GOAT Discussions

[pc1]

Originally Posted by urban

Sometimes i think, if reading certain post and posters, that Rod Laver never won a thing in his career. Something of a ghost. Must be a dream, that he won 200 events in his life, that he was in all major finals (including pro majors) in the majors he played in the 60s, bar 4, that he won 11 out of 19 classic majors played in the 60s, that he had the best amateur year of all time, the best pro year and the best open year in history, that he had clear positive records against all contemporaries, most of them hall of famers, and even if they were younger 6 or 7 years. Must be a dream.

It's simply that some of these posters want to defend their hero by putting down Rod Laver who is the historical opponent in their minds for GOAThood.

This poster keeps writing that Laver wouldn't have won 200 tournaments if there was not a Pro/Amateur divide and yet I pointe out that Laver won 76 tournaments after the Open Era started. Laver was to turn 30 (on the downside of his career in my opinion) in 1968, the first year of the Open Era. Laver also won 45 tournaments in the first three years of the Open Era. I see no reason why Laver would not have won around 200 tournament no matter what the circumstances were.

First of all even Ken Rosewall mentioned that the average level of tennis was lower in the Open Era as opposed to when he played on the Old Pro Tour. Second, some tournaments that Laver may have played in might not include greats like Rosewall, Gimeno, Hoad or Gonzalez. An example of this could be like the Australian in the late 1970's to early 1980's in which the field was large but the quality of the players was not.

Back to topic It's clear to me that the system of counting majors is extremely flawed. First of all it's a fixed number and never takes into account the amount of majors played. As many pointed out the Sampras past record of 14 was so weak it was laughable and yet so many in the press wrote it may never be broken. What was not mentioned was that Sampras played 52 majors to win 14. Borg, to use him as an example play 27 and won 11. Borg's record in majors to me is far more impressive. It's even more impression when you consider that he only played the Australian once and it was on grass in those days.

The conditions have changed now that all the players play all the majors every year if it is physically possible.

If we only count majors then what happens to the rest of the tennis year when player do not play majors. Is it important? Is it unimportant? Of course it's important. If there was a scenario in which a player won two majors in a year and failed miserably in every tournament he played in and another player won 15 of 20 strong tournaments played but didn't win a major I would think the latter player had a better year. Yet some the simplistic thinking of some people would consider the former player to have a better year.

[Carsomyr]

Originally Posted by pc1

Of course Laver's career is not beyond scrutiny but as Urban did point out he certainly has a huge amount of pluses in so many areas.

But you can say the same for Tilden, Gonzalez, Rosewall and Borg among others.

I thought I had raised a fair point of discussion about the how it wouldn't have been so easy for Laver to rack up 20+ GS tournament wins had Open Era started much earlier, based on the illogical "Laver's career was X and he won Z, but if his career was Y, he still would have won Z" post. Instead, I got a derisive and didactic recitation of Laver's résumé, not unlike TMF's incessant repostings of Federer's list of achievements.

This forum is supposed to be a more mature discussion of tennis and historical cognizance. Yet anytime Laver gets put under the microscope, it goes to the triarii who absolutely refuse to accept critique of the man. Kudos to hoodjem for actually engaging in a dialogue.

Federer is routinely nitpicked for his H2H with Rafa, how he wouldn't have won the FO if Rafa was healthy, etc. - and fairly so. Anyone with that staggering of a career should be looked at, dissected, and argued about. Laver is no exception. Is it at all possible he could have won 20 majors entirely in the Open Era? Sure. Do I personally believe it? No.

I'm not TMF. I'm not asking questions simply to denigrate Laver's achievements. He's one of the greatest ever, possibly the greatest. I just think some of the posters here need to be a little more open-minded when talking about Laver.

[BobbyOne]

Originally Posted by pc1

Of course Laver's career is not beyond scrutiny but as Urban did point out he certainly has a huge amount of pluses in so many areas.

But you can say the same for Tilden, Gonzalez, Rosewall and Borg among others.

pc1, I would omit your words "among others" because only four or five (Borg included) players are true GOAT candidates.

[Carsomyr]

Originally Posted by BobbyOne

pc1, I would omit your words "among others" because only four or five (Borg included) players are true GOAT candidates.

I just think some of the posters here need to be a little more open-minded

Why do I even bother posting here?

[pc1]

Originally Posted by Carsomyr

I thought I had raised a fair point of discussion about the how it wouldn't have been so easy for Laver to rack up 20+ GS tournament wins had Open Era started much earlier, based on the illogical "Laver's career was X and he won Z, but if his career was Y, he still would have won Z" post. Instead, I got a derisive and didactic recitation of Laver's résumé, not unlike TMF's incessant repostings of Federer's list of achievements.

