Rosewall > Laver

[BobbyOne]

Originally Posted by Flash O'Groove

I know. It was a gesture of bad faith from me (not sure that this expression exist in english: "un geste de mauvaise fois") regarding our other discussion on Fed's prime. From what I know Rosewall prime ended around 1970?

Flash, let's say the following way: Rosewall's peak ended 1964 and his prime (after a few lesser years) ended in 1971.

[Flash O'Groove]

Originally Posted by BobbyOne

Flash, let's say the following way: Rosewall's peak ended 1964 and his prime (after a few lesser years) ended in 1971.

And when did his prime, respectively his peak, began?

[forzamilan90]

Bobby do you think Laver's marketing manager was better than Rosewall's?

[BobbyOne]

Guys and girls, Is n't it significant that we discuss seriously about who is greater, Laver or Rosewall? It honours Muscles. Because mostly in this forum and generally Rosewall is not considered as of in the same group as Laver is and as a GOAT candidate.

For instance Limpinhitter (who does know much about tennis) did not rank Muscles among his best thirteen...

[BobbyOne]

Originally Posted by Flash O'Groove

And when did his prime, respectively his peak, began?

Flash, it's also not easy to determine but I dare to say in 1959 when he had the best balance but failed at the majors. Rosewall was 8:4 against Gonzalez and about even with Hoad.

[BobbyOne]

Originally Posted by forzamilan90

Bobby do you think Laver's marketing manager was better than Rosewall's?

If I would be kiki, I would say yes...

[Flash O'Groove]

Originally Posted by BobbyOne

Guys and girls, Is n't it significant that we discuss seriously about who is greater, Laver or Rosewall? It honours Muscles. Because mostly in this forum and generally Rosewall is not considered as of in the same group as Laver is and as a GOAT candidate.

For instance Limpinhitter (who does know much about tennis) did not rank Muscles among his best thirteen...

It is obvious that Laver, Rosewall and Gonzales have to be considered as goat candidate given their resume. Good luck to rank them more precisely.

[BobbyOne]

Originally Posted by Flash O'Groove

It is obvious that Laver, Rosewall and Gonzales have to be considered as goat candidate given their resume. Good luck to rank them more precisely.

Flash, I agree and would add that also Tilden deserves a place as GOAT candidate

[Flash O'Groove]

Originally Posted by BobbyOne

Flash, I agree and would add that also Tilden deserves a place as GOAT candidate

I didn't give an exhaustive list of Goat candidates. I mentioned Gonzales, Rosewall and Laver because they belong more or less to the same era.

[Flash O'Groove]

Originally Posted by BobbyOne

Flash, I agree and would add that also Tilden deserves a place as GOAT candidate

Why Tilden by the way?

[pc1]

Originally Posted by forzamilan90

Bobby do you think Laver's marketing manager was better than Rosewall's?

It's not a question of marketing but great timing also. Laver was the best player in the world when the Open Era started and even at that point considered one of the greatest if not the greatest that ever lived by many experts. Laver in the first opportunity to win the Open Grand Slam won all four majors in 1969 to accomplish this great feat. Television was beginning to make tennis a far more popular sport and Laver was really the first superstar of the Open Era.

But marketing had nothing to do with Laver's greatness. Marketing does not win you an amateur Grand Slam, a Pro Grand Slam and an Open Grand Slam. When you do that it's a sign of great dominance. But the timing allowed Laver to become the main focus of the beginning of the Open Era.

If Pancho Gonzalez was able to play in an Open Era it is very possible that he would have won the Open Grand Slam and this is the case with Rosewall.

Laver won at least 200 tournaments in his career. Marketing does not allow you to do that. Talent and skill plus competitive zeal allowed Laver to do that.

Rosewall was a super player, perhaps the GOAT but I do think Laver should be ranked slightly above Rosewall.

[BobbyOne]

Originally Posted by Flash O'Groove

Why Tilden by the way?

Tilden has an awesome record (14 majors won, at least 161 tournaments won) which would have been even greater if he had travelled to Australia, to Wimbledon 1922 to 1926, if French Championship would have come earlier.

It's not too bold to speculate about three or four Grand Slams (true GSs) for Tilden.

Perhaps competition was not quite as tough as Gonzalez, Rosewall and Laver faced.

[BobbyOne]

Originally Posted by pc1

It's not a question of marketing but great timing also. Laver was the best player in the world when the Open Era started and even at that point considered one of the greatest if not the greatest that ever lived by many experts. Laver in the first opportunity to win the Open Grand Slam won all four majors in 1969 to accomplish this great feat. Television was beginning to make tennis a far more popular sport and Laver was really the first superstar of the Open Era.

But marketing had nothing to do with Laver's greatness. Marketing does not win you an amateur Grand Slam, a Pro Grand Slam and an Open Grand Slam. When you do that it's a sign of great dominance. But the timing allowed Laver to become the main focus of the beginning of the Open Era.

If Pancho Gonzalez was able to play in an Open Era it is very possible that he would have won the Open Grand Slam and this is the case with Rosewall.

Laver won at least 200 tournaments in his career. Marketing does not allow you to do that. Talent and skill plus competitive zeal allowed Laver to do that.

Rosewall was a super player, perhaps the GOAT but I do think Laver should be ranked slightly above Rosewall.

pc1, I agree. I would find it fair to rank both players equal and reasonable to rank them ahead of all other GOAT candidates.

