Whats your top 10 of all time right now?

[hoodjem]

Originally Posted by krosero

Yes the points were shorter than the ones that Nadal and Djokovic played. But seriously, 90 games of rapid-fire SV tennis under 95 degree heat, with no rest at the changeovers, and the "continuous play" rule in force throughout -- in my book that's as brutal a physical test as any there has ever been in tennis.

Yes, absolutely!

[krosero]

Originally Posted by NonP

pc1, this isn't a fair comparison. As you well know Laver didn't turn pro until after he was 24 years old, so he had significantly less wear and tear than Pete at the same age. Ditto when Rod won the Grand Slam compared to Fed today. Yes, Laver was 31, but in "real" age he was probably more like 27 given his relative lack of mileage, still very much in his prime.

You can see this same "delayed puberty" effect in the case of Gonzales, who himself turned pro at age 21 and flirted with semi-retirement for a few years before dominating the rest of the 1950s beyond the twentysomething mark.

But the age at which Laver turned pro is not the age to look at, considering how heavy his seasons were as an amateur. Urban gave his '62 win-loss record earlier, something well over a 100 matches. And that was just in singles.

EDIT to add: I see PC1 added this already; it was 182 matches played by Laver in '62. Just in singles.

Originally Posted by Mustard

Just to add to this, if I'm not wrong, the tournament moved to a late November-early December period from 1982-1985 after conflicting with the Christmas period from Dec 1977-1981, which is probably why considerably more top players started to return to the tournament in 1983. 1983 seems to be the first year where tennis started to have the sort of orderly structure that makes up today's tour.

Yes, at least for the men. The women's Australian Open separated from the men's in 1980 and moved, that year, to a late-November start. The women's tournament continued to be about a week earlier than the men's, until 83 when the two tournaments were joined again.

[Mustard]

Laver and Roche's 1969 Australian Open quarter finals was actually even more than 52 and 61 games:

Rod Laver def. Fred Stolle (6-4, 18-16, 6-4)
Tony Roche def. John Newcombe (10-8, 4-6, 6-8, 7-5, 6-3)

That's 54 games for Laver and 63 games for Roche.

[krosero]

Originally Posted by Mustard

Laver and Roche's 1969 Australian Open quarter finals was actually even more than 52 and 61 games:

Rod Laver def. Fred Stolle (6-4, 18-16, 6-4)
Tony Roche def. John Newcombe (10-8, 4-6, 6-8, 7-5, 6-3)

That's 54 games for Laver and 63 games for Roche.

I stand corrected!

[NonP]

Originally Posted by krosero

But the age at which Laver turned pro is not the age to look at, considering how heavy his seasons were as an amateur. Urban gave his '62 win-loss record earlier, something well over a 100 matches. And that was just in singles.

EDIT to add: I see PC1 added this already; it was 182 matches played by Laver in '62. Just in singles.

I just addressed this point. Again I don't think the # of matches alone is a good indicator. The fact that Laver had to raise his game once he turned pro shows the gulf between the amateurs and the pros at the time.

Let me put it this way. Imagine a Kobe or LeBron playing the same # of games in the Chinese league as he did in the NBA. This schedule was "heavy" on paper, but was it as demanding? That's what we should really consider, quality over quantity.

[Talker]

Originally Posted by krosero

That comes to 86 games. And that was not even such an uncommon number back then, in singles or doubles.

At the '69 AO Laver needed 90 games to subdue Tony Roche in the semis. And that was under the brutal Australian heat -- with no rest at the changeovers.

The NY Times reported 95 degrees that day. The entire match was played in the afternoon.

Yes the points were shorter than the ones that Nadal and Djokovic played. But seriously, 90 games of rapid-fire SV tennis under 95 degree heat, with no rest at the changeovers, and the "continuous play" rule in force throughout -- in my book that's as brutal a physical test as any there has ever been in tennis.

The match took just over 4 and a half hours. With 90-second changeovers it would have been pushing 6 hours -- in other words, just as long as Nadal and Djokovic took in January.

