Laver, Connors, Borg & Mcenroe as good as Federer, Nadal, Djokovic &Sampras-see below

[TomT]

Originally Posted by pc1

Always hard to say. Pancho Gonzalez was actually bigger than Roger, Rafa and Djokovic and he was perhaps as great an athlete as anyone, possibly greater than anyone.

You might be right. According to Wiki, Gonzalez was 6'2" and 180 lbs., which makes him as big or a little bigger than the dominant players of today. I had read before that he was 6'1" and somewhat skinny. I don't know. Anyway, by any measure, Gonzalez is one of the greats. Also, before 1962 players had to keep one foot on the court during serving, so maybe Gonzalez's monster serve would have been even better had he learned to jump into it as modern players do.

Originally Posted by pc1

Remember also that player born in that era would be different so if they were born in that era they probably wouldn't be as big or as strong. Different health standards. Different nutrition. Different training techniques.

Yes, but we have to consider them in terms of what they actually were physically, and not in terms of what they might have been physically if they had been born in the current era.

Originally Posted by pc1

John McEnroe played in the wood era and just a few years ago he almost defeated Andy Roddick during a WTT match, and McEnroe was over 50.

Yes, I've watched some stuff of McEnroe vs Agassi, etc., when Mac wasn't in his prime. Still awesome. There's something about the technique of the serve and volley game that might have been lost in the current era.

Serve and volley is a very effective way of playing tennis. Maybe something of a lost art. It's how I learned to play, and I used to beat guys that were really good strokers.

But the thing is that the good players of today hit the ball so well and with so much power that it's just really hard to come in on them.

[pc1]

Originally Posted by TomT

You might be right. According to Wiki, Gonzalez was 6'2" and 180 lbs., which makes him as big or a little bigger than the dominant players of today. I had read before that he was 6'1" and somewhat skinny. I don't know. Anyway, by any measure, Gonzalez is one of the greats. Also, before 1962 players had to keep one foot on the court during serving, so maybe Gonzalez's monster serve would have been even better had he learned to jump into it as modern players do.

Yes, but we have to consider them in terms of what they actually were physically, and not in terms of what they might have been physically if they had been born in the current era.

Yes, I've watched some stuff of McEnroe vs Agassi, etc., when Mac wasn't in his prime. Still awesome. There's something about the technique of the serve and volley game that might have been lost in the current era.

Serve and volley is a very effective way of playing tennis. Maybe something of a lost art. It's how I learned to play, and I used to beat guys that were really good strokers.

But the thing is that the good players of today hit the ball so well and with so much power that it's just really hard to come in on them.

Just for the record wiki is wrong, Gonzalez was 6' 31/2". I have this on good authority.

[Limpinhitter]

Originally Posted by timnz

1920's great Tilden played P. Gonzales and lost in the early 1950's (Tilden was nearly 60 at the time)

P. Gonzales beat Jimmy Connors in the early 1970's

Jimmy Connors lost to Agassi in the late 80's

Agassi played Federer a number of times in the early-mid 2000's

I read somewhere that a prime Gonzales beat a 50+ year old Tilden 6-2, 6-2. Imagine Mac or Borg getting 2 games a set off of Federer, Nadal or Djoko.

[Limpinhitter]

Originally Posted by TomT

You might be right. According to Wiki, Gonzalez was 6'2" and 180 lbs., which makes him as big or a little bigger than the dominant players of today. I had read before that he was 6'1" and somewhat skinny. I don't know. Anyway, by any measure, Gonzalez is one of the greats. Also, before 1962 players had to keep one foot on the court during serving, so maybe Gonzalez's monster serve would have been even better had he learned to jump into it as modern players do.

Yes, but we have to consider them in terms of what they actually were physically, and not in terms of what they might have been physically if they had been born in the current era.

Yes, I've watched some stuff of McEnroe vs Agassi, etc., when Mac wasn't in his prime. Still awesome. There's something about the technique of the serve and volley game that might have been lost in the current era.

Serve and volley is a very effective way of playing tennis. Maybe something of a lost art. It's how I learned to play, and I used to beat guys that were really good strokers.

But the thing is that the good players of today hit the ball so well and with so much power that it's just really hard to come in on them.

I think Wiki is off on that. I've read in various places that Pancho was 6'3" and 6'4". Having seen pictures of him posing with his contemporaries like Hoad and other's, I'm tempted to say he was at least 6'3". As lean as he was, if he was 180, he'd have to be at least that tall.

