Laver #2

[Big G]

Gonzalez beat Rosewall badly in '57 and '60. So bad on the '60 tour they changed the rules to the game. Segura also beat him badly.
Pancho was the best for at least 8 years, probably longer. He retired at No. 1
When he came back in 1964 at age 36 he had a slight edge over Laver that year
Laver didn't become the best til '65 through '69
Rosewall was only No. 1 for about 3 years and wasn't very dominant over either Laver or Gonzales during that time.
Pancho beat Laver twice when he was 42
In 1967 at Wembly when Gonzalez was 38 he beat Rosewall took a 15 minute break and then beat Laver in 3 sets 10-8 in the finals
He beat Connors in LA Open at age 43 then the following year on his 44th Bday

[kiki]

Originally Posted by abmk

yes, in the Kiki world, anyone who likes federer or puts anyone other than Laver at no1 is a Laver hater ...... Jeez, get a life.....

Its possible that a person is a fan of both Fed/Laver and puts Fed over Laver, but you can't fathom that possibility, can you ?

Of course, there is a possibility.But most posters here don´t know anything about Laver...other than he was 5,7.

I am more of a Federer admirar than those Fedfans are Laver´s admirers.I have posted some favourable comments on Federer.He is in my top 2 tiers for all time greats ( definitely, a top ten GOAT)

[kiki]

Do you know the main difference between Laver and Federer?

Laver was a real humble guy and his arrogant quotes are about 1/100.000 of Federer´s.

He never said he was the best ever, and rubish like that because he know what opposition he had.Federer has very little knowledge of tennis history and I don´t think he ever cared of ( excpet from wearing those ridiculous and feminine white vest at Wimbledon...I thought he was going to marry there¡¡¡)

[abmk]

Originally Posted by kiki

Of course, there is a possibility.

you think so ???

Originally Posted by kiki

But most posters here don´t know anything about Laver...other than he was 5,7.

Pity, and what's even worse is that some of the old-timers like you are worse, because you think anyone who places the modern great(s) above the older ones don't have any knowledge of olden times at all .....

Originally Posted by kiki

I am more of a Federer admirar than those Fedfans are Laver´s admirers.I have posted some favourable comments on Federer.He is in my top 2 tiers for all time greats ( definitely, a top ten GOAT)

oh jeez, I'm pretty sure that after winning 16 slams, getting to 23 grand slam semi-finals in a row , 18 of 19 slam finals in a row, winning 6 YECs, ending #1 5 times, winning Wimbledon and USO 5 times each consecutively, winning all the 4 slams at least once, federer would be honored that he is in your 2nd tier for all time greats

Here's a clue: Anyone placing Federer/Laver in anything other than top-tier is either clueless/hater.

[abmk]

Originally Posted by kiki

Do you know the main difference between Laver and Federer?

Laver was a real humble guy and his arrogant quotes are about 1/100.000 of Federer´s.

He never said he was the best ever, and rubish like that because he know what opposition he had.Federer has very little knowledge of tennis history and I don´t think he ever cared of ( excpet from wearing those ridiculous and feminine white vest at Wimbledon...I thought he was going to marry there¡¡¡)

What on earth does federer being arrogant or not or his knowledge of tennis history have to do with his achievements/greatness on court ?

[Mustard]

Originally Posted by urban

In his hth with Rosewall, Laver has in fact won more clay matches than he lost. I think, Mustard copied the list of the hth from wikipedia in a recent thread. Go to the years 1963-67, and look, which matches were played in Europe during the summer, at Geneva, Kitzbuhel,at the French, Belgian and Dutch seaside. Those were certainly clay court events. Cannes was played in the indoor pavillion. Rome in 1963 is difficult to tell, because it was played late in the year, and its not sure if on clay or indoors.

Here is the entire Laver vs. Rosewall head-to-head. Rosewall wins in red, Laver wins in blue.

