Laver #2
- Thread starter Chopin
- Start date
abmk
Bionic Poster
none of it is BS. Those are my opinions based on facts and on watching tennis in the past eras ......
Here's a clue : I've watched plenty of tennis of the past eras . Each era has its own pros and cons.
But then you wouldn't get it considering you are clueless and all of your opinions are formed in your Laver la la land
BS is putting Kodes in the same league as Vines, BS is saying Graf did not win THE GS in 88, BS is you saying nastase won 6 majors .....Get it ?
LOL..i'm not accusing you, but just quoted you on what EXACTLY you said.
Obviously, this is fabrication, because you know I've never said it.
How do you like it if someone bad-mouth you for something that you never said ?? You wouldn't like either, right ?
Next time be careful of what you say. Anything you say can be use against you in the TT Warehouse forum !
Devilito
Hall of Fame
6 Don Budge
7 Andre Agassi
8 John McEnroe
9 Jimmy Connors
10 Bill Tilden
11 Roy Emerson
12 Ivan Lendl
you can pretty much shuffle that 6-12 list around any way you want. It's impossible to compare some of those players. Stats in tennis is about the most meaningless way to gauge something because tennis is not baseball. Tennis changes often with what is considered an important tournament, what is considered an important record, court surfaces, racquet and string technology etc. You can’t really say that Agassi, Mac or Connors were better than Lendl unless you have an American bias. Too tough to make a clear cut choice between the 4. Andre is the only one I could see as being able to pull ahead in that group. Baseball hasn't really changed in 100 years so it's a lot easier to compare stats
7 Andre Agassi
8 John McEnroe
9 Jimmy Connors
10 Bill Tilden
11 Roy Emerson
12 Ivan Lendl
you can pretty much shuffle that 6-12 list around any way you want. It's impossible to compare some of those players. Stats in tennis is about the most meaningless way to gauge something because tennis is not baseball. Tennis changes often with what is considered an important tournament, what is considered an important record, court surfaces, racquet and string technology etc. You can’t really say that Agassi, Mac or Connors were better than Lendl unless you have an American bias. Too tough to make a clear cut choice between the 4. Andre is the only one I could see as being able to pull ahead in that group. Baseball hasn't really changed in 100 years so it's a lot easier to compare stats
Yeah - baseball hasn't changed much. Ask Barry Bonds and Mark McGuire how much baseball has changed...and ask a guy like Hank Aaron what he thinks about Bonds' "records."
Limpinhitter
G.O.A.T.
Just like tennis, baseball has became a global sport. Today a vast number of great players are from other countries - Dominican Rep., Venezuela, Puerto Rico, Japan, Canada, Cuba, etc. A 100 yrs ago all the MLB players are from the states, not to mention only limited number of athletes can compete because of segregation.
Limpinhitter
G.O.A.T.
I tend to agree with you. Agassi's record was great, but, not as great as his peak level of play would be cause to expect of his record.
LOL..i'm not accusing you, but just quoted you on what EXACTLY you said.
Obviously, this is fabrication, because you know I've never said it.
How do you like it if someone bad-mouth you for something that you never said ?? You wouldn't like either, right ?
Next time be careful of what you say. Anything you say can be use against you in the TT Warehouse forum !
Limpinhitter
G.O.A.T.
Dig you dig a hole deep enough to reach half way to China ?
Limpinhitter
G.O.A.T.
kiki
Banned
Ah no? Agassi wasn´t, Chang wasn´t, Rios wasn´t ? ...Chang won a GS title beating all time legends Lendl and Edberg.Federer never ,absolutely ever had such competition during his win at RG ( due to Nadal´s being injuried).Please, Soderling...jajajajajajajaja
Please, take some lessons before posting those hilarious posts that make you look as an angered baby
God you're so clueless. No one said these guys are chopped, but certainly not in the top tier great. But if you believe them(especially Chang and Rios) are some type of a greek god like you have for Kodes then you need to layoff the crack pipe.