Amazing how long the matches could go in those days. Laver/Roche was a semifinal. In the quarters Laver had played 52 games; Roche had played 61.

Laver had a day off between the semis and the final. But presumably he played doubles that day (he won the men's doubles with Emerson).

This is a pretty poor point that I have come to expect from this section.

All you have to do is see a few clips from back then, it was not near the test of today. Rapid fire S&V, is this a joke? Tiring?

Laver said himself that it was much tougher today, Poncho said the same thing in the early nineties. Along with others.

Then you come along and tell Laver and company they are wrong!

How you guys disrespect the old time players is not good.

[Limpinhitter]

Originally Posted by Talker

This is a pretty poor point that I have come to expect from this section.

All you have to do is see a few clips from back then, it was not near the test of today. Rapid fire S&V, is this a joke? Tiring?

Laver said himself that it was much tougher today, Poncho said the same thing in the early nineties. Along with others.

Then you come along and tell Laver and company they are wrong!

How you guys disrespect the old time players is not good.

I just don't know what we would do without Talker coming to the rescue of Rod Laver's legacy.

[TMF]

Originally Posted by pc1

http://www.atpworldtour.com/Rankings/Singles.aspx

Actually you may be correct because I think the 29 and 28 respectively is over a 12 month period. Still 29 is not far from 32. Check number 33, he's played 31 tournaments over 12 months. Actually a few have played over 30 tournaments over 12 months.

The bottom line is that they (the top players) make soooooooooooo much money they don't have to play a lot of tournaments.

The point is Tipsy didn't play remotely close to Laver's 120+ matches in 1969.

Did you know Tipsy was grabbing his leg in pain when he was playing against Ferrer in a gruesome 5 sets at the USO?

[Talker]

Originally Posted by Limpinhitter

I just don't know what we would do without Talker coming to the rescue of Rod Laver's legacy.

I'm a Laver fan.
I agree with his viewpoints and do get cranky when others try to say he doesn't know what he's talking about.

[pc1]

Originally Posted by NonP

But isn't that a contradiction? If you grant that Laver "graduated to a much higher level of tennis" after joining the pro tour, how could he have been "a pro before he actually turned pro"?

Don't get me wrong, I fully acknowledge that Laver might have been even better at an earlier age (like many I gather that 1967 was probably his peak). I just don't see him winning something like 95% of his matches even in his best year, again because of his risky style of play. (Maybe not playing doubles like today's top players could've helped, but I've got my doubts.) But this doesn't mean he was an inferior player to the likes of Connors, Borg, Lendl and Federer, as I made clear in my original post. It just means his game wasn't conducive to an exceptionally high winning %.

My point was that despite the fact he was "officially" an amateur there were really no amateurs at that top level of so called amateur tennis and in essence he was a pro. He worked hard at tennis at that point and tennis was his entire life.

We all know for the record that Laver won 86.9% of his matches at age 31. Is it really that much of a stretch to believe a younger Laver who may be a bit faster, recover a bit faster, have slightly faster reflexes, maybe a little more racquet speed may win a few more matches in a year. Let's say instead of 106-16 he goes 110-12 or so at age 26. I don't think that's out of the question.

However it's a very interesting point. How good are the top high risk serve and volleyers? Perhaps some great baseliners may play at a very strong level that doesn't vary much but doesn't reach the peaks or the valleys of the strong netrushers who play a high risk game.

Yet at the same time perhaps the high risk player may defeat the top baseliner in a head to head tour because he or she will dominate when he or she is playing at their best level.

By the way I'm not sure you can't compare the women because everything is relative anyway. They used to say women couldn't serve and volley but that was proven wrong by Court, King, Navratilova, Marble etc.

[pc1]

Originally Posted by TMF

The point is Tipsy didn't play remotely close to Laver's 120+ matches in 1969.

Did you know Tipsy was grabbing his leg in pain when he was playing against Ferrer in a gruesome 5 sets at the USO?

