If slams were played on clay, grass AND hard-court in Laver's time?

[6-1 6-3 6-0]

If, during Laver's 1962 and 1969 calendar grand slam years, the grand slams were instead played on clay, grass AND hard-court, would Laver still have won the calendar grand slam, or would he have come up short (like federer)?

Or would Laver have been the first man to win slams on clay, grass and hard-court all in a calendar year? (Only Rafael Nadal has done this, in 2010.)

What do you think?

[90's Clay]

Probably.. Laver was too damn good on EVERYTHING.

I wish Sampras would have gotten to play 3 slams on grass and 1 on clay in a calendar year though.. That would have been fun

[timnz]

Originally Posted by 6-1 6-3 6-0

If, during Laver's 1962 and 1969 calendar grand slam years, the grand slams were instead played on clay, grass AND hard-court, would Laver still have won the calendar grand slam, or would he have come up short (like federer)?

Or would Laver have been the first man to win slams on clay, grass and hard-court all in a calendar year? (Only Rafael Nadal has done this, in 2010.)

What do you think?

Of course Laver would have won a 69 hard court slam. He won the top hard court tournament of that year (and the top indoor event as well). Laver won over 30 events on hard even though it wasn't a big surface in his era.

Apparently Johannsburg hard court had a 64 draw that included great players such as Laver, Emerson, Drysdale, Gimeno, Gonzalez, Stolle, Roche, Richey, Ralston, Okker, and McMillan. Rod Laver won the final over Tom Okker 6-3 10-8 6-3.

[PrinceMoron]

If Nadal doesn't play GS for 6 years and comes back and wins all four.....

[6-1 6-3 6-0]

Originally Posted by timnz

Of course Laver would have won a 69 hard court slam. He won the top hard court tournament of that year (and the top indoor event as well). Laver won over 30 events on hard even though it wasn't a big surface in his era.

Apparently Johannsburg hard court had a 64 draw that included great players such as Laver, Emerson, Drysdale, Gimeno, Gonzalez, Stolle, Roche, Richey, Ralston, Okker, and McMillan. Rod Laver won the final over Tom Okker 6-3 10-8 6-3.

But federer won a streak of small indoor titles and worldtourfinals2011, but didn't win a hard-court slam (AustralianOpen2011 or USOpen2011). How likely is it that Laver would have won a hard-court slam?

[helloworld]

Originally Posted by 90's Clay

Probably.. Laver was too damn good on EVERYTHING.

I wish Sampras would have gotten to play 3 slams on grass and 1 on clay in a calendar year though.. That would have been fun

Sampras would win 3 slams per year for 7-8 years. It would not have been fun for the tour though.

[TMF]

We will never know if Laver would have won all 4 in 1969had he played the AO and the USO on hard court. It's all speculating.

1962 was too easy in the amateur. Any multiple top players today would have won the GS given the same circumstances.

[NadalAgassi]

Hard courts would most likely have been Laver's best surface with his impeccable all around game which no player has ever matched in complete excellence. So he would have only benefited from this and likely won even more, perhaps even the Grand Slam more often.

[timnz]

Originally Posted by 6-1 6-3 6-0

But federer won a streak of small indoor titles and worldtourfinals2011, but didn't win a hard-court slam (AustralianOpen2011 or USOpen2011). How likely is it that Laver would have won a hard-court slam?

Johannsburg was outdoor hard (not indoor). It was the biggest outdoor hard court event of the year. Laver won it. It is evidence that Laver could/would have won a Hard Court slam event if there was one.

[hoodjem]

Originally Posted by 6-1 6-3 6-0

How likely is it that Laver would have won a hard-court slam?

In 1969 grass was fast, and clay was slow. Hard-courts would be in-between, so it seems likely that Laver could have won on an in-between-speed court, if he could win on the extremes.

The next logical question: did Laver win on hard-court in 1969?

In 1969 the most important hard-court tournament was the South African Open in Johannesburg. In March 1969 Laver won that outdoor hard court tournament, beating Tom Okker in the final: 6-3, 10-8, 6-3. (In 1969 Laver also won the Philadelphia Indoor Open WCT on carpet over Roche, the indoor BBC2 World Professional Championships in London over Rosewall, the U.S. Professional Championships over Newcombe on uni-turf, the Fort Worth Professional Championships on hard-court over Rosewall, and the British Covered Court Championships in London over Roche on indoor wood.)

The next logical question: did Laver want to win a Grand Slam in 1969 (regardless of the surface)? Simple answer: yes.

