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

[hoodjem]

Originally Posted by Feather

I was surprised at your asking that question to me. No offence meant but I thought you would have known that I don't know much about Laver's play.

Sorry, I did not mean to put you on the spot.

I have enough problems trying to figure out what I know, much less what anyone else knows or does not know.

[Dan Lobb]

Originally Posted by BobbyOne

urban, I agree that usually the European summer events were played on clay even though Dan is refusing this...

It also could be that a few indoor tournaments were yet played on clay as it was true with the 1959 Vienna indoor event.

In Florida there were many claycourt events.

Rosewall once told me that the Oklahoma tourney was played on har-tru which is green clay, as far as I know.

Thanks for your research!

I denied that the Cannes Palais de Sport could be indoor clay, because it was a multi-sport venue. They cannot roll out the clay and lay down a track.
This puts Hoad ahead of Rosewall lifetime on clay, by the way, a great achievement.

[BobbyOne]

Originally Posted by Dan Lobb

I denied that the Cannes Palais de Sport could be indoor clay, because it was a multi-sport venue. They cannot roll out the clay and lay down a track.
This puts Hoad ahead of Rosewall lifetime on clay, by the way, a great achievement.

Dan, to your information: In 1991 a claycourt ways laid over the grass in the Vienna football stadium for the Davis Cup encounter Austria vs. USA.

It's still too early to give Hoad the claycourt edge as we miss those early 1960s matches.

[Feather]

Originally Posted by hoodjem

Sorry, I did not mean to put you on the spot.

Oh please, no need of sorry. I was just pointing that out to you.

[Dan Lobb]

Originally Posted by BobbyOne

Dan, to your information: In 1991 a claycourt ways laid over the grass in the Vienna football stadium for the Davis Cup encounter Austria vs. USA.

It's still too early to give Hoad the claycourt edge as we miss those early 1960s matches.

I doubt that this technology was available in 1963 and 1964.
Those early 1960's matches, as I thought we agreed, fail to qualify, as they were unrecorded as to place, date, score.
If all we have are vague, off-hand references (like "he won all thirteen of those matches" or "he beat me in 14 straight matches") without any documentation beyond this, they should not be included as official matches for any tally. They probably refer to unrecorded exhibition matches.
For all recorded matches, even if we give the benefit of the doubt as to surface to Rosewall, Hoad has an edge.
It comes out either 15 to 14 (including Cannes), or 15 to 12 (excluding Cannes). As I say, if there were more, we need to know where and when.

[BobbyOne]

Originally Posted by Dan Lobb

I doubt that this technology was available in 1963 and 1964.
Those early 1960's matches, as I thought we agreed, fail to qualify, as they were unrecorded as to place, date, score.
If all we have are vague, off-hand references (like "he won all thirteen of those matches" or "he beat me in 14 straight matches") without any documentation beyond this, they should not be included as official matches for any tally. They probably refer to unrecorded exhibition matches.
For all recorded matches, even if we give the benefit of the doubt as to surface to Rosewall, Hoad has an edge.
It comes out either 15 to 14 (including Cannes), or 15 to 12 (excluding Cannes). As I say, if there were more, we need to know where and when.

Dan, I see you are the Old Dan. We never agreed about those early 1960s matches. If we would be honest we should say that the clay Hoad/Rosewall tally is unknown for the moment. But I concede that without them Hoad could have the edge.

[BobbyOne]

Originally Posted by Dan Lobb

I doubt that this technology was available in 1963 and 1964.
Those early 1960's matches, as I thought we agreed, fail to qualify, as they were unrecorded as to place, date, score.
If all we have are vague, off-hand references (like "he won all thirteen of those matches" or "he beat me in 14 straight matches") without any documentation beyond this, they should not be included as official matches for any tally. They probably refer to unrecorded exhibition matches.
For all recorded matches, even if we give the benefit of the doubt as to surface to Rosewall, Hoad has an edge.
It comes out either 15 to 14 (including Cannes), or 15 to 12 (excluding Cannes). As I say, if there were more, we need to know where and when.

Dan,

In 1959 a claycourt was laid over the Vienna Townhall indoor surface and it worked: Rosewall beat both Hoad and Trabert....

[FedericRoma83]

French Pro from 1963 to 1967 was played on wood, I remember an interview where Kenny said that. It was different from the Wembley surface anyway, because one of the two was painted with some substance, which slowed the ball a little, while the other was simply wood.
Unfortunately I can't remember which was the painted one...

[BobbyOne]

Originally Posted by FedericRoma83

French Pro from 1963 to 1967 was played on wood, I remember an interview where Kenny said that. It was different from the Wembley surface anyway, because one of the two was painted with some substance, which slowed the ball a little, while the other was simply wood.
Unfortunately I can't remember which was the painted one...

Federic, It's a pity you cannot remember which one was painted. I always have thought (but maybe wrongly) that both were wood. But still I would say that both were rather fast surfaces.

