Looking again at Laver's 1969 - Exploding the Grass/Clay only Myth

[adidasman]

I don't recall hearing anyone refer to the four major tournaments as "Slams" until Pete Sampras started using that expression - so I blame him for unintentionally (unless he was trying to cover up the fact that he would never achieve a Grand Slam since he couldn't win at RG) diminishing the meaning of the phrase.

[Mustard]

Originally Posted by adidasman

I don't recall hearing anyone refer to the four major tournaments as "Slams" until Pete Sampras started using that expression - so I blame him for unintentionally (unless he was trying to cover up the fact that he would never achieve a Grand Slam since he couldn't win at RG) diminishing the meaning of the phrase.

I was watching McEnroe's win over Lendl in the 1989 WCT Dallas semi finals last night, and one of the commentators said "Grand Slam" when saying that McEnroe had a good chance to win another major, so it was going on before Sampras.

[Moose Malloy]

I don't recall hearing anyone refer to the four major tournaments as "Slams" until Pete Sampras started using that expression - so I blame him for unintentionally

lendl used to call them slams all the time in the 80s.

[urban]

Interesting and surprising, considering the grass-clay- myth for 1969 is, that Laver probably played only 6 grass, 3 majors and 3 minors (Sydney, Brisbane AO, NZ, Queens, Wim, Forest Hills) and 2 clay tournaments (Amsterdam, Paris FO) all year, out of 32 tournaments overall played. The rest was indoor carpet and hard court.

[timnz]

Anybody got information on the draw and prize money of the pacific south west?

Just want a definitive conclusion as to what was the premier hard court tournament that year. South african seems to be the front runner.

[krosero]

Originally Posted by timnz

That is why we should be resisting the term 'Grand Slam tournament. Or even worse 'Grand Slams' by which some people mean individual tournaments eg 'Sampras won 14 slams'. The much better term - which golf uses is the term 'Major'. And golf has had an understanding that what tournaments are 'majors' has changed throughout the years. This current bad habit of calling the 4 top tournaments 'Slams' encourages people to view all tennis history through the current top 4 tournaments only. If the term 'major' was used with the understanding that the current majors are different than what was historically the case, then things would be easier and clearer.

I've continued using the term "Slam", or "Grand Slam event", to refer to a single title. I do that when I'm referring to the championships of Australia, France, Wimbledon and the U.S. The term "majors" is not specific enough if you need to specify those four tournaments.

And there are any number of reasons you would want to specify those tournaments. For example you may want to refer to the record for longest final at one of the Grand Slam events. Or you may want to discuss how the number of rounds has varied at the four Grand Slam events. They are, after all, very different from the pro tournaments, not just in format and in dates; they are historically linked to one another. On the most basic level, they are the tournaments that the ILTF designated as majors. On the historical level, they are the majors that make up the traditional Grand Slam of tennis.

Now it's true that the "Grand Slam" of tennis has not always referred to the 4 majors designated by the ILTF; the term has been defined in innumerable ways. But today there is universal agreement on which 4 tournaments comprise the Grand Slam (there has been universal agreement for some time, maybe as far back as Laver's first Grand Slam). And if you want to refer to those 4 tournaments, and you want to refer to that particular concept of the Grand Slam (not the pro Grand Slam, or any other number of Grand Slams that have existed), the term "major" obviously will not do. That term encompasses the 4 majors designated by the ILTF as well as the pro majors -- and any other majors that we wish to designate.

I'm all for the use of the term "major." But we're a long way off from universal agreement about which tournaments are the majors. We've talked about including the Dallas WCT, or the New York Masters, as majors. We've talked about dropping the Australian Open during the period when it attracted so few of the top players, and replacing it with the WCT or Masters championships.

If it's such a free-for-all, the term "major" becomes even more vague. I hear that such-and-such player has X number of majors, and I can't really assume that I know which tournaments are being counted. For all I know I can ask the speaker what tournaments he is including, and he might be counting events that I don't consider majors. Or not counting events that I regard as majors.

At least if you refer to the longest final ever played at the 4 Grand Slam events, you know exactly what is being referred to. You can have confidence that you know where the data -- whatever data that might be -- is coming from. With "majors", there's just a long way to go before any tennis fan, hearing a stat, or a story, or an analysis, will know exactly which tournaments are being talked about. I'm not sure we'll ever get there, due to the fact that tennis history has been so messy.