Again Limpin,
Where and when did i ever state that these players wouldn't make the pro tour in the modern era ?
Waiting, waiting...
Where and when did i ever state that these players wouldn't make the pro tour in the modern era ?
Waiting, waiting...
abmk
Bionic Poster
clueless Kiki at it again .....
Soderling playing well > Edberg playing well on clay .....
Two RG finals for soderling to one for edberg ...
soderling beat both fed and nadal at RG ...( also beat ferrer,davydenko, gonzalez, berdych )
nadal wasn't injured physically. the only thing injured was his pride, for which Soderling was responsible.
and yeah, obviously clueless Kiki has no idea of how well del potro was playing in the semis in RG 2009 vs federer
going purely by form, that del potro >>>>>> listless, off form Rosewall that your crush Laver managed to beat at RG 69
come back when you watch even a little bit of tennis in modern times. Otherwise you can stay in the la la land of yours. Stop posting where normal people post if you want to avoid humiliation and embarrassment at your cluelessness
here are clips of the highlights of that match : RG 2009 SF b/w federer and delpo
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m01EwE_eUmc
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4ubAykHUNao
and yeah, if something sinks in, you can get the full match and see for yourself
Last edited:
Limpinhitter
G.O.A.T.
Mustard
Bionic Poster
Surely you're not serious? Rosewall in 1969 was the defending French Open champion and a very accomplished major winner going back to 1953. Del Potro in 2009 was having his breakthrough year.
Limpinhitter
G.O.A.T.
Just remember, your arguing with a ****. Details like facts and truth are irrelevant to a hero worshipper.
abmk
Bionic Poster
oh hell yeah, overall there is no comparision b/w delpo and Rosewall on clay so far as achievements go ...... Rosewall is far far better ......
But based purely on form ?????
RG 1969 final Rosewall vs RG 2009 SF delpo ......
I take the latter ......
would I take henman 2001 at wimby over federer at 2010 wimby ( yes, he was defending champion , 6 time winner) ..... hell yeah ..... just to give another example ....
Last edited:
abmk
Bionic Poster
talking about yourself ??? good , very good that you accept it. Acceptance is the first step to recovery . :lol:
pc1
G.O.A.T.
Guys,
It's really dangerous to evaluate a player's form at the time he is playing. Different equipment of course but also people have different opinions. David Nalbanian was unbelievable in some indoor tournaments in crushing Nadal and Federer. How do we evaluate that? Could he play like that on other surfaces?
Also, guys like Rosewall or Federer for that matter have ways of not allowing their opponents to reach top form with their style of play. Rosewall's slice backhand which was very deep and with surprising power was very hard to attack. Same with some shots of Federer or Nadal.
A good example of this is Roscoe Tanner versus Connors Wimbledon 1975 semi. Arthur Ashe thought Tanner never served better but Connors blasted the returns back for winners. Perhaps against anyone else Tanner might have had an easy win but Connors destroyed Tanner in straight sets.
Last edited:
hoodjem
G.O.A.T.
Not sure I grasp the implications here.
Henman in 2001 beat "baby Fed" in the quarters in four sets with two tie-breaks, then lost in the semis to Goran in five sets.
In 2010 "papa Fed" lost to Berdych, again, in the quarters in four straightforward sets. Berdych then beat Djoker in the semis in three and lost to Nadal in three in the finals.
Interesting juxtaposition: Fed loses in both Wimbledon quarters--to Henman in 2001, and to Berdych in 2010.
Who played better? Henman or Berdych?
Last edited:
kiki
Banned
Jojojo...so we have a new charachter in abmk´s tale, Robin Soderling...who is a good player, no one questions, but lacks the guts to go till the end.
pc1
G.O.A.T.
