laver gets too much credit

[canuckfan]

Laver deserves credit as a player who dominated in his era. However sports performance improves over time, training techniques improve, and technology also pushes the level of performance. All you have to do is look at the olympic records for proof -- why does the 100m time continue to decrease? Atlethes gradually get bigger, faster, stronger with each generation. If Laver were snatched from the 60's with his wooden racquet he would be eaten alive on today's tour. This is not his fault. It is simply the nature of things.

[JeMar]

Laver was the OG.

[prattle128]

Originally Posted by BeHappy

1) Yes 3 of the grand slams were played on grass, but they were all very different speeds. Today there is actually less disparity between the surfaces.

2)Laver actually won the equivelant of about 20 grandslams, he played most of his career on the pro circuit.

3)Laver was shot for shot better than Federer. He was like Hewitt with Federer's strokes and a much better backhand.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EpdPX9avs1M&fmt=18



/thread

the most interesting thing about this video (that i find) is kinda where the grass is starting to fade to dirt. look at the wimbledon final in 2008, and then that video. just clearly shows the difference in play styles by where players were running/playing a lot of the points. just something that i personally thought was kinda interesting lol.

[adidas_wilson]

Its funny.. Because I can still remember watching Steffi Graf playing at Wimbledon a few years back and saying to myself. gee the service box center line has taken a beating (it was obviously the second week)

Now it is only the baseline that takes a beating..

[lawrence]

Originally Posted by 1-handed-backhand

true

plus he lost so often

16 times in 1969, so much for TOTAL DOMINATION

he wasn't tall enough to be a GOAT

he's a second tier player that got lucky with his era and technology

to put it bluntly, Sampras would beat Laver on clay even though Laver won RG

you have to remember, in Laver's day people S&V'd on CLAY!!!!!!!!!

Pete would have loved that

Pete is so unlucky, if he played in the 60s he would have 40+ slams

you just made yourself look stupid
he was unfortunate not to be taller, yet he STILL managed to achieve what he did

doesnt that just make him better?
rofl.

[nfor304]

I dont think Laver is at all over rated, he is one of the greatest to play the game ever. Yes if you took laver with his wooden racket and had him play now he wouldnt dominate the way he did but if you took any modern player and gave them a wooden racket they would do far worse.
To say that he is a second tier player who played in a weak era is beyond ridiculous, and shows that you know very little about tennis.

[!Tym]

Originally Posted by canuckfan

Laver deserves credit as a player who dominated in his era. However sports performance improves over time, training techniques improve, and technology also pushes the level of performance. All you have to do is look at the olympic records for proof -- why does the 100m time continue to decrease? Atlethes gradually get bigger, faster, stronger with each generation. If Laver were snatched from the 60's with his wooden racquet he would be eaten alive on today's tour. This is not his fault. It is simply the nature of things.

Lol...one word for you...STEROIDS.

I get what you're saying, but seriously look around for a second. Ain't no one was ripped in those days, now everyone has veins popping out of their every nook and cranny.

Heck, even just legal OTC supplements are HUGE improvements over what used to be available. An athlete's diet back then culminated with a steak dinner and a pepsi, just ask Jimmy Connors.

It's truly unfair to compare past generations. People are so quick to say founding fathers would get wiped away today, but don't give enough credit to the fact that with the forerunners there is no now. Every bit of human knowledge and advancement was built on knowing what are forerunners knew. We didn't go to the moon in a day. If those who sent us to the moon were born in a generation with no knowledge of the past, of even just the basic concept of math and 1 + 1 = 2 like the cavemen, what do you think? We would have gone to the moon? Of course not. I think being in the "now" always gives one a false sense of superiority when the reality is that you can only judge the elite TALENTS of EACH generation on their OWN terms.

Per Petr Korda who hit with an older than dirt Laver in I believe it was the late 80s, he said afterward, he was the most talented tennis player he had ever played against. Taking account into age and obvious respect for your elders, it is still quite a bold statement to make that claim, this especially coming from someone who was every bit as talented as any player of his generation.

[Rabbit]

Originally Posted by 1-handed-backhand

you dont know much about tennis

do you think its a coincedence that Fed,Nadal, Sampras etc

were all above 6ft

Laver was 5ft 8

Michael chang was 5ft 9 1/2

it was said of chang that had he been 6 ft 1 he could have dominated like sampras

Yeah, I guess this explains why Christopher Rochus at 5'2" is 2 - 1 against 6'10" Ivo Karlovic...with 1 of those wins on grass...but wait...this shouldn't be.

Who said that of Chang? Give me a name, I never heard that. Chang was a retriever plain and simple. He made his living with his legs, running evertything down.

