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

[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....

Why a joke? Gullikson reach a W qf just like your beloved Buch so where is difference?

[Gizo]

Laver's 1962 grand slam is obviously nowhere near as significant as his 1969 feat for obvious reasons.

Still some feat by Laver to record the best ever year by an amateur player in 1962 (he also achieved the German-Italian-French Open triple crown that year), the best ever year by a player on the pre open-era pro tour in 1967, and the best ever year by a player in the open era in 1969.

At the Australian Open in 1969 he beat Emerson, Stolle, Roche and Gimeno en-route to his title, at RG Smith, Gimeno, Okker and the defending champion Rosewall, at Wimbledon Smith, Ashe and Newcombe, and the US Open he overcome Emerson, the defending champion Ashe and Roche. So he overcome tough draws at all 4 majors that year.

Not to mention that he also won the biggest hard court tournaments at Ellis Park in Johannesburg and Boston and the biggest indoor carpet events at Philadelphia and Wembley that year as well. Since then in the open era, no player has been able to win the biggest tournaments on 4 different surfaces in one year.

[pc1]

Originally Posted by Gizo

Laver's 1962 grand slam is obviously nowhere near as significant as his 1969 feat for obvious reasons.

Still some feat by Laver to record the best ever year by an amateur player in 1962 (he also achieved the German-Italian-French Open triple crown that year), the best ever year by a player on the pre open-era pro tour in 1967, and the best ever year by a player in the open era in 1969.

At the Australian Open in 1969 he beat Emerson, Stolle, Roche and Gimeno en-route to his title, at RG Smith, Gimeno, Okker and the defending champion Rosewall, at Wimbledon Smith, Ashe and Newcombe, and the US Open he overcome Emerson, the defending champion Ashe and Roche. So he overcome tough draws at all 4 majors that year.

Not to mention that he also won the biggest hard court tournaments at Ellis Park in Johannesburg and Boston and the biggest indoor carpet events at Philadelphia and Wembley that year as well. Since then in the open era, no player has been able to win the biggest tournaments on 4 different surfaces in one year.

Excellent points. I read the harping (unjustifiably so in my opinion) that Laver won his two Grand Slams on only grass and red clay. And that he didn't win a hard court major. But he did win the biggest hard court event of the year and the biggest indoor event of the year in 1969. What more could he do?

Laver also won a Pro Grand Slam on wood and if you call that a hard court then he did win a hard court major.

[BobbyOne]

Originally Posted by kiki

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, I rate Kodes as a very good player, about in the class os Orantes.

[BobbyOne]

Originally Posted by kiki

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

kiki, Buchholz was clearly stronger than McKinley and about equal with Ralston.

A typical journeyman among the pros was Ayala who seldom won a match.

[BobbyOne]

Originally Posted by kiki

Why a joke? Gullikson reach a W qf just like your beloved Buch so where is difference?

The big difference is that Buchholz was ranked among the top five all categories for several years while Gullikson was never a top ten player.

[BobbyOne]

Originally Posted by Gizo

Laver's 1962 grand slam is obviously nowhere near as significant as his 1969 feat for obvious reasons.

Still some feat by Laver to record the best ever year by an amateur player in 1962 (he also achieved the German-Italian-French Open triple crown that year), the best ever year by a player on the pre open-era pro tour in 1967, and the best ever year by a player in the open era in 1969.

At the Australian Open in 1969 he beat Emerson, Stolle, Roche and Gimeno en-route to his title, at RG Smith, Gimeno, Okker and the defending champion Rosewall, at Wimbledon Smith, Ashe and Newcombe, and the US Open he overcome Emerson, the defending champion Ashe and Roche. So he overcome tough draws at all 4 majors that year.

Not to mention that he also won the biggest hard court tournaments at Ellis Park in Johannesburg and Boston and the biggest indoor carpet events at Philadelphia and Wembley that year as well. Since then in the open era, no player has been able to win the biggest tournaments on 4 different surfaces in one year.

Gizo, I agree totally.

[TMF]

Originally Posted by pc1

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.

Had Fed was in the same position, I agree he would turned pro intstead of sticking around with the amateurs.

On the bolded part, Federer have been dominating against the whole field. Had the field was spit into two circuits, I think Fed would have won a lot, maybe even more majors. Let say Nadal was playing in the amateur like Emerson did, he would win many more majors himself. But this is alll speculating and we don't know for sure.

[hoodjem]

Originally Posted by pc1

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.

Fed has not won a major on wood??!!

No!! I don't believe it. Fed is the greatest player of all time, he must have won a major on wood. Otherwise his record is incomplete, or "No he didn't, thus making it not that good."

[kiki]

Originally Posted by pc1

Excellent points. I read the harping (unjustifiably so in my opinion) that Laver won his two Grand Slams on only grass and red clay. And that he didn't win a hard court major. But he did win the biggest hard court event of the year and the biggest indoor event of the year in 1969. What more could he do?

Laver also won a Pro Grand Slam on wood and if you call that a hard court then he did win a hard court major.

Next *******s argument: did not win in current grass,blue clay,sand and snow

[Gizo]

Originally Posted by pc1

Excellent points. I read the harping (unjustifiably so in my opinion) that Laver won his two Grand Slams on only grass and red clay. And that he didn't win a hard court major. But he did win the biggest hard court event of the year and the biggest indoor event of the year in 1969. What more could he do?