[Limpinhitter]

Originally Posted by krosero

I've continued using the term "Slam", or "Grand Slam event", to refer to a single title. I do that when I'm referring to the championships of Australia, France, Wimbledon and the U.S. The term "majors" is not specific enough if you need to specify those four tournaments.

And there are any number of reasons you would want to specify those tournaments. For example you may want to refer to the record for longest final at one of the Grand Slam events. Or you may want to discuss how the number of rounds has varied at the four Grand Slam events. They are, after all, very different from the pro tournaments, not just in format and in dates; they are historically linked to one another. On the most basic level, they are the tournaments that the ILTF designated as majors. On the historical level, they are the majors that make up the traditional Grand Slam of tennis.

Now it's true that the "Grand Slam" of tennis has not always referred to the 4 majors designated by the ILTF; the term has been defined in innumerable ways. But today there is universal agreement on which 4 tournaments comprise the Grand Slam (there has been universal agreement for some time, maybe as far back as Laver's first Grand Slam). And if you want to refer to those 4 tournaments, and you want to refer to that particular concept of the Grand Slam (not the pro Grand Slam, or any other number of Grand Slams that have existed), the term "major" obviously will not do. That term encompasses the 4 majors designated by the ILTF as well as the pro majors -- and any other majors that we wish to designate.

I'm all for the use of the term "major." But we're a long way off from universal agreement about which tournaments are the majors. We've talked about including the Dallas WCT, or the New York Masters, as majors. We've talked about dropping the Australian Open during the period when it attracted so few of the top players, and replacing it with the WCT or Masters championships.

If it's such a free-for-all, the term "major" becomes even more vague. I hear that such-and-such player has X number of majors, and I can't really assume that I know which tournaments are being counted. For all I know I can ask the speaker what tournaments he is including, and he might be counting events that I don't consider majors. Or not counting events that I regard as majors.

At least if you refer to the longest final ever played at the 4 Grand Slam events, you know exactly what is being referred to. You can have confidence that you know where the data -- whatever data that might be -- is coming from. With "majors", there's just a long way to go before any tennis fan, hearing a stat, or a story, or an analysis, will know exactly which tournaments are being talked about. I'm not sure we'll ever get there, due to the fact that tennis history has been so messy.

I disagree. I think the term "major" works perfectly when referring to 1 of the 4 tournaments of the "Grand Slam," e.g. Jack Nicklaus won 18 major titles in his career, and Tiger Woods has won 14 major titles so far. There is no doubt or confusion about which tournaments comprise the "majors" in golf: The British Open, the U.S. Open, the Masters and the PGA Championship. There is no doubt that winning all 4 majors in the same year is a "Grand Slam" in golf. In 1930, Bobby Jones won all 4 majors thereby winning the only "Grand Slam" in the history of golf. Granted the 4 golf majors in 1930 were the British Amateur and Open Championships, and the U.S. Amateur and Open Championships because the Masters and PGA Championship didn't exist yet. But, the meaning of "major" and "Grand Slam" has not been in doubt or a source of confusion in golf. Any confusion there is in tennis is probably created by the indiscriminate use of the terms slam or grand slam when the term major is what is meant.

[krosero]

Originally Posted by Limpinhitter

I disagree. I think the term "major" works perfectly when referring to 1 of the 4 tournaments of the "Grand Slam," e.g. Jack Nicklaus won 18 major titles in his career, and Tiger Woods has won 14 major titles so far.

That's certainly true, a "major" today is one of the four tournaments that were historically designated by the ILTF: Australia, France, Wimbledon, USO. They can certainly be described as majors, because that's what they are.

And today there are no other tournaments that could be majors.

But that's not true in tennis history. "Major" applies to the traditional 4 amateur majors, and to the pro majors (and there's not universal agreement about which tournaments were the pro majors). "Major" can also refer to the World Hard Court Championship, or the World Covered Court Championship -- or any number of big tournaments, pre-Tilden, that tennis fans have called majors. I've seen major counts given for HL Doherty, which surely consist of events other than the 4 that were designated later by the ITF; if you go back that far in history and start talking about which events were the majors of that time period, you're probably going to include events that no longer exist.

The word "major", in short, can refer to a LONG list of events in tennis history. Other events that have been called majors are the WCT and Masters championships; and the Dunlop Open of 1970.

