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

[Phoenix1983]

Originally Posted by kiki

The 69 slam is the biggest feat in tennis history given the level of competition
It is like if Fed had won the big 4 with a compettion that was the addition of his era and that of Sampras

I agree. Look at the quarter-finalist line-up in the 1969 US Open, the tournament Laver needed to win (and did so, of course) to complete the Grand Slam;

Rod Laver
Roy Emerson
Arthur Ashe
Ken Rosewall
Butch Buchholz
Tony Roche
Fred Stolle
John Newcombe

All eight of these men had already won majors (either amateur or pro).

[NatF]

It's hard to overrate an achievement that's so hard to accomplish it hasn't been done since.

[TMF]

Originally Posted by rossholster

I have to agree as well. Let's not forget Laver didn't play any Slam events during the prime years of his career- that's about 24 that he didn't play in. If you figure he won only 25% of those, that would give him an additional 6 Slams...still ahead of Roger.
Food for thought...

IF he wants to play more slam events then he would have to be an amateur instead of joining the pro. And even if he managed to win more, it's still an amateur slams(vastly below the value of the modern slam). Keep in mind people in here don't take Emerson's 12 slams seriously because the field was very weak. And Laver being an amateur will not be playing in the 3 pro majors. So either you want Laver to take his chance at the amateur slams or he keeps all of his 8 pro majors.
Food for thought....

[3fees]

Simply put Lavers accomplishment is way above what peeps think, no hawk eye, grass courts where the ball bounce was unpredictable,wet surfaces,ect. His style of play is not used any more,, his volleys were mostly to the center court , struck so that the bounce was below the net and dying in the opps service courts, then he came forward and challenged the opponent,, mano to mano to volleys for the point, bascially he was fearless. I seen all of his matches on PBS with Pub Collins calling the play by play, he has all the tools in spades. Mr. Pancho Gonzales thats an interesting life story he was fearless also, there are others as well.

[BobbyOne]

Originally Posted by TMF

IF he wants to play more slam events then he would have to be an amateur instead of joining the pro. And even if he managed to win more, it's still an amateur slams(vastly below the value of the modern slam). Keep in mind people in here don't take Emerson's 12 slams seriously because the field was very weak. And Laver being an amateur will not be playing in the 3 pro majors. So either you want Laver to take his chance at the amateur slams or he keeps all of his 8 pro majors.
Food for thought....

TMF, Laver, Rosewall and other greats turned pro not only for money reasons but also because they wanted to match the best pros and to become the top player of the world. Thus we should not blame them for leaving the amateurs.

[Blocker]

The OP is a troll. And it appears, banned.

[JW10S]

Originally Posted by dima

I mean, did he win slams on clay, hardcourts, and grass on the same year? No he didn't, thus making it not that good.

If it were an easy thing to do, more players would have done it. They didn't, hence the esteem for Laver, who did--twice.

[Ronaldo]

Originally Posted by JW10S

If it were an easy thing to do, more players would have done it. They didn't, hence the esteem for Laver, who did--twice.

Yes, why is J-Mac record in 1984 held in such high regard? One match from a Grand Slam.

[jokinla]

Originally Posted by Ronaldo

Yes, why is J-Mac record in 1984 held in such high regard? One match from a Grand Slam.

Same with Fed in 06, and even though he only won 2 slams in 09, he lost the other two in 5 setters, so technically he was 2 sets away from the grand slam twice.

[adil1972]

Originally Posted by SQA333

Who is the player to rank #2 for the most weeks?

Rafael NADAL

Who is the player to rank #1 for the most weeks?

Roger FEDERER

Who is the player to lose to the same guy for three straight Grand Slams?

Rafael NADAL

Who is the world #4, and out of the top 3?

Rafael NADAL

Who only won one match in Wimbledon this year?

Rafael NADAL

Who lost embarassingly to the world #100?

Rafael NADAL

Who can't reach more than a few Grand Slam finals in a row without damaging some part of his body?

Rafael NADAL

hey man cool down, both nadal and federer did good to tennis
lets not critize nadal injuries

only 3 players won the same slam 7 times. first sampras, second nadal and then federer

Originally Posted by jokinla

If we're comparing Roger and using ifs, if 3 of the 4 slams were on grass now, Roger would have won more and most likely gotten a couple of calendar slams as well. As it is now, it took the GOAT on clay to stop him from doing this.

LOL please. Roger won only one French Open, so there is only 1 year he could have even possibly won any Calendar Slam with 3 of the 4 on grass, never mind "likely gotten a couple". As it was he was not a dominant enough a player anymore to win the Grand Slam by 2009 no matter what surfaces they were on, so that would mean "likely gotten a zero". Had he won a couple Frenchs from 2004-2007 you might have a case. Lastly despite that he has 7 Wimbledons and only 5 U.S Opens many would argue hard courts are Roger's best surface. He just has tons more competition on hard courts than the abysmal grass field of today, and even then he is more dominant in many of his hard court slam winning runs than many of his Wimbledon ones.

