Rod Laver was an insane monster!

pc1

G.O.A.T.
again, it has nothing whatsoever to do with being annoyed at the praise of laver .......rather its the blatant disregard of federer ...did you even notice that I didn't say anything against laver in that post ?

abmk,

I'm a little puzzled. This is a thread about Laver, isn't it? It's not a Federer thread.
 

abmk

Bionic Poster
abmk,

I'm a little puzzled. This is a thread about Laver, isn't it? It's not a Federer thread.

see the part above the response to you ; the response to urban ....read it once more , if you still don't get it, I can explain in even more detail ...
 

kiki

Banned
Blasphemer!

Don't you ever again dare to compare his all-court greatness Mr. Laver to a moderately talented defensive baseliner like Fed (aided by modern equipment and weak opposition).

you found the right definition of Laver: Her majesty all court greatness
 

krosero

Legend
Nice monster. Some of the best descriptions of Laver i read, was from Julius Heldman. I try to find it somewhere. Laver did take indeed risks with his game, and in his youth did spray many balls, hitting the fence many times. His backhand was likened to "spraying rice on a wedding". When he later controlled his game, he combined power and spin in a way, that is - so i feel - still unsurpassed. McEnroe at his peak (with the bigger racket) had something of it in regard of spin and net game, but never had the power from the baseline. Laver was very fast and could hit winners on the dead run. Sampras could hit them on the run with his forehand, Laver could do this from both sides. Laver had the big and strong wrist to flick winners from the outstretched arm and body.
And he could make tactical changes and adjustments, when things were no going well. Arthur Ashe used to speak of 'zoning'. When Laver got into the zone, he began to hit harder and harder, finding the lines and the impossible angles. Then he stepped in and hit the hardest serves or overheads back for winners like nothing.
I think that may well be right. Borg had more topspin but not the net game; Lendl both power and spin on his groundstrokes but again, not the net game. McEnroe had the net game but lacked the power on the groundstrokes, though I do think he had a complete game that mirrored Laver's -- minus the critical factor of power.

The Julius Heldman article is here: http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showpost.php?p=5697354&postcount=1616
 

pc1

G.O.A.T.
I think that may well be right. Borg had more topspin but not the net game; Lendl both power and spin on his groundstrokes but again, not the net game. McEnroe had the net game but lacked the power on the groundstrokes, though I do think he had a complete game that mirrored Laver's -- minus the critical factor of power.

The Julius Heldman article is here: http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showpost.php?p=5697354&postcount=1616

I will give McEnroe this, I do think his serve was superior to Laver's. McEnroe had a fantastic serve in his prime but he didn't have Laver's groundstroke power. I think Laver was a little faster also but McEnroe was extremely quick.
 

BeHappy

Hall of Fame
It doesn't matter. He probably think Chang's height had nothing to with him getting over power by the bigger player(eg Sampras), having no big serve and less power from both wings.

If Justine Henin served 121mph I don't think Laver would have a problem with power.

Daneil Bracialli the Italian serves in the 140's all the time, although he's banned for match fixing for a while. Sometimes short people just have such live shoulders it doesn't matter that they're short and they just serve big anyway.
 

pc1

G.O.A.T.
If Justine Henin served 121mph I don't think Laver would have a problem with power.

Daneil Bracialli the Italian serves in the 140's all the time, although he's banned for match fixing for a while. Sometimes short people just have such live shoulders it doesn't matter that they're short and they just serve big anyway.

He uses the height thing against Laver all the time to make Federer look better. I have told him he doesn't need to do that to make Federer look good because Federer is superb. That's his thing and I don't think you can change that.
 
N

NadalDramaQueen

Guest
If Justine Henin served 121mph I don't think Laver would have a problem with power.

Daneil Bracialli the Italian serves in the 140's all the time, although he's banned for match fixing for a while. Sometimes short people just have such live shoulders it doesn't matter that they're short and they just serve big anyway.

He uses the height thing against Laver all the time to make Federer look better. I have told him he doesn't need to do that to make Federer look good because Federer is superb. That's his thing and I don't think you can change that.

It isn't just about the power on serve. Your general height can have little to do with how much power you are able to generate off any particular stroke, but if you think about it for just one second, you will realize that your height can cause a particular limitation off your serve. :)

ITT geezers reminisce and over exaggerate the ability level of their favorite player from when they were growing up.

