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

[pc1]

Originally Posted by zagor

Or maybe the conditions (surfaces, balls), tech, training methods, nutrition etc. differ from era to era and players happen to simply be a product of their era?

I know people will once again bring improved records in swimming, racing etc. but tennis is far more nuanced than those sports, bigger, stronger and faster athlete doesn't always win.

Things like feel for the ball, anticipation, court sense etc. play a big role as well, tennis court isn't exactly big and thus isn't that hard to cover (making anticipation for example almost as much as a factor as raw footspeed).

Did you watch the last match of 2012 season? Between Stepanek and Almagro who was the younger player who hit with more power? And yet he lost.

Can't disagree with that! Totally logical. (I'm beginning to sound like Mr. Spock. Wish I was as smart as Spock. )

[arche3]

Originally Posted by pc1

It's funny. A lot of people think in this forum I don't like current tennis. Fact is that I much prefer today's tennis to matches a few years ago. I wasn't fond of the big serve and volley with few rallies.

I do think and how written in the past that a number of players today, Nadal, Djokovic and Federer all can accomplish or have already accomplished enough to be arguably in any GOAT conversation. Now some claim there is no GOAT. That's fine but GOAT conversations in any sport is some of the most fun AND heated conversations you can get. I think it would be a shame if you don't talk about it at least occasionally. Another player I think is fantastic but erratic is Andy Murray who I believe is as gifted as any player today and among the most talented I've ever seen.

The question remains do I think the players today are the most talented ever? I really don't know. Perhaps the overall players may be today but I do think the top players in most eras can be at or near the top in other eras. I think Pancho Gonzalez was a super gifted athlete. I believe that of Lew Hoad, Bill Tilden, Edberg, Nastase, Becker, Sampras, Agassi, Lendl, Ashe, Borg, Laver, Sedgman and many others.

I've read a poster that claimed Sampras stayed toe to toe with a world class splinter who played football. Sampras was a fantastic athlete. Should I eliminate him because his best years are over 15 years ago? Don't think so.

It's a never ending question but yes in general I think believe that sports usually gets better but I also believe the top, given the same advantages should also general be at or near the top.

Maybe this argument can have a set of rules to even out the issues.

1) the players will possess only the skills and fitness levels of their prime in their respective eras.

2) we must find a racket that is between wood and modern graphite tweeners.

If we were comparing Laver to Nadal. The Racket would be the Wilson ProStaff 85 imo. In this comparison I say Nadal wins in a close 5 set match.

If it were Laver and Federer we would need to find another racket. But for Djoko and Murray the ps85 probably would do as well.

This is kinda like the show deadliest warrior.

[pc1]

Originally Posted by arche3

Maybe this argument can have a set of rules to even out the issues.

1) the players will possess only the skills and fitness levels of their prime in their respective eras.

2) we must find a racket that is between wood and modern graphite tweeners.

If we were comparing Laver to Nadal. The Racket would be the Wilson ProStaff 85 imo. In this comparison I say Nadal wins in a close 5 set match.

If it were Laver and Federer we would need to find another racket. But for Djoko and Murray the ps85 probably would do as well.

This is kinda like the show deadliest warrior.

Maybe we should just let them use light sabers instead. In that case I would say Luke Skywalker is the best tennis player. I would eliminate Darth Vader because that costume would weigh him down too much. No mobility.

[pc1]

Incidentally shouldn't we just get back to topic? Laver's two Grand Slams, sweeping the top four tournament have only been accomplished three times in men's tennis history so I think it's pretty impressive.

[arche3]

Originally Posted by pc1

Maybe we should just let them use light sabers instead. In that case I would say Luke Skywalker is the best tennis player. I would eliminate Darth Vader because that costume would weigh him down too much. No mobility.

My proposed rules can help determine GOAT. Why not? I say under my rules Nadal bests Laver.

[pc1]

Originally Posted by arche3

My proposed rules can help determine GOAT. Why not? I say under my rules Nadal bests Laver.