Rod Laver 80-63 Ken Rosewall
1963 Australasian Tour - Sydney White City: Ken Rosewall def. Rod Laver (6-3, 6-3, 6-4)
1963 Australasian Tour - Brisbane Milton: Ken Rosewall def. Rod Laver (3-6, 10-8, 6-2, 6-3)
1963 Australasian Tour - Melbourne: Rod Laver def. Ken Rosewall (6-3, 3-6, 7-5, 6-2)
1963 Australasian Tour - Canberra: Ken Rosewall def. Rod Laver (10-8, 6-3)
1963 Australasian Tour - Adelaide: Rod Laver def. Ken Rosewall (6-1, 6-2, 6-2)
1963 Australasian Tour - Auckland: Ken Rosewall def. Rod Laver (6-4, 6-4)
1963 Australasian Tour - Dunedin: Ken Rosewall def. Rod Laver (10-8, 6-4)
1963 Australasian Tour - Napier: Ken Rosewall def. Rod Laver (6-1, 6-3)
1963 Australasian Tour - Palmerston North: Ken Rosewall def. Rod Laver (7-9, 6-3, 6-4)
1963 Australasian Tour - Masterton: Ken Rosewall def. Rod Laver (6-2, 6-3)
1963 Australasian Tour - Wellington: Ken Rosewall def. Rod Laver (6-3, 6-3)
1963 Australasian Tour - Hamilton: Ken Rosewall def. Rod Laver (6-3, 7-5)
1963 North American Tour (First Phase) - NYC, MSG: Ken Rosewall def. Rod Laver (12-10)
1963 North American Tour (First Phase) - College Park: Ken Rosewall def. Rod Laver (8-5)
1963 North American Tour (First Phase) - Baltimore: Ken Rosewall def. Rod Laver (8-4)
1963 North American Tour (First Phase) - Montreal: Ken Rosewall def. Rod Laver (8-6)
1963 North American Tour (First Phase) - Kansas City: Ken Rosewall def. Rod Laver (12-10)
1963 Cleveland TPPO: Rod Laver def. Ken Rosewall (9-7)
1963 North American Tour (First Phase) - Louisville: Rod Laver def. Ken Rosewall (8-3)
1963 North American Tour (First Phase) - Wheaton: Rod Laver def. Ken Rosewall (8-6)
1963 North American Tour (First Phase) - Bermuda: Rod Laver def. Ken Rosewall (10-8 )
1963 North American Tour (Final Phase) - San Francisco: Rod Laver def. Ken Rosewall (3-6, 6-3, 6-4)
1963 North American Tour (Final Phase) - Los Angeles: Ken Rosewall def. Rod Laver (10-8, 7-5)
1963 North American Tour (Final Phase) - Salt Lake City: Rod Laver def. Ken Rosewall (6-4, 16-18, 6-4)
1963 North American Tour (Final Phase) - Denver: Ken Rosewall def. Rod Laver (6-3, 6-2)
1963 North American Tour (Final Phase) - Winnipeg: Ken Rosewall def. Rod Laver (?)
1963 North American Tour (Final Phase) - Unknown City: Rod Laver def. Ken Rosewall (?)
