Yes, I do not rate Richey as highly as you do, due to his lack of a slam title.
Did Laver win 36 Majors?
- Thread starter Limpinhitter
- Start date
On grass at Forest Hills... they did not play at Wimbledon Laver lost badly on grass to Emerson in 1961...at Forest Hills, but Laver was totally dominant in 1961 at Wimbledon.
Last edited:
I am consistent with my methodology, so if Hoad had lost the Big Match of the year, I would rate him below #1, or if his colleagues had rated someone else GOAT, I would accept that.
Indeed, just to show how objective I am, I gave Rosewall the Big Match over Hoad in 1961 and 1962, and I will point out that in a recent interview in Australia, Ashley Cooper rated Hoad as the greatest ever, although Mal Anderson responded by picking Rosewall as the GOAT....can you imagine that?
I think that Anderson always felt he had a chance against Hoad, he pushed Hoad hard at Wimbledon in 1956, before rain interrupted the match, and Hoad took control after the rain delay. And Anderson took five matches against Hoad in the 1959 4-man tour, and pushed him hard at Forest Hills in 1959.
Dan, You will not find any expert who believes that Laver was stronger in 1961 and 1962 than Rosewall, regardless if at Wimbledon or elsewhere.
Dan, I'm glad that you are objective.
Yes, I can imagine that Anderson picked Rosewall instead of Hoad as Mal lost so often to Muscles...
I think that an objective appraisal would give Laver a better chance to beat Rosewall at Wimbledon than at Forest Hills...and Laver made hash of Rosewall at Adelaide early in their 1963meetings, and won at Kooyong....they were 2 and 2 in five-set matches in Australia.
Anderson actually had big wins over Rosewall, at Wembley in a five-set classic in 1959, and was 2 and 2 against the Little Master in the 1964 New Zealand tour.
Dan, As krosero has pointed out, Rosewall did not prepare significantly for the series whereas Laver did.
Laver in 1961 was clearly weaker than in 1962 and in 1962 clearly weaker than in 1963.
You mean best-of-five matches, not five-set matches.
Dan, Yes, Anderson beat Rosewall in 1959 and in several other opportunities, the last time in the final of the 1973 NSW championships. Their hth is about 46:13 in Rosewall's favour (some results probably missing).
Rosewall was razor sharp in that series, and won his first two five-set matches against a tough Laver with brilliant shot-making...in the third match at Kooyong, Laver unleashed a barrage of powerful winners in the fourth set to close out the match, and followed that up with a blaze of power to win a lop-sided match at Adelaide.
Here are the results of the best-of-five-set matches.
White City Rosewall df. Laver 6-3, 6-3, 6-3
Brisbane Rosewall df. Laver 3-6, 10-8, 6-2, 6-3
Kooyong Laver df. Rosewall 6-3, 3-6, 7-5, 6-2
Adelaide Laver df. Rosewall 6-1, 6-2, 6-2
As you can see, as Laver figured out Rosewall's game, his results improved.
I think that if they had met at Wimbledon, Laver would have won.
Last edited:
Dan, Using your logic, Laver had the opportunity to figure out Rosewall's game more and more after those four matches but never won any match or set in the remaining part of the series. Afterwards he had even many more opportunities to study Ken's game but was demolished by Rosewall at Forest Hills. How do you explain all that?
The NZ series was best-of-three....I five set matches Laver had an even split during that summer of 1963, right? No, they did not play at Wimbledon.
NatF
Bionic Poster
That is a good point, the pro's are already penalized by only having the 3 events. In general I would rather rate the Pro Majors a bit lower but be sure to note that they could only compete at 3 of them. For me the majors in those era's are secondary to being the #1 player and only about the same as overall dominance in tournament play.
Limpinhitter
G.O.A.T.
I've seen Cliff Richey play. He had a beautiful, classic, game with classic Eastern strokes. He was very intense. He looked and played like a human pitbull. He looked angry during a match. He was a talented player, but, not quite at Rosewall's level of talent. What he lacked in great talent, he compensated for with great effort. As I recall, his sister Nancy Richey was probably a bit more talented on the women's side, and more successful in the majors than he was.
pc1
G.O.A.T.
That's why one of my partial solutions is to look at percentage of majors won. Now of course winning Pro Majors is far easier than winning a Classic Major in the Open Era especially but it is a start.
I agree with you about being the number one player but I'd also like to add some possible exceptions. For example Federer, Connors, Borg, Laver, Lendl and McEnroe in some of their peak years at number one were exceptionally dominant whether it was the amount of tournaments won or winning percentages. Having some years like Federer in 2005 and 2006 shows the great strength of a player. Connors finished number two in 1978 yet he had an incredible year.
NatF
Bionic Poster
Percentage of majors won runs into other issues though, a player that plays on into old age will have a lower percentage that someone that retires soon after their window closes. Total numbers are more important IMO. Unless you specifically talking about dominance during a peak period. But yes agreed about Pro Majors being easier to win compared to Open Majors.
Yes, the quality of the year end finish is important. Sampras has 6 YE #1's, but his year in 1998 was the weakest of any #1 ranked player I've ever seen - way worse than many number #2 players. I believe the best way is to credit players for their achievements and then to award extra credit for particularly dominant years or years where they competed against a superb #2 etc...
pc1
G.O.A.T.
Yes I agree with that. I figure that while percentages may decrease with age, the accumulation of titles by a person over the course of a long career would offset it to a degree. That's why I also believe we have to look at the player's peak years. Krosero was discussing Don Budge and how his winning percentages went down as he aged. This would be a better indicator.
It's not perfect either because of the Old Pro and amateur divide in those days. However it should be fine in the Open Era.
pc1
G.O.A.T.
Sometimes I believe we do have to go on a case by case basis for the greats. For example Pancho Gonzalez was a dominant player but because of his Pro Tours against many all time greