GOAT Discussions

[Prisoner of Birth]

Originally Posted by absurdo

i am an admirer of all tennis eras and great players.

it appears to be a contradiction but it is not, but maybe i was not clear and that is my fault:

i dont think we can compair levels of greatness with absolute fairness. arguing who is the greatest across eras is to create unfair comparisons. what are we talking about? talent? inteligence? speed? strokes? serves? tactics? all these are subjective. are we comparing results and achievments? are seriously achievements across eras the same? are contexts the same? importance of certain tournaments the same? pro fields the same? are they comparable? i am just not sure they are.

but i think its clear you can compare, for example, 2 videos of 2 different players, ignoring history and that they are 40 years apart. but this is hugely unfair for the old time players, in my opinion.

i dont think it would be fair to compare laver's level of play at a certain point, (nowadays we can do it only via youtube) versus federer or nadal or novaks level of play on a certain video. sure i think laver would lose easily.

but this doesnt reduce his level of greatness. so, we cannot use the same criteria for every era...

This. Laver could well be the greatest, historically speaking and relative to his field. But he just isn't on the same level as Federer or Nadal. And don't bring up "wooden-racquets" or "racquet-technology". He had nothing on these guys athletically.

[BobbyOne]

Originally Posted by Prisoner of Birth

He may have been, but it was still his weakest surface, relative to the field. That's not even debatable. Stats don't lie.

And you can't neglect something which is irrelevant. Laver didn't play them, he only has himself to blame. You can't just hand over Majors to players who didn't bother showing up. And it's not like he was fire, either. He made 1 Major QF after his year of Greatness and just the 3R in the '71 AO. Stands to reason he wouldn't have won anything even if he'd played the AO in '72 or even '70.

It's irrelevant if clay was Laver's weakest surface when being still superb on it.

As a Rosewall admirer I had to learn that Laver maybe leads Rosewall on clay even though Rosewall was commonly considered best claycourter before Borg.

You neglect the fact that many top pros could not play some of the early open era events because of quarrels of their pro organisations.

You can contradict any calculation because it was not fact but we should be so open-minded that we could agree about the probabilities. And it's very probably that Laver won more than 18 majors if open era would have come earlier. I cannot follow you, I'm afraid.

[BobbyOne]

Originally Posted by Prisoner of Birth

Okay, what that consideration means is that Hoad's peak level of play was greater than anybody else's. That I can understand, but you have to appreciate that that's extremely subjective and extremely debatable; even in his own era.

I could agree here.

[Prisoner of Birth]

Originally Posted by BobbyOne

It's irrelevant if clay was Laver's weakest surface when being still superb on it.

As a Rosewall admirer I had to learn that Laver maybe leads Rosewall on clay even though Rosewall was commonly considered best claycourter before Borg.

You neglect the fact that many top pros could not play some of the early open era events because of quarrels of their pro organisations.

You can contradict any calculation because it was not fact but we should be so open-minded that we could agree about the probabilities. And it's very probably that Laver won more than 18 majors if open era would have come earlier. I cannot follow you, I'm afraid.

Let me ask you a question. Would you call Borg a 20-time Grand Slam champion? After all, he played the AO like once and retired at 26. If he'd played the AO and stuck around till he was 30, he might have even gotten to 20 Grand Slams. So tell me, is Borg a 20-time Grand Slam champion?

Clay was the surface Laver had the least success on, ton for ton. And that makes it his weakest surface, relative to the field, even if he was a great on it.

[BobbyOne]

Originally Posted by Prisoner of Birth

This. Laver could well be the greatest, historically speaking and relative to his field. But he just isn't on the same level as Federer or Nadal. And don't bring up "wooden-racquets" or "racquet-technology". He had nothing on these guys athletically.

Did you know that Hoad had a bigger arm than Nadal and that Laver had a stronger wrist than Federer?

[absurdo]

just a thought before leaving to play some tennis, ahah:

look at nadal. he has beaten federer, the best player of this era, several times. he has his number.

one could say something like: if nadal beats the best player, he is the best player.

but we know this is only half the story, nadal loses against lots of different people, most of them are not that great.

so, nadal's level of greatness not only depends on his performance against the best, but also his performance against the others, the field, the journeyman, the top 20s and 30s.

so i ask: is it easier or harder to be GREAT today?

(it's really a question :P)

[BobbyOne]

Originally Posted by Prisoner of Birth

Let me ask you a question. Would you call Borg a 20-time Grand Slam champion? After all, he played the AO like once and retired at 26. If he'd played the AO and stuck around till he was 30, he might have even gotten to 20 Grand Slams. So tell me, is Borg a 20-time Grand Slam champion?

Clay was the surface Laver had the least success on, ton for ton. And that makes it his weakest surface, relative to the field, even if he was a great on it.

A potential one, yes he is but I tend to think that he would have declined a bit after 1982. So for me rather Laver than Borg is a potential 20-time GS champion.

McEnroe and Lendl would have been big obstacles for Borg in the 1980s.

[BobbyOne]

Originally Posted by absurdo

just a thought before leaving to play some tennis, ahah:

look at nadal. he has beaten federer, the best player of this era, several times. he has his number.

one could say something like: if nadal beats the best player, he is the best player.

but we know this is only half the story, nadal loses against lots of different people, most of them are not that great.

so, nadal's level of greatness not only depends on his performance against the best, but also his performance against the others, the field, the journeyman, the top 20s and 30s.



so i ask: is it easier or harder to be GREAT today?