[kiki]

Originally Posted by TMF

IF he wants to play more slam events then he would have to be an amateur instead of joining the pro. And even if he managed to win more, it's still an amateur slams(vastly below the value of the modern slam). Keep in mind people in here don't take Emerson's 12 slams seriously because the field was very weak. And Laver being an amateur will not be playing in the 3 pro majors. So either you want Laver to take his chance at the amateur slams or he keeps all of his 8 pro majors.
Food for thought....

Correct and this is why you have to adition his pro slams from 63 to 67 both included

[kiki]

Originally Posted by Ronaldo

Yes, why is J-Mac record in 1984 held in such high regard? One match from a Grand Slam.

One set away
But who knows what would happen in the AO in case he had won RG

[Dan Lobb]

Originally Posted by Phoenix1983

I agree. Look at the quarter-finalist line-up in the 1969 US Open, the tournament Laver needed to win (and did so, of course) to complete the Grand Slam;

Rod Laver
Roy Emerson
Arthur Ashe
Ken Rosewall
Butch Buchholz
Tony Roche
Fred Stolle
John Newcombe

All eight of these men had already won majors (either amateur or pro).

That's a stretch.
Bucholz won the World Professional Championship, in reality a second-rate event in Cleveland.
The real challenges on this list are Newcombe, Roche, Rosewall, Ashe, Emerson (who gave Laver his toughest match in this tournament).
I would suggest that the lineup for the 1959 Forest Hills Pro was much tougher, as all ten players had major titles.

[kiki]

Originally Posted by Dan Lobb

That's a stretch.
Bucholz won the World Professional Championship, in reality a second-rate event in Cleveland.
The real challenges on this list are Newcombe, Roche, Rosewall, Ashe, Emerson (who gave Laver his toughest match in this tournament).
I would suggest that the lineup for the 1959 Forest Hills Pro was much tougher, as all ten players had major titles.

Butcholz was a journeyman but rest of field is scaring
I wish Hoad had his CYGS too.He is the guy who should have it besides Laver,Budge and Borg

[Dan Lobb]

Originally Posted by kiki

Butcholz was a journeyman but rest of field is scaring
I wish Hoad had his CYGS too.He is the guy who should have it besides Laver,Budge and Borg

Hoad had difficulty playing a full year without interruption due to injury or back trouble (he was playing after 1953 with two ruptured discs!).
This would have made it difficult for him to win a calendar grand slam.

One player who should have won the calendar grand slam was Crawford in 1933, when he led Perry in the Forest Hills final two sets to one, and could not play further.
His friends had, without his awareness, plyed him with alcoholic drinks during the match, in the mistaken belief that his minor asthma would be helped by it. He was inebriated and unable to play further.

[TMF]

Originally Posted by BobbyOne

TMF, Laver, Rosewall and other greats turned pro not only for money reasons but also because they wanted to match the best pros and to become the top player of the world. Thus we should not blame them for leaving the amateurs.

I don't have a problem with him turned pro, but rossholster stated that Laver would have won more amateur slams, which he probably would had he stayed as an amateur. However, that would removed everything he achieved as a pro player. Being an amateur he would be another Emerson.

[TMF]

Originally Posted by kiki

Correct and this is why you have to adition his pro slams from 63 to 67 both included

No. You either play in the amateur or the pro. Take your pick.

[jokinla]

Originally Posted by NadalAgassi

LOL please. Roger won only one French Open, so there is only 1 year he could have even possibly won any Calendar Slam with 3 of the 4 on grass, never mind "likely gotten a couple". As it was he was not a dominant enough a player anymore to win the Grand Slam by 2009 no matter what surfaces they were on, so that would mean "likely gotten a zero". Had he won a couple Frenchs from 2004-2007 you might have a case. Lastly despite that he has 7 Wimbledons and only 5 U.S Opens many would argue hard courts are Roger's best surface. He just has tons more competition on hard courts than the abysmal grass field of today, and even then he is more dominant in many of his hard court slam winning runs than many of his Wimbledon ones.

"If" 3 of the 4 were on grass now, he certainly could have completed one in 09, as it was he was 2 sets away, and if those finals were both on grass, he quite possibly could have. And prior to that, 'if" 3 of 4 were on grass, he could have started winning slams even more consistently in 04, and the confidence gained by winning more slams, certainly could have gotten him past Nads at one of those FO's. Of course this is usings "ifs", not reality, just as the poster I was replying to was.

[kiki]

Originally Posted by Dan Lobb

Hoad had difficulty playing a full year without interruption due to injury or back trouble (he was playing after 1953 with two ruptured discs!).
This would have made it difficult for him to win a calendar grand slam.

One player who should have won the calendar grand slam was Crawford in 1933, when he led Perry in the Forest Hills final two sets to one, and could not play further.
His friends had, without his awareness, plyed him with alcoholic drinks during the match, in the mistaken belief that his minor asthma would be helped by it. He was inebriated and unable to play further.

Always liked Crawford
Don' t ask me why but I did
He beat Vines in an all time classic