Grass of 2001 would favor Henman. Grass of 2010 may favor Berdych but Henman had decent groundies. Never been a big fan of Berdych.
kiki
Banned
Yes TMF, if Borg,Laver,Rosewall,Newcombe and Connors were playing in this magical era of big sized players and international tennis explosion, they´d be giving lessons to oldies probably after 2 or 3 years on the tour trying to make a decent living...and , of course, Kodes ( whom you know nothing about), too
Davydenko is also undersize and is no match against the big boys. Pretty much the same would have happen to player like Chang in this era. Thanks for agreeing with me that small players are at a disadvantage.
abmk
Bionic Poster
I don't get how it is dangerous to evaluate the player's form.
You have to in order to understand how tough a player's competition really was........ You cannot assume an all time great is always going to playing well and a lower rung player is always going to play average tennis .....Of course opinions will vary
For example, look at Becker vs Sampras at Wimbledon. becker didn't play his near best tennis in any of their encounters - his best grass court tennis was in the mid 80s to 91 or so. On the other hand, their indoor encounters, both played very close to their best ( Stuttgart and Hannover in 96 )
Hence I consider Becker to be a formidable rival to Sampras indoors than on grass ...
Last edited:
abmk
Bionic Poster
the implication is straight-forward .....an in-form decent player ( henman in 2001 wimbledon/delpo in FO 2009) can be more formidable than an all time great not playing well (federer in wimbledon 2010 QF/rosewall in RG 1969 F )
I didn't really mean to compare henman and berdych on grass in those years ...
pc1
G.O.A.T.
The point I was trying to make was that we're human and sometime we evaluate incorrectly. And while a player may be playing at a super level it is sometimes because his opponent may allow it. If that player who played at a super level the previous match plays another player who plays to his or her weaknesses that player may not look at good. Or perhaps one player may neutralize the other player's strengths because of the player's style of play allows it.
A Nadal fan may think Nadal's best is superior to Federer's best and vice versa.
Last edited:
hoodjem
G.O.A.T.
pc1
G.O.A.T.
I don't think many disagreed with you that being shorter is a disadvantage assuming the taller player doesn't have lesser agility and mobility which is very possible.
Here's post 649 with your posts in quotes. This is how Laver differs from Davydenko.
You always seem to dwell on height instead of accomplishments and overall talent. In this case I think you are correct that Chang was often overpowered by Sampras and Agassi, even though he could defeat both at times. However Laver was a different case. Rod had a very powerful serve, unlike Chang. Also unlike Chang his game was based on power, great volleying, spins, angles and touch. You keep dwelling on height but forget Laver's serve was very powerful and made him hard to break. And his superb reflexes and powerful wrists would allow him to handle powerful serves and drive them back, even on the backhand side. He could flick the ball back like ping pong. Laver also had a great return. What would you expect from a man who accomplished what Laver did? Did you expect him to be a one dimensional player who just used junk? Laver was a million classes above Chang. There was probably nothing Chang could do that Laver couldn't do better. Laver was able to overpower greats like Newcombe, Ashe, Smith, Gonzalez, Rosewall, Roche, Hoad etc. These players were taller than him except for Rosewall but with the possible exception of Lew Hoad, no one was stronger than him. He had a left arm that was as big as the World Heavyweight Champion. That is only a partial source of his great talent. He was exceptionally fast with great reflexes and yes he wasn't as tall as some. Big deal. If he was 6' tall with no loss in any other area his record would have be more ridiculous than it is now and it is ridiculously good now.
You are always so rigid with the height argument but failed to admit that talent can overcome the height differences. I've already written that in many other sports like baseball great players are often smaller. Pedro Martinez, listed as a taller man was probably around 5'9" but was perhaps the best starting pitcher of his time. He could throw the ball around 98 miles per hour with great control and a great variety of pitches. He was better in my opinion (and in a lot of people's opinions) than Randy Johnson who was about a foot taller at 6'10" tall.
