Alan Trengove on Rod Laver. New Article

[pc1]

Originally Posted by TMF

Yes, it's wrong to admire Federer but it's right to admire Rosewall.

I believe he's trying to write that it is wrong to admire Federer as the default choice for GOAT. And I do agree with him there. I don't think Federer is a slamdunk for GOAT but only one of the players who can be considered as a possibility.

Give BobbyOne this, he admires Rosewall but considers Laver every bit as good as Rosewall.

My opinion is that there are several players who are in consideration for GOAT status and I often change my mind depending on the information at hand.

[pc1]

Originally Posted by Bobby Jr

Plenty of course.

It's just hypocrisy or plain ignorance when people imply or state outright that Laver didn't also have the same luxury.

In the Open Era, yes but usually not in the Old Pro Tour.

The point I was trying to make is that a larger tournament doesn't necessarily make it a tougher one if your first four rounds are easy wins. That's true of Laver, Tilden, Federer, Rosewall, Gonzalez and any great. Many try to say that Laver had it easier because some of his tournaments were not as large as some today. As you can see by an earlier post I wrote on this thread Laver did quite well in larger OPEN tournaments from 1968 onward. So I don't see any reason why he wouldn't have won around the same number of tournaments as he did in actual life. He probably wouldn't have been playing Rosewall, Gonzalez and Hoad every week in a full Open Era from the beginning of his career and that would make it easier for him in that way.

A tough eight man tournament may be much tougher than an easy 32 man tournament or 64 man tournament. Sometime it's much tougher than a 128 man tournament.

[pc1]

Originally Posted by NadalDramaQueen

pc1, that is a quote from Richard Feynman, not an insult to you. Sorry for the misunderstanding. It is something that should be understood by everyone.

I am not interested in diminishing former champions for any reason. I am only interested in people learning to accept that their perception is very limited. In many cases here, an already biased viewpoint is pushed further by the unwillingness to accept that a modern player could possibly be better than someone they grew up watching. It works both ways, of course.

Sorry I usually don't remember quotes of Quantum Physicists which is ironic since my neighbor is one.

[NadalDramaQueen]

Originally Posted by pc1

Sorry I usually don't remember quotes of Quantum Physicists which is ironic since my neighbor is one.

The concept should be understood by everyone, my friend, not the quote itself.

That's funny about your neighbor, as I don't know anyone who has the title of quantum physicist, as any physicist with any specialization must be well versed in quantum mechanics. I would really like to meet someone who would bestow himself with that title, as I find it quite odd.

Is he a quantum physicist compared to some other classical or relativistic physicists? Is he a relativistic quantum physicist, or not relativistic? It seems to be a term used to sound impressive by crackpots or for physicists who get tired of telling people what they do.

[kiki]

At the end, only the top 15-20 players win the big events thus the rest of the field, be it wide or not doesn´t much matter.

If you take that into account, the fields Laver had to face consisted of some of the best ever players, in a reasonably much larger number than those of Roger Federer.This also happens in the case of Pete Sampras ( not in Borg´s case, IMO, a guy that linked Rosewall with Lendl).

Of course, having said that, nobody can chose his/her fields and, of course, nobody can blame him/herself for the year they are born.It´s not Federer´s fault to play in a weak era and not Rod´s merit to play in a competitive era at the top 15-20.What is a merit or not is what they did and we must always weighten and relativize success - or lack of it-.

[TMF]

Originally Posted by pc1

I believe he's trying to write that it is wrong to admire Federer as the default choice for GOAT. And I do agree with him there. I don't think Federer is a slamdunk for GOAT but only one of the players who can be considered as a possibility.

Give BobbyOne this, he admires Rosewall but considers Laver every bit as good as Rosewall.

My opinion is that there are several players who are in consideration for GOAT status and I often change my mind depending on the information at hand.

BobbyOne only admire players during Laver's era, but none for the modern players.

Who said a goat has to be a slam dunk? If millions of fans all picked the same player as the greatest, then I would say that's a slam dunk. But for all time great(i.e. Jordan, Phelps, Gretzky), there are a few out there have different point of view, just like Federer doesn't have EVERY fans pick him. When experts determined the list of all time great, the #1 player on the list doesn't necessary means he got all first place votes imo.

[kiki]

Originally Posted by BobbyOne

kiki, I believe TMF is wrong with his Federer admiration but I think we have a decent style of communication, as I also have with you (even though I asked you to learn history...) and Dan Lobb.

Oh¡ I have a pretty good record in my personnal life communicating with the germanic race...unless they become too stubborn ( Joe Pike fi)...

