kiki
Banned
PC1 said it all in his post.It is a ridiculous vote mainly designed to achieve attention.it is one of the tricky stuff from Chopin probably.
Santoro versus Laver
- Thread starter Chopin
- Start date
PC1 said it all in his post.It is a ridiculous vote mainly designed to achieve attention.it is one of the tricky stuff from Chopin probably.
Limpinhitter
G.O.A.T.
It's 100% intended by Chopin to provoke tlhose of us who respect Laver for the all time great that he was.
kiki
Banned
...and, even more, those of us that can talk about him with full knowledge because we´ve seen him and we´ve seen him live.That is something Chopin and newtards can´t 1/understand 2/digest.Sorry for them, they missed it.
But Lutz was in the 70s. I believe most fans are incline to believe more recent tennis era is always better than the previous era. You can make a poll about Fed vs. Lutz, and there could be a few who will vote for Lutz, but not as much to an extent of Santoro vs. Laver. That's because Santoro is well after Laver's time.
Well, anyone who's been reading all of Chopin's posts in the past should know he STRONGLY believe current level tennis is always above the past. If he believe the opposite, he would make a poll about Federer vs. Bob Lutz. LOL
You seem to think Chopin's is picking on Laver, but the truth is he believe Laver's era and all the players are weaker than today.
Limpinhitter
G.O.A.T.
Limpinhitter
G.O.A.T.
Hmm...let's just say I don't think Laver and his era should be given a free pass when posters routinely tear apart Federer, Nadal, Sampras, Agassi, ect.
pc1
G.O.A.T.
Honestly I think Federer is torn apart more in the General Forum more than anywhere else as well as the others. Nadal is attacked by Federer people and vica versa etc.
Laver obviously isn't perfect, no player is.
Right now my favorite player to watch (always subject to change) is Djokovic but he obviously is far from perfect.
pc1
G.O.A.T.
Can you do me a favor and not have it be a Laver thread this time? A Laver thread always deteriorates into the same tired stuff.
Limpinhitter
G.O.A.T.
AHA!!! A tacit admission that Chopin actually thinks Laver is GOAT worthy, preserved here for posterity, in perpetuity! He just shouldn't be given a free pass. No argument here.
Last edited:
Limpinhitter
G.O.A.T.
"The revolution will not be televised." -- Gil Scott Heron. What amazing foresight.
Limpinhitter
G.O.A.T.
pc1
G.O.A.T.
Federer is a fantastic player. Do I think he is the default choice for GOAT as so many people think? No I don't. But I don't think Rod Laver is the default choice for GOAT either.
A default GOAT is a person whose record is so unbelievable and far ahead of anyone else in their sport that by record alone there cannot be any doubt he or she is the best ever.
A Suzanne Lenglen in her day was so dominant that she would barely lose games and often won tournaments wouldn't losing one game. At the time she played she was clearly the default GOAT.
Babe Ruth in his day was the default GOAT even if he didn't get as high a vote count as some in the Hall of Fame voting. Statistical analysis now shows how far ahead Ruth was of anyone who played at that time and before.
Is Federer's lifetime record that good to be the default GOAT? In my opinion no.
Is Rod Laver's lifetime record so good to be the default GOAT? In my opinion no.
There are many players that can be argued to be better than Federer or Laver. And these players have good arguments. Tilden, Gonzalez and Rosewall are among the ones who can be argue to be at least equal or better. And they aren't the default GOATs either in my opinion.
Last edited:
pc1
G.O.A.T.
Honestly I think Federer is torn apart more in the General Forum more than anywhere else as well as the others. Nadal is attacked by Federer people and vica versa etc.
Laver obviously isn't perfect, no player is.
Right now my favorite player to watch (always subject to change) is Djokovic but he obviously is far from perfect.
Federer is a fantastic player. Do I think he is the default GOAT as so many people think? No I don't. But I don't think Rod Laver is the default GOAT either.