And are you of the belief they cannot pitch complete games in baseball anymore? It's not done much but Nolan Ryan would disagree with you. Give me a break, it's not exactly that tough. People can do it. Remember these guys are training every day anyway so they are hitting tennis balls. Just because they don't do it now doesn't mean it cannot be done.

[TMF]

Originally Posted by pc1

No they have more teams to make more money. It's the real world. You could have the greatest athletes in the world and if you don't make money they wouldn't be playing.

The real world is everything is on a demand. When you continue to have more people living on this planet, expect for expansion...more owners, more players, more fans(viewes), thus more teams to fulfill the demands. And this isn't just about entertainment, but the basic necessity like food, automobile, energy consumption, etc...

[TMF]

Originally Posted by kiki

Sorry to say this but your lack of knowledge is astonishing.NBA was a better league in the 80´s and there were 0 non americans.That means, 100% of the field was US citizens ( except Olajuwon) and that is the same as for aussies in the 60´s, although there were some very good non aussie players.

Think a little bit better next time.

Better? Nope. You can argue it was more exciting to watch(which I agree) in the 80s but not better.

LOL on the bold part.

[TMF]

Originally Posted by CyBorg

I guess this must mean that Oscar Robertson isn't very good.

Never said that.

[NonP]

Originally Posted by pc1

My point was that despite the fact he was "officially" an amateur there were really no amateurs at that top level of so called amateur tennis and in essence he was a pro. He worked hard at tennis at that point and tennis was his entire life.

Again I don't mean to dismiss Laver's amateur career entirely. All I'm saying is, as hard as they worked the amateurs weren't as good as the pros. As you said yourself Laver first struggled against the likes of Hoad and Rosewall when he turned pro, and Gonzales himself got his butt kicked by Kramer. The demands of the pro tour were simply on a different level, which is why we can't just look at the # of matches alone.

We all know for the record that Laver won 86.9% of his matches at age 31. Is it really that much of a stretch to believe a younger Laver who may be a bit faster, recover a bit faster, have slightly faster reflexes, maybe a little more racquet speed may win a few more matches in a year. Let's say instead of 106-16 he goes 110-12 or so at age 26. I don't think that's out of the question.

Of course not. Still 110-12 is just barely over 90%. Laver probably wouldn't average 92-95% a la Borg and Federer even in his prime, again not because he was an inferior player but because he played a riskier game.

However it's a very interesting point. How good are the top high risk serve and volleyers? Perhaps some great baseliners may play at a very strong level that doesn't vary much but doesn't reach the peaks or the valleys of the strong netrushers who play a high risk game.

Yet at the same time perhaps the high risk player may defeat the top baseliner in a head to head tour because he or she will dominate when he or she is playing at their best level.

Yes, that's exactly my point.

By the way I'm not sure you can't compare the women because everything is relative anyway. They used to say women couldn't serve and volley but that was proven wrong by Court, King, Navratilova, Marble etc.

We can still make the comparison, but it wouldn't be as useful. By the numbers the greatest female players are simply more dominant than their male peers, and since we're talking numbers it makes sense to keep the comparison between the men.

[krosero]

Originally Posted by NonP

I just addressed this point. Again I don't think the # of matches alone is a good indicator. The fact that Laver had to raise his game once he turned pro shows the gulf between the amateurs and the pros at the time.

Let me put it this way. Imagine a Kobe or LeBron playing the same # of games in the Chinese league as he did in the NBA. This schedule was "heavy" on paper, but was it as demanding? That's what we should really consider, quality over quantity.

Laver had to raise his game when he turned pro, we all agree on that. But there's no question in my mind that he logged significant mileage in the amateur game, comparable to the pro game. I'm not saying that 12 months for him in the amateur game were as demanding as 12 in the pro game: but it was comparable.