[FedericRoma83]

Originally Posted by BobbyOne

Federic, It's a pity you cannot remember which one was painted. I always have thought (but maybe wrongly) that both were wood. But still I would say that both were rather fast surfaces.

They surely were, I just think that one was fast and the other was faaaaast

[pc1]

Originally Posted by FedericRoma83

French Pro from 1963 to 1967 was played on wood, I remember an interview where Kenny said that. It was different from the Wembley surface anyway, because one of the two was painted with some substance, which slowed the ball a little, while the other was simply wood.
Unfortunately I can't remember which was the painted one...

Originally Posted by BobbyOne

Federic, It's a pity you cannot remember which one was painted. I always have thought (but maybe wrongly) that both were wood. But still I would say that both were rather fast surfaces.

Rosewall writes in one of his books that the ideal indoor court to his mind was wood when it is treated with paint to slow the ball a little. He later writes in the paragraph that the courts at Wembley when they were wood was an ideal pace. So the assumption would be that the courts at Wembley were painted.

[BobbyOne]

Originally Posted by pc1

Rosewall writes in one of his books that the indoor court to his mind was wood when it is treated with paint to slow the ball a little was ideal. He later writes in the paragraph that the courts at Wembley when they were wood was an ideal pace. So the assumption would be that the courts at Wembley were painted.

Thanks, pc1, for explaining the matter. It's a shame I did not know it.

[Dan Lobb]

Originally Posted by BobbyOne

Dan, I see you are the Old Dan. We never agreed about those early 1960s matches. If we would be honest we should say that the clay Hoad/Rosewall tally is unknown for the moment. But I concede that without them Hoad could have the edge.

I understood that you agreed with me that such vague references as we have for the 1963 Hoad/Laver series and the vague references of Rosewall regarding his matches with Hoad should not be given official status.

[Dan Lobb]

Originally Posted by BobbyOne

Dan,

In 1959 a claycourt was laid over the Vienna Townhall indoor surface and it worked: Rosewall beat both Hoad and Trabert....

What is your source for that? Not listed in McCauley.

[BobbyOne]

Originally Posted by Dan Lobb

What is your source for that? Not listed in McCauley.

Dan, I read about it in an Austrian newspaper of that time ("Kurier").

[90's Clay]

What racket would Nadal and Laver be playing with against each other on clay?

Both a product of their own times. Nadal wouldn't be able to generate the topspin, pace and placement with earlier racket technology.

So its quite possible, Laver DESTROYS Nadal on clay

Now if its today's racket technology with the lux string etc.. thats a different story

[piece]

Originally Posted by pc1

I think Nadal probably would have beaten Laver most of the time on red clay. It would be interesting in that Laver would have played Nadal very differently than anyone has ever played him. And Laver's forehand was still very powerful especially if he decided to go for that.

Laver probably would have used various drop shots and angles just to bring Nadal up to net. Nadal imo is a very good volleyer but he still is uncomfortable there where forced to be there. Rod would probably use a lot of different angles, volleys when appropriate.

I think Laver would be able to beat Nadal at times on clay. I don't think he would be embarrassed. I believe for example Laver has defeated Rosewall more times than not on clay so Rod was a great clay court player.

One thing for sure, Nadal would face someone with a huge amount of playing styles. He could not get adjust to one style of play. And yes I do think it's very possible Laver was a better clay court player than Federer. Sorry guys but that's how I feel. More solid on both sides, better volley, a little better variety and Laver's forehand was still considered the best in tennis by many in his day so his forehand isn't exactly chopped liver.

Laver's forehand was more solid than Federer's?

[BobbyOne]

Originally Posted by piece

Laver's forehand was more solid than Federer's?

piece, It might be that Federer's forehand is more spectacular than Laver's but Laver's forehand more consistent. Who knows?

[Flash O'Groove]

Originally Posted by BobbyOne

piece, It might be that Federer's forehand is more spectacular than Laver's but Laver's forehand more consistent. Who knows?

Hum...Everybody?

[pc1]

Originally Posted by piece

Laver's forehand was more solid than Federer's?

No I didn't mean that. I mean more balance on both sides as far as the overall strokes. Laver and Federer both had explosive forehand weapons that can hit winners from anyone. Federer's forehand may very well be better than Laver's. It probably is. However I do think that Laver's backhand is probably better than Federer's so I think he's more solid on both sides, meaning forehand and backhand. Laver's backhand was almost the equivalent of forehand because of his huge left wrist and arm. He was known for using backhand flicks almost like ping pong and hitting it for winners. Federer tends to run around his backhand often.

I think Federer's forehand is by a decent margin stronger than his solid backhand. I think Laver's backhand and forehand were about equal. That's what I mean. I think Krosero has charted matches in which Laver's backhand winners surpass his forehand winners. I don't know if that was the norm or not.