1963 North American Tour (Final Phase) - Unknown City: Ken Rosewall def. Rod Laver (?)
1963 North American Tour (Final Phase) - Unknown City: Ken Rosewall def. Rod Laver (?)
1963 North American Tour (Final Phase) - Hershey: Ken Rosewall def. Rod Laver (?)
1963 North American Tour (Final Phase) - New Haven: Ken Rosewall def. Rod Laver (?)
1963 North American Tour (Final Phase) - NYC, MSG: Rod Laver def. Ken Rosewall (6-0, 6-3)
1963 North American Tour (Final Phase) - Corvallis: Ken Rosewall def. Rod Laver (10-8, 7-5)
1963 North American Tour (Final Phase) - Unknown City: Ken Rosewall def. Rod Laver (?)
1963 North American Tour (Final Phase) - Medford: Ken Rosewall def. Rod Laver (6-1, 6-3)
1963 North American Tour (Final Phase) - Eugene: Ken Rosewall def. Rod Laver (6-2, 6-2)
1963 North American Tour (Final Phase) - Seattle: Ken Rosewall def. Rod Laver (6-2, 3-6, 6-3)
1963 North American Tour (Final Phase) - Unknown City: Ken Rosewall def. Rod Laver (?)
1963 North American Tour (Final Phase) - Unknown City: Ken Rosewall def. Rod Laver (?)
1963 Los Angeles Pro F: Ken Rosewall def. Rod Laver (14-12, 6-4, 6-3)
1963 US Pro F: Ken Rosewall def. Rod Laver (6-4, 6-2, 6-2)
1963 Kitzbuhel Pro F: Rod Laver def. Ken Rosewall (6-3, 6-4, 6-4)
1963 Cannes Pro F: Rod Laver def. Ken Rosewall (6-2, 6-3, 6-4)
1963 French Pro F: Ken Rosewall def. Rod Laver (6-8, 6-4, 5-7, 6-3, 6-4)
1963 Italian Pro F: Ken Rosewall def. Rod Laver (6-4, 6-3)
1964 Western Australia Pro RR: Rod Laver def. Ken Rosewall (6-2, 6-1)
1964 Melbourne Pro F: Ken Rosewall def. Rod Laver (6-4, 6-4)
1964 New Zealand Tour - Hamilton East: Ken Rosewall def. Rod Laver (5-7, 6-3, 6-1)
1964 New Zealand Tour - Nelson: Rod Laver def. Ken Rosewall (7-5, 6-2)
1964 New Zealand Tour - Palmerston North: Rod Laver def. Ken Rosewall (?)
1964 New Zealand Tour - Unknown City: Rod Laver def. Ken Rosewall (?)
1964 Monterey Pro SF: Rod Laver def. Ken Rosewall (11-9, 6-3)
1964 US Pro SF: Rod Laver def. Ken Rosewall (6-3, 6-3, 7-9, 6-2)
1964 Nottingham: Rod Laver def. Ken Rosewall (6-2, 6-3)
1964 Knokke-le-Zoute Pro SF: Rod Laver def. Ken Rosewall (6-1, 6-1)
1964 Montreux: Rod Laver def. Ken Rosewall (6-1, 6-3)
1964 French Pro F: Ken Rosewall def. Rod Laver (6-3, 7-5, 3-6, 6-3)
1964 Wembley Pro F: Rod Laver def. Ken Rosewall (7-5, 5-7, 4-6, 8-6, 8-6)
1964 Faenza: Rod Laver def. Ken Rosewall (7-5, 6-4)
1964 Torino: Rod Laver def. Ken Rosewall (8-6, 6-2)
1964 Bloemfontein: Rod Laver def. Ken Rosewall (8-6, 6-4)
1964 London: Rod Laver def. Ken Rosewall (6-4, 3-6, 6-4)
1964 Durban: Rod Laver def. Ken Rosewall (6-4, 9-7)
1964 Johannesburg: Ken Rosewall def. Rod Laver (6-4, 6-1, 6-4)
1965 Queensland Pro F: Ken Rosewall def. Rod Laver (6-8, 6-2, 6-4)
1965 South Australia Pro F: Rod Laver def. Ken Rosewall (6-3, 6-4)
1965 Victoria Pro F: Rod Laver def. Ken Rosewall (2-6, 6-1, 6-4)
1965 Greater Seattle Pro SF: Rod Laver def. Ken Rosewall (6-8, 15-13, 6-4)
1965 Lake Tahoe Pro SF: Rod Laver def. Ken Rosewall (6-3, 3-6, 6-1)
1965 Greater Washington Pro F: Ken Rosewall def. Rod Laver (8-6, 6-1)
1965 St. Louis Pro SF: Ken Rosewall def. Rod Laver (6-1, 6-4)
1965 Newport Pro RR: Rod Laver def. Ken Rosewall (31-21)
1965 Newport Pro PO: Rod Laver def. Ken Rosewall (31-28 )
1965 US Pro F: Ken Rosewall def. Rod Laver (6-4, 6-3, 6-3)
1965 French Pro F: Ken Rosewall def. Rod Laver (6-3, 6-2, 6-4)
1965 Brighton: Rod Laver def. Ken Rosewall (1-6, 6-2, 6-4)
1965 Nairobi Pro F: Rod Laver def. Ken Rosewall (6-1, 4-6, 6-2)
1965 Rhodesian Pro F: Rod Laver def. Ken Rosewall (3-6, 6-4, 6-1)
1965 Natal Pro F: Rod Laver def. Ken Rosewall (6-2, 8-6)
1965 London: Rod Laver def. Ken Rosewall (?)
1965 Johannesburg: Rod Laver def. Ken Rosewall (5-7, 6-4, 6-2, 6-4)
1965 Western Province Pro F: Rod Laver def. Ken Rosewall (4-6, 6-3, 6-3)
1966 Victoria Pro F: Rod Laver def. Ken Rosewall (6-3, 6-0)
1966 Shepparton: Ken Rosewall def. Rod Laver (7-5, 9-7)
1966 Western Australia Pro F: Rod Laver def. Ken Rosewall (6-2, 10-8 )
1966 New York City Pro F: Ken Rosewall def. Rod Laver (6-3, 6-3)
1966 Forest Hills Pro RR: Rod Laver def. Ken Rosewall (31-20)
1966 Forest Hills F: Rod Laver def. Ken Rosewall (31-29)
1966 San Rafael RR: Ken Rosewall def. Rod Laver (31-29)
1966 Newport Pro RR: Ken Rosewall def. Rod Laver (31-23)
1966 US Pro F: Rod Laver def. Ken Rosewall (6-4, 4-6, 6-2, 8-10, 6-3)
1966 Wembley Pro F: Rod Laver def. Ken Rosewall (6-2, 6-2, 6-3)
1966 French Pro F: Ken Rosewall def. Rod Laver (6-3, 6-2, 14-12)
1966 Johannesburg Pro F: Ken Rosewall def. Rod Laver (31-26)
1966 Port Elizabeth: Ken Rosewall def. Rod Laver (6-3, 7-5)
1966 Western Province Pro F: Rod Laver def. Ken Rosewall (5-7, 6-4, 7-5)