(it's really a question :P)

I agree that we now have four or five top players in contrast to years ago when Federer dominated clearly against those like Safin and Roddick.

We can consider Federer the best player in the last ten years but of course it's a blame for him to losing rather often to Nadal and others. Nadal could reach Federer's achievements when being healthy.

Now it's about equal to older times to be great.

[Prisoner of Birth]

Originally Posted by BobbyOne

Did you know that Hoad had a bigger arm than Nadal and that Laver had a stronger wrist than Federer?

Doesn't matter what you have if you don't know how to work with them as well.

[Prisoner of Birth]

Originally Posted by BobbyOne

A potential one, yes he is but I tend to think that he would have declined a bit after 1982. So for me rather Laver than Borg is a potential 20-time GS champion.

McEnroe and Lendl would have been big obstacles for Borg in the 1980s.

Laver has just 13 pro-level Majors having played most of them for a lot more years than Borg. Borg has 11 Grand Slams having played just 3 of them all his career and having retired at 26. I fail to see how Laver is the potential 20-Major champion between them. And again, potential doesn't mean all that much. You can't hand over Majors to players just because they didn't (or couldn't) play some Majors and/or retired early. It is what it is.

[BobbyOne]

Originally Posted by Prisoner of Birth

Laver has just 13 pro-level Majors having played most of them for a lot more years than Borg. Borg has 11 Grand Slams having played just 3 of them all his career and having retired at 26. I fail to see how Laver is the potential 20-Major champion between them. And again, potential doesn't mean all that much. You can't hand over Majors to players just because they didn't (or couldn't) play some Majors and/or retired early. It is what it is.

Wrong! Not Laver has played pro-level Majors for a lot more years than Borg. Borg has played for a longer time (8 years) than Laver (6 years)!

You lack power of imagination if you don't see how Laver has potential 20 majors.

[Prisoner of Birth]

Originally Posted by BobbyOne

Most amazing post I ever read!!

I meant athleticism is more than long limbs and raw strength.

[Prisoner of Birth]

Originally Posted by BobbyOne

Wrong! Not Laver has played pro-level Majors for a lot more years than Borg. Borg has played for a longer time (8 years) than Laver (6 years)!

Grand Slams are pro-level Majors in the Open Era. Laver played those for many years. 15 years (including pro-Slams), to be precise.
If you're gonna argue otherwise, Laver has just 8 pro-level Majors.

[hoodjem]

Originally Posted by Carsomyr

I thought I had raised a fair point of discussion about the how it wouldn't have been so easy for Laver to rack up 20+ GS tournament wins had Open Era started much earlier, based on the illogical "Laver's career was X and he won Z, but if his career was Y, he still would have won Z" post. Instead, I got a derisive and didactic recitation of Laver's résumé, not unlike TMF's incessant repostings of Federer's list of achievements.

This is a very fair point. Laver certainly would not have won the very same majors that he did--if tennis had been open. He may have won the same total number, he may have won more or less. It's all speculation.

Originally Posted by Carsomyr

I'm not TMF. I'm not asking questions simply to denigrate Laver's achievements. He's one of the greatest ever, possibly the greatest. I just think some of the posters here need to be a little more open-minded when talking about Laver.

You should get more credit for your objectivity here, particularly about Laver.

[kiki]

Originally Posted by Prisoner of Birth

This. Laver could well be the greatest, historically speaking and relative to his field. But he just isn't on the same level as Federer or Nadal. And don't bring up "wooden-racquets" or "racquet-technology". He had nothing on these guys athletically.

You never watched Laver.

[hoodjem]

Originally Posted by BobbyOne

Before insulting reasonable posters you should know that tennis does not have a history of over 150 years.

?

Caravaggio played tennis in 1605.

[kiki]

Originally Posted by Prisoner of Birth

Let me ask you a question. Would you call Borg a 20-time Grand Slam champion? After all, he played the AO like once and retired at 26. If he'd played the AO and stuck around till he was 30, he might have even gotten to 20 Grand Slams. So tell me, is Borg a 20-time Grand Slam champion?

Clay was the surface Laver had the least success on, ton for ton. And that makes it his weakest surface, relative to the field, even if he was a great on it.

Borg could have reached 20 if he had played the AO every year and not retired so early in his career.Still, given the unbelievable level of competition at the top during the 80´s, I pretty much doubt prime J Mac,Lendl,Becker,Edber,Wilander would have let him reach 20.Maybe 3 more titles, IMO ( and he also took 3 indoor majors which were almost slam events in his time)

[BobbyOne]

Originally Posted by Prisoner of Birth

I meant athleticism is more than long limbs and raw strength.

Trust me: The Hoads, Rosewalls, Sedgmans , Emersons and Lavers were very athletic, even the small Rosewall...

[BobbyOne]

Originally Posted by Prisoner of Birth

Grand Slams are pro-level Majors in the Open Era. Laver played those for many years. 15 years (including pro-Slams), to be precise.
If you're gonna argue otherwise, Laver has just 8 pro-level Majors.

Laver played them for many years but he WON his 13 pro majors and open era majors in a shorter time than Borg won his 11. Is this not a reasonable argument?

[BobbyOne]

Originally Posted by hoodjem

?

Caravaggio played tennis in 1605.

It's not Caravaggio what my thread opponent meant when writing that tennis is over 150 years old...

As you know the modern tennis (as we play it today) has been firstly played in 1877.