At their best, who would win?

[BobbyOne]

Originally Posted by Graphiteking

The question speaks for itself. Men's and Women's. At the height of their careers out of all the players, who would win? One match, on hardcourt. Men's winner? Women's winner?

Hoad.
S. Williams (on grass Navatilova)

Originally Posted by BobbyOne

Hoad.
S. Williams (on grass Navatilova)

Who on clay for women, or do you actually pick Serena even on clay.

[BobbyOne]

Originally Posted by NadalAgassi

Who on clay for women, or do you actually pick Serena even on clay.

No, Evert on clay.

Originally Posted by BobbyOne

No, Evert on clay.

OK. The funny thing is while I dont pick her on any surface, I think Graf is the only one who could be arguably picked on any of the surfaces. She is also the only one who even arguably be picked as the best of all time on each of the surfaces, although that is an even more remote argument than the one match peak on peak one.

[BobbyOne]

Originally Posted by NadalAgassi

OK. The funny thing is while I dont pick her on any surface, I think Graf is the only one who could be arguably picked on any of the surfaces. She is also the only one who even arguably be picked as the best of all time on each of the surfaces, although that is an even more remote argument than the one match peak on peak one.

NadalAgassi, I can agree regarding Graf.

[TomT]

Originally Posted by BobbyOne

Hoad.
S. Williams (on grass Navatilova)

You think a peak Hoad could beat a peak Federer on a hard court? Why?

[BobbyOne]

Originally Posted by TomT

You think a peak Hoad could beat a peak Federer on a hard court? Why?

TomT, Why not??

I forgot about Hoad for the men, but if you believe Gonzales's opinion, which is a very credible one, he quite possibly wins on all surfaces in this scenario. While I will never go along with any idea he should rank #1 or anywhere near that all time based on a series of what ifs, potential, and peak level play alone, in a thread about peak level play, he quite rightfully could be given his due and said he might well beat all.

Originally Posted by TomT

You think a peak Hoad could beat a peak Federer on a hard court? Why?

Peak Federer is not a 9.5 or 10 out of 10 in all areas. His serve is about an 8.5, his backhand, volleys, and return of serve and probably no more than a 7. Someone like Hoad who at his best was overpowering and absolutely brilliant off every single shot would beat Federer in a peak on peak match.

[TomT]

Originally Posted by BobbyOne

TomT, Why not??

The why not would be that the game has progressed, the players are fitter and technically better. Thus, a peak Federer would be expected to beat a peak Hoad.

But I'm asking you ... why? Why would you expect a peak Hoad to beat a peak Federer. Better stroke technique? Better serve? Better movement? Quicker? Better mentally? What?

I don't know Hoad's game. So, I'm asking.

[TomT]

Originally Posted by NadalAgassi

Peak Federer is not a 9.5 or 10 out of 10 in all areas. His serve is about an 8.5, his backhand, volleys, and return of serve and probably no more than a 7. Someone like Hoad who at his best was overpowering and absolutely brilliant off every single shot would beat Federer in a peak on peak match.

Ok. This is interesting. I would have to see some Hoad videos to formulate an opinion. Only seen one, and it was quite short. Any references?

[TomT]

This Hoad guy must have been one freaking fantastic player. Where can I get some extended vids of his playing (hopefully at his peak)?

[abmk]

clay : nadal/borg
rest : federer

[abmk]

Originally Posted by NadalAgassi

Sampras is the ultimate bad matchup for Nadal, he is about 10 times a worse matchup than Federer is for Nadal (well Federer of course isnt a bad matchup for Nadal at all, if they played on grass anymore since 2008 Federer would have a losing record on all 3 major slams surfaces by now). Peak to peak Sampras kills Nadal on all but clay.

lol, ha ha ...

peak sampras struggled with bruguera's heavy topspin, including outside of clay ... anyone who thinks sampras would have it easy vs nadal outside of clay ( except indoors ) is kidding themselves ......

[SoBad]

Safin, Nadal, Sampras, Kournikova

[BobbyOne]

Originally Posted by NadalAgassi

Peak Federer is not a 9.5 or 10 out of 10 in all areas. His serve is about an 8.5, his backhand, volleys, and return of serve and probably no more than a 7. Someone like Hoad who at his best was overpowering and absolutely brilliant off every single shot would beat Federer in a peak on peak match.