Whatever. It's very well possible.

I do think the sarcasm is getting out of hand here. I'll just leave it at that.

Nadal beats Laver is really off topic.

[arche3]

Originally Posted by pc1

Whatever. It's very well possible.

I do think the sarcasm is getting out of hand here. I'll just leave it at that.

Nadal beats Laver is really off topic.

True. Laver slams are a great achievement .

[kiki]

Originally Posted by pc1

It's funny. A lot of people think in this forum I don't like current tennis. Fact is that I much prefer today's tennis to matches a few years ago. I wasn't fond of the big serve and volley with few rallies.

I do think and how written in the past that a number of players today, Nadal, Djokovic and Federer all can accomplish or have already accomplished enough to be arguably in any GOAT conversation. Now some claim there is no GOAT. That's fine but GOAT conversations in any sport is some of the most fun AND heated conversations you can get. I think it would be a shame if you don't talk about it at least occasionally. Another player I think is fantastic but erratic is Andy Murray who I believe is as gifted as any player today and among the most talented I've ever seen.

The question remains do I think the players today are the most talented ever? I really don't know. Perhaps the overall players may be today but I do think the top players in most eras can be at or near the top in other eras. I think Pancho Gonzalez was a super gifted athlete. I believe that of Lew Hoad, Bill Tilden, Edberg, Nastase, Becker, Sampras, Agassi, Lendl, Ashe, Borg, Laver, Sedgman and many others.

I've read a poster that claimed Sampras stayed toe to toe with a world class splinter who played football. Sampras was a fantastic athlete. Should I eliminate him because his best years are over 15 years ago? Don't think so.

It's a never ending question but yes in general I think believe that sports usually gets better but I also believe the top, given the same advantages should also general be at or near the top.

Perry.Kramer,Kodes,Newcombe, those were also fantastic athletes.

[kiki]

I think, plainly and at the end of the day, reason Laver won a GS in the star studded fields of 1969 is just that he played like nobody else the all court game, not just technically but also strategically.Nobody has ever done that and I don´t think anybody will in the enxt 10 years.

he is in a league by himself.

[Tagg]

physicality of the game today means that no one will achieve the grand slam

non-calender year grand slam is a more realistic prospect

sampras was 2 matches away from it in 94, federer was 2 sets away in 06 and 07, nadal was 2 matches away in 10, djokovic was 2 sets away this year

it's not a coincidence that it's become easier with the homogenized surfaces and playing styles

career grand slam has also become a lot more achievable. it was a shock when agassi did it in 99

federer has had the honestly to admit that the changes (uniform) in surfaces has led to himself and nadal achieving it so fast

don't believe nadal has commented on it.

can't see either of them winning it in the 80s or 90s. nadal would come unstuck at the AO and the US, federer at the FO

[World Beater]

Originally Posted by pc1

I'm not clutching at anything. You're misinterpreting what I"m writing. With the equipment the game is of course better but I'm just talking about the player. Are the players themselves necessarily better? Serena with her equipment today may beat many males players of the past but is she a better player? I don't think she's better than Jack Kramer for example or Bobby Riggs in their primes. Would she beat Riggs with her equipment today versus Riggs' wood in the past. Perhaps. But give Serena a wood racquet versus Riggs with wood and I don't think Serena gets a game. I frankly prefer hitting with today's racquets than wood racquets. Who wouldn't except for a few? ]But the point is that it's a different game. I don't like playing with wood racquets. And what's wrong with playing with a frying pan?? lol.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SwfbYdaYEoc

Major League Baseball has wood bats. Colleges usually allow aluminum bats. Often the aluminum bats users can't make it in the majors leagues because they can't play with wood bats. It's a different game.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/19/sp...pagewanted=all

In most sports the game hasn't changed that much but tennis has changed a lot so I find a comparison tougher. If you don't than perhaps you're better in analysis than me and that's very possible.

I am misinterpreting what you are writing??