A little rude, but unfortunately the move to the former pro player forum assured us all that this would happen.

Very much the impression I get as well.

The worst part about this is that many people on this forum are unwillingly to admit what is so obvious to everyone. That is what makes it a bit sad. There is no harm in being biased, problems only arise when you think you're above it all when you are clearly not.

Are here some fanboys jealous?

I don't think anyone would deny that many jealous fanboys have posted in this thread. :lol:
 

kiki

Banned
what really sets him apart is:

-.play out in the most dificult situations
-.all round court supreme ability
 

TMF

Talk Tennis Guru
If Justine Henin served 121mph I don't think Laver would have a problem with power.

Daneil Bracialli the Italian serves in the 140's all the time, although he's banned for match fixing for a while. Sometimes short people just have such live shoulders it doesn't matter that they're short and they just serve big anyway.

(Sigh...), like she serve consistently at 121 mph everytime. And her serve isn't even considered as a weapon anyway, pretty much that includes almost all the female players. The WTA is NOT like the ATP, where there's many big gunners, and are atleast 6'. I don't care how great technique you have, being small have it's limitation. A 5'8" player can pratice all he wants, but he's not going to serve like Karlovic, Isner or Roddick.

If the modern game is suited for an undersized player to reach the very top, then where are they at ?? You haven't seen it either from the 90s to the present. Don't tell me it's a coincidence that there wasn't any great athlete with gifted talent at 5'8" for all of those years, while there were many at 6'0"-6'4". No one is buying that. Okay?
 

TMF

Talk Tennis Guru
He uses the height thing against Laver all the time to make Federer look better. I have told him he doesn't need to do that to make Federer look good because Federer is superb. That's his thing and I don't think you can change that.

You don't get it. Even if Federer doesn't exist, that's not going to change my mind. And why should I? I don't want to lie. It's the truth...there's no dominant player at 5'8". You know that.
 

BeHappy

Hall of Fame
(Sigh...), like she serve consistently at 121 mph everytime. And her serve isn't even considered as a weapon anyway, pretty much that includes almost all the female players. The WTA is NOT like the ATP, where there's many big gunners, and are atleast 6'. I don't care how great technique you have, being small have it's limitation. A 5'8" player can pratice all he wants, but he's not going to serve like Karlovic, Isner or Roddick.

If the modern game is suited for an undersized player to reach the very top, then where are they at ?? You haven't seen it either from the 90s to the present. Don't tell me it's a coincidence that there wasn't any great athlete with gifted talent at 5'8" for all of those years, while there were many at 6'0"-6'4". No one is buying that. Okay?

121 for a woman is like 140mph for a man. She's a woman and she served as big as James Blake.
 

TMF

Talk Tennis Guru
121 for a woman is like 140mph for a man. She's a woman and she served as big as James Blake.

You still don't get it. Henin can throw in 121 once in a while but still she's not considered a great server. While I doubt that Laver can throw in 140, but even if he can once in awhile, that doesn't prove he would be a great server. Fact is...no undersized player was ever a great server especially when compare to some of the all time great who are atleast 6'+. And the top server today are Ivo and Isner, who are incredibly tall. Capiche?
 

pc1

G.O.A.T.
You still don't get it. Henin can throw in 121 once in a while but still she's not considered a great server. While I doubt that Laver can throw in 140, but even if he can once in awhile, that doesn't prove he would be a great server. Fact is...no undersized player was ever a great server especially when compare to some of the all time great who are atleast 6'+. And the top server today are Ivo and Isner, who are incredibly tall. Capiche?

gleiche alte Litanei

stessa litania vecchia

samma gamla litania

dezelfde oude litanie

同样的一连串
 

pc1

G.O.A.T.
You still don't get it. Henin can throw in 121 once in a while but still she's not considered a great server. While I doubt that Laver can throw in 140, but even if he can once in awhile, that doesn't prove he would be a great server. Fact is...no undersized player was ever a great server especially when compare to some of the all time great who are atleast 6'+. And the top server today are Ivo and Isner, who are incredibly tall. Capiche?

λένε αν επαναληφθεί κάτι αρκετοί άνθρωποι θα πιστεύουν ότι τελικά αυτό ως γεγονός
 
N

NadalDramaQueen

Guest
λένε αν επαναληφθεί κάτι αρκετοί άνθρωποι θα πιστεύουν ότι τελικά αυτό ως γεγονός

Now you know how everyone feels about the weak era nonsense.

I'm telling you, pc1, you're being taken for a ride. :)
 

pc1

G.O.A.T.
Now you know how everyone feels about the weak era nonsense.

I'm telling you, pc1, you're being taken for a ride. :)

Weak era can never be proven. I'm sure there have been weak era but as we just have to go with what players did in their times. I'm sure we all have opinions there.

I need a ride to the city today. What time can you pick me up? I'll chip in for gas.
 

pjonesy

Professional
The taller player has an advantage serving. More margin for error, leverage, 'easy power.'

However, there are advantages to being a shorter player (as long as they are also a great athlete with skill). Movement is the most obvious. A lower center of gravity allows for the ability to change direction quickly. Also, the ability to get to the net quickly, maintain balance and set up for the 1st volley. Now, the tall player will have the reach advantage to cover the net, which can make up for the lack of quickness and reaction time. If you can just stick your racquet out in either direction and hit volleys no matter how wide the passing shot is hit, that would give you an edge.

Laver was before my time, but based on the clips I've seen, I can't imagine anybody having a better 1st volley than Rod Laver. That being said, I agree that it was a completely different game in Laver's day.
 
N

NadalDramaQueen

Guest
Weak era can never be proven.

I need a ride to the city today. What time can you pick me up? I'll chip in for gas.

That doesn't stop anyone.

Well, you'll have to let TMF know. Just don't expect to arrive at your intended destination. :)
 

TMF

Talk Tennis Guru
That doesn't stop anyone.

Well, you'll have to let TMF know. Just don't expect to arrive at your intended destination. :)

Only a few fans from planet TT in former pro player forum believe tennis and all sport stay constant, worse is some even believe sport regress over time(LOL). In the real world, anyone in their right mind knows tennis gets better because of more athletes around the world competing, with more talent, athletic, stronger, faster players than Laver's time. All sports push the present/future athletes to be better. Of couse 6 or 7 years span may not makd a difference, but 15 years, 25 years, etc...you see the game has improve thus play at a higher level. The best players today beat the best players of the past generations. Any fans who's been watching tennis will tell you that experts/historians/ex-pro players share the same view.
 

hoodjem

G.O.A.T.
Only a few fans from planet TT in former pro player forum believe tennis and all sport stay constant, worse is some even believe sport regress over time(LOL). In the real world, anyone in their right mind knows tennis gets better because of more athletes around the world competing, with more talent, athletic, stronger, faster players than Laver's time. All sports push the present/future athletes to be better. Of course 6 or 7 years span may not maked a difference, but 15 years, 25 years, etc...you see the game has improve thus play at a higher level. The best players today beat the best players of the past generations. Any fans who's been watching tennis will tell you that experts/historians/ex-pro players share the same view.
And the world has gotten a lot smarter since then, also.
 

hoodjem

G.O.A.T.
"Human intelligence may have actually peaked before our ancient predecessors ever left Africa, Gerald Crabtree writes in two new journal articles. Genetic mutations during the past several millennia are causing a decline in overall human intellectual and emotional fitness, he says. Evolutionary pressure no longer favors intellect, so the problem is getting exponentially worse."



Perhaps TMF's ancestors would have known better, but at least most TT bloggers (aka "anyone in their right mind") think tennis gets better day after day.


Maybe the answer is that we're both right: today's tennis greats are better athletes but dumber players.

"Me see ball. Me hit ball. Me hit ball hard. Me hit ball fast." --R. Nadal IV
 
Last edited:

TMF

Talk Tennis Guru
And the world has gotten a lot smarter since then, also.

WORLD POPULATION

Year millions
1900 1,650
1950 2,519
1955 2,756
1960 2,982
1965 3,335
1970 3,692
1975 4,068
1980 4,435
1985 4,831
1990 5,263
1995 5,674
2000 6,070
2005 6,454
2010 6,972
 

TMF

Talk Tennis Guru
Maybe the answer is that we're both right: today's tennis greats are better athletes but dumber players.