So here's the issue I was raising. If you just want to refer to the set of Australia, France, Wimbledon and the US, how do you refer to them concisely, without listing all of them each time?

If you want to say that the longest Grand Slam final in history was played today, but you're not allowed to use the term "Grand Slam" or even the single word "slam", how do you refer to such a thing concisely?

Or if you want to refer to the youngest person ever to win a Grand Slam event, but you can't use those words, how do you refer to such a thing concisely?

Originally Posted by Limpinhitter

Any confusion there is in tennis is probably created by the indiscriminate use of the terms slam or grand slam when the term major is what is meant.

There is certainly a lot of indiscriminate use of the kind you're talking about, mostly from new or young fans. But a great deal of this confusion is caused because older fans are not in agreement about which tournaments, historically, were majors. Everyone agrees that the 4 events designated by the ILTF are majors; but beyond that there is constant disagreement. We keep debating which of the pro events were majors. We keep talking about the Dunlop Open, Dallas, the New York Masters, as possible majors.

That is really the reason that I have not often used the term "major" on this board. It is too vague and too open to interpretation -- on this board. When composing my posts I've often considered using the term "major" rather than "Slam", but I routinely choose not to use "major" because I know I will be making a vague statement rather than a specific one.

For example, if we're debating the top player of 1972, I can say that this-and-this happened in the Slams -- or in the Grand Slam events. No possible confusion what that means. If someone else wants to bring up other tournaments, they can. I can do the same, if I want to. No confusion. But if I claim that this-and-this happened in the majors that year, I KNOW that on this board, not everyone will know exactly what I'm talking about. Some will assume that I'm talking just about the traditional four events. Some might suspect that I'm including the Dallas WCT, in place of the Australian Open. Others will wonder whether I'm including Dallas in addition to the traditional four.

And no writer, or speaker, wants to be vague, and possibly misunderstood, when he can be specific. If you're making a statement of any kind, you want people to know exactly what you're referring to, rather than leaving them with questions about what you mean.

I'll ask this again because it's a real problem. If you want to say that the longest Grand Slam final in history was played today, but you're not allowed to use the term "Grand Slam" or even the single word "slam", how do you refer to such a thing concisely?

[drakulie]

Originally Posted by timnz

Some have depreciated Laver's open Grand Slam year - by saying - "yes but he only played it on Grass and Clay" - as if that takes anything away from it.

No, it doesn't take anything away from it, but it did in FACT occur. 3 were on grass, one on clay. So, it was much different than the tour today.

Fact is, people in support of Laver's achievements want to hold players of today to Laver's standards, when the fact is, it is impossible, because 3 were on grass and one on clay.

[TMF]

Originally Posted by drakulie

No, it doesn't take anything away from it, but it did in FACT occur. 3 were on grass, one on clay. So, it was much different than the tour today.

Fact is, people in support of Laver's achievements want to hold players of today to Laver's standards, when the fact is, it is impossible, because 3 were on grass and one on clay.

I agree. It's unfair to hold today's players to Laver's standards. If that persist, we have to keep remind them that it was 3 grass and 1 clay.

[hoodjem]

Originally Posted by TMF

I agree. It's unfair to hold today's players to Laver's standards.

I agree. His standard is not about surfaces, it's about the achievement.

[pc1]

Originally Posted by drakulie

No, it doesn't take anything away from it, but it did in FACT occur. 3 were on grass, one on clay. So, it was much different than the tour today.

Fact is, people in support of Laver's achievements want to hold players of today to Laver's standards, when the fact is, it is impossible, because 3 were on grass and one on clay.

Drakulie,

At the same time the reverse is true. Some want Laver to fit the standards of today and say he didn't win a hard court major which in fact was impossible for the classic majors.

The point some are trying to express is that Laver was great on hard courts as proven by his winning of around 30 hard court tournaments. If you count wood as a hard court Laver did win a Pro Major in 1967 on hard court.

The other point is that Laver's accomplishments were limited because he couldn't play the classic majors from 1963 to 1967.

I think some people are just trying to put it into context.

[drakulie]

Originally Posted by hoodjem

I agree. His standard is not about surfaces, it's
about the achievement.

Yes, it is an unbelievable achievement. Something players today will never be able to even try and duplicate because 3 were on grass and one on clay.

Originally Posted by pc1

Drakulie,

At the same time the reverse is true. Some want Laver to fit the standards of today and say he didn't win a hard court major which in fact was impossible for the classic majors.