Ivan Rodriquez at 5'9" tall was perhaps the best catcher of his time. His throwing arm was perhaps unparalleled in baseball history.
You are so rigid with the height argument but don't admit that talent overcomes all. Laver was gifted. Pancho Gonzalez was gifted. Gonzalez was about 6'3" to 6'4" tall. Laver was shorter but what they both had in common was great talent in tennis.
Gonzalez was super fluid with arguably the best serve in history. He had extremely long arms that probably allowed him to serve like a man several inches taller. Gonzalez was taller by several inches than Federer and with his long arms played like a man even taller than that. Yet would you say Gonzalez is AUTOMATICALLY better than Federer simply because Gonzalez was taller? I would not just on height alone but it is quite possible that Gonzalez was superior to Federer. It is also possible the other way around.
Yes height limited Laver's ability to a mere 200 tournament wins and several Calendar Year Grand Slams and one Pro Slam in 1967. Maybe if he was taller he would have won 250 tournaments plus a few other Calendar Year Grand Slams. Heck if there was Open Tennis for his whole career he may have won a few more Calendar Year Grand Slams. Instead poor Rod has to settle for 200 tournament victories and just a few Grand Slams. Poor guy was hampered by his height.
Of course I know he won the FO. But if you think a 17 yr old Chang was at his peak/prime then you need to layoff the crack pipe.
It was a great win for Davy, but one tournament doesn't paint one's entire career. Davy never made the slam final. I know Davy is a very talented player, but the top players are just too much for him, and they are all bigger.
I don't know why you even bother to compare Laver to Chang because no one is comparing them. But feel strongly that Chang was small for a tennis player which limited his game. I mean player can try to work harder to compensate the disadvantage, but it still doesn't make up for the big serve, power on both sides and reach advantage.
I don't believe a baseball pitcher is a valid comparison to a tennis players when it comes to size/height. It doesn't matter if you are 5' or 7' as a pitcher, because the striking zone is always the same for every pitcher. Throwing a fast ball doesn't require to be the right height. However, for a tennis player, having a great serve required a right height. And throwing a fast ball is different from hitting a forehand in tennis. I don't see a connection here.
Laver dominate in his era, his height didn't bother him for the condition in the 60s, but had he play in today's era where the game has change, I believe Laver would be a better player if he was taller. I mean you actually want me to believe had Fed was 5'7", that wouldn't effected his game, and he would still be sitting on 16 slams right now. I'm sorry but don't agree.
abmk
Bionic Poster
yes, sometimes we evaluate incorrectly. But a good observer will get it right most of the times. Its better than putting the ATG over another good player in a match regardless of form or how they are playing ....
Of course , you can't only go by subjective opinions. We have to look at the stats/records as well. But stats/records without context are useless . We need to look at both, how they were playing and their stats/records .....
P.S. nadal's best is better than fed's on clay, but not on other surfaces. This is something amply clear from what I've seen and the stats/records reflect this ...
I don't want to say a perfect size/height is a be-all and end-all. But if a player had all the talent, the right height, mentally tough and the durability...meaning having all the components, it's makes a world of difference.
Limpinhitter
G.O.A.T.
Limpinhitter
G.O.A.T.
pc1
G.O.A.T.
If Federer was shorter by several inches with no gain in other areas he surely would have been a lesser player. But Laver was dominant because of his overall talent which included the fact he was shorter than some but his left arm was bigger than all. Does Federer have a wrist bigger than the world heavyweight champion? I doubt it. I was discussing Chang because you brought up Chang's height and you're brought up Laver's height a few trillion times (exaggeration but sometimes it seems that way) over a period of time. Laver would be even better if he was taller with no loss in any area. I
You have never answered my Gonzalez question. Gonzalez is arguably the greatest athlete in tennis history. He had arguably the greatest weapon in tennis history in his great serve. He's taller than Federer by several inches. He had extremely long arms which extented his reach and improved his serve. By that definition is Federer inferior to Gonzalez? Gonzalez played in the 1940's to 1970's. How would Gonzalez do today? He serves better than Roddick, moves like the wind, volleys better than anyone today and was as smooth as can do.
