Laver "it wasn't as important then"

The-Champ · Jun 12, 2012

Nice article/interview with Laver after the FO12 finals.

"You know, it was never as important then, counting Grand Slam titles you'd won. Emerson didn't even know how many he'd won; it was not common knowledge. If you won Wimbledon, it was a feather in your cap. I won two U.S. Opens, I knew that.

"That's the way it was. No one was counting."

http://espn.go.com/tennis/french12/story/_/id/8041417/french-open-anyone-match-rod-laver-feat

What if former greats were as obsessed with breaking tennis records as Federer and Sampras? Maybe Borg for instance would never have skipped AO. Sampras' goal was to surpass Emerson and Federer wanted to surpass Sampras and Nadal wanted to surpass Borg at the FO. Recent greats have all become glory hunters which prevented them from playing their best. Federer played like crap at the AO09 and cried after the loss. That's because he had Sampras' records at the back of his mind. Nadal played like crap at finals of FO12 because of the thought of surpassing Borg. Djokovic didn't play well during the finals either because of the idea of having "4 in a row". There are other reasons obviously for not being able to perform your best and if you are not there mentally, it is impossible. Yes, they are all mentally tough but it is human nature to prove something, if not for others, for yourself. The closer they are to their goals, the more pressure increases. The weight of expectations is too much which sometimes attributed to them not being able to perform their best. Psychologically, it must be draining.

In conclusion, goals may have made some players better but also brought out the worst performances from them.

Your thoughts?

Tennis_Hands · Jun 12, 2012

Agreed.

10chars

Bud · Jun 13, 2012

Many on the board have been saying this for years. Some player(s) even skipped a grand slam to play world team tennis. Many skipped the AO because it fell too close to Christmas and traveling to AO was inconvenient. The GS's (apart from Wimbledon) simply didn't carry the weight in the past they now carry.

connico · Jun 13, 2012

lol... its all about the glory and the prize money now

The-Champ · Jun 13, 2012

I find this the funniest: "Laver, whose name graces the center court at the Australian Open, leaned in during the trophy presentation and said to Djokovic, "Congratulations, you've only got three to go."

LOL!! he made it sound as if it was so easy. He knows everyone wants to break his record of 2 calendar slams.

The-Champ · Jun 13, 2012

connico said:
lol... its all about the glory and the prize money now

yeah, men's tennis today is about who's wearing the best man purse on court and stolen expensive watches.

Mainad · Jun 13, 2012

That's a nice and timely corrective from a former tennis great against those of us on here who think it's all about the Slams and that nothing else matters!!

sureshs · Jun 13, 2012

There is better communication and information management now.

Gizo · Jun 13, 2012

This 'slam counting' and 'only slams matter' attitude only became popular during Sampras's career and during the end of Lendl's career when he was past his peak.

If you go back to Borg's and Laver's time, the Wimbledon title count was way more important than the overall slam count. Borg could have stayed on, won a couple of more RG titles and overtaken Roy Emerson's record of 12 grand slams titles (a meaningless record which he didn't even know he held until the media hyped it up decades later), but he didn't see the point if wasn't racking up more Wimbledon titles.

A major reason why the grand slam count actually became significant in Sampras's era, was that by then all the slams had got their act together and increased their prize money relative to the other tournaments. No player was going to value the Australian Open over the Pepsi Grand Slam or Masters when it didn't offer anywhere near as much money.

Devilito · Jun 13, 2012

duh... if Petros new at the start of his career that he had to break 16 for the record i bet he could have done it. It's always easier to go second and know what you have to do than set the record and watch others break it. Nobody cared about slam count until about the early-mid 90s. If they did, they wouldn't have skipped so many slams. Tons of players skipped the Aus Open until about the mid 90s. Lots of clay courters skipped Wimbledon and lots of fast court players skipped the French. It was common and the prize money and glory that came from winning a slam wasnt even close to what it is now. Tennis is about the worst sport in the world to compare titles and statistics because of the constantly changing dynamics of the tour.

Deleted member 21996 · Jun 13, 2012

The-Champ said:
Nice article/interview with Laver after the FO12 finals.

"You know, it was never as important then, counting Grand Slam titles you'd won. Emerson didn't even know how many he'd won; it was not common knowledge. If you won Wimbledon, it was a feather in your cap. I won two U.S. Opens, I knew that.