Is it likely? Yes.
Did he do it? No.

[timnz]

Originally Posted by hoodjem

Did he do it? No.

Here's a thought. We could ask 'would Laver have thought it be any more difficult task winning the Grand Slam if two of the events were hard court, with one clay court and one grass'? The answer is no, not a bit.

[THUNDERVOLLEY]

Originally Posted by 6-1 6-3 6-0

If, during Laver's 1962 and 1969 calendar grand slam years, the grand slams were instead played on clay, grass AND hard-court, would Laver still have won the calendar grand slam, or would he have come up short (like federer)?

Or would Laver have been the first man to win slams on clay, grass and hard-court all in a calendar year? (Only Rafael Nadal has done this, in 2010.)

What do you think?

Same result: Laver wins the Grand Slam. Some TW members with a glass-clear agenda wish to reduce Laver's historic accomplishments by suggesting he had some sort of "advantage" due to surface. This irrational theory conveniently forgets that his rivals all played on the same surfaces, so they were as experienced on/exposed to the surfaces at the same time, just as it would be in a 4-surface era. There's no getting around that level playinf field.

Laver's mastery of the sport was the result of supreme talent & understanding of the sport, not the wholly fictional "advantage" used to provide excuses for other players.

Federer--like Wilander before him--could not win the Grand Slam not due to surface changes (otherwise, it would have prevented Graf from winning her Grand Slam) but both being incapable of concentrated dominance in the calendar year--destined to fall short somewhere along the way.

This is the reason some in the tennis PTB, and sports media invented the latter-day "personal slam" nonsense: to grant a distinction to players who were not good enough to win the Grand Slam, so they need something--anything--to suggest they were of some legendary status never earned.

There was not, nor will there ever be or "personal slams" linked together over the years. Similarly, "almost," "coulda, woulda, shoulda" years like that of Federer, Wilander, Serena or Hingis are not substitutes for the Grand Slam.

[qindarka]

Serena's slam is just as good as a calendar year grand slam. She won 4 in a row, what difference does it make that it wasn't in a calendar year.

[abmk]

Originally Posted by THUNDERVOLLEY

Same result: Laver wins the Grand Slam. Some TW members with a glass-clear agenda wish to reduce Laver's historic accomplishments by suggesting he had some sort of "advantage" due to surface. This irrational theory conveniently forgets that his rivals all played on the same surfaces, so they were as experienced on/exposed to the surfaces at the same time, just as it would be in a 4-surface era. There's no getting around that level playinf field.

so having 4 slams on clay/grass in comparision to having 4 slams on HC is the very same ?

that more styles of play can succeed on HC than on either clay or grass isn't a factor at all ?????

Originally Posted by THUNDERVOLLEY

Laver's mastery of the sport was the result of supreme talent & understanding of the sport, not the wholly fictional "advantage" used to provide excuses for other players.

so is federer's

Originally Posted by THUNDERVOLLEY

Federer--like Wilander before him--could not win the Grand Slam not due to surface changes (otherwise, it would have prevented Graf from winning her Grand Slam) but both being incapable of concentrated dominance in the calendar year--destined to fall short somewhere along the way.

federer's seasons in 2004,2006 and 2007 ( 3 slam years ) are wayyy ahead of wilander's when in comes to dominance ( see win-loss % )

federer had a win loss record of

74-6 in 2004 (3 slams+YEC)
81-4 in 2005 (2 slams+2 slam semis)
92-5 in 2006 (3 slams+1 slam final+YEC)
68-9 in 2007 ( 3 slams+1 slam final+YEC)

that is concentrated dominance in a calendar year unless you are thick ...only reason he didn't win the GS is in 2006/07 is a certain rafael nadal, the CC GOAT.

Give him instead a totally sub-par Rosewall in a Roland Garros final and he also wins RG in 2006/07 making a clean sweep ...

[THUNDERVOLLEY]

Originally Posted by abmk

so having 4 slams on clay/grass in comparision to having 4 slams on HC is the very same ?

Again, you are missing the crucial point: anti-Laver (pro-Federer) types attempt to suggest Laver enjoyed some advantage, but that is patently impossible, as he played under the same conditions as everyone else in that year, so it came down to talent/mastering the sport.

