Laver and Fed ??

[hoodjem]

Rod Laver won slams in 1960, 1961 and 1962, then again in 1968-69. During the middle years he was prohibited from playing any slams because of his pro status over 1963-68, including (in my opinion) his peak year of 1967.

What would Fed's slam record look like if he'd been prohibited for five middle years?

[BTURNER]

Smaller. (LOL, sorry Hood, I am feeling mentally lazy this morning and this topic needs thinkers)

[mtr1]

If he misses 04-08, then that leaves him with 4 slams.

[pc1]

Originally Posted by hoodjem

Rod Laver won slams in 1960, 1961 and 1962, then again in 1968-69. During the middle years he was prohibited from playing any slams because of his pro status over 1963-68, including (in my opinion) his peak year of 1967.

What would Fed's slam record look like if he'd been prohibited for five middle years?

Since Laver was 25 when he turned pro in 1963 I figured I would use the years 2006 (when Federer became 25) to the end of this year for majors. So Federer won ten majors in those years so subtracting ten from sixteen would leave Federer with six majors.

Since Federer has (so far) won thirty tournaments in those five years it would leave him with thirty-three total tournaments won that would have been official in the ATP.

[drakulie]

I suppose, if Fed was playing amateurs, like Laver was in 60, 61, and 62, that his career would be similar.

[urban]

Now, some of these "amateurs", like Roy Emerson, Neale Fraser, Fred Stolle or Manolo Santana would eat people like Hewitt, Roddick and Davydenko for breakfast.

[drakulie]

^^Of course they would. Because everyone knows players have become worse and worse over the last 50 years. I'm confident that you think 3.0 weekend warriors from that time would also beat up on Hewitt, Roddick, and Davydenko.

[JediMindTrick]

Originally Posted by drakulie

^^Of course they would. Because everyone knows players have become worse and worse over the last 50 years. I'm confident that you think 3.0 weekend warriors from that time would also beat up on Hewitt, Roddick, and Davydenko.

What's funny is that in every sport where the results can be measured objectively, like track and field or swimming for example, todays athletes are much better than 30 or 40 years ago, but in tennis, the old champions are considered much better than today's top players, even tough they look as if they were playing in slow motion.

If Federer was playing against amateurs in 2003, 2004 and 2005, like Laver did, he would have won the grand slam 3 times in a row. In fact he would have probably won every single tournament in that period, and we wouldn't have this kind of discussion.

[urban]

Will Roddick, Hewitt or Davydenko some day be in the Hall of Fame, like Emerson, Santana, Fraser or Stolle? I have strong doubts.

[drakulie]

^^^Didn't you know that the reason wood racquets are no longer used and were banned from play is because they provide too much of an advantage? Tilden with his 163 mph serve, Rosewall with his 80+ mph slice backhands (source; Limpinhitter). This is why you have seen a dramatic reduction in the speed of the game.

[drakulie]

Originally Posted by urban

Will Roddick, Hewitt or Davydenko some day be in the Hall of Fame, like Emerson, Santana, Fraser or Stolle? I have strong doubts.

LOL. Chang and Sabatini to name a few are in the hall of fame. You don't think Hewitt and Roddick will make it in?

Quite frankly, the Tennis Hall of Fame is a joke.

[pc1]

Actually in those days the so called amateurs were really professionals. They were amateurs in name only. The top "amateurs" made a great amount of money.

If you look at the Women in the 1960's, the amateurs were Margaret Court, Bueno, Billie Jean King, Virginia Wade etc. When Open Tennis occurred and they "officially" became Pros, they still did extremely well.

No one really knows how Federer would do in the 1960's because if he played in the 1960's from the beginning his style would have been different. He would have played different players growing up and probably played to the level of his competition. Would the Federer of today immediately go back in time and do well in the 1960's immediately? I think he would have to take some time to get used to the conditions and equipment first.

Do I think a Roger Federer would be great in the amateurs if he was magically transported back in time? Of course I think he would be great but he would have to practice to get used to the conditions. He couldn't take the same swings and expect the exact same results. There would be a lot more mishits and he would have to adjust to that. He may have to flatter out his swing much more often.

[hoodjem]

Originally Posted by drakulie

^^^Didn't you know that the reason wood racquets are no longer used and were banned from play is because they provide too much of an advantage? Tilden with his 163 mph serve, Rosewall with his 80+ mph slice backhands (source; Limpinhitter). This is why you have seen a dramatic reduction in the speed of the game.

That didn't take long.

[Limpinhitter]

Originally Posted by drakulie

^^Of course they would. Because everyone knows players have become worse and worse over the last 50 years. I'm confident that you think 3.0 weekend warriors from that time would also beat up on Hewitt, Roddick, and Davydenko.

So, there were NTRP ratings 50 years ago? Very interesting!

[drakulie]

Originally Posted by Limpinhitter

So, there were NTRP ratings 50 years ago? Very interesting!

sure there were, same as there were guys like Rosewall hitting 80+ mph slice backhands.

[Limpinhitter]

Originally Posted by drakulie

sure there were, same as there were guys like Rosewall hitting 80+ mph slice backhands.

Please show me proof that there were NTRP ratings 50 years ago! And while you're at it, I'm still waiting for your proof that long arms are more powerful than short arms.

[Limpinhitter]

Originally Posted by fujian90

Many types of seaweed are eaten in different parts of the world and in countries where fresh vegetables are scarce during the winter months, they form an important part of the diet, as they have good mineral content.True Religion jean
True Religion denim

This is talk tennis, not the organic farmers forum!

[drakulie]

Originally Posted by Limpinhitter

Please show me proof that there were NTRP ratings 50 years ago! And while you're at it, I'm still waiting for your proof that long arms are more powerful than short arms.

I suppose you play with a racquetball racquet to play tennis. This must be where you generate all your enormous power.

[Limpinhitter]

Originally Posted by drakulie

I suppose you play with a racquetball racquet to play tennis. This must be where you generate all your enormous power.

You said there were NTRP ratings 50 years ago! Where's the proof?

You said long arms are more powerful than short arms! Where's the proof?

Put up or shut up!

[Trillus]

Originally Posted by urban

Will Roddick, Hewitt or Davydenko some day be in the Hall of Fame, like Emerson, Santana, Fraser or Stolle? I have strong doubts.

You obviously havent been keeping up to date with the recent Hall of Fame inductions. Hewitt is a lock and Roddick is a 95% lock to be inducted. In recent years they even put Sabatini, Novotna, and Noah into the Hall of Fame. And Davydenko was never one of Federers main rivals, and in the early year period you are probably referring to given that you dont mention guys like Nadal, he wasnt even on the radar yet.