Why are Laver's 2 GrandSlams held with sugh high regard?

[kiki]

Originally Posted by TMF

No. You either play in the amateur or the pro. Take your pick.

Ok so add up Rod' s pro majors and see what happens

[TMF]

Originally Posted by kiki

Ok so add up Rod' s pro majors and see what happens

Like I said, you can't because you either a pro or an amateur. And it was better for him turing pro otherwise he would be another Emerson.

[pc1]

Originally Posted by TMF

Like I said, you can't because you either a pro or an amateur. And it was better for him turing pro otherwise he would be another Emerson.

Here's the question. How many classic majors would Federer have had if he turned pro (let's say after 2003) in an era that didn't allow pros to play the majors? Obviously far fewer. It would not affect his greatness as a player. He would have been every bit as great but he would be hurt by the different standards of greatness today that is often very inaccurate.

And I think Federer would want to play against the top players. The money wouldn't have hurt either.

[BobbyOne]

Originally Posted by kiki

Butcholz was a journeyman but rest of field is scaring
I wish Hoad had his CYGS too.He is the guy who should have it besides Laver,Budge and Borg

kiki, "Butcholz", recte Butch Buchholz, was more than only a journeyman. He was a first class player. I rank him among the top five for four years (1963 to 1966).

Buchholz almost beat Laver and Fraser in amateur majors and defeated Rosewall at least 12 times.

[BobbyOne]

Originally Posted by TMF

I don't have a problem with him turned pro, but rossholster stated that Laver would have won more amateur slams, which he probably would had he stayed as an amateur. However, that would removed everything he achieved as a pro player. Being an amateur he would be another Emerson.

Yes, Laver would have won many more amateur majors. Of course we cannot count both amateur and pro majors of a given player for the same period.

[BobbyOne]

Originally Posted by TMF

Like I said, you can't because you either a pro or an amateur. And it was better for him turing pro otherwise he would be another Emerson.

TMF, Laver as an amateur would have won more than "only" eight majors from 1963 to 1967.

[Dan Lobb]

Originally Posted by BobbyOne

kiki, "Butcholz", recte Butch Buchholz, was more than only a journeyman. He was a first class player. I rank him among the top five for four years (1963 to 1966).

Buchholz almost beat Laver and Fraser in amateur majors and defeated Rosewall at least 12 times.

Buchholz in 1969? No longer a threat in a major.

[pc1]

Originally Posted by Dan Lobb

Buchholz in 1969? No longer a threat in a major.

I agree but for one match Buchholz was still dangerous and could beat anyone. I believe he beat John Newcombe several times in 1969.

[Dan Lobb]

Originally Posted by pc1

I agree but for one match Buchholz was still dangerous and could beat anyone. I believe he beat John Newcombe several times in 1969.

Another monument to Newk's inconsistency.

[kiki]

Originally Posted by BobbyOne

kiki, "Butcholz", recte Butch Buchholz, was more than only a journeyman. He was a first class player. I rank him among the top five for four years (1963 to 1966).

Buchholz almost beat Laver and Fraser in amateur majors and defeated Rosewall at least 12 times.

He lost his most famous match...that being a mere W qf, to Neale Fraser.

He was used to just fill the pro fields.

Ayala, on the other hand had a RG final, at least.

best pros were Laver,Rosewall, Hoad (when available), Gonzales (idem), Gimeno, Olmedo,Cooper and Anderson.In the 60´s, of course.

[BobbyOne]

Originally Posted by Dan Lobb

Another monument to Newk's inconsistency.

Dan, you try to always have the last word even if it is a strange one...

[BobbyOne]

Originally Posted by pc1

I agree but for one match Buchholz was still dangerous and could beat anyone. I believe he beat John Newcombe several times in 1969.

pc1, Yes, Buchholz beat Newcombe in the 1969 Atlanta final in five sets.

[BobbyOne]

Originally Posted by kiki

He lost his most famous match...that being a mere W qf, to Neale Fraser.

He was used to just fill the pro fields.

Ayala, on the other hand had a RG final, at least.

best pros were Laver,Rosewall, Hoad (when available), Gonzales (idem), Gimeno, Olmedo,Cooper and Anderson.In the 60´s, of course.

kiki, after a longer while and having studied tennis history myself, I must contradicct you: Buchholz was not used to fill the pro field. No.4 and No.5 in several years...

Olmedo, Cooper and Anderson were not stronger than Buchholz.

Ayala was a joke in comparison to Buchholz in the pro ranks. See Joe's book!

