Pancho Gonzales that year) was rated over the South African Open. Hence, is the Pacific Southwest the number 1 1969 Hard Court event?

[kiki]

Pietrangeli,Santana,Hoad,Gonzales,Emmo,Fraser,Stol le,Rosewall,Newcombe,Roche,Kodes,Nasty,Smith,Gimen o,Ashe plus Okker,Taylor,Drysdale,Richey,Lutz,Kodes,Franulovic ,Pilic,Ralston,

Not even a Hollywood top producer could have dreamt of such a field as the backstage for the greatest feat in tennis history, the very same year of the greatest feat in human history.

[urban]

Its difficult to rank events in a specific order, say Super Nine events. You have to consider draws, format, tradition, prize money, importance for world ranking, press coverage, reception in year books among other things. In the early open era it changes from year to year. In Tennis World, the yearbook for 1969 edited by John Barrett, the South African Champs was ranked the 5th most important event of the year. It got a special report alongside the 4 majors plus the German and Italian Champs. In the Enzyclopedia Britannica yearbook for 1969, is was also ranked the 5th most important event in an article by Lance Tingay. The SA Open had a broad and good field (96), had best of 5 all the way.
The LA had a 64 field, best of 3. In 1968 the LA event had special importance, because it was one of the only 8 open tournaments. As the last of those open events it had special meaning for the World ranking of 1968. In 1970, it also was important for the top ranking. In 1971 it went down in importance, because it was skipped by the WCT players. Berkeley for instance had the much better field in 1971, with all the WCT top players plus Stan Smith and i think Nastase.