A default GOAT is a person whose record is so unbelievable and far ahead of anyone else in their sport that by record alone there cannot be any doubt he or she is the best ever.
A Suzanne Lenglen in her day was so dominant that she would barely lose games and often won tournaments wouldn't losing one game. At the time she played she was clearly the default GOAT.
Is Federer's lifetime record that good to be the default GOAT? In my opinion no.
Is Rod Laver's lifetime record so good to be the default GOAT? In my opinion no.
There are many players that can be argued to be better than Federer or Laver. And these players have good arguments. Tilden, Gonzalez and Rosewall are among the ones who can be argue to be at least equal or better. And they aren't the default GOATs either in my opinion.
What I would hope for in these forums is some flexibility in some poster's opinions. It does bother me what some posters seem to think their tennis hero is the absolute best in every category. That's not objective and frankly not rational in my opinion. If a player was perfect in every way, why does that player not win 100% of the time?
Last edited:
kiki
Banned
Nobody denies that, talent wise, Federer is one of the best ever and, on any given day, could beat and would beat the all time rgeats.
The thing is, he´s played in such a weak era in terms of top competition ( he won a title in Australia agaainst...Baghdatis¡¡¡) that it takes a lot from him.It may not be fair at all, I know, but that´s the way it is.The same claim could have Roy Emerson, often overlooked as an all time great because of playing in the other wak era of modern tennis: the amateur field of the 1960´s.
The thing is, he´s played in such a weak era in terms of top competition ( he won a title in Australia agaainst...Baghdatis¡¡¡) that it takes a lot from him.It may not be fair at all, I know, but that´s the way it is.The same claim could have Roy Emerson, often overlooked as an all time great because of playing in the other wak era of modern tennis: the amateur field of the 1960´s.
kiki
Banned
In this forum, you can distinguish 2 types of posters: those that have been follwoing and watching tennis long time, thus have seen Laver play and have a realistic perspective of his achievements, his context and what he brought to tennis.That field is about 10% of the poll, I won´t give names because we all know whom am I mentioning in this gropu.
Now, there is the second group, the 90% of the poll who have watched tennis not too long and feel everything must be better now than before.Again, i won´t give names.
Well, the group that saw Laver, even if some would say the greatest wasn´t Laver but Gonzales,Borg or Federer, it´s very hard for them to overlook Laver´s chances.And most would put Laver atop of the history of the game ( or, at least sharing the nº 1 with 2-3 more players)
While, the second group, wouldn´t ever considered the 2 times GS winner, because Laver for them may sound as a detergent or tooth paste brand to the effect.
Now, there is the second group, the 90% of the poll who have watched tennis not too long and feel everything must be better now than before.Again, i won´t give names.
Well, the group that saw Laver, even if some would say the greatest wasn´t Laver but Gonzales,Borg or Federer, it´s very hard for them to overlook Laver´s chances.And most would put Laver atop of the history of the game ( or, at least sharing the nº 1 with 2-3 more players)
While, the second group, wouldn´t ever considered the 2 times GS winner, because Laver for them may sound as a detergent or tooth paste brand to the effect.
pc1
G.O.A.T.
I think we all have to keep an open mind to things. I've looked carefully at a lot of players and their records and sometimes were amazed by that player's accomplishments. On the reverse end I've examined the records of some players who were considered super players by many and found their record is often in my opinion found wanting.
Many years ago a good friend of mine and I were discussing Ken Rosewall. I was of the opinion while clearly Rosewall was one of the all time greats that he couldn't not be reasonably considered a potential GOAT. My friend convinced me otherwise when he told me to examine Rosewall's record carefully.
You can't go with first impressions and opinions of so call experts all the time. The experts are often in the moment as we are. And these experts often have a lot of gain by stating so and so is the best they have seem. The ratings would go up if you push a player as a potential GOAT for example.
We can't just have an opinion that player A is the absolute GOAT now and forever more. You have to be willing to be flexible.
Limpinhitter
G.O.A.T.