According to hoodjem, players/coaches have more knowledge, experience from the past/present makes them dumber.
 

hoodjem

G.O.A.T.
WORLD POPULATION

Year millions
1900 1,650
1950 2,519
1955 2,756
1960 2,982
1965 3,335
1970 3,692
1975 4,068
1980 4,435
1985 4,831
1990 5,263
1995 5,674
2000 6,070
2005 6,454
2010 6,972
You're absolutely right: exacerbating the problems of over-population is an excellent demonstration of our declining intelligence.

Before I was sitting on the fence about whether the human race is getting dumber. But the above statistics prove we are. Thank you.
 

TMF

Talk Tennis Guru
You're absolutely right: exacerbating the problems of over-population is an excellent demonstration of our declining intelligence.

Before I was sitting on the fence about whether the human race is getting dumber. But the above statistics prove we are. Thank you.

Yeah, Neanderthal and Homosapien are more intelligent than us.
 
N

NadalDramaQueen

Guest
Epic fail:rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:

Only way you can be excused is if you are 7 years old. Judging by your posts, that is your mental age, anyway.

Is your post any better? :)

As for the decline of intelligence, we better hurry and come up with solutions to our problems for the benefit of our idiot descendants. We'll leave a detailed readme.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

pc1

G.O.A.T.
We are typically getting off the topic when that one poster tends to post his same old litany.

Mick3391 who started the thread realized that Laver was a tremendous player after finally viewing him. He saw what many of us saw over the years and came to the conclusion that Laver was great.

So I do salute him in that he was open minded.

There is no need to keep responding to the same tired argument that happens in every thread here it seems. It's really not a part of THIS thread.
 

Goosehead

Legend
WORLD POPULATION

Year millions
1900 1,650
1950 2,519
1955 2,756
1960 2,982
1965 3,335
1970 3,692
1975 4,068
1980 4,435
1985 4,831
1990 5,263
1995 5,674
2000 6,070
2005 6,454
2010 6,972

world pop went past 7 billion since then..is'nt it a laugh. :neutral:
 
N

NadalDramaQueen

Guest
We are typically getting off the topic when that one poster tends to post his same old litany.

Mick3391 who started the thread realized that Laver was a tremendous player after finally viewing him. He saw what many of us saw over the years and came to the conclusion that Laver was great.

So I do salute him in that he was open minded.

There is no need to keep responding to the same tired argument that happens in every thread here it seems. It's really not a part of THIS thread.

To be fair, threads in this forum go off topic pretty much every time, regardless of whether or not TMF has made a post. There was a time when every thread became a Rosewall/Hoad debate.

Also, there are many people who think Laver was great but not necessarily the greatest. There shouldn't be any hard feelings.
 

TMF

Talk Tennis Guru
We are typically getting off the topic when that one poster tends to post his same old litany.

Mick3391 who started the thread realized that Laver was a tremendous player after finally viewing him. He saw what many of us saw over the years and came to the conclusion that Laver was great.

So I do salute him in that he was open minded.

There is no need to keep responding to the same tired argument that happens in every thread here it seems. It's really not a part of THIS thread.

What about the thead doubles GOAT ?

There were plenty of posts that went off topic. But since it was about the B. Brothers, you didn't mind the thread was hijack. Funny you would never "solute" the OP, but you would had the thread was related to any players during Laver's era, lol.
 

kiki

Banned
I was looking at the 25 ' 1975 Dallas finals link, where we could see how great was Laver, even at 36, losing an extremely close match to peak Borg.

but he was not perfect.The only real big title he never won was precisely the WCT Finals.He lost the 1971 and 1972 finals to Ken Rosewall, and lost the 1973 semis to Smith and that 1975 semifinal match against Borg.

Charlton Heston, the narrator mentions that this may have been the second best match at Dallas, after the 1972 final.I think the 1983 final that pitted Mc Enroe and Lendl is just as close.
 

v-verb

Hall of Fame
I haven't watched a lot of tennis in the last 5-10 years.

Watched the 2013 AO. Was bored silly. WTF has tennis come to? Long boring rallies, few kill shots, zero excitement.

Courier, Sampras, Goran, Safin etc. They were exciting players.

This modern lot of players is hampered by the sludgy courts and the need to hit loopy topspin every freakin' shot. Speed up the damn courts already.

And Laver? One of the top 5 in any era.

IMO.
 
Top