The point some are trying to express is that Laver was great on hard courts as proven by his winning of around 30 hard court tournaments. If you count wood as a hard court Laver did win a Pro Major in 1967 on hard court.

The other point is that Laver's accomplishments were limited because he couldn't play the classic majors from 1963 to 1967.

I think some people are just trying to put it into context.

What "context" would that be? That the tournaments on wood and hard courts should be counted as majors?

Federer won a MAJOR on rebound ace, deco, clay, and grass. Not to mention several more on grass, hard, carpet, and clay. Should we count these other wins as majors to put it into context?

[pc1]

Originally Posted by drakulie

Yes, it is an unbelievable achievement. Something players today will never be able to even try and duplicate because 3 were on grass and one on clay.



What "context" would that be? That the tournaments on wood and hard courts should be counted as majors?

Federer won a MAJOR on rebound ace, deco, clay, and grass. Not to mention several more on grass, hard, carpet, and clay. Should we count these other wins as majors to put it into context?

You're also putting it into context with Federer.

I think a number of people here are trying to point out that Laver was great on all surfaces and as Federer. These guys won strong tournaments on every surface.

This is why these players are considered GOAT candidates, because of their ability to win on all surfaces against the strongest competition.

[monfed]

Originally Posted by drakulie

Yes, it is an unbelievable achievement. Something players today will never be able to even try and duplicate because 3 were on grass and one on clay.



What "context" would that be? That the tournaments on wood and hard courts should be counted as majors?

Federer won a MAJOR on rebound ace, deco, clay, and grass. Not to mention several more on grass, hard, carpet, and clay. Should we count these other wins as majors to put it into context?

plexicushion too.

Sorry for the bother, just thought I'd add it. Since he's the only player in history to have won AO on both RA and PC.

[drakulie]

^^yes, you are correct. Perhaps he should get double major credit for that.

Additionally, being that Laver is given credit for winning majors against amateurs, perhaps players today should also be given credit for winning the Junior Majors. You know, to put things into proper context.

[TMF]

Laver GS is great but it can only measure to his era, not the future when it's way more challenging. The problem is his fans wants to use it as it equal to the standard today which is silly. Even Laver said the GS today is equal to 2 of his GS in 1969. That's twice as hard!

Go out on the basketball court and try to hit 10 straight free throws. And then try to hit 20 straight free throws. Going from 10 to 20 is a HUGE difference. That's how it is when you compare a GS in the 60s to today.

[TMF]

Originally Posted by hoodjem

I agree. His standard is not about surfaces, it's about the achievement.

Which is harder to achieve, hitting 10 straight free throws to 20 straight free throws ?

[pc1]

Originally Posted by drakulie

^^yes, you are correct. Perhaps he should get double major credit for that.

Additionally, being that Laver is given credit for winning majors against amateurs, perhaps players today should also be given credit for winning the Junior Majors. You know, to put things into proper context.

Oh come on. I'll admit that the amateur Grand Slam in 1962 wasn't as impressive as the Open Grand Slam or his Pro Grand Slam in 1967 but he did face top opponents like Roy Emerson, Neale Fraser, Santana, Mulligan and Osuna. It's not a junior tournament and certainly stronger than many pro tournaments.

I know you're trying to make fun a word I used but please try to understand I was trying to discuss this with you reasonably. I respect your opinions on this and I was hoping for a give and take on the subject. Far for me to be a spoilsport. If you want to repeat the word constantly that's fine with me. I'll wear it as a badge of honor.

All I was trying to write was that Laver was excellent on all surfaces. Nothing more than that.

[Limpinhitter]

Originally Posted by drakulie

No, it doesn't take anything away from it, but it did in FACT occur. 3 were on grass, one on clay. So, it was much different than the tour today.

Fact is, people in support of Laver's achievements want to hold players of today to Laver's standards, when the fact is, it is impossible, because 3 were on grass and one on clay.

What I see most often is people trying to discount Laver's amateur and open Grand Slams because none of the majors in his time were played on hard courts, stating expressly that if there were a hard court major, he wouldn't have done as well.

However, as I have said several times (even in this thread), having seen Laver win a hard court WCT event (singles and doubles), knowing that he had over 30 hard court titles, and knowing that his ground game was better than his net game, and his return game was better than his service game, I submit that Laver's best surface was hard court.