This forum is supposed to be a more mature discussion of tennis and historical cognizance. Yet anytime Laver gets put under the microscope, it goes to the triarii who absolutely refuse to accept critique of the man. Kudos to hoodjem for actually engaging in a dialogue.

Federer is routinely nitpicked for his H2H with Rafa, how he wouldn't have won the FO if Rafa was healthy, etc. - and fairly so. Anyone with that staggering of a career should be looked at, dissected, and argued about. Laver is no exception. Is it at all possible he could have won 20 majors entirely in the Open Era? Sure. Do I personally believe it? No.

I'm not TMF. I'm not asking questions simply to denigrate Laver's achievements. He's one of the greatest ever, possibly the greatest. I just think some of the posters here need to be a little more open-minded when talking about Laver.

Totally understandable and logical post. Never thought you were putting down Laver. I think you're one of the most reasonable and best posters here.

[Carsomyr]

Originally Posted by pc1

Totally understandable and logical post. Never thought you were putting down Laver. I think you're one of the most reasonable and best posters here.

I appreciate that. I think quite a few in the FPP section are excellent and very knowledgeable posters, including yourself, hoodjem, and krosero. Biased, yes, but who isn't? I guess like any other forums, some of the posters (see above) leave a lot to be desired.

[NadalAgassi]

Originally Posted by Carsomyr

Pure speculation and apples to oranges in the extreme. For example, if Open Era tennis had existed in, say, the 30s, how many majors would Laver have won from '60-'62, competing against the best pros?

Of course he would lose some slams from 60-62 in that scenario, but he would gain many more slams in 64-67 when he would have been the dominant player and won most of them, than he would have lost from 60-62. All that is already taken into account when people do their estimates, and the estimates of virtually all experts have Laver, Rosewall, Gonzales all winning 18 or more.

[Carsomyr]

Originally Posted by NadalAgassi

Of course he would lose some slams from 60-62 in that scenario, but he would gain many more slams in 64-67 when he would have been the dominant player and won most of them, than he would have lost from 60-62. All that is already taken into account when people do their estimates, and the estimates of virtually all experts have Laver, Rosewall, Gonzales all winning 18 or more.

Which experts? I have already extolled the virtues of some of the better posters here, but they hardly qualify. I'd need a source.

Besides, that doesn't make a lot of sense to me. When Laver wins a Slam event, it comes at the expense of Rosewall winning one, and vice versa. If you're not counting the majors they already have in the bank before becoming pros, you're creating a situation in which no major comes easily. I don't a scenario in which ALL of them end up with 18+ major wins. You're also discounting the possibility of upsets by other players who would have been around at the time, such as Ashe, who won right away after the start of the Open Era, Newcombe, who proved his worth as a post-Amateur Era pro, winning 5 major titles after the start of the Open Era.

[kiki]

Originally Posted by Carsomyr

Let me guess: I suppose that makes Laver better than Federer, too?

No it has to do more with supporters
I am sure Fed is straight but it is his choice

[kiki]

Originally Posted by NadalAgassi

Of course he would lose some slams from 60-62 in that scenario, but he would gain many more slams in 64-67 when he would have been the dominant player and won most of them, than he would have lost from 60-62. All that is already taken into account when people do their estimates, and the estimates of virtually all experts have Laver, Rosewall, Gonzales all winning 18 or more.

Plus he did not have a YEC or WCT final like Federer had so, take all Fed YEC titles when comparing, please

[Carsomyr]

Originally Posted by kiki

No it has to do more with supporters
I am sure Fed is straight but it is his choice

Sure, I'll bite. Let's really get into the heart of your homophobia.

Why, pray tell, does Federer have more gay supporters than Laver (i.e. NONE, because only straight men could enjoy Laver's talent and personality, according to you)?

[BobbyOne]

Originally Posted by Carsomyr

Why do I even bother posting here?

I just think some of the posters here need to consider tennis history better...

[BobbyOne]

Originally Posted by NadalAgassi

Of course he would lose some slams from 60-62 in that scenario, but he would gain many more slams in 64-67 when he would have been the dominant player and won most of them, than he would have lost from 60-62. All that is already taken into account when people do their estimates, and the estimates of virtually all experts have Laver, Rosewall, Gonzales all winning 18 or more.

I my estimation the three you mentioned plus Tilden would make more than 18 open era majors, Tilden even leading the field with about 25 to 30...

[BobbyOne]

Originally Posted by Carsomyr

Which experts? I have already extolled the virtues of some of the better posters here, but they hardly qualify. I'd need a source.

Besides, that doesn't make a lot of sense to me. When Laver wins a Slam event, it comes at the expense of Rosewall winning one, and vice versa. If you're not counting the majors they already have in the bank before becoming pros, you're creating a situation in which no major comes easily. I don't a scenario in which ALL of them end up with 18+ major wins. You're also discounting the possibility of upsets by other players who would have been around at the time, such as Ashe, who won right away after the start of the Open Era, Newcombe, who proved his worth as a post-Amateur Era pro, winning 5 major titles after the start of the Open Era.