For one thing, he played more singles matches in his amateur period than he did in 1963-67 as a pro (according to Andrew Tas, 657 vs. 586). For another, he seems to have played far less in doubles as a pro: in AndrewTas' list I count only 7 events, from 1963-67, in which Laver participated in doubles. As an amateur he was entered in doubles regularly: 13 tournaments in '62 alone.

As an amateur he also played Davis Cup, which as you know required a commitment to a good deal of physical training and took its mental toll.

Furthermore as a pro he played some matches (don't know the exact numbers) which were either single-sets or brief matches played under the VASS system of scoring.

Of course the pro game had its own difficulties which were not found in the amateurs: not just the higher level of play but the fact that they were constantly on the road and playing under tough conditions.

In which game Laver ended up logging more mileage, I don't know. But I don't see a quantum leap taking place at age 24, when he turned pro. He logged significant miles before then.

Roy Emerson stayed in the amateur game, and he seems to have peaked in '65, at the age of 29. Laver's peak is widely considered to have been in '67, also at the age of 29.

But that seems odd, if it were really true that the amateur game was much less demanding than the pro game. Laver spent 5 years on the old pro tour, while Emerson spent none. Yet Emerson seems to have reached his peak around the same age that Laver did.

Emerson was as fine a physical specimen as any of the Aussies, arguably fitter than any of them: but he lasted no longer than Laver did, despite remaining in what you are arguing to be a much less demanding game.

[krosero]

Originally Posted by NonP

Again I don't mean to dismiss Laver's amateur career entirely. All I'm saying is, as hard as they worked the amateurs weren't as good as the pros. As you said yourself Laver first struggled against the likes of Hoad and Rosewall when he turned pro, and Gonzales himself got his butt kicked by Kramer. The demands of the pro tour were simply on a different level, which is why we can't just look at the # of matches alone.

On a different level, yes, but that can be exaggerated. Some of that butt kicking you're talking about -- maybe even the major part of it -- was due to the fact that the pros were simply better. A large part of it, though, has to be put down to the rookie simply adapting to wholly unfamiliar conditions. The pros waiting each year for the new rookie were old hands on those pro tours, fully familiar with what was required, and with how to bring their best game out. They were taking on the rookie on their home turf, so to speak.

Laver had another disadvantage in that first tour against Hoad and Rosewall, in which he bombed out with a 2-19 record. Lew and Ken each only had to play Laver; he had to play both men.

[krosero]

Originally Posted by Talker

This is a pretty poor point that I have come to expect from this section.

All you have to do is see a few clips from back then, it was not near the test of today. Rapid fire S&V, is this a joke? Tiring?

Laver said himself that it was much tougher today, Poncho said the same thing in the early nineties. Along with others.

Then you come along and tell Laver and company they are wrong!

How you guys disrespect the old time players is not good.

If the question mark after the word 'tiring' is meant to question whether Laver and Roche played a tiring match, there is no proper answer to that, because it's a ridiculous question.

And no I have not contradicted Laver: I have not heard him say anywhere that his toughest endurance tests, in a single match like the one he played against Roche, were any less tough than the toughest matches today. He has spoken in broad terms about the competition being deeper today, meaning that the early rounds of tournaments are filled with better players: and that's not a controversial statement; I agree with it and so have other posters in this forum.

By the way, who is Poncho?

[NonP]

Originally Posted by krosero

Laver had to raise his game when he turned pro, we all agree on that. But there's no question in my mind that he logged significant mileage in the amateur game, comparable to the pro game. I'm not saying that 12 months for him in the amateur game were as demanding as 12 in the pro game: but it was comparable.

Maybe "mileage" wasn't the best term then. What I was referrring to was the physical and mental toll the pro tour took on Laver (or any upstart for that matter). And I have to disagree that it was comparable to the demands of the amateur game. To me this is like saying the NCAA and the NBA are comparable. Yes, college basketball is still a tough game, often played against the same opponents who will go on to have a sterling career in the pro league, but there's no question which one features tougher competition.

Of course the pro game had its own difficulties which were not found in the amateurs: not just the higher level of play but the fact that they were constantly on the road and playing under tough conditions.