This is what you said...

Originally Posted by pc1

Not necessarily because tennis has had some many changes in the sports that it is hard to see skills differences for example. I've noticed you don't acknowledge that. And we are talking often about the top levels and greats are often greats in any era.
.

Hard to see skill differences? Really???

Again. returning a 120-130 mph serve...timing a ball coming at you at 3000 rpm. Split second decisions.

Movement and court coverage when the balls are flying over the net at 90mph.

This is not all due to equipment and fancy racquets/ strings.

I think you are misinterpreting what you see on the tv screen.

Its easy to see skill differences. Players of today have demonstrated it. Players of past eras have not - we speculate that they MIGHT have if they grew up today...but we dont know.

Serena williams hits the ball hard, and power is part of the game. She may not have the finesse skills of those players you mention, but power is a huge part of the game. She also happens to have great technique on her groundstrokes that are able to generate her that power. There are bigger girls on tour who cannot generate tha same pace because their technique isn't as good or as robust in terms of racquet head speed.

To me serena williams stroke production is far different to those players you mention. Her racquet swings are far more violent and cut through the air faster. The racquets surely help the control, but the power can be generated even from wooden / heavier racquets.

[pc1]

Originally Posted by World Beater

It seems that you clutching at straws. the players certainly max out near 140 mph, but on average roddick serves for example 130, and 20-30% of the time beyond 130 mph. Isner, karlovic and others are certainly within the same range.

The point is that it is considerably faster than 1930s or 1940s.

Federer, murray, djokovic, hewitt, safin, nalbandian have all demonstrated the ability to return 130 mphs serves. Enough so that sets arent inevitably decided in TBs.

The return game has improved tremendously and this is well documented by this generation of players. But serve speeds have increased as well. Roddick, isner , karlovic all serve consistently harder than players of past eras. not to mention sampras, krajicek, rusedski etc.

I dont quite understand the obsession with wood racquets, and why players of today need to play with wood in order to demonstrate superior skill. Why stop at wood? Why not play with frying pans or just your bare hands?

THere is a reason for this. Mastering a piece of equipment that has a broad spectrum of power, spins, strokes is more difficult than equipment that is very limited in what it can offer its owner.

This principle is the same one as to why we all care so much more about F1 Racing, than racing in toyota, honda, bmw sedans. F1 racing has a much bigger gear range, more brake power that allows its driver to display a level of technical talent that is not physically possible in a mid-size sedan.

Originally Posted by pc1

I'm not clutching at anything. You're misinterpreting what I"m writing. With the equipment the game is of course better but I'm just talking about the player. Are the players themselves necessarily better? Serena with her equipment today may beat many males players of the past but is she a better player? I don't think she's better than Jack Kramer for example or Bobby Riggs in their primes. Would she beat Riggs with her equipment today versus Riggs' wood in the past. Perhaps. But give Serena a wood racquet versus Riggs with wood and I don't think Serena gets a game. I frankly prefer hitting with today's racquets than wood racquets. Who wouldn't except for a few? ]But the point is that it's a different game. I don't like playing with wood racquets. And what's wrong with playing with a frying pan?? lol.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SwfbYdaYEoc

Major League Baseball has wood bats. Colleges usually allow aluminum bats. Often the aluminum bats users can't make it in the majors leagues because they can't play with wood bats. It's a different game.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/19/sp...pagewanted=all

In most sports the game hasn't changed that much but tennis has changed a lot so I find a comparison tougher. If you don't than perhaps you're better in analysis than me and that's very possible.

Originally Posted by pc1

Not necessarily because tennis has had some many changes in the sports that it is hard to see skills differences for example. I've noticed you don't acknowledge that. And we are talking often about the top levels and greats are often greats in any era. The other thing you don't acknowledge is the possibility of a past great doing well (given time to adapt) in today's game and yet you assume current greats would automatically do well if transported into let's say 1969.

Originally Posted by World Beater

I am misinterpreting what you are writing??