Laver also won a Pro Grand Slam on wood and if you call that a hard court then he did win a hard court major.

Agreed. Also many people have the wrong idea than in Laver's time, because 3 of the majors were on grass, grass was the dominant surface on the tennis calendar. However of course that couldn't be further from the truth. There were only a handful of grass court events in existence outside those 3 majors, and even before the US Open many of the lead up tournaments in those days were actually on different surfaces. There were considerably more indoor carpet events back then than grass court tournaments for starters.

[Dan Lobb]

Originally Posted by BobbyOne

The big difference is that Buchholz was ranked among the top five all categories for several years while Gullikson was never a top ten player.

Question, my friend.
How many majors would Buchholz have won had he NOT turned pro in 1961?
Do you want to know my guess? (Hint: I watched him get walloped by Richey in the 1968 Canadian Open final. Richey won zero majors.)

[pc1]

Originally Posted by Dan Lobb

Question, my friend.
How many majors would Buchholz have won had he NOT turned pro in 1961?
Do you want to know my guess? (Hint: I watched him get walloped by Richey in the 1968 Canadian Open final. Richey won zero majors.)

Come on Dan, Richey was an excellent player and he beat greats like Laver and Rosewall.

Buchholz did win one Pro Major in 1961 but I agree with you that it's probable he would not have won a major. However with Laver, Rosewall, Hoad and Gonzalez around how many would win a major? Buchholz was a top player for years and wasn't a journeyman.

I will write this. It wouldn't have been surprising if Buchholz won a major.

[akind]

Originally Posted by Moose Malloy

Who knows, the Australian may change to velcro in the next 28 years & the current players will be dismissed since they didn't play on all surfaces.

You will have to return the serve before the ball hit the ground! It will require a longer tennis racquet or a change of rule so that you can receive the serve from the service box. There will be no ground stroke.. all of the shots will have to be volleys.

[pc1]

Originally Posted by akind

You will have to return the serve before the ball hit the ground! It will require a longer tennis racquet or a change of rule so that you can receive the serve from the service box. There will be no ground stroke.. all of the shots will have to be volleys.

So I guess there will be no rallies at all unless the standard of volleying improves because no one can volley today. lol.

Personally I'm of the opinion we should have a wood major. Only problem would be termites and maybe woodpeckers.

[BobbyOne]

Originally Posted by Dan Lobb

Question, my friend.
How many majors would Buchholz have won had he NOT turned pro in 1961?
Do you want to know my guess? (Hint: I watched him get walloped by Richey in the 1968 Canadian Open final. Richey won zero majors.)

Dan, In 1968 Buchholz was after his peak.

Edit: In 1969.

Butch would have had good chances to win amateur majors against players like Emerson, Santana and Stolle. The latter three were not unvincible, to say the least. By the way, Gimeno as an amateur would most probably have won amateur majors.

[Dan Lobb]

Originally Posted by BobbyOne

Dan, In 1968 Buchholz was after his peak.

Butch would have had good chances to win amateur majors against players like Emerson, Santana and Stolle. The latter three were not unvincible, to say the least. By the way, Gimeno as an amateur would most probably have won amateur majors.

So, he was too young to win in 1961 or 1962, and too old to win in 1968. When and where was there a peak?
Gimeno and Bucholz could see the writing on the wall, and took a weak pro contract rather than get clobbered by Laver, Emerson, and Santana in the amateur ranks.

[BobbyOne]

Originally Posted by Dan Lobb

Question, my friend.
How many majors would Buchholz have won had he NOT turned pro in 1961?
Do you want to know my guess? (Hint: I watched him get walloped by Richey in the 1968 Canadian Open final. Richey won zero majors.)

Dan, You mean the 1969 Canadian Open. You did not mention that Buchholz defeated Newcombe in the SFs, winning the last set by 6-0....

[BobbyOne]

Originally Posted by Dan Lobb

So, he was too young to win in 1961 or 1962, and too old to win in 1968. When and where was there a peak?
Gimeno and Bucholz could see the writing on the wall, and took a weak pro contract rather than get clobbered by Laver, Emerson, and Santana in the amateur ranks.

Strange Dan, as a certain variety I would like to get a post from you with reasonable arguments and opinions.

Here you again are far away from logic and facts.

Buchholz did win a major in 1962!

In 1969, not 1968, he lost a tournament to strong Richey who also reached the final of PSW that year....

Buchholz had his peak from 1963 to 1968, thus 6 years. Not too bad.

Butch beat Laver in the 1963 Wembley tournament by 6-1,6-4. Clobbered by Laver??? (not to talk about Emerson and Santana).

Buchholz won 5 WCT tournaments in 1968, finishing third in the WCT rankings, ahead of Roche, Drysdale and Riessen...

Dan, it's a shame how you distort tennis history. Go to kiki and let him teach you the secrets of tennis....

[Dan Lobb]

Originally Posted by BobbyOne

Dan, You mean the 1969 Canadian Open. You did not mention that Buchholz defeated Newcombe in the SFs, winning the last set by 6-0....

Yes, it was 1969. Buchholz was a feeble old man of 28. (As you stated earlier, 28 is not the age of a veteran.)