[Mustard]

1967 Boston Pro F: Rod Laver def. Ken Rosewall (6-4, 6-0)
1967 Paris Pro F: Rod Laver def. Ken Rosewall (6-0, 10-8, 10-8 )
1967 Los Angeles Pro F: Ken Rosewall def. Rod Laver (6-2, 2-6, 7-5)
1967 Pacific Coast Pro - Berkeley F: Ken Rosewall def. Rod Laver (4-6, 6-3, 8-6)
1967 New York City Pro F: Rod Laver def. Ken Rosewall (6-4, 6-4)
1967 Newport Beach Pro F: Ken Rosewall def. Rod Laver (6-3, 6-3)
1967 World Pro - Oklahoma City F: Rod Laver def. Ken Rosewall (6-2, 3-6, 6-4)
1967 Newport Pro RR: Rod Laver def. Ken Rosewall (31-20)
1967 Wimbledon Pro F: Rod Laver def. Ken Rosewall (6-2, 6-2, 12-10)
1967 Transvaal Pro: Ken Rosewall def. Rod Laver (6-3, 6-2)
1967 East London Pro TPPO: Rod Laver def. Ken Rosewall (8-5)
1967 Mbabane: Ken Rosewall def. Rod Laver (6-2, 8-6)
1967 Wembley Pro F: Rod Laver def. Ken Rosewall (2-6, 6-1, 1-6, 8-6, 6-2)
1968 BBC2 World Invitation Champs Pro – Wembley F: Rod Laver def. Ken Rosewall (6-3, 10-8 )
1968 Bournemouth Open F: Ken Rosewall def. Rod Laver (3-6, 6-2, 6-0, 6-3)
1968 Wembley Invitation Pro F: Rod Laver def. Ken Rosewall (6-0, 6-1, 6-0)
1968 New York City Pro F: Rod Laver def. Ken Rosewall (4-6, 6-3, 9-7, 6-4)
1968 French Open F: Ken Rosewall def. Rod Laver (6-3, 6-1, 2-6, 6-2)
1968 Pacific Southwest Open – Los Angeles F: Rod Laver def. Ken Rosewall (4-6, 6-0, 6-0)
1968 Nashville F: Rod Laver def. Ken Rosewall (6-2, 6-3)
1969 Philadelphia Open SF: Rod Laver def. Ken Rosewall (6-4, 6-2)
1969 Orlando Pro F: Rod Laver def. Ken Rosewall (6-3, 6-2)
1969 Oakland Pro SF: Rod Laver def. Ken Rosewall (6-3, 6-3)
1969 BBC2 World Pro – Wembley F: Rod Laver def. Ken Rosewall (8-6, 6-0)
1969 Amsterdam RR: Rod Laver def. Ken Rosewall (6-2, 1-6, 6-3)
1969 French Open F: Rod Laver def. Ken Rosewall (6-4, 6-3, 6-4)
1969 Longwood SF: Rod Laver def. Ken Rosewall (6-3, 5-7, 6-2, 6-3)
1969 Fort Worth Pro F: Rod Laver def. Ken Rosewall (6-3, 6-2)
1969 Hamburg: Ken Rosewall def. Rod Laver (2-6, 7-5, 8-6)
1970 Dunlop Sydney Open F: Rod Laver def. Ken Rosewall (3-6, 6-2, 3-6, 6-2, 6-3)
1970 WCT St. Louis F: Rod Laver def. Ken Rosewall (6-1, 6-4)
1970 New York City Indoor F: Rod Laver def. Ken Rosewall (6-4, 6-3, 6-3)
1970 WCT Louisville SF: Rod Laver def. Ken Rosewall (6-4, 1-6, 6-1)
1970 Masters RR: Rod Laver def. Ken Rosewall (5-6, 6-3, 6-5)
1971 New York City: Rod Laver def. Ken Rosewall (6-3, 6-2, 7-5)
1971 WCT Fort Worth QF: Rod Laver def. Ken Rosewall (7-5, 5-7, 6-2)
1971 WCT Washington R16: Ken Rosewall def. Rod Laver (5-7, 6-3, 6-1)
1971 WCT Berkeley F: Rod Laver def. Ken Rosewall (6-4, 6-4, 7-6)
1971 WCT Dallas F: Ken Rosewall def. Rod Laver (6-4, 1-6, 7-6, 7-6)
1972 WCT Philadelphia F: Rod Laver def. Ken Rosewall (4-6, 6-2, 6-2, 6-2)
1972 WCT Toronto F: Rod Laver def. Ken Rosewall (6-1, 6-4)
1972 WCT Houston F: Rod Laver def. Ken Rosewall (6-2, 6-4)
1972 WCT Dallas F: Ken Rosewall def. Rod Laver (4-6, 6-0, 6-3, 6-7, 7-6)
1973 WCT Dallas TPPO: Ken Rosewall def. Rod Laver (6-3, 6-2)
1973 Sydney SF: Rod Laver def. Ken Rosewall (6-4, 3-6, 8-6)
1976 WCT Challenge Cup RR: Ken Rosewall def. Rod Laver (6-4, 6-1, 6-3)
1976 WCT Houston R16: Ken Rosewall def. Rod Laver (3-6, 6-4, 6-3)