So, you've never seen Laver play or heard Freddy's music?
Chopin Polonaise in A-flat major, Op. 53
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iFvqvZOtCF0
Last edited:
im sure ive seen lavers match somewhere.. but then again ive never commented on laver himself.. i commented on "laver threads" started by CHOPIN and how boring they are.. or maybe chopin himself is BORING? its one or the other
as for freddy chopin? i dont know who he is.. either he's an unknown or just some old dinosaur era person?
as for freddy chopin? i dont know who he is.. either he's an unknown or just some old dinosaur era person?
pc1
G.O.A.T.
I hope so and I hope it's different.
I'm just curious to know since you claimed that all posters who voted for Santoro are a hater, young, biased, blah, blah blah. Unlike you, I'm open minded to believe every fans from both genders and age have their own opinion, but you can't accept it.
I've already mentioned it before...I didn't vote because I respect both players.
Last edited:
Where did Chopin stated that he hates Laver ?
In case you didn't know, Chopin's original post was based on both Laver and Santoro playing with graphite, not on wood. If he was using Laver's wood vs. Santoro's graphite then that isn't a fair poll. Get it now ?
kiki
Banned
I you just bothered, you´d notice I posted, and I go by my posts, that I´d consider bizarre , but not stupid if somebody who had seen both players several times and live, chose Santoro.Bizarre, not stupid.
What I consider stupid is to vote against somebody you never ehard of or you never watched closely, specially if this man is the only one who ever lived to win 2 GS.
kiki
Banned
Amritraj´s advantage, which isn´t fair to new tennis fans as TMF,FedRulz,APMERK,NathanielWear and so on, is that he has watched- and played- against both players or watched closely both.Me and some other posters here have done it, too, and I will expose, segment by segment, why Laver would beat Federer in a direct comparative:
Serve: Fed´s a bit better, and both had a pretty good second.Ad Federer
Overhead: both verys trong and few mistakes, so it´s even
Volley: not even a match.Advantage Laver
FH: Fed´s a bit better, which is saying a lot cause Rod´s one was a top one
BH: Fed´s one is good and versatile but not in the same league as one of the best ever backhands, able to compete with any other backhand when hit top spin, flat or sliced.
Lobs and Drops: it wouldn´t be fair to compare, since Fed´s never faced a net player, thus never practised lob in the way Laver ( and old pros) did.So it won´t enter the contest.
Tactics:Laver was the Master of tactrics and unexpected.Federer has never played at that level
Moves: Both great movers, bit advantage to Laver, the rocket
Fitness: both verys trong and fit.I would put them at the same level
Menthal toughness: Laver wouldn´t let anybody own him in the way Fed´s been owned by Nadal.Just because of that, Laver wins by a very clear margin
So, Fed wins in serving and forehand and Laver in volleying, backhand, tactics and menthal strength.
Laver wins it all.
Serve: Fed´s a bit better, and both had a pretty good second.Ad Federer
Overhead: both verys trong and few mistakes, so it´s even
Volley: not even a match.Advantage Laver
FH: Fed´s a bit better, which is saying a lot cause Rod´s one was a top one
BH: Fed´s one is good and versatile but not in the same league as one of the best ever backhands, able to compete with any other backhand when hit top spin, flat or sliced.
Lobs and Drops: it wouldn´t be fair to compare, since Fed´s never faced a net player, thus never practised lob in the way Laver ( and old pros) did.So it won´t enter the contest.
Tactics:Laver was the Master of tactrics and unexpected.Federer has never played at that level
Moves: Both great movers, bit advantage to Laver, the rocket
Fitness: both verys trong and fit.I would put them at the same level
Menthal toughness: Laver wouldn´t let anybody own him in the way Fed´s been owned by Nadal.Just because of that, Laver wins by a very clear margin
So, Fed wins in serving and forehand and Laver in volleying, backhand, tactics and menthal strength.
Laver wins it all.
Limpinhitter
G.O.A.T.