Originally Posted by 1-handed-backhand

simple genetics, Laver's build was not good enough for today's era, he wouldn't make the top 25

Genetics, you've got to be kidding.... What an idiotic thing to say. Laver would be top 5 any generation. Laver was taller than Ken Rosewall and Ken Rosewall played on tour for 25 years and won until he finally retired in his mid-40s.

Originally Posted by 1-handed-backhand

he is vastly oevrrated by rose tinted spectacle wearing fans

Yeah, two Grand Slams ten years apart will tend to color anyone's spectacles. 11 majors with a ten year absence, winning matches until his late 30s. More court sense than all but a handful of players who ever stepped on court...EVER. All that and more will tend to color your view. It's painfully obvious that you never saw Laver play.


If height is the main consideration for greatness, why aren't Isner, Karlovic, Ancic, and all the other NBA-sized players domnating the rankings? Because it ain't so. The average height of the top ten has actually come back down some to around 6' - 6'2'. Connors, Borg, McEnroe, and Lendl were all 5'11" - 6'2".

Originally Posted by !Tym

Lol...one word for you...STEROIDS.

I get what you're saying, but seriously look around for a second. Ain't no one was ripped in those days, now everyone has veins popping out of their every nook and cranny.

Heck, even just legal OTC supplements are HUGE improvements over what used to be available. An athlete's diet back then culminated with a steak dinner and a pepsi, just ask Jimmy Connors.

It's truly unfair to compare past generations. People are so quick to say founding fathers would get wiped away today, but don't give enough credit to the fact that with the forerunners there is no now. Every bit of human knowledge and advancement was built on knowing what are forerunners knew. We didn't go to the moon in a day. If those who sent us to the moon were born in a generation with no knowledge of the past, of even just the basic concept of math and 1 + 1 = 2 like the cavemen, what do you think? We would have gone to the moon? Of course not. I think being in the "now" always gives one a false sense of superiority when the reality is that you can only judge the elite TALENTS of EACH generation on their OWN terms.

Per Petr Korda who hit with an older than dirt Laver in I believe it was the late 80s, he said afterward, he was the most talented tennis player he had ever played against. Taking account into age and obvious respect for your elders, it is still quite a bold statement to make that claim, this especially coming from someone who was every bit as talented as any player of his generation.

Especially coming from a guy like Korda who has/had more feel than 99% of the players who ever picked up a racquet.

[zagor]

How exactly can you get "too" much credit if you've won 2(!) calendar Grand Slams? Don't really understand what OP means.

And yes,Nalbo who is 5 10(around that atleast) went on a tear in 2007 and beat Fed and Nadal in back-to-back tourneys(which no one has ever done).So height argument is a bit silly.

[sheq]

yea ı agree.. laver is not definetely the goat..but ı have to admit he has a natureal and unique talent..However his records is not as impressive as roger's or sampras'..he is always mentioned about completing grand slams in a year twice..still,,we all know that competition wasnt as strong as today and surface transitition and diverstiy was low..

there are some people on this forum tend to assert pancho gonzalez rod laver don budge or newcombe are the greatest of all time..sorry people they are not..

of course they are so important for tennis evolution and they deserve all the credits..

IMO GOAT argument should based on two basic evoluation firstly pure talent and skill, second one the records.. ı would rate records as %60 or 70 and talent as %40-30

[zagor]

Well sure the game of tennis changed over the years no question but are the main neccesary components for a great tennis champion that much changed? I kinda think that the truly great tennis players would be that in any era.

Also if guys are that bigger,stronger etc. than before why doesn't Fed look like a beefed up Del Potro or Safin etc. why isn't that kind of player dominating the game? Something doesn't add up there.

[Dilettante]

Originally Posted by JeMar

Laver was the OG.

Original Gangster?

Thought it was Ice-T.

[mental midget]

height helps a lot, but it's not everything.

if rios, at about 5'9 or whatever, had been born with hewitt's or nadal's brain, there's no question in my mind he would have won several majors.

[timnz]

Originally Posted by ormynameisntbill

back when he played they only had 2 kinds of courts: hard and grass

if we still had that today you can multiply feds gs wins by at least 2. and he's only 27.

I suggest that you look at the following web site. Look at the tournament section of what tournaments Laver won and against them it says the surface if it is known. As you can see Laver won around 30 hard court tournaments & around 35 clay court tournaments. And many many more grass, indoor and carpet tournaments.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rod_Laver

This is a complete myth that he could only play on 2 surfaces.