"That's the way it was. No one was counting."

http://espn.go.com/tennis/french12/story/_/id/8041417/french-open-anyone-match-rod-laver-feat

What if former greats were as obsessed with breaking tennis records as Federer and Sampras? Maybe Borg for instance would never have skipped AO. Sampras' goal was to surpass Emerson and Federer wanted to surpass Sampras and Nadal wanted to surpass Borg at the FO. Recent greats have all become glory hunters which prevented them from playing their best. Federer played like crap at the AO09 and cried after the loss. That's because he had Sampras' records at the back of his mind. Nadal played like crap at finals of FO12 because of the thought of surpassing Borg. Djokovic didn't play well during the finals either because of the idea of having "4 in a row". There are other reasons obviously for not being able to perform your best and if you are not there mentally, it is impossible. Yes, they are all mentally tough but it is human nature to prove something, if not for others, for yourself. The closer they are to their goals, the more pressure increases. The weight of expectations is too much which sometimes attributed to them not being able to perform their best. Psychologically, it must be draining.

In conclusion, goals may have made some players better but also brought out the worst performances from them.

Your thoughts?

it's Laver... what is there to say. The only guy who managed to sneak 2 (two) Grands while being barred his prime years from the tour...

i agree that this generation seem avid for glory and recognition. when you think of how shy and understating Laver or Borg were, both on court and out of it...

Rafa Garros · Jun 13, 2012

Gorecki said:
when you think of how shy and understating Laver or Borg were, both on court and out of it...

I guess nadal is closest to those twos in terms of humbleness and dignity. Carrying the torch of grace for future generations

Deleted member 21996 · Jun 13, 2012

Rafa Garros said:
I guess nadal is closest to those twos in terms of humbleness and dignity. Carrying the torch of grace for future generations

simply implying that Simian boy is in the same league in terms of composture as Laver makes me throw a litlle in my mouth!!!

Rafa Garros · Jun 13, 2012

Gorecki said:
simply implying that Simian boy is in the same league in terms of composture as Laver makes me throw a litlle in my mouth!!!

you never saw borg or laver stroke the face of crying blubbering opponents

zcarzach · Jun 13, 2012

Gorecki said:
simply implying that Simian boy is in the same league in terms of composture as Laver makes me throw a litlle in my mouth!!!

I threw up a lot. What a joke.

Rafa Garros · Jun 13, 2012

Rafa Garros said:
you never saw borg or laver stroke the face of crying blubbering opponents

federer+crying+in+Australian+open+final.jpg

the torch of grace being carried for future generations

Emet74 · Jun 13, 2012

Gorecki said:
i agree that this generation seem avid for glory and recognition. when you think of how shy and understating Laver or Borg were, both on court and out of it...

Borg - the future drug addict who told JMac that there was no point in playing if he couldn't be #1?

Ha, people just idealize guys from the past because we know less about them.

Agree w/ the general point tho' that slam count didn't use to matter and talking about things like GOAT using those sort of metrics is silly. I've always blamed Sampras and his publicists - they were the ones that started fussing about the so-called Emerson "record" that no one had cared about -

Roger had no choice, after the Sampras bru-hah-hah the press never left him alone about the "14" thing.

marc45 · Jun 13, 2012

The-Champ said:
Nice article/interview with Laver after the FO12 finals.

"You know, it was never as important then, counting Grand Slam titles you'd won. Emerson didn't even know how many he'd won; it was not common knowledge. If you won Wimbledon, it was a feather in your cap. I won two U.S. Opens, I knew that.

"That's the way it was. No one was counting."

http://espn.go.com/tennis/french12/story/_/id/8041417/french-open-anyone-match-rod-laver-feat

What if former greats were as obsessed with breaking tennis records as Federer and Sampras? Maybe Borg for instance would never have skipped AO. Sampras' goal was to surpass Emerson and Federer wanted to surpass Sampras and Nadal wanted to surpass Borg at the FO. Recent greats have all become glory hunters which prevented them from playing their best. Federer played like crap at the AO09 and cried after the loss. That's because he had Sampras' records at the back of his mind. Nadal played like crap at finals of FO12 because of the thought of surpassing Borg. Djokovic didn't play well during the finals either because of the idea of having "4 in a row". There are other reasons obviously for not being able to perform your best and if you are not there mentally, it is impossible. Yes, they are all mentally tough but it is human nature to prove something, if not for others, for yourself. The closer they are to their goals, the more pressure increases. The weight of expectations is too much which sometimes attributed to them not being able to perform their best. Psychologically, it must be draining.