This is what you said...



Hard to see skill differences? Really???

Again. returning a 120-130 mph serve...timing a ball coming at you at 3000 rpm. Split second decisions.

Movement and court coverage when the balls are flying over the net at 90mph.

This is not all due to equipment and fancy racquets/ strings.

I think you are misinterpreting what you see on the tv screen.

Its easy to see skill differences. Players of today have demonstrated it. Players of past eras have not - we speculate that they MIGHT have if they grew up today...but we dont know.

Serena williams hits the ball hard, and power is part of the game. She may not have the finesse skills of those players you mention, but power is a huge part of the game. She also happens to have great technique on her groundstrokes that are able to generate her that power. There are bigger girls on tour who cannot generate tha same pace because their technique isn't as good or as robust in terms of racquet head speed.

To me serena williams stroke production is far different to those players you mention. Her racquet swings are far more violent and cut through the air faster. The racquets surely help the control, but the power can be generated even from wooden / heavier racquets.

Actually what I'm writing is that wood racquets force skill differences and that if Federer or Nadal used them they would play differently and if Laver or Rosewall used today's racquets they would play differently. There are skill differences, BOTH WAYS. So what I mean is that you can't tell EASILY the differences in play because the equipment is different and perhaps I forgot to mention, the surfaces are different. For example I have changed my own forehand swing so it takes advantage of today's equipment so I can hit more topspin.

If if this is a contradiction to you that is okay but I don't see it.

Would you change you style if you used different equipment like a smaller wood racquet? I know that I do. Perhaps Serena would not.

Here's the thing, maybe you can tell the differences easily. If you can that's great but I do NOT think I can. The reason is that I believe the racquet and equipment differences would cause coaches to teach a different style of play so we don't know what would happen if they all operated under the same system or if the roles were reversed.

Would Federer or Nadal serve and volley more if they learned to play the old way? Would Rosewall use a semi-western grip? Would Laver use a two handed backhand? Would Rosewall play left handed because he's a natural lefty? We don't know the answers to this.

Here's a hypothetical example-Let's say Serena is playing Martina Navratilova at the 1969 US Open a wood racquet. The US Open is played on awful worn grass that takes terrible bounces and often doesn't bounce. So you're telling me that Serena can take the same swing as she does today? I don't think so. I think she would have to flatten out her swing to compensate for the bad bounces. She may have to volley more. And the racquets are a lot smaller so she probably would have a lot more mishits. I also doubt if she can get the heavy topspin she gets today with the better larger racquets and strings.

Here's a video of the 1969 US Open so you can check out the surface. Notice how awful the court is.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CvpckZmLaEc

To put it simply I think the comparisons in tennis of the past and present often are an apples to oranges comparison. Yes we can compare but to me it's not that easy.

By the way notice that I also wrote greats will be greats in any era. That also means that a player like Nadal in my opinion would be great in the past because I think he would adapt. Not just the other way around.

[World Beater]

Originally Posted by pc1

Actually what I'm writing is that wood racquets force skill differences and that if Federer or Nadal used them they would play differently and if Laver or Rosewall used today's racquets they would play differently. There are skill differences, BOTH WAYS. So what I mean is that you can't tell EASILY the differences in play because the equipment is different and perhaps I forgot to mention, the surfaces are different. For example I have changed my own forehand swing so it takes advantage of today's equipment so I can hit more topspin.

If if this is a contradiction to you that is okay but I don't see it.

Would you change you style if you used different equipment like a smaller wood racquet? I know that I do. Perhaps Serena would not.

Here's the thing, maybe you can tell the differences easily. If you can that's great but I do NOT think I can. The reason is that I believe the racquet and equipment differences would cause coaches to teach a different style of play so we don't know what would happen if they all operated under the same system or if the roles were reversed.

Would Federer or Nadal serve and volley more if they learned to play the old way? Would Rosewall use a semi-western grip? Would Laver use a two handed backhand? Would Rosewall play left handed because he's a natural lefty? We don't know the answers to this.

