(Take more time and study much harder. If your intellect ever approaches your online arrogance, you will really be something.)
I think Rod Laver is undoubtedly the best source regarding the surfaces on which he played. I referenced a statement Laver made during a television interview. I would trust Rod's memory over your "article."
You keep referring to your article as if it lends some authority to your position. In which prestigious publication was this article published? Please enlighten us. Since you can't spell (truelly?), your style is wanting and your syntax is not the best, it seems very doubtful that you are writing for publication unless affirmative action, or pity, is somehow in play. (Your high school paper notwithstanding.) I strongly suspect that you are merely another trolling TW poseur (as if we need another one.)
My use of the term closed in my previous post wasn't intended to end the debate. Rather, it was used in contrast to the Open Era when GS events were closed to professionals. The various Pro Championships (US, French, Wembley) of the closed era aren't generally considered to be GS events. In Laver's era (closed), the US Championships were played on grass (at Longwood), Wembley indoors (carpet/ wood?), the French (about half clay, half indoor; although the indoor may have been clay as well.) Given the context, the usage of closed seems so obvious that is rather sad to have to explain it to someone.
We are in agreement that Laver was a great all surface player and should be ranked with the very best in the history of tennis. The fact that most of the tournaments he won were played on grass and clay doesn't indicate Rod was unable to play on hard courts. It was merely the circumstances of his era. Has anyone rigidly maintained that Rod's greatness is somehow diminished because he didn't win an enormous number of tournaments on painted concrete? To win on grass and clay to the extent that Laver did certainly suggests that he possessed a versatile game that worked well on both fast and slow courts.
I beg your pardon, but after reading your reply, I am astonished you called me arrogant?
If I were to put it to you in another way. I am simply adding to what is already out there. The fact that I am expressing in simple terms that Laver was no one-trick poney, is also another reason why I continue to bring up his Pro event career.
As to my "article". I never expressed that it was a published piece. Nor did I expect you to believe so... Rather, it is an article that I am writing and hopefully will expand on for future record.. I enjoy the history of the game, and try my hardest to allow the records stand for themselves. I also try to break things down in order to allow people to understand that tennis was at one time in history a very confussing and complex sport..
Now when you say to me that you believe what Laver says over me, then that is fair enough. The fact that as a modest person, a guy like him will not extend to the enth degree and say that his career was far out weighing than it actually was.. Like many older gentlemen (many ex WWII vets) they will always play down their role in the events of history. So I guess I am trying to add the extra bit of fact and actually put light on the achievments that so many care to either forget for the sake of argument. Or simply dont care about.
Now I will finish by saying that I take offence to your stupid remark about someone being a troll and poser, and find that if ever there was a kettle calling someone black then maybe you may need to relax and take a look in the proverbial mirror. Your comments are comming off just as passionate as mine, and you are making yourself the centre of this discussion.. I simply came in and added a few facts that are not other wise remembered by many..
Do I consider you a troll? No.. But I do think that you may have a hard time hearing someone saying something that doesn' figure in your way of thinking. I also feel that with the amount of younger members on these boards, then all they talk about is what is happening today, and have no clue on yesterday. And so it erks me no end, to hear people talking about Laver and how he wouldn't be able to compete in todays environment, when all they have seen is a grainy Youtube clip of him way out of his prime playing Borg on green clay...
I saw him play when I was a kid. He was old, but still had it. It was an exabition with Newcombe, Roach, Rosewall and the two Macs.. I was young. But it still sticks in my mind to this day.. So in getting back to the OP's original point.
Yes, Laver and his forhand (forhands) would more than be able to compete in todays game. And on any surface.. He was also quick and strong, and so there are many players in todays game that are just as small and can still keep up.. Could Laver dominate today? Why not? Talent is a wonderful thing. Just look at Roger. He is by no means a powerful player (although he can hit hard when needed)... But rather he is a player that can (and will) hit any shot that is needed. Very much like Laver...