Carsomyr, You just should go to the record books and look at the pro majors won by Laver, Rosewall and others. That's a good measure for hypothetical open majors.

It's true that Laver and Rosewall would "steal" major titles from each other but they were so strong and steady that they still would have won enough to reach that 18 majors mark. In fact Laver has won 19 majors and Rosewall 23.

If you consider both amateur and pro majors you can see that very seldom an outsider has won a major. Only Mal Anderson is an example for a winning outsider.

Newcombe won open majors only when Laver and Rosewall were on decline. And yet Laver and Rosewall plus old Gimeno won eight out of the first ten open era majors where they participated!

This from a non-open-minded poster....

[Carsomyr]

Originally Posted by BobbyOne

Carsomyr, You just should go to the record books and look at the pro majors won by Laver, Rosewall and others. That's a good measure for hypothetical open majors.

I'm aware of how many pro majors they won, and no, that's not a very good indicator of how many Grand Slams tournaments they would have won. It's apples and oranges.

It's true that Laver and Rosewall would "steal" major titles from each other but they were so strong and steady that they still would have won enough to reach that 18 majors mark.

If you consider both amateur and pro majors you can see that very seldom an outsider has won a major. Only Mal Anderson is an example for a winning outsider.

Aren't you the guy who says that Federer and Nadal are weak-era champions? If Rosewall and Laver are the only ones winning anything, how is that better, exactly?

Newcombe won open majors only after Laver and Rosewall were on decline. And yet Laver and Rosewall plus old Gimeno won eight out of the first ten open era majors where they participated!

Newcombe was still playing amongst the amateurs in 1967. Given all the speculation that Laver would have adapted sooner if the Open Era had occurred many years earlier, I think it's fair to assume that players like Newcombe and Ashe would have, too.

This from a non-open-minded poster....

Clearly.

[kiki]

Originally Posted by Carsomyr

Sure, I'll bite. Let's really get into the heart of your homophobia.

Why, pray tell, does Federer have more gay supporters than Laver (i.e. NONE, because only straight men could enjoy Laver's talent and personality, according to you)?

Why are you so obssesed with that.Is the closet too locked for some people to come off it?

[kiki]

Originally Posted by BobbyOne

I my estimation the three you mentioned plus Tilden would make more than 18 open era majors, Tilden even leading the field with about 25 to 30...

If the weightening factor is taken into account, Rosewall,Gonzales,Laver and a healthy Hoad would have like 30 majors each in this extremely weak era..only that they would have to play themselves again, so...

[Prisoner of Birth]

Originally Posted by NadalAgassi

Of course he would lose some slams from 60-62 in that scenario, but he would gain many more slams in 64-67 when he would have been the dominant player and won most of them, than he would have lost from 60-62. All that is already taken into account when people do their estimates, and the estimates of virtually all experts have Laver, Rosewall, Gonzales all winning 18 or more.

Okay, I'll play this game. Let us only consider the pro-level Slams, you can't have both the Amateur Grand Slams and the pro-Slams.

Number of pro-Slams every year = 3
Laver won = 8
If there were 4 pro-Slams, how many would Laver have won, going by the same win ratio (which is more than generous) : [8 x (4/3)] = [32/3] = 11 (again being generous)

Grand Slams won in the Open Era = 5

Total pro-level Slams won, had he had 4 pro-Slams every year is estimatedly 11+5=16. 16<17.

[Prisoner of Birth]

Originally Posted by BobbyOne

Carsomyr, You just should go to the record books and look at the pro majors won by Laver, Rosewall and others. That's a good measure for hypothetical open majors.

It's true that Laver and Rosewall would "steal" major titles from each other but they were so strong and steady that they still would have won enough to reach that 18 majors mark. In fact Laver has won 19 majors and Rosewall 23.

If you consider both amateur and pro majors you can see that very seldom an outsider has won a major. Only Mal Anderson is an example for a winning outsider.

Newcombe won open majors only when Laver and Rosewall were on decline. And yet Laver and Rosewall plus old Gimeno won eight out of the first ten open era majors where they participated!

This from a non-open-minded poster....

6 of them against Amateurs.

[BobbyOne]

Originally Posted by Prisoner of Birth

6 of them against Amateurs.

Right. But you forget on the other hand, that the old pros did not have Australian Pro Championships. Laver would have won a few of them.

Furthermore, Laver would have been the favourite if he could have participated in the Australian "open" 1968 champ.s, the Aussie 1970 and 1972 events, the 1970, 1971 and 1972 French Open (co-favourite with Rosewall), the 1972 Wimbledon and the 1971 US Open. These make up for "losing" his amateur titles...