[kiki]

Now, here´s a challenge to all seasoned posters...how do we weigthen titles era v era? let´s say a major in the 70´s is worthy 2 majors of the current era.So, in relative terms, we can stablish that a 2000 Kodes would have 5-6 majors and a 70´s Djokovic around 3...

[treblings]

Originally Posted by kiki

Now, here´s a challenge to all seasoned posters...how do we weigthen titles era v era? let´s say a major in the 70´s is worthy 2 majors of the current era.So, in relative terms, we can stablish that a 2000 Kodes would have 5-6 majors and a 70´s Djokovic around 3...

busy trolling again

[TMF]

Originally Posted by kiki

Now, here´s a challenge to all seasoned posters...how do we weigthen titles era v era? let´s say a major in the 70´s is worthy 2 majors of the current era.So, in relative terms, we can stablish that a 2000 Kodes would have 5-6 majors and a 70´s Djokovic around 3...

No, because Laver have already made it clear. He said today's 1 GS is worth 2 GS in his heyday.

[kiki]

Originally Posted by treblings

busy trolling again

I knew you just don´t have enough experience to settle up a weightening factor.

[kiki]

Originally Posted by TMF

No, because Laver have already made it clear. He said today's 1 GS is worth 2 GS in his heyday.

Laver meant 63 to 67 amateur slams...you know.

[pc1]

Originally Posted by NadalDramaQueen

The concept should be understood by everyone, my friend, not the quote itself.
.

I understand the concept but does anyone truly follow it all the time? If you say you do you are probably the first that I know of.

[BobbyOne]

Originally Posted by TMF

LOL. People will go to any length to defend Laver even with such irrelevant argument. That's like asking where are the great ninja warriors now when there were many in the 15th century. Life was different today from few centuries ago...people have different needs, interest, desire. Next thing you will compare stone tool maker today to the people during the stone age.

THis has nothing to do with tennis, so stick to the topic.



Again, this is pointless. Beethoven was in the 16th century. Had he live in the modern time, he wouldn't be where he is. Just like Michael Jackson, he wouldn't be the king of pop if he was born 400 years ago.

Jesse Owen is one of the most well known track and field athlete. Yet, today there's many athletes that are faster than him.

You guys are running out of idea to argue.

You know not much about Beethoven. He lived in the 18th and 19th century.

Jesse Owens would match the modern athletes if he would have the same equipment.

[treblings]

Originally Posted by kiki

I knew you just don´t have enough experience to settle up a weightening factor.

at least change it to leD zeppelin, if you want me to take you seriously
kiki, king of typos

[BobbyOne]

Originally Posted by treblings

tg, you finally got it

treblings, please compare their achievements and their competition...

[BobbyOne]

Originally Posted by pc1

I believe he's trying to write that it is wrong to admire Federer as the default choice for GOAT. And I do agree with him there. I don't think Federer is a slamdunk for GOAT but only one of the players who can be considered as a possibility.

Give BobbyOne this, he admires Rosewall but considers Laver every bit as good as Rosewall.

My opinion is that there are several players who are in consideration for GOAT status and I often change my mind depending on the information at hand.

pc1, You can better explain my opinion than I can. My English is not that good yet.

[treblings]

Originally Posted by BobbyOne

treblings, please compare their achievements and their competition...

bobby, please understand that my above comment was made to lighten the mood and not to take sides.
i am not interested in who is the GOAT.
i admire Federer for his sportsmanship, his elegant style, his ability to make extraordinary shots look simple, almost easy.
come to think of it, those are qualities that i think he shares with Rosewall.
I´m quite sure, they admire each others games a lot.

[BobbyOne]

Originally Posted by TMF

BobbyOne only admire players during Laver's era, but none for the modern players.

Who said a goat has to be a slam dunk? If millions of fans all picked the same player as the greatest, then I would say that's a slam dunk. But for all time great(i.e. Jordan, Phelps, Gretzky), there are a few out there have different point of view, just like Federer doesn't have EVERY fans pick him. When experts determined the list of all time great, the #1 player on the list doesn't necessary means he got all first place votes imo.

TMF, I do admire Novak Djokovic and to a lesser grade Federer, Nadal and Murray.

[BobbyOne]

Originally Posted by treblings

bobby, please understand that my above comment was made to lighten the mood and not to take sides.
i am not interested in who is the GOAT.
i admire Federer for his sportsmanship, his elegant style, his ability to make extraordinary shots look simple, almost easy.
come to think of it, those are qualities that i think he shares with Rosewall.
I´m quite sure, they admire each others games a lot.

I understand.

Yes, Federer has an elegant style.

I know that Rosewall admires Federer but I'm not sure if Roger knows too much about Muscles. I guess his idol is Laver...