In conclusion, goals may have made some players better but also brought out the worst performances from them.

Your thoughts?

nadal played like crap at fo 12?...wow...brain cells need more study

fed_rulz · Jun 13, 2012

Devilito said:
duh... if Petros new at the start of his career that he had to break 16 for the record i bet he could have done it. It's always easier to go second and know what you have to do than set the record and watch others break it. Nobody cared about slam count until about the early-mid 90s. If they did, they wouldn't have skipped so many slams. Tons of players skipped the Aus Open until about the mid 90s. Lots of clay courters skipped Wimbledon and lots of fast court players skipped the French. It was common and the prize money and glory that came from winning a slam wasnt even close to what it is now. Tennis is about the worst sport in the world to compare titles and statistics because of the constantly changing dynamics of the tour.

please name a few slams where Sampras lost because he didn't care much. In any case all that you say about players skipping AO etc, doesn't apply to sampras.

Face it Pete-fanboi, Pete did the best he could, and his job was made easier when his best rival went AWOL during his peak. There was no way he was going to win 16, if he knew that was the target.. he lucked out in his 13th and 14th slam, a luxury that does not exist today.

ultradr · Jun 13, 2012

The-Champ said:
Your thoughts?

This must have something to do with, at least partially, the fact that there
were pro and amateur slams coexist during 60's.

If they count both pro and amateur slams during 60's, both Laver and Gonzalez
won 20+ slams, AFAIK ??

sureshs · Jun 13, 2012

Gorecki said:
simply implying that Simian boy is in the same league in terms of composture as Laver makes me throw a litlle in my mouth!!!

You can't be a 5 9 shortie and a mild-mannered guy to win in today's brutal tennis world.

Deleted member 21996 · Jun 13, 2012

sureshs said:
You can't be a 5 9 shortie and a mild-mannered guy to win in today's brutal tennis world.

yes i undestand that. to be sucessfull these days you have to be a tall dumb jock with disgusting manners and lack of principles!!! hence the sucess of Nadal!

Rafa Garros · Jun 13, 2012

ok. You could say that where grace, dignity and class are concerned, its a tie between nadal and delpo with nadal just shading it.

1handbh · Jun 13, 2012

connors and borg only played the aussy once or twice. connors skipped the french for 5 years. it was more about being #1 rather than slam counting.

roundiesee · Jun 13, 2012

Great quote; thanks for posting OP
Sort of puts everything into perspective; the past bunch of tennis players and champions are so much more endearing compared to the present batch, that's for sure.

TERRASTAR18 · Jun 14, 2012

Emet74 said:
Borg - the future drug addict who told JMac that there was no point in playing if he couldn't be #1?

Ha, people just idealize guys from the past because we know less about them.

Agree w/ the general point tho' that slam count didn't use to matter and talking about things like GOAT using those sort of metrics is silly. I've always blamed Sampras and his publicists - they were the ones that started fussing about the so-called Emerson "record" that no one had cared about -

Roger had no choice, after the Sampras bru-hah-hah the press never left him alone about the "14" thing.

and wanted to play in south africa during apartheid...

statto · Jun 14, 2012

ultradr said:
If they count both pro and amateur slams during 60's, both Laver and Gonzalez won 20+ slams, AFAIK ??

That's a bit disingenuous. Laver won 6 of those slams as an amateur when there were better pros who couldn't play in those tournaments. If you add his pro slams to his open era slams he stands on 14. Gonzalez stands on 15. I think Ken Rosewall would have the best record with 19 (23 if you count his amateur titles, tainted as they are).

Of course, that's all moot when you take into account Laver's (accurate) comments about the pros attitude toward slam count.

Nowadays posters here can champion a whole host of potential GOATs by looking at stats, bending them to suit their preference:

Federer because he's won most slams.
Not Federer, Sampras, because he won almost as many as Fed but had a positive H2H against his main rival.
Not Sampras, Agassi was better because he won all the slams at least once.
None of those, Nadal because he's won all the slams, Olympic singles and Davis Cup.
No, Laver because he did the Grand Slam... twice.
No, Rosewall because he dominated for a far longer and won slams over a 20 year period.
How about Connors and Lendl, who won more titles than all the above?
What about Mac, who won even more than them if you include doubles (more slams too).

It all gets a bit tiresome.

