Yes but we can't take away the undisputed claims by these past legends.
They count but are not comparable. Pancho beat club players like Tabitha, Agatha, and Martha.
Only rod laver is close. No one else.
Yes but even tennis abstract 128 which used elo had laver ahead in 2022. Saying he needs 2/3 years of peak play to overtake laver.
Yes
This is a good video. Thanks for posting it.
8 years is just about right. There are arguments that recognize 1 additional year (even two!), but it's all very stretched.
Laver was barred from the slams for 5 years, Rosewall-11 and Pancho-17 years. Take away their amateur slams and add their pro majors, then Laver has 13 slams, Rosewall has 19. Pancho has 14. Therefore, the big 3 are still ahead of the old big three. Again though, comparing accomplishments of players from distant eras, is wrong.
Feelings? NONSENSE!
Interesting but that doesn't explain the 100m swimming world record progression from 1905 to 2024, and there they can't blame it on outside factors. Without seeing the science behind how they reached this conclusion, I find it hard to believe. I think it would definitely be more than 1 stride.
agree that the argument that the 'game has evolved' and past-era champs were a shadow of today's athletes is way overplayed...drop a laver, a hoad, a gonzalez (or certainly, a pete, a becker) etc. into today's game from the start and they'd be in the mix for sure...talent is talent.
Exactly talent is talent
Look, the old guys were the best for their time. They deserve respect for what they did for the game. They are legends of tennis.
I don't compare shots but greatness
It changes everything. That is the point.
Those guys had similar longevity, competing hard with the younger gens into their mid-30's and beyond...
The thing is Tilden played till his 50s (I think but maybe it was 40s)
Didn't he play one match against Pancho? Tilden.
Didnt the guy lose to Hewitt a baseliner? How could Pete even compete against the big 3, who are superior to Hewitt? Pete's style of play belongs to the 90s.
I saw Rosewall, Gonzalez and Newcombe live and Laver on TV. Though they did not have the equipment to hit the ball as hard as players do today, they played a better all-court game than players do today. The best player to compare to them was Federer who had the similar game style of Rod, Ken and Pancho. Given today equipment and playing conditions, the old three would hold their own with today's top players.
Only special players can do that! They are a rarity
i've posted this vid a bunch of times...i think the b&w grainy footage stuff was deceptive in terms of speed of shot, etc. No, they're not hitting as hard as today's players but i think this gives a much better perspective on what laver (at 34yo or something here) could do w a wooden racket. Different game, but...not that different, and you can see how skilled he was. Imagine him 10 years younger:
Wroooooooong
Thank you for sharing this
What eye tests
Leytonstation and his ignorant statements should be ignored. He needs to find a 2010 and forward thread and leave intelligent conversation to those that care and actually understand the past. If it was country club, why is he even following this? Was Connors country club?
He's 42 here, 12 years past his prime. Imagined how well he moved in his prime. Joker will never move this good at age 42 nor have the stamina.
Djokovic is still doing this. He is not going anywhere at least till 2026 (39+)
Pancho had a slight winning edge against Laver in 1964. He also hadn't played consistently since he retired in 1961. He beat Laver 2X in big money matches in 1970. He offered to play Laver on a heads-up tour in 1963. Trabert declined the offer. They knew Pancho would win and damper their new pro's reputation. That's in a 1963 Sports Illustrated article after the 1963 US Pro when they begged Pancho out of retirement. with a $5k guarantee. Laver and Rosewall weren't drawing the crowds. Their opener at MSG drew less than 5k fans. As Kramer said in 1965 tennis needs Pancho too badly. In 1966 he beat Rosewall (13-11 pro set) and Laver (who played Hoad) on the same night. Laver 10-8 in the 3rd. He was 38. As some articles have said., when it mattered, Pancho usually won.
That's funny because Pancho holds most of the records, longest No. 1 at ten years, oldest to win a pro tournament, oldest to be seeded at Wimbledon, first to win only his second slam tournament after only playing tennis for 6 years. You're comparing a super athlete against an all-time great who has worked very hard to improve over the years. It's kind of like Foreman and Ali. 99 of 100 sports writers picked Foreman. But guys like Ali and Pancho rise to special occasions and have super skills and ability in the moment. When you walked into Ali's ring or onto the court with Pancho, you were in their arena.
We've read your ignorant statements several time. Why don't you find another thread
In the age of information, ignorance is a choice.
It was very rare indeed when Gonzales was serving for a match and got broken. And how would Djokovic deal with a guy who would go out of his way to insult him before the match even started?