And I'd say these yearlong requirements were more demanding than the intermittent ones for DC.

Roy Emerson stayed in the amateur game, and he seems to have peaked in '65, at the age of 29. Laver's peak is widely considered to have been in '67, also at the age of 29.

But that seems odd, if it were really true that the amateur game was much less demanding than the pro game. Laver spent 5 years on the old pro tour, while Emerson spent none. Yet Emerson seems to have reached his peak around the same age that Laver did.

Of course the problem with this comparison is that there are dozens of possible factors involved, not to mention that we're comparing two players only. (I'd also pinpoint Emerson's peak to an earlier year, but let's not get caught up on details.) One possible explanation is that Emerson peaked relatively late precisely because the amateur game was less demanding and he wasn't pushed to the limit sooner, unlike Laver who received a rude, abrupt awakening once he turned pro. Another explanation would be that Emerson was simply a late bloomer.

Emerson was as fine a physical specimen as any of the Aussies, arguably fitter than any of them: but he lasted no longer than Laver did, despite remaining in what you are arguing to be a much less demanding game.

I'm not sure I get your point here. If Emerson indeed lasted longer than Laver, wouldn't that bolster my point about the the respective demands of teh amateur and pro games?

Originally Posted by krosero

On a different level, yes, but that can be exaggerated. Some of that butt kicking you're talking about -- maybe even the major part of it -- was due to the fact that the pros were simply better. A large part of it, though, has to be put down to the rookie simply adapting to wholly unfamiliar conditions. The pros waiting each year for the new rookie were old hands on those pro tours, fully familiar with what was required, and with how to bring their best game out. They were taking on the rookie on their home turf, so to speak.

Yes, that part can't be denied.

Laver had another disadvantage in that first tour against Hoad and Rosewall, in which he bombed out with a 2-19 record. Lew and Ken each only had to play Laver; he had to play both men.

Or one could say it wasn't such a big disadvantage after all, since Lew and Ken were dealing with an unfamiliar rookie and the more match play could/should have made him sharper against the veterans. At least it gave him more chances to prove himself.

[kiki]

Originally Posted by pc1

One of the greatest matches I've seen was when Newcombe defeated Stan Smith in a great five setter in Davis Cup in 1973. There are very few players I would bet on against Newcombe on grass in a fifth set.

I've mentioned this before but in that same tournament Newcombe defeated Connors in straight sets but it was one of the closest straight set matches I've seen and if memory serves it was a very well played match. Newcombe won the first set on one break 6-4 and while he won the next two sets in a tiebreak, it was different tiebreak in those day. It was the first to five points and you didn't have to win by two. So Newcombe won both tiebreaks by 5-4! Connors could have easily had a two set to one lead if he got the last point in that tiebreak. I think Newcombe had about 15 aces in that match but I am not sure. I remember a comment by Connors in the papers the next day when they mentioned how many aces Newcombe had. I think Connors made some comment like "He'd better get that many to beat me." Memory can be faulty so I can be wrong on the comments but I am positive about the score and the tiebreak score.

Good recall.That match agaainst Smith would be indoors, right? (most DC finals were, since played at the end of the year under cold conditions in the Northern hemeispehere)...

Stan was also a great fighter.Remember how he singlehandedly ( Gorman was beaten by both Rumanians) won in Bucarest two years in a row? In 1972 his rivalry with Nastase was a shard and interesting as any I can recall.Wimbledon,DC,Masters, all of them classical 5 setters and a total contrast of styles.

As for Newcombe, that was a good win against a Connors that was already a solid top tenner ( he kept beating Stan Smith in 73, for instance).Newcombe´s five set legens was a mixture of will, athleticism and inner force, and was very well descirbed by fellow pro Arthur Ashe.Winning majors against different all time greats like Connors,Borg,Smith,Kodes,Rosewall was a great feat.he also won the Italian and German Open on clay, the second and third greatest cc event after the French.