Moreover, as the majors eventually used four different surfaces, it did not stop Graf from transitioning to win the Grand Slam, so either way, there is no spinning history to protect and/or inflate Federer--or anyone else (as noted earlier), who won three majors in the calendar year.

federer's seasons in 2004,2006 and 2007 ( 3 slam years ) are wayyy ahead of wilander's when in comes to dominance ( see win-loss % )

federer had a win loss record of

74-6 in 2004 (3 slams+YEC)
81-4 in 2005 (2 slams+2 slam semis)
92-5 in 2006 (3 slams+1 slam final+YEC)
68-9 in 2007 ( 3 slams+1 slam final+YEC)

that is concentrated dominance in a calendar year unless you are thick ...only reason he didn't win the GS is in 2006/07 is a certain rafael nadal, the CC GOAT.

Concentrated DOMINANCE does not mean, "well, he sort of had a run at the majors in this year, and that year, then failed somwhere along the way at one of them." No, it means winning all four majors in the calendar year, which he did not do, and in that regard, he's in the exact position with the same end result of Wilander: no Grand Slam. Winning 3 in two additional years over Wilander still ends with no Grand Slam.

[BobbyOne]

Originally Posted by abmk

so having 4 slams on clay/grass in comparision to having 4 slams on HC is the very same ?

that more styles of play can succeed on HC than on either clay or grass isn't a factor at all ?????



so is federer's



federer's seasons in 2004,2006 and 2007 ( 3 slam years ) are wayyy ahead of wilander's when in comes to dominance ( see win-loss % )

federer had a win loss record of

74-6 in 2004 (3 slams+YEC)
81-4 in 2005 (2 slams+2 slam semis)
92-5 in 2006 (3 slams+1 slam final+YEC)
68-9 in 2007 ( 3 slams+1 slam final+YEC)

that is concentrated dominance in a calendar year unless you are thick ...only reason he didn't win the GS is in 2006/07 is a certain rafael nadal, the CC GOAT.

Give him instead a totally sub-par Rosewall in a Roland Garros final and he also wins RG in 2006/07 making a clean sweep ...

And you blame me for belittleing Federer and belittle Rosewall as a claycourter...

I heavily doubt that Federer would dominate peak Rosewall on clay.

[BobbyOne]

Originally Posted by THUNDERVOLLEY

Again, you are missing the crucial point: anti-Laver (pro-Federer) types attempt to suggest Laver enjoyed some advantage, but that is patently impossible, as he played under the same conditions as everyone else in that year, so it came down to talent/mastering the sport.

Moreover, as the majors eventually used four different surfaces, it did not stop Graf from transitioning to win the Grand Slam, so either way, there is no spinning history to protect and/or inflate Federer--or anyone else (as noted earlier), who won three majors in the calendar year.



Concentrated DOMINANCE does not mean, "well, he sort of had a run at the majors in this year, and that year, then failed somwhere along the way at one of them." No, it means winning all four majors in the calendar year, which he did not do, and in that regard, he's in the exact position with the same end result of Wilander: no Grand Slam. Winning 3 in two additional years over Wilander still ends with no Grand Slam.

THUNDERVOLLEY, I support your thundervolleys against the Federer Armada and Laver doubters.

[Flash O'Groove]

BobbyOne, you probably know that the OP is only midly a pro-Federer, do you? The aims of this thread is not to give some "excuses" for Federer's failure to win the grand slam on three occasions. It is to underline the incredible fact that Nadal is the only player ever to win 3 slams on 3 different surfaces in tennis history, all at the tender age of 25, a feat that is considerer by our dear OP, as the greatest feat ever in tennis history.

[BobbyOne]

Originally Posted by Flash O'Groove

BobbyOne, you probably know that the OP is only midly a pro-Federer, do you? The aims of this thread is not to give some "excuses" for Federer's failure to win the grand slam on three occasions. It is to underline the incredible fact that Nadal is the only player ever to win 3 slams on 3 different surfaces in tennis history, all at the tender age of 25, a feat that is considerer by our dear OP, as the greatest feat ever in tennis history.

Yes, great Nadal. By the way, Rosewall did similary: he won three majors on different surfaces: 1962 French Pro (clay), 1962 Wembley (wood) and 1963 US Pro (grass), that means holder at the same time.

[Flash O'Groove]

Originally Posted by BobbyOne

Yes, great Nadal. By the way, Rosewall did similary: he won three majors on different surfaces: 1962 French Pro (clay), 1962 Wembley (wood) and 1963 US Pro (grass), that means holder at the same time.

Sorry, I forgot to mention "in a calendar year". It is strange that I forgot it, considering how often I have read it. At least Agassi and Federer have won 3 different slams on 3 different surfaces in their careers.