My assessment:
Serve: Fed
Forehand: Fed
Backhand: Laver
Return game: Laver
Volley technique: Laver
Net play: Laver
Smash: Laver
Touch: Laver
Court speed: Even
Footwork: Fed (barely)
Conditioning: Even
Tactics: Even
Mental toughness: Laver
Forearm strength: Hahaha! You know the answer to that one!
PS: I just noticed Santoro isn't even part of this discussion. Here, I'll give Santoro some love:
Pushing: Santoro
Last edited:
So anyone who never saw Bill Tilden played(unless you are a 100 yr old) cannot vote Laver over Tilden.
If the OLDEST poster on this board who claimed the era he grew up has the greatest players of all time then everyone who are younger must accept it. Gotcha !
treblings
Hall of Fame
So anyone who never saw Bill Tilden played(unless you are a 100 yr old) cannot vote Laver over Tilden.
If the OLDEST poster on this board who claimed the era he grew up has the greatest players of all time then everyone who are younger must accept it. Gotcha !
agreed, the oldest poster gets to decide. now will he/she please come forward
pc1
G.O.A.T.
agreed, the oldest poster gets to decide. now will he/she please come forward
However I do respect Tilden and think he would be more than viable today considering his talent and genius for the game. He was always learning and adapting unlike many players.
Limpinhitter
G.O.A.T.
So anyone who never saw Bill Tilden played(unless you are a 100 yr old) cannot vote Laver over Tilden.
If the OLDEST poster on this board who claimed the era he grew up has the greatest players of all time then everyone who are younger must accept it. Gotcha !
Wrong again, polarization breath! I know logic is a difficult task for you, but, try to follow: other things being equal, anyone who saw Tilden and Laver play has more credibility about who was greater that anyone who hasn't!
PC1,
What do you think of this game I played as white?
1. e4 e5 2. Bc4 d6 3. Qf3 Qf6 4. d3 Nc6 5. Nh3 h6 6. Nc3 Nd4 7. Qxf6 Nxf6 8. Kd2 Be7 9. Rf1 c6 10. f4 b5 11. fxe5 dxe5 12. Bb3 a6 13. a4 b4 14. Ne2 Nxb3 15. cxb3 Be6 16. d4 Nxe4 17. Kc2 Bf6 18. dxe5 Bxe5 19. Nef4 Bd7 20. Re1 f5 21. g3 O-O 22. Be3 Rac8 23. Rad1 Rcd8 24. Bb6 Bc8 25. Rxd8 Rxd8 26. Bxd8 1-0 {Black resigns}
What do you think of this game I played as white?
1. e4 e5 2. Bc4 d6 3. Qf3 Qf6 4. d3 Nc6 5. Nh3 h6 6. Nc3 Nd4 7. Qxf6 Nxf6 8. Kd2 Be7 9. Rf1 c6 10. f4 b5 11. fxe5 dxe5 12. Bb3 a6 13. a4 b4 14. Ne2 Nxb3 15. cxb3 Be6 16. d4 Nxe4 17. Kc2 Bf6 18. dxe5 Bxe5 19. Nef4 Bd7 20. Re1 f5 21. g3 O-O 22. Be3 Rac8 23. Rad1 Rcd8 24. Bb6 Bc8 25. Rxd8 Rxd8 26. Bxd8 1-0 {Black resigns}
kiki
Banned
I forgot the return, yes Laver by far...so you pick the old man, dontya?
oh¡ I forgot, beer drinker: you know that one, ya¡¡¡¡
Santoro beats both of them at preparing a french omelette.granted.
kiki
Banned
So anyone who never saw Bill Tilden played(unless you are a 100 yr old) cannot vote Laver over Tilden.
If the OLDEST poster on this board who claimed the era he grew up has the greatest players of all time then everyone who are younger must accept it. Gotcha !
Of course, if you compare players you haven´t seen, you would make an statement very very subjective.Still, depending on your way of thinking and analisying and having ( or not) prospective, you could give a biassed but honest and, at least, reasoned opinion.The more tennis you know, the more reasonable it´ll loom, but always a non contrasted opinion.