And a baseball pitcher is a great comparison because like the tennis serve a pitcher can spot his pitches. Laver had a great serve with his powerful arm he could compensate for lesser height. For goodness sake Laver could serve and volley against Jimmy Connors effectively. Can anyone today do that?
You've never discussed the arm strength and wrist strength of Laver which was by far the best of his time, not including Lew Hoad. What about Laver's reflexes? Pretty incredible in my opinion.
Last edited:
Did I ever said Pancho was chopped liver ?
I've never said Pancho size would be a problem playing in the modern era. How would he fare against Fed or Sampras is all up for a debate.
Plus, some of you even mentioned about a 41 yr old Pancho was beating a younger Laver and Rosewall.
I'm not going over with you about a baseball's pitcher. I mean a pitcher is stationary in one position(pitcher mount) while a tennis player has to constantly move around on the court. Why don't you use basketball players as an analogy? Notice the center position, guard position are limited to a certain height to fit/adapt the game.
Perhaps it is in the 60s but not today. But i would expect you to know since you don't watch modern tennis.
pc1
G.O.A.T.
Never said you said that Gonzalez was bad. But you always mention height so I'm putting it to you in reverse, how would a very tall Gonzalez with a huge wingspan do against the players of today? Bear in mind that people in the know like Vic Braden thought that Gonzalez's serve was superior to players like Sampras. Gonzalez was perhaps a better server than Roddick,is to my mind a FAR superior athlete and probably better in most every stroke. Let's put it this way, you have a man obsessed with winning in Gonzalez, a scary serve, a scarier will to win, with beautiful movement, stamina, touch and power. He was a very smooth player. Yes I think he would do very well. So I also put it to you, being taller than Federer and with a much longer wingspan, is he more talented than Federer? Is it possible that he could be more talented than the Mighty Federer?
Here's Gonzalez.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nd0gJzm_EQY
Basketball is a different sport. It's a team game. Michael Jordan may very well be a better basketball player than Shaq or Wilt Chamberlain in the team concept. But one on one Jordan wouldn't ever be able to stop Wilt Chamberlain. No chance. That's not a good analogy.
Read what I wrote before. A tennis server doesn't have to move either lilke a baseball pitcher and you still haven't answered my question about Laver's incredible left arm and wrist which allowed him to flick winners past players.
Here's Laver serving I think with a wood racquet (not sure) but it's definitely not as good as any racquet we have today. He also has the advantage of a lefty server. You talk about height and service speed. This is an excellent serve against maybe the best returner ever. Pretty effective, don't you think? And Laver is 36 about to be 37.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SptdffCeVmM
Connors is taller by a bit. You tell me who had the better serve and who had more pace on his serve. And please don't tell me that Davydenko can make all those shots that Laver could or play in Laver style.
Here's Laver against Tony Roche in the final of the 1969 US Open to complete his Grand Slam. Laver is 31. How bad is Laver's serve? Please evaluate Laver's serve. Both players definitely have small wood racquets here. Noticed the overheads. I don't think height hampered his overheads. Notice how worn the grass courts were at Forest Hills, you couldn't stay back and hit groundstroke rallies like they do today. Return of serve would be ridiculously hard because you just didn't know how the ball would bounce. Often there were no bounces at all. Federer or anyone else today would have to serve and volley. And volleying with a small wood racquet that's heavier than the racquets of today isn't that easy. We talk constantly about how hard it is to handle the greater spin at the net today but we do have the advantage of much bigger racquets.
Incidentally conditions were even worst than usual (and usual is pretty bad) at Forest Hills since there was a lot of rain and it was very slippery.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CvpckZmLaEc&feature=relmfu
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2f60jJTbEps&feature=relmfu
Last edited:
