Unbelievable Ignorance of Some Posters

[hoodjem]

Originally Posted by Andy G

Rod Laver



Roger Federer

Go ahead, someone please tell me that when Laver shows up in his slacks and polo shirt, that he's gonna beat Federer.

It wouldn't even be close.

I hardly know what to say.!?

I guess ignorance is the correct word--not idiocy or stupidity or buffoonery.

[hoodjem]

Actually, I could say that I believe Budge's backhand was or is better than Fed's.

But I guess the slacks settle any debate there.

[jamauss]

That's not even a picture of Rod Laver unless it's reversed or something - ? Laver is a lefty. I don't remember seeing him play in slacks either...just shorts and a polo

[raiden031]

Originally Posted by jamauss

That's not even a picture of Rod Laver unless it's reversed or something - ? Laver is a lefty. I don't remember seeing him play in slacks either...just shorts and a polo

I think thats the point of the thread. Someone who doesn't even know who Rod Laver is trying to make a point about older generations vs. today's generation.

[hoodjem]

Yep, it's a picture of Don Budge--wooden handle, slacks and all.

[pc1]

I was in my car waiting for someone so I decided to get on the internet. Even from my tiny cell phone screen I could see it was Budge. Anyway Budge is righty, Laver's lefty.

Slacks went out I think in the 1940's, way before Laver's time.

Great jokes hoodjem.

[pc1]

Funny thing is that while I think Budge is vastly overrated, it would probably have been interesting if they played. Budge could hit his backhand on the rise and he had a great down the line backhand. I'd be curious to see how Budge's down the line backhand to Federer's forehand would do since Federer moves over to his backhand side a lot and leaves that open. Very few can hit to that area today and in the past. Nadal with his lefty forehand, Djokovic but not many.

What bothers me in all honesty is if you haven't seen a player, then don't comment on that player. If you see someone write Player A is superior to Player B and you haven't seen one of the players play or read about the player and his or her style, then you aren't qualified to comment on the player.

[hoodjem]

Originally Posted by pc1

What bothers me in all honesty is if you haven't seen a player, then don't comment on that player. If you see someone write Player A is superior to Player B and you haven't seen one of the players play or read about the player and his or her style, then you aren't qualified to comment on the player.

Yep, and all the FedisGOAT persons have seen only Fed. So, for them he is the GOAT.

Apparently they have never even seen still photos of Laver (or Budge), because they don't know what he (they) looks like.

[VGP]

Originally Posted by pc1

Funny thing is that while I think Budge is vastly overrated....

Why do you think Budge is (vastly) overrated?

Based on the films that I've seen, he definitely had game.

[VGP]

Oh, back to the topic....

....even if you google image 'Rod Laver' you don't get that picture of Don Budge. WTH.

[urban]

Some also state, that the RG was played on grass, and all majors were played in challenge round style. *******s shoud be careful to dismiss all tennis history before 2000, because consequently they diminish their own hero. Federer himself seems more aware of tennis history.

[pc1]

Originally Posted by VGP

Why do you think Budge is (vastly) overrated?

Based on the films that I've seen, he definitely had game.

Definitely had game. He was a great player but I felt some of his real accomplishments were not quite as big as his rep. It would take too long to explain it in this post.

[RoddickAce]

Originally Posted by pc1

Funny thing is that while I think Budge is vastly overrated, it would probably have been interesting if they played. Budge could hit his backhand on the rise and he had a great down the line backhand. I'd be curious to see how Budge's down the line backhand to Federer's forehand would do since Federer moves over to his backhand side a lot and leaves that open. Very few can hit to that area today and in the past. Nadal with his lefty forehand, Djokovic but not many.

What bothers me in all honesty is if you haven't seen a player, then don't comment on that player. If you see someone write Player A is superior to Player B and you haven't seen one of the players play or read about the player and his or her style, then you aren't qualified to comment on the player.

I agree, and that goes for youtube videos too. Watching youtube clips of a player don't provide sufficient info on how a player plays either. Watching many complete matches would show you things (like the players' true weaknesses, ability to handle pressure, etc.) that youtube highlight reels cannot show.

[hoodjem]

Originally Posted by urban

Some also state, that the RG was played on grass, and all majors were played in challenge round style. *******s should be careful to dismiss all tennis history before 2000, because consequently they diminish their own hero. Federer himself seems more aware of tennis history.

Oh god, now that you mention it--this is true.

I saw someone just last week denigrating Laver because he had to play only one match (against the challenger) to win Wimbledon.

The depth of historical ignorance is astounding.


(Yes about Federer himself. I've read that when he gets together with Laver, Fed asks about 1962 and what it took to win all four.)

[jswinf]

Age maybe has something to do with it. The Budge photo's probably from 1940 or so, say 12 years before I was born, and it looks ancient to me. So--what does a picture of Laver in 1969 look like to someone born in 1985 or whatever. Of course they'd have to pick on Rod for having shorts too short instead of long trousers. And you have to take the accumulated wisdom of a lifetime into account (at least I do.)

I never used to think much of Budge's greatness, but reading about how he lost some prime playing years to World War II plus injured his right shoulder in military training made me think more of his place in the game. Like baseball fans wondering what Ted Williams' career stats might have been if he hadn't missed seasons for WWII and Korea.

It does seem consistent, reading about tennis in different eras, that everyone always felt they were seeing the greatest tennis ever played or that ever could be played.

[pc1]

Originally Posted by jswinf

Age maybe has something to do with it. The Budge photo's probably from 1940 or so, say 12 years before I was born, and it looks ancient to me. So--what does a picture of Laver in 1969 look like to someone born in 1985 or whatever. Of course they'd have to pick on Rod for having shorts too short instead of long trousers. And you have to take the accumulated wisdom of a lifetime into account (at least I do.)

I never used to think much of Budge's greatness, but reading about how he lost some prime playing years to World War II plus injured his right shoulder in military training made me think more of his place in the game. Like baseball fans wondering what Ted Williams' career stats might have been if he hadn't missed seasons for WWII and Korea.

It does seem consistent, reading about tennis in different eras, that everyone always felt they were seeing the greatest tennis ever played or that ever could be played.

Age has a lot to do with it. People naturally are inclined to think players today are the best. And many are convinced players of the past are the best. We have to be objective and we cannot assume one truth fits all. A player from the past can be the best or a present player can be.

I'm not sure if I mentioned it in this thread or another but if you used the sport of baseball as an example, you would think the pitchers of today are the hardest throwers ever. And yet if you look from the 1960's you have a number of pitchers like Nolan Ryan, Sandy Koufax and Tom Seaver who could throw as hard as anyone and could do it for nine innings. Ryan threw over 100 miles per hours in the 1960's. When Ryan retired in his late forties in the early 1990's he still threw in the high 90's. I believe the last pitch he threw was 98 miles an hour. Yet if you used the logic of the posters here, no one from the 1960's could throw as hard as the pitchers today because of the new modern training and techniques. If we didn't know better some posters would argue Nolan Ryan would have throw 75 miles an hour, if that.

I believe that some players can be GOATS in the present. I'm not always struck on one player as the GOAT forever but the requirements for GOAT is very very high and you really have to fit all the requirements, at least usually. But a GOAT candidate shouldn't appear every other year. Just remember, last year people were calling Nadal the probably GOAT. Now it's back to Federer. Maybe if Nadal recovers it may laughingly go back to him.

I have seem a number of players in different sports convince me that they are the GOAT. For example I used to think that perhaps Jack Nicklaus was the GOAT in golf but now I think Tiger Woods may very well be. Yet at the same time I think the players of the past in golf can compete today. A perfect example was Tom Watson's amazing run in the British Open last year at age 59. He almost won the tournament. It was a great story. Watson was at his best in the 1970's and I don't doubt if he had his physical skills when he was in his prime he would have won the British Open last year.

Laver was no doubt a great athlete with tremendously technique. He was super fast with a left arm and wrist that was like King Kong's. His wrist was measured to be as big as the World Heavyweight Champion. Because of that he was able to almost play Ping Pong with a tennis racket. He could flix the ball at fantastic speeds. He had amazingly reflexes and a superb volley, touch and serve. Does this sound like a guy who couldn't compete today?

Federer is also immensely gifted with wonderful speed and power. He has super groundies and he is very smooth.

Both are super players and both can compete well in any era.

[NonP]

Originally Posted by hoodjem

I hardly know what to say.!?

I guess ignorance is the correct word--not idiocy or stupidity or buffoonery.

More like a little bit of everything. Anyway who cares? Let 'em blather in the funny farm that is the General Pro Player forum. Thankfully few of 'em venture over here for their pitiful hero-worship.

[BTURNER]

My heavens. You'd think the pro Fed / anti Fed debate were like the abortion debate from so many posters here. It needn't be so black or white or full of venom. Intelligent and educated folks can exist on both sides.

[pc1]

Originally Posted by BTURNER

My heavens. You'd think the pro Fed / anti Fed debate were like the abortion debate from so many posters here. It needn't be so black or white or full of venom. Intelligent and educated folks can exist on both sides.

Good point.

[hoodjem]

Originally Posted by jswinf

It does seem consistent, reading about tennis in different eras, that everyone always felt they were seeing the greatest tennis ever played or that ever could be played.

Good point JS. Wise beyond your years.