[Big G]

Although a great player, really a distortion to argue Rosewall as a Goat. He was only No. 1 for a short period after Gonzalez retired. Never very dominant. Kramer said in his book that although Rosewall No. 1 in '64, it was very close btwn him, Gonzalez and Laver. Gonzalez was dominant pro for at least 9 years. Laver for about five. The fact that Rosewall did so well in the later part of his career should ask the question of how good the pros were he played when he was younger like Gonzalez, Hoad and Segura. Both Gonzalez and Segura beat Rosewall badly. Gonzalez always use to say what I did to Rosewall Segura did worse. Rosewall wasn't on the same level as Gonzalez. Anyone that truly knows about those tours knows Rosewall wasn't on the same level as Gonzalez. Gonzalez played everyone from Tilden to Borg and acknowledged Kramer as one of the best ever. Those that really know those players also know Kramer above Rosewall. To argue otherwise is to distort history just like the Tennis Channel just did. The truth is the most important pro tournament was the World Pro Championships here in the US. Now people put more importance to Wembly and French Clay Indoor than it carried back then

[hoodjem]

Originally Posted by Big G

Although a great player, really a distortion to argue Rosewall as a Goat. He was only No. 1 for a short period after Gonzalez retired. Never very dominant. Kramer said in his book that although Rosewall No. 1 in '64, it was very close btwn him, Gonzalez and Laver. Gonzalez was dominant pro for at least 9 years. Laver for about five. The fact that Rosewall did so well in the later part of his career should ask the question of how good the pros were he played when he was younger like Gonzalez, Hoad and Segura. Both Gonzalez and Segura beat Rosewall badly. Gonzalez always use to say what I did to Rosewall Segura did worse. Rosewall wasn't on the same level as Gonzalez. Anyone that truly knows about those tours knows Rosewall wasn't on the same level as Gonzalez. Gonzalez played everyone from Tilden to Borg and acknowledged Kramer as one of the best ever. Those that really know those players also know Kramer above Rosewall. To argue otherwise is to distort history just like the Tennis Channel just did. The truth is the most important pro tournament was the World Pro Championships here in the US. Now people put more importance to Wembly and French Clay Indoor than it carried back then

Originally Posted by Doug_Hartley_2012

IF the criteria for greatest player is lifetime achievement, for example, someone who excelled as a junior teenager amateur professional twenty-something thirty-something and so on into veteran categories and achieved top ranking at each level, that would point to the pick of the crop. And if that same person amassed a collection of singles titles in adult comp at the Majors across amateur professional and open eras that dwarfed all others, that would strongly suggest numero uno. And the guy is Ken Rosewall. Rod Laver comes closest but still falls short. True legends whose rivalry late in their careers electrified tv audiences in the US and enabled tennis to explode in the 1970s and beyond.

Here's an interesting contrast of opinions.

[Mustard]

Rosewall had a few years of dominance, and Rosewall always had a habit of upsetting Hoad and Laver in big matches, and even beat Gonzales in the 1961 French Pro final. Rosewall is easily underrated, but he is certainly a GOAT contender. Gonzales, though, is the most underrated of any player in the history of tennis.

[TMF]

Originally Posted by kiki

Of course, there is a possibility.But most posters here don´t know anything about Laver...other than he was 5,7.

No, that's just your one track mind. People can be a fan of both players it has nothing to do with hate just because they put Fed is ahead. People haven't watched laver, but at least they have read his bio or story about him. But you? You are clueless about modern tennis.

Originally Posted by kiki

I am more of a Federer admirar than those Fedfans are Laver´s admirers.I have posted some favourable comments on Federer.He is in my top 2 tiers for all time greats ( definitely, a top ten GOAT)

LOL...constant bashing Fed and you expect us to believe that? No, just no. It's pretty clear the combination of hate and ignorant is the reason why you put Fed as tier II great.

[urban]

From the list of hth, which Carlo assembled on the basis of McCauley with the help of some others like me, i have researched the following certain or probable clay matches:
1963 Kitzbuhel: win Laver
1963: Rome not certain if clay or indoors, was played late October, win Rosewall
1964: Knokke win Laver
1964: Montreux probably clay, win Laver
1967: Oklahoma City: win Laver
1968: BHC Bournemouth win Rosewall
1968: French RG win Rosewall
1969: Amsterdam: win Laver
1969: French RG: win Laver
1970: Louisville: win Laver (see ITF webside)
1971: Washington: win Rosewall
1972: Houston (red clay): win Laver
1977: Houston win Rosewall.

It comes down to a 8-5 aggregate, in favor of Laver. For the clay results it was often important, which weather influenced the natural clay surface. Under rainy damp conditions like in Bournemouth (where the final was suspended for rain showers) and RG in 1968, usually Rosewall won the clay matches. When it was hot (as at RG 1969) and the court played faster, usually Laver won. Kitzbuhel, due to the high altitude in the Alps, always played quite fast.

[TMF]

Laver's 2 grand slams was a great feat, but i they picked Fed's 16 slams triumph Laver for a good reason. Some of you just want to mention Laver "2 GS" but conveniently ignore the details. The 1962 was an amateur and obviously fans don't consider it the same level as 1969. However, when you look at his Australians Open win, the draw was smaller, most of the players competing were Aussies, and Laver only had to win 4 matches. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1969_Au...en%27s_Singles

That's the huge difference when compared to Fed's 16, where his draw are 128 with many countries competing. Keep in mind the most important criteria is "slam performance", and Fed has set many slam records including the 23 straight semi and 23 final appearance.

I'm sure the tennis channel and their crew have dissected in greater details than the rest of the members in here.