[kiki]

Originally Posted by BobbyOne

kiki, after a longer while and having studied tennis history myself, I must contradicct you: Buchholz was not used to fill the pro field. No.4 and No.5 in several years...

Olmedo, Cooper and Anderson were not stronger than Buchholz.

Ayala was a joke in comparison to Buchholz in the pro ranks. See Joe's book!

Olmedo won W and FH, so did Coop and Anderson won FH...Butchols??? a mere qf.No better than Riessen or Tim Gullikson.

[hoodjem]

Originally Posted by dima

I mean, did he win slams on clay, hardcourts, and grass on the same year? No he didn't, thus making it not that good.

Could he win "slams" on hard courts in 1969? Was it even possible?

If you want to take something away from Laver, then take it away because he failed or he stumbled, not because it did not exist or the world did not offer it.

He played all four slams. He won all four slams. Did he lose a match at the "slams" that year?

[pc1]

Originally Posted by hoodjem

Could he win "slams" on hard courts in 1969? Was it even possible?

If you want to take something away from Laver, then take it away because he failed or he stumbled, not because it did not exist or the world did not offer it.

He played all four slams. He won all four slams. Did he lose a match at the "slams" that year?

Like I have written before, Laver won Pro Majors on wood. Federer hasn't won a major on wood. Do we penalized Federer for not winning on wood? Of course not. He didn't have the opportunity and he probably would have. Same with Laver.

[BobbyOne]

Originally Posted by kiki

Olmedo won W and FH, so did Coop and Anderson won FH...Butchols??? a mere qf.No better than Riessen or Tim Gullikson.

kiki, I just must wonder about your statements.

Olmedo did not win FH. He won Australia.

Buchholz also lost the 1960 FH SF against Laver in five sets.

Buchholz turned pro very early (at 20). Thus his amateur record is not too great. But he reached No. 5 of the amateurs.

But we talk about the prime of the players. Here Butch was clearly better than Cooper, Olmedo and Anderson. None of them reached No.4 in the world.

Comparing Buchholz with Tim Gullikson is a shabby joke, and you do know it!

I guess you want to provoke me and to look if my tennis knowledge is good enough to disprove your statements....

[Dan Lobb]

Originally Posted by BobbyOne

kiki, I just must wonder about your statements.

Olmedo did not win FH. He won Australia.

Buchholz also lost the 1960 FH SF against Laver in five sets.

Buchholz turned pro very early (at 20). Thus his amateur record is not too great. But he reached No. 5 of the amateurs.

But we talk about the prime of the players. Here Butch was clearly better than Cooper, Olmedo and Anderson. None of them reached No.4 in the world.

Comparing Buchholz with Tim Gullikson is a shabby joke, and you do know it!

I guess you want to provoke me and to look if my tennis knowledge is good enough to disprove your statements....

Why would Buchholz turn pro at 20 BEFORE he won anything, and TAKE A WEAK CONTRACT as a result? Something wrong there.
Did he realize that he might as well turn pro, that Laver would only continue to get better in the amateurs, and that he might have better luck in the pros BEFORE Laver got there?

[kiki]

Originally Posted by BobbyOne

kiki, I just must wonder about your statements.

Olmedo did not win FH. He won Australia.

Buchholz also lost the 1960 FH SF against Laver in five sets.

Buchholz turned pro very early (at 20). Thus his amateur record is not too great. But he reached No. 5 of the amateurs.

But we talk about the prime of the players. Here Butch was clearly better than Cooper, Olmedo and Anderson. None of them reached No.4 in the world.

Comparing Buchholz with Tim Gullikson is a shabby joke, and you do know it!

I guess you want to provoke me and to look if my tennis knowledge is good enough to disprove your statements....

Bobby, I have nothing against Bucholz but I was always amused he was talked about in same sentence as all time greats who also were pros
You had to have proven something to get signed by Kramer or Mc Call back in that time so Butch is a real exception...maybe because he was american and that let him overcome his poir record as an amateur?
Anyhow,I wont regard you as a true historian till you give me a full picture about Jan Kodes

[kiki]

Originally Posted by Dan Lobb

Why would Buchholz turn pro at 20 BEFORE he won anything, and TAKE A WEAK CONTRACT as a result? Something wrong there.
Did he realize that he might as well turn pro, that Laver would only continue to get better in the amateurs, and that he might have better luck in the pros BEFORE Laver got there?

Mc Call had 5 aussies and 2 latins but no pure US player unless you assume Gonzales and Olmedo were WASP
So he desperatey signed journeyman Butch
He should wait a bit more and sign Mc Kinley or Ralston