Yes, this is true, but we're not just comparing 29-year-olds. We're also talking about 31-year-old Laver completing the Holy Grail of tennis and sweeping just about every other important event that nobody in the Open era has come close to matching at the same age. Nor did even Tilden (I'm looking at the major equivalents of his era, not the official GS records), and that was way back in the 1920s.
I would include Tilden there because there are some signs that his peak year was 1924, and he was 31 then. He was undefeated that year, I have read. And Al Laney said of Tilden's performance in the US final: "That was Tilden at his absolute peak, and I have not since seen the like of it."
Of course Tilden didn't win the Grand Slam that year, but he didn't participate in all the Slams. What's relevant here is that he may have hit his absolute peak at 31, the same age at which Laver won the second Grand Slam.
In our debate about the demands of the amateur game you acknowledged Tilden's longevity and pointed out that he, too, spent a lot of time in the amateur game. I'm not certain what your inference is there, but we do know that the amateur game in Tilden's time included all the world's best players. Tilden joined the pro tours later, but if we're asking why he could play possibly his best tennis at the advanced age of 31, we're talking about 1924, when all (or perhaps nearly all) of the world's best players were amateurs.
If Tilden was dominant at a late age that would have more to do with his being a late bloomer, his time spent in military service, etc.
Everything was different, then, in any case. Players did not cross the oceans as much as in Laver's time, and when they did they spent entire weeks on ships, without playing tennis. How does that impact longevity?
Tilden also subsisted mostly on steak and potatoes, and smoked heavily. Very different from Laver. So what does that do to the comparison? It just complicates it more.
Very debatable. My feeling is that the junior game vs. the "senior" game is much like the amateur-pro comparison we're looking at right now.
If you mean that the junior game is less demanding than the "senior" game, you're absolutely correct. But I was not making any arguments about the junior game taking a physical or mental toll on an athlete. I was talking about development. Someone who trains every day as a junior and plays often in competition will develop faster, and reach his peak earlier, than someone who plays much less as a junior.
However as Dan pointed out, in Laver's case there may not be much of a difference, when comparing his junior development to the juniors of the Open Era. Tough to say exactly.
Again I don't think this question is very relevant here. History suggests that great players of all types enjoy a similar # of prime years (that is, years in which they were able to win at least one major), and 31 is an exceptionally late age at which to achieve historic dominance by any standards.
I disagree, I think the question of playing style has to come into this somehow. Think of Ken Rosewall. The general feeling is that his efficient classical style had everything to do with his great longevity. He was almost never injured -- and that will certainly save the body.
You mentioned Borg, Nadal, Sampras and Federer each having an 8-year span of winning at least one major. But Rosewall started winning majors in '53 and won his last one in '72: a period of 19 years. Even cutting out his amateur majors, he's way ahead of the other champions we mentioned.
And who would question that his playing style had something to do with that?
Very similar things have been said about Pancho Gonzalez -- particularly with regard to his smooth court coverage. So yes, his occasional sabbaticals helped him last a long time, but his playing style certainly comes into it.
So then we ask about Laver. Why did he win majors as late as 31? Well I don't know exactly, but in a comparison of the playing styles of champions, I think it makes more sense to group him among his peers who played a similar classic style, than it does to group him with the four champions we mentioned from the Open Era. He was no grinder like Borg and Nadal, that's for sure. But he also did less grinding than Federer, who is after all a baseliner. And Pete played an awful lot of baseline tennis, certainly not enough to call him a baseliner, but perhaps more than Laver did.
Pete played more SV tennis as he got older, partly in the realization that the older he got the less he was going to win from the baseline. It's something you hear a lot: grinding is for the youngest legs.
And if that's true -- that net play saves the body as it ages and can extend the prime years of a player -- then how can we ignore that in Laver's time SV was a far more common style than in the Open Era?
In other words, if there's anything to my argument that the classical strokes that largely disappeared in the Open Era had something to do with "saving" players' bodies and allowing them to play at their prime at later ages, then Laver was one of those who benefited.
Two basic things about SV would result in the players of Laver's era playing prime tennis at relatively late ages: 1) SV takes longer to develop; 2) net play can extend a player's prime years at the other end, by saving him from the wear and tear of grinding.
I don't think I've ever pointed to the relatively less demands of the amateur game as the only factor in Laver's seemingly evergreen shape at such an advanced age. I just think it's the biggest factor. I usually take great care not to oversimplify.
Fair enough.
All in all, I just disagree about the amateur game. I see too many other factors that could account for Laver being able to win the Grand Slam at the age of 31.