Pancho with Lew Hoad who was 5'10":
http://www.google.com/imgres?q=panch...w=1003&bih=569

Pancho with Jack Kramer who was 6'2":
http://www.google.com/imgres?q=panch...w=1003&bih=569

[TomT]

Originally Posted by Limpinhitter

I think Wiki is off on that. I've read in various places that Pancho was 6'3" and 6'4". Having seen pictures of him posing with his contemporaries like Hoad and other's, I'm tempted to say he was at least 6'3". As lean as he was, if he was 180, he'd have to be at least that tall.

Pancho with Lew Hoad who was 5'10":
http://www.google.com/imgres?q=panch...w=1003&bih=569

Pancho with Jack Kramer who was 6'2":
http://www.google.com/imgres?q=panch...w=1003&bih=569

Wow, yeah he looks really big in those photos. I wonder where there might be an authoritative text reference to his stature.

[TomT]

The only personal reference I have to a player like Gonzalez is when I was playing in the mid 70's. There was this guy, about 6'4" who used to come to the courts now and then. He had very solid, almost pro-like strokes and a great serve. I played him a couple of times. He had the classic serving motion of bringing the feet together. Monster first serve. I was able to undercut them back, but he always held serve. Beat me bad both times, though I managed to get a few games.

Now, I'm supposing that Gonzalez's serve was even better, like much better, than this guy's serve. In which case it would be, for a player like me, virtually unreturnable. Larger than life, so to speak.

Gonzalez was the undisputed best player in the world for like 8 years during his prime. The players of the decade in which he dominated (the '50s) were playing with basically the same equipment that the players of the '60s and '70s were playing with, which, given his stature and athleticism, might explain how he was able to beat top players when he was in his 40s.

[pc1]

Originally Posted by TomT

The only personal reference I have to a player like Gonzalez is when I was playing in the mid 70's. There was this guy, about 6'4" who used to come to the courts now and then. He had very solid, almost pro-like strokes and a great serve. I played him a couple of times. He had the classic serving motion of bringing the feet together. Monster first serve. I was able to undercut them back, but he always held serve. Beat me bad both times, though I managed to get a few games.

Now, I'm supposing that Gonzalez's serve was even better, like much better, than this guy's serve. In which case it would be, for a player like me, virtually unreturnable. Larger than life, so to speak.

Gonzalez was the undisputed best player in the world for like 8 years during his prime. The players of the decade in which he dominated (the '50s) were playing with basically the same equipment that the players of the '60s and '70s were playing with, which, given his stature and athleticism, might explain how he was able to beat top players when he was in his 40s.

Check this out.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nd0gJzm_EQY

[urban]

Just read an interview with Rod Laver on the Spanish newspaper AS. Maybe a guy more familiar with Spanish can give full explanation. From what i could understand, Laver comments on Federer's Wim win over Djokovic, calls it surprising. He marvels on Federer's ability to play his best tennis in semis and final. He mentions physical problems of Nadal, especially knee problems. He calls Nadal the only one who could have beaten Federer at Wim, and explains some technical details, like the massive cross forehand of Nadal, which goes into Federer's backhand.
Laver makes some interesting comments on his own time too, recalls Hoad, Rosewall and Gonzalez as his big rivals on the Kramer tour, and praises Newcombe and "his friend" Santana (its a Spanish newspaper). I find it personally interesting (because some like Jeffrey Neave and me mentioned the match on the wikipedia page), that he calls the 1968 LA South West Pacific final against Rosewall (4-6,6-0,6-0) the best tennis he played.
http://www.as.com/tenis/articulo/sol...asdaiten_1/Tes

[TMF]

I say {Fed, Nadal, Nole} combined are superior players than the past greats combined.


If you look at all 4 slams, the current top 3 have won quite a lot.

AO - 8 titles
RG - 8 titles
WB - 10 titles
USO - 7 titles

There wins are well balance on all surfaces. Simply, there's no chink in their armor in any of these slam events. They are heavily guarded, no players outside have much of a shot. Unlike Connors, Borg and Mac, they left room for other players to sneak in and win slams.

[Setmatch45]

Greats are greats and would be great in any era in almost any sport. I say that because old time football players would not be big enough to play in today's game.