Here's a hypothetical example-Let's say Serena is playing Martina Navratilova at the 1969 US Open a wood racquet. The US Open is played on awful worn grass that takes terrible bounces and often doesn't bounce. So you're telling me that Serena can take the same swing as she does today? I don't think so. I think she would have to flatten out her swing to compensate for the bad bounces. She may have to volley more. And the racquets are a lot smaller so she probably would have a lot more mishits. I also doubt if she can get the heavy topspin she gets today with the better larger racquets and strings.

Here's a video of the 1969 US Open so you can check out the surface. Notice how awful the court is.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CvpckZmLaEc

To put it simply I think the comparisons in tennis of the past and present often are an apples to oranges comparison. Yes we can compare but to me it's not that easy.

By the way notice that I also wrote greats will be greats in any era. That also means that a player like Nadal in my opinion would be great in the past because I think he would adapt. Not just the other way around.

Your hypothesis is fair.

But i happen to disagree. I am stating that wood racquets take LESS skill to master than modern racquets because of the amount/ number of shots you can manufacture with today's racquets.

simply, put - there is more that can be done with today's racquets which also necessitates that you must master more to take full advantage of the modern racquets.

meaning..if you want to hit with power - your swing has to be more violent with modern racquets, but that means you must have much better timing.

older racquets - much more difficult to generate power and the swings are far less violent. You swing slower but also timing becomes easier.

Its the same analogy - with F1 cars Vs. mid-size sedan cars.

If i prove myself to be the best mid size car sedan driver in the world...vs the best F1 driver in the world. Who would impress you more?

To be the best F1 driver is simply much harder.

[World Beater]

Originally Posted by pc1

By the way notice that I also wrote greats will be greats in any era. That also means that a player like Nadal in my opinion would be great in the past because I think he would adapt. Not just the other way around.

This is a very PC sort of thing to say (pardon the pun).

But i do not believe its the truth.

Most posters in this section - as you can tell from their views are clearly biased towards a particular era or player, even if they do not state it directly.

[pc1]

Originally Posted by World Beater

This is a very PC sort of thing to say (pardon the pun).

But i do not believe its the truth.

Most posters in this section - as you can tell from their views are clearly biased towards a particular era or player, even if they do not state it directly.

The thing is that I'm not sure about others but I always want the current best player to be the best ever because if that person is the best ever (imo) I know I'm enjoying the best possible type of tennis. I feel that way in every sport.

I think it's possible that Lebron James could be the best ever in basketball but I also believe that Michael Jordan, Kareem Jabbar or Wilt Chamberlain would be fantastic today. I think that Pedro Martinez could be the best starting pitcher I've seem but I'm sure Tom Seaver would be incredible in MLB currently. I think in the NFL that Peyton Manning or Joe Montana are the two best QBs I've seem. In tennis we have some current GOAT candidates in Federer, Nadal and Djokovic. Now I don't believe Nadal and Djokovic have done enough yet but if you project dominance in the future it is possible. I just enjoy watching what I perceive as greatness.

Incidentally PC is my wife's initials.

[World Beater]

Originally Posted by pc1

The thing is that I'm not sure about others but I always want the current best player to be the best ever because if that person is the best ever (imo) I know I'm enjoying the best possible type of tennis. I feel that way in every sport.

I think it's possible that Lebron James could be the best ever in baseball but I also believe that Michael Jordan, Kareem Jabbar or Wilt Chamberlain would be fantastic today. I think that Pedro Martinez could be the best starting pitcher I've seem but I'm sure Tom Seaver would be incredible in MLB currently. I think in the NFL that Peyton Manning or Joe Montana are the two best QBs I've seem. In tennis we have some current GOAT candidates in Federer, Nadal and Djokovic. Now I don't believe Nadal and Djokovic have done enough yet but if you project dominance in the future it is possible. I just enjoy watching what I perceive as greatness.

Incidentally PC is my wife's initials.

Lebron just hasn't done enough. Winning one championship is nice - but cleary he has much to do to join the ranks of jordan, chamberlain etc.

Jordan, kareem etc all have good arguments in their favor. But they also play different positions - so its hard to compare. But jordan i would say was the first SG that combined raw athleticism with great skill. There were other players before that had great skill but perhaps not the same athleticism. Jordan also happens to have had the most media coverage and this certainly helps his legendary status.

Novak is far from being a goat candidate. Nadal still has much work to do. They are not yet in the conversation.

[pc1]

Originally Posted by World Beater

Lebron just hasn't done enough. Winning one championship is nice - but cleary he has much to do to join the ranks of jordan, chamberlain etc.

Jordan, kareem etc all have good arguments in their favor. But they also play different positions - so its hard to compare. But jordan i would say was the first SG that combined raw athleticism with great skill. There were other players before that had great skill but perhaps not the same athleticism. Jordan also happens to have had the most media coverage and this certainly helps his legendary status.

Novak is far from being a goat candidate. Nadal still has much work to do. They are not yet in the conversation.

Incidentally I noticed I wrote baseball for Lebron, that an obvious typo. Just edited my post there. I agree that Lebron hasn't done enough yet but he has a chance to be up there with anyone who ever played basketball.

I do think Novak has a shot to be a GOAT candidate and an outside chance to be the best ever. I also agree with your comment on Nadal but as with Djokovic he has a chance imo. Funny however when Federer the amont of majors that Nadal has now they were already (prematurely imo) calling him the GOAT. Players like Nadal and Djokovic don't come around too often.

[kiki]

Originally Posted by pc1

The thing is that I'm not sure about others but I always want the current best player to be the best ever because if that person is the best ever (imo) I know I'm enjoying the best possible type of tennis. I feel that way in every sport.

I think it's possible that Lebron James could be the best ever in basketball but I also believe that Michael Jordan, Kareem Jabbar or Wilt Chamberlain would be fantastic today. I think that Pedro Martinez could be the best starting pitcher I've seem but I'm sure Tom Seaver would be incredible in MLB currently. I think in the NFL that Peyton Manning or Joe Montana are the two best QBs I've seem. In tennis we have some current GOAT candidates in Federer, Nadal and Djokovic. Now I don't believe Nadal and Djokovic have done enough yet but if you project dominance in the future it is possible. I just enjoy watching what I perceive as greatness.

Incidentally PC is my wife's initials.

¿ Patty Connors?

wait, you sound too nice guy

.. and you don´t respect Kodes as much as Jimmy did...

[pc1]

Originally Posted by kiki

¿ Patty Connors?

wait, you sound too nice guy

.. and you don´t respect Kodes as much as Jimmy did...

Well I'm a righty with a one handed backhand and Kodes has never beaten me. lol. Of course if he ever played me he would crush me.

[hoodjem]

Originally Posted by World Beater

Your hypothesis is fair.

But i happen to disagree. I am stating that wood racquets take LESS skill to master than modern racquets because of the amount/ number of shots you can manufacture with today's racquets.

simply, put - there is more that can be done with today's racquets which also necessitates that you must master more to take full advantage of the modern racquets.

meaning..if you want to hit with power - your swing has to be more violent with modern racquets, but that means you must have much better timing.

older racquets - much more difficult to generate power and the swings are far less violent. You swing slower but also timing becomes easier.

Its the same analogy - with F1 cars Vs. mid-size sedan cars.

If i prove myself to be the best mid size car sedan driver in the world...vs the best F1 driver in the world. Who would impress you more?

To be the best F1 driver is simply much harder.

There are several empirical and logical flaws here.

But I actually agree with your conclusion--except the wooden racquet is the Formula One racer.

The 100 sq. in. Babolat with poly strings is the mid-size sedan with cruise control and anti-lock brakes. (Read what Djokovic had to say about hitting with a wood racquet.)