Some depreciate his Grand Slams because they were only on Grass and Clay whereas today we have three surfaces for the Majors - Hard (Australian Open, US Open), Clay (Roland Garros) & Grass (Wimbledon). However, laver won the top hard court tournaments of the time such as the Pacific Southwest and the South African open, so you can be sure that he would have had no problems winning majors on a hard court.

[harryz]

It's a losing proposition. I wonder how long he's been playing, watching and studying the sport. No matter, this isn't worth dignifying with a response.

Mac idolized Laver, and he played with and against many of the best "modern" players including Agassi, Becker, Sampras and others. He would know whereof he speaks.

No clue, no logic, and no sense. Interestingly, Laver doesn't believe in a GOAT but in the "greatest of each generation." Wise man.

[pmerk34]

Originally Posted by canuckfan

Laver deserves credit as a player who dominated in his era. However sports performance improves over time, training techniques improve, and technology also pushes the level of performance. All you have to do is look at the olympic records for proof -- why does the 100m time continue to decrease? Atlethes gradually get bigger, faster, stronger with each generation. If Laver were snatched from the 60's with his wooden racquet he would be eaten alive on today's tour. This is not his fault. It is simply the nature of things.

Laver has admitted that being 5'9" wouldn't exactly help him in the modern men's pro game LOL

[AndrewD]

Originally Posted by canuckfan

Laver deserves credit as a player who dominated in his era. However sports performance improves over time, training techniques improve, and technology also pushes the level of performance. All you have to do is look at the olympic records for proof -- why does the 100m time continue to decrease? Atlethes gradually get bigger, faster, stronger with each generation. If Laver were snatched from the 60's with his wooden racquet he would be eaten alive on today's tour. This is not his fault. It is simply the nature of things.

There's so many things wrong with that argument it's hard to know where to start. Suffice to say, if you're older than 12, it's embarrassing.

1. Take Rod Laver (or a Hoad, Rosewall, Gonzalez, Kramer, Budge, etc), with his championship mentality, and give him the same benefits as today's players and Laver would still be a champion. Unlike Federer he was never dominated by another player. That not only points to him having a better all-around game it points to him having a significantly stronger mindset.

2. You can't say 'oh, but he'd be too small to compete against today's athletes' BECAUSE, were Rod Laver to exist today he would be subject to the same things as everyone else. In other words, Rod Laver born in this era would not be a 5`8, he'd be about 6ft mark.

3. You can't say I'll take player X from his era, force him to use the same equipment as back then but compete against people user more efficient gear. That's just stupid. All it does is prove that today's racquets and string are more effective and efficient than the gear used previously and today's technique has changed to accommodate them. Even someone with a two digit IQ knows that to be true. However, it makes absolutely no comment on the ability of the player because you'd get exactly the same result if you took a player from today and forced them to use the same equipment.


Simply put:

1. What separates a great player from a good player is their championship MENTALITY.

2. What separates a person who understands professional sport from one who doesn't is the recognition of the first point.

[Borgforever]

Laver overrated? I think a lot of people here would be considered extremely sober by the most critical of observers when they agree with this answer/understatement of the year:

No...

[pmerk34]

Originally Posted by AndrewD

There's so many things wrong with that argument it's hard to know where to start. Suffice to say, if you're older than 12, it's embarrassing.

1. Take Rod Laver (or a Hoad, Rosewall, Gonzalez, Kramer, Budge, etc), with his championship mentality, and give him the same benefits as today's players and Laver would still be a champion. Unlike Federer he was never dominated by another player. That not only points to him having a better all-around game it points to him having a significantly stronger mindset.

2. You can't say 'oh, but he'd be too small to compete against today's athletes' BECAUSE, were Rod Laver to exist today he would be subject to the same things as everyone else. In other words, Rod Laver born in this era would not be a 5`8, he'd be about 6ft mark.

3. You can't say I'll take player X from his era, force him to use the same equipment as back then but compete against people user more efficient gear. That's just stupid. All it does is prove that today's racquets and string are more effective and efficient than the gear used previously and today's technique has changed to accommodate them. Even someone with a two digit IQ knows that to be true. However, it makes absolutely no comment on the ability of the player because you'd get exactly the same result if you took a player from today and forced them to use the same equipment.


Simply put:

1. What separates a great player from a good player is their championship MENTALITY.

2. What separates a person who understands professional sport from one who doesn't is the recognition of the first point.

I get what you are saying but Laver himself realizes that with his stature he would not dominate in the modern era.

[marc45]

Originally Posted by T1000

hewitt is 5'10 and owned sampras at the USO. Great champions adjust and laver would adjust to compete with the era today

he owned him in the final, the year before sampras straight-setted him in the semis...hewitt did have the edge over pete overall, of course there was a significant age difference