TERRASTAR18 · Jun 14, 2012

roundiesee said:
Great quote; thanks for posting OP
Sort of puts everything into perspective; the past bunch of tennis players and champions are so much more endearing compared to the present batch, that's for sure.

we don't know them personally so we can't jump to conclusions. what i do know is today's players operate in a more open and diverse society.

Wolfman Jack · Jun 14, 2012

The-Champ said:
Nice article/interview with Laver after the FO12 finals.

"You know, it was never as important then, counting Grand Slam titles you'd won. Emerson didn't even know how many he'd won; it was not common knowledge. If you won Wimbledon, it was a feather in your cap. I won two U.S. Opens, I knew that.

"That's the way it was. No one was counting."

http://espn.go.com/tennis/french12/story/_/id/8041417/french-open-anyone-match-rod-laver-feat

What if former greats were as obsessed with breaking tennis records as Federer and Sampras? Maybe Borg for instance would never have skipped AO. Sampras' goal was to surpass Emerson and Federer wanted to surpass Sampras and Nadal wanted to surpass Borg at the FO. Recent greats have all become glory hunters which prevented them from playing their best. Federer played like crap at the AO09 and cried after the loss. That's because he had Sampras' records at the back of his mind. Nadal played like crap at finals of FO12 because of the thought of surpassing Borg. Djokovic didn't play well during the finals either because of the idea of having "4 in a row". There are other reasons obviously for not being able to perform your best and if you are not there mentally, it is impossible. Yes, they are all mentally tough but it is human nature to prove something, if not for others, for yourself. The closer they are to their goals, the more pressure increases. The weight of expectations is too much which sometimes attributed to them not being able to perform their best. Psychologically, it must be draining.

In conclusion, goals may have made some players better but also brought out the worst performances from them.

Your thoughts?

I have the feeling that if Borg had employed himself fully and hadn't ended his (first stretch of) career so early, he would have even more than Fed has right now. No, I'm not kidding.

rosewall4ever · Jun 14, 2012

wow

The-Champ said:
Nice article/interview with Laver after the FO12 finals.

"You know, it was never as important then, counting Grand Slam titles you'd won.. If you won Wimbledon, it was a feather in your cap. I won two U.S. Opens, I knew that.

"That's the way it was. No one was counting."

[

With that said... he is truly the greatest!!!!To humble yourself to what people today considers the greatest achievement in the sport is worthy of calling them a true champion.

"I thought, 'Yeah, I won 11, didn't I?' "

zcarzach · Jun 14, 2012

Wolfman Jack said:
I have the feeling that if Borg had employed himself fully and hadn't ended his (first stretch of) career so early, he would have even more than Fed has right now. No, I'm not kidding.

I completely agree with you. I love Federer, but Borg was a machine.

Wolfman Jack · Jun 14, 2012

Gorecki said:
yes i undestand that. to be sucessfull these days you have to be a tall dumb jock with disgusting manners and lack of principles!!! hence the sucess of Nadal!

Are you serious? Really?

Wolfman Jack · Jun 14, 2012

zcarzach said:
I completely agree with you. I love Federer, but Borg was a machine.

He truly was! Nice signature, by the way. Very inventive.

Deleted member 21996 · Jun 14, 2012

Wolfman Jack said:
Are you serious? Really?

Of course i'm not serious dumbo. did you read my previous reply? on the subject?

what kind of answer do you expect when your gang of *******s turns a thread about Laver in yet another Nadal adulation shrine? ffs...

Wolfman Jack · Jun 14, 2012

Gorecki said:
Of course i'm not serious dumbo. did you read my previous reply? on the subject?

what kind of answer do you expect when your gang of *******s turns a thread about Laver in yet another Nadal adulation shrine? ffs...

Thank you, kind sir.

Laver "it wasn't as important then"

Legend

Banned

Bionic Poster

Rookie

Legend

Legend

Bionic Poster

Bionic Poster

Hall of Fame

Hall of Fame

Deleted member 21996

Guest

New User

Deleted member 21996

Guest

New User

Semi-Pro

New User

Professional

G.O.A.T.

Hall of Fame

Legend

Bionic Poster

Deleted member 21996

Guest

New User

New User

Hall of Fame

Hall of Fame

Professional

Hall of Fame

Banned

Semi-Pro

Semi-Pro

Banned

Banned

Deleted member 21996

Guest

Banned

Similar threads