Now, if you just saw Santoro and never Laver, and still you bet against the only guy ever to win the CY slam twice...I´d say something doesn´t look to well in you head, or you are simply a Laver hater.
kiki
Banned
...and some very well respected men did, like Tingay,Bellamy,Tingling and if they all admire so much Tilden, then it´s clear the guy has something special.
Just like Bodo,Trengrove,Couvercelle,Tomassy and other modern era journalists do with Laver.
pc1
G.O.A.T.
I'll look at it later but at first glance it's generally a mistake to go for the quick four move mate unless you are the vastly superior player. It can backfire on you.
So anyone who never saw Bill Tilden played(unless you are a 100 yr old) cannot vote Laver over Tilden.
If the OLDEST poster on this board who claimed the era he grew up has the greatest players of all time then everyone who are younger must accept it. Gotcha !
TMF,
When I speak to people who are either all time greats or have observed the greats I listen very carefully to their opinions because they have first hand knowledge of the players and of the conditions of the time. I can never spent enough time discussing tennis with these people. Their opinions are not something I would just forget about as the opinions of an old person who you shoudn't listen too because they only care about the past. I think every old timer would think Federer is great but they can observe Federer with eyes that have seen many all time greats and can express a better opinion.
Frankly I don't understand you. You claim to respect Laver yet you are always writing that Laver would NOT come close to defeating Joe Average ATP player today. Like I have written before, what goes around comes around. I know you love Federer but someday in the next decade or so, perhaps less someone is going to write Federer couldn't defeat Joe Average ATP player at the time. I will probably disagree and be very annoyed at that person.
Remember when we talk about players of the past we are mainly talking about the greats, generally players with great gifts.
Your logic is what you call the evolution of the game. Evolution doesn't occur so rapidly. What does occur is adaption to the conditions of the time. We have different surfaces, different racquets, different strings technology. We have teams of people helping the current top player. We have the best transportation in great airplane travel, limos, great hotels for the players.
Is it really that hard for a top past great like Pancho Gonzalez or Laver to adapt to this? I don't think so.
When conditions change in the future I think Federer would probably easily adapt also as would Nadal and Djokovic etc.
Also you really should study the old time greats. They really were fabulous players. You shouldn't assume that your theory about the past is always correct. If your theory is 100% correct I would say that Nolan Ryan who played in the 1960's would be, by your logic only able to throw at the fraction of the speeds the top pitchers in Major League Baseball throw today. That is incorrect and he threw over 100 mph and was perhaps the hardest throwing pitcher ever. Ryan's last pitch I believe thrown at age 46 was timed at 98 mph. Guys like Koufax, Gibson and many others would be fantastic in any era.
All I'm saying basically here is try to keep an open mind. You cannot make the assumption that every player from the past wouldn't be successful today. Most (not all of them) were gifted players, physically, stroking wise and mentally.
Last edited:
treblings
Hall of Fame
do we all agree that Rod Laver is one of the all-time greats and that Fabrice Santoro, albeit a vg player, was a journeyman, best remembered because of his unconventional game?
anybody who agrees with this premise and still votes Santoro is doing it because he/she believes that the level of play has become higher since Lavers time. and not because they want to insult Laver or his contemporaries
anybody who agrees with this premise and still votes Santoro is doing it because he/she believes that the level of play has become higher since Lavers time. and not because they want to insult Laver or his contemporaries
pc1
G.O.A.T.
I do agree with you that many believe this and it does make some sense of course but what does bother me sometimes is that some apparently make some assumptions without examining the player or the times more carefully.
Limpinhitter
G.O.A.T.
To be clear, after seeing Federer against Sampras in the 2001 Wimbledon, I have a ton of respect for Federer's return game. But, Laver's returns were just as great from at, or in front of, the baseline, not 10+ feet behind. That difference makes the same return much more effective.