[Flash O'Groove]

Originally Posted by BobbyOne

Tilden has an awesome record (14 majors won, at least 161 tournaments won) which would have been even greater if he had travelled to Australia, to Wimbledon 1922 to 1926, if French Championship would have come earlier.

It's not too bold to speculate about three or four Grand Slams (true GSs) for Tilden.

Perhaps competition was not quite as tough as Gonzalez, Rosewall and Laver faced.

Yes but that is so old that we barely know anything about the conditions back then. At least for Gonzales, Laver and Rosewall we know in which condition they played, we know which opposition they faced. For Tilden, we only know that he spanked a certain Mr. Johnson. If we take into account only the majors titles count and the potential titles count, why not add Fred Perry, Sears, Renshaw to the list? They also won a lot of tournaments, and they could probably have won more of them if they had played more of them.

[pc1]

Originally Posted by Flash O'Groove

Why Tilden by the way?

Tilden was arguably the most dominant tennis player in history. He won over 160 tournaments in his career. He won I believe 10 classic majors and 14 total majors, 15 if you included the World Hard Court on clay which was the most important clay court tournament in the world since the French was not open to anyone but French players. When he was dominant during his best years he won approximately 98% of his matches over a five year period. At that point he very well could have won not just one Grand Slam but several.

Travel in those days was very tough. They had to travel by boat to the other countries to play majors like Wimbledon. Tilden won Wimbledon of course when he traveled there but when you travel there it would take many weeks and the player would get out of shape besides adjusting to the time lag.

I believe Tilden at one point won eight straight majors that he entered. The man played until his fifties and even played Pancho Gonzalez in a match! He won more than half the tournaments he played in for his CAREER!

You add that he was a great student of the game and was always trying to improve. Tilden late in his career toured with Fred Perry who was known for his legendary continental forehand which some have called the greatest forehand ever. Tilden was a disciple of eastern grips. He asked to have a hitting session with Perry during one of the breaks in their tours and told Perry to hit a ball to him, short and wide to his forehand. Tilden got it and returned the ball easily with a perfect continental forehand like Perry. Perry was astonished. Tilden told Perry that he was studying Perry's style and thought the continental forehand was the only way to return that type of shot. He also said that unless he mastered that he wouldn't feel he was a complete player. That to me is very impressive. It shows Tilden's constant willingness to learn and improve his game. Tilden was in his fifties when this happened. I have no doubt that at 6"2", fast and powerful with a great serve that Tilden would have easily adapted to today's game. Perhaps he would have played with a two handed backhand. Perhaps he would have devised different techniques of playing.

The game we play today is due largely to the techniques that Tilden used and created.

[pc1]

Incidentally I see there is mention of the competition Tilden played and the question about the level of tennis. Tilden did play the top competition in his day plus in his long career he played and defeated greats like Cochet, Lacoste, Borotra, Johnston, Budge, Vines, Nusslein, Perry, Ted Schoeder (much younger than him), Richards, Richard Norris Williams, Norton, Shimizu. Schoeder was playing in the 1950's and I believe Tilden crushed him. They asked him how he defeated Schoeder and I believe he said something like he never loses to people he doesn't like. Schoeder was a Wimbledon champion by the way.

[forzamilan90]

I give Rosewall great props, but I still think Laver is ahead of him.

[TMF]

Originally Posted by Prisoner of Birth

In the Open Era :
Rosewall has 4 Grand Slams
Laver has 5 (including the calendar year Grand Slam)

Pro Slams :
Rosewall has 15
Laver has 8

So Rosewall has 19 Majors compared to Laver's 13.


It's obvious Rosewall is far more successful. And these are some ways in which he is statistically better :

Dominance - Rosewall won 9 consecutive Pro Slams that he participated in. Laver only ever managed 4 Pro Slams in a row and 4 Open Era Grand Slams in a row. His 4 in a row against amateurs isn't comparable.

Longevity - Rosewall won his first Major in 1957 and his last Major in 1972. That's 15 years apart. Laver won his first in 1964 and his last in 1969. Just 5 years apart.

Versatility - Rosewall has 5 Grasscourt Majors, 5 Claycourt Majors, 5 Indoorcourt Majors, 4 Woodcourt Majors. That's 5-5-5-4. Very balanced, showing he was a versatile player. Laver has 8 Grasscourt Majors, 1 Claycourt Major, 4 Indoorcourt Majors, 1 Woodcourt Major. That's 8-1-4-1. Very lopsided and grass/indoor heavy, showing he was more of a fastcourt player and not as versatile.


I think Rosewall is head and shoulders above Laver, in almost every way. I don't even see it as debatable, statistically.

Prisoner of Birth,
IIRC, you said Rosewall doesn't deserve the goat candidates. Since you have Rosewall > Laver, that means Laver doesn't deserve it either.

[Prisoner of Birth]

Originally Posted by TMF

Prisoner of Birth,
IIRC, you said Rosewall doesn't deserve the goat candidates. Since you have Rosewall > Laver, that means Laver doesn't deserve it either.

I don't remember saying that but I may have. Anyway, this has nothing to do with the GOAT debate.

[TMF]

Originally Posted by Prisoner of Birth

I don't remember saying that but I may have. Anyway, this has nothing to do with the GOAT debate.

Ok that's fine. You know some experts have Rosewall in the top 10 and some don't, and hardly(if any) have him in the top 5. But since your arguments with actual facts/numbers say Rosewall is head and shoulders above Laver, I don't know where Laver's placement in history now.