[Limpinhitter]

I can't complain about the top 5 with one glaring exception. Pancho Gonzales belongs there, not Ralph Nadal, IMO!

[Nadal_Power]

Originally Posted by TMF

Laver's 2 grand slams was a great feat, but i they picked Fed's 16 slams triumph Laver for a good reason. Some of you just want to mention Laver "2 GS" but conveniently ignore the details. The 1962 was an amateur and obviously fans don't consider it the same level as 1969. However, when you look at his Australians Open win, the draw was smaller, most of the players competing were Aussies, and Laver only had to win 4 matches. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1969_Au...en%27s_Singles

That's the huge difference when compared to Fed's 16, where his draw are 128 with many countries competing. Keep in mind the most important criteria is "slam performance", and Fed has set many slam records including the 23 straight semi and 23 final appearance.

I'm sure the tennis channel and their crew have dissected in greater details than the rest of the members in here.

We saw that in Pancho's example

[Limpinhitter]

Originally Posted by SoBad

How would Ann Haydon-Jones do against someone like Hoad or Fereder on red clay, best of three sets? Could be a tough one.

Have you ever seen Ann Haydon-Jones. She had more testosterone then Hoad and Federer combined!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XhwlK6hdzUM

[Limpinhitter]

Originally Posted by TMF

No, that's just your one track mind. People can be a fan of both players it has nothing to do with hate just because they put Fed is ahead. People haven't watched laver, but at least they have read his bio or story about him. But you? You are clueless about modern tennis.



LOL...constant bashing Fed and you expect us to believe that? No, just no. It's pretty clear the combination of hate and ignorant is the reason why you put Fed as tier II great.

I'm a Federer fan too! But, I've seen so many all time greats rise and fall that I'm able to put his greatness into perspective. You and other members of the ******* Society can't! It was exactly the same when Connors, Borg, McEnroe and Sampras were on top. When 5 or so greats have come and gone since Federer, you will be making the exact same observations to the "hero de jure" ***** that I'm making to you now.

[Limpinhitter]

Originally Posted by Chopin

I thought about this and on the one hand, Graf has accomplished more. Yet, on the other, I think the greatest of all time should honour the best and most accomplished tennis players who will always be men by virtue of the label "best." I don't think it's sexist, just the truth. How could the greatest tennis player of all time be Graf when she'd lose to a challenger we've never heard of?

This is why it was stupid beyond description for TC to combine the rankings of the men and women. They either have to rank them according to ability or according to accomplishemts within their genders. By accomplishment, Graf is greater than Federer by a large margin. By ability, Graf is not in the top 10,000.

[Mustard]

Originally Posted by TMF

Laver's 2 grand slams was a great feat, but i they picked Fed's 16 slams triumph Laver for a good reason. Some of you just want to mention Laver "2 GS" but conveniently ignore the details. The 1962 was an amateur and obviously fans don't consider it the same level as 1969.

1967 was when Laver won the French Pro, Wembley Pro, US Pro and Wimbledon Pro. That achievement far exceeds the 1962 CYGS, which as you say, was achieved by an amateur Laver against an amateur-only field.

Originally Posted by TMF

I'm sure the tennis channel and their crew have dissected in greater details than the rest of the members in here.

Explain their positioning of Pancho Gonzales then.

[pc1]

Originally Posted by Chopin

I thought about this and on the one hand, Graf has accomplished more. Yet, on the other, I think the greatest of all time should honour the best and most accomplished tennis players who will always be men by virtue of the label "best." I don't think it's sexist, just the truth. How could the greatest tennis player of all time be Graf when she'd lose to a challenger we've never heard of?

That's why you can't combine the different rankings. By accomplishment I would say Margaret Court would probably exceed Federer's by perhaps two fold. Yet Federer as a teen would probably defeat Court at her best or frankly any women that ever lived. It's bothersome that they didn't have some sort of set criteria.

Originally Posted by Limpinhitter

This is why it was stupid beyond description for TC to combine the rankings of the men and women. They either have to rank them according to ability or according to accomplishemts within their genders. By accomplishment, Graf is greater than Federer by a large margin. By ability, Graf is not in the top 10,000.

There have been far greater amount of players by ability than Graf at her best than just 10000.