NadalAgassi, You are very brave in rating some of Federer's strokes as non-super. I agree.

[BobbyOne]

Originally Posted by TomT

The why not would be that the game has progressed, the players are fitter and technically better. Thus, a peak Federer would be expected to beat a peak Hoad.

But I'm asking you ... why? Why would you expect a peak Hoad to beat a peak Federer. Better stroke technique? Better serve? Better movement? Quicker? Better mentally? What?

I don't know Hoad's game. So, I'm asking.

TomT, I doubt that Federer is fitter than Hoad was. There are reports that Hoad was the fittest. His playing arm was more voluminous than even Nadal's.

I would say that Hoad had a better backhand than Federer, and of course a better volley.

Many experts and players who witnessed Hoad in his peak say that he was the strongest they have seen.

[TomT]

Originally Posted by BobbyOne

TomT, I doubt that Federer is fitter than Hoad was. There are reports that Hoad was the fittest.

I think it can be argued that today's premier tennis players are generally more professional, stronger and fitter than those of the 1950s and 1960s. Maybe Hoad is an exception. Maybe Hoad was the fittest of his day, at his peak. Lots of maybes. So, let's call this even (and I think I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt here) ... because I think that the pro tennis game that Federer has excelled in for the past decade is very much more physically demanding than the game that Hoad and his contemporaries played.

Originally Posted by BobbyOne

His playing arm was more voluminous than even Nadal's.

I don't think that the size of Hoad's playing arm really has anything to do with whether or not he would beat Federer. Players in those days had to develop muscles in their playing forearms because of the much heavier racquets and the conventional continental grip of the times. Federer's superior modern technique and comparatively lighter racquet simply doesn't require a huge playing forearm. If Federer played in Hoad's time, then he'd have a bigger forearm. If Hoad was playing today, he'd have a smaller forearm.

Originally Posted by BobbyOne

I would say that Hoad had a better backhand than Federer ...

Based on what? I'm guessing that Hoad's bread and butter backhand was the slightly undercut backhand of his day. Not that he couldn't hit it hard and place it extremely well, but it just doesn't stack up well against the extreme topspin backhands (including Federer's) of today.

Originally Posted by BobbyOne

... and of course a better volley.

The comparative slowness of the '50s and '60s game rewarded serve and volley tennis. The speed and power of the modern game more or less precludes it. So, ok, Hoad had a better volley than Federer. So what?

Originally Posted by BobbyOne

Many experts and players who witnessed Hoad in his peak say that he was the strongest they have seen.

We're down to the nitty gritty. References and, most importantly, videos of Hoad playing are required. I've seen hundreds of videos of Federer. Lots of videos of Laver, Rosewall, Newcombe, Ashe, Nastase, Amritraj, etc., and based on that I think Federer would beat any of them badly. Need some vids of Hoad. Otherwise any comparison between Federer and Hoad is just moot.

Because there are so many variables to consider regarding the different eras of tennis, I think it boils down to this: who is the most talented player? In my opinion, considering all aspects of the game (from what I've seen live and on tv and video), Roger Federer is by far the most talented player who has ever played the game.

[Flash O'Groove]

If we are speaking about the best level reached ever for only ONE match, then why to restrain to all time great? They are all time great because they could sustain a very high level, but it is very possible that the highest level ever reached might have been reached by someone else, far less consistent than them. I can't say for the older player, but Safin or Nalbandian are said to have a very high peak level (which they never sustained). Even Rosol could be eligible!

[abmk]

Originally Posted by BobbyOne

NadalAgassi, You are very brave in rating some of Federer's strokes as non-super. I agree.

except that :

a) he does that in half of his posts
b) what he said is pure cr*p ....... comparing an at his best hoad with average federer

a 7/10 may be fair enough for federer's volleys on an average, I'd put it at 7.5 ..... I'd put his BH and return on an average much higher than 7/10, closer to 8.5 ...

most importantly, his BH can be suspect against high balls , may be inconsistent at times, his return can be a bit passive at times, his volleys sloppy at times, especially FH volleys ...... but this is an average playing federer ....

at his very best, his volleys, BH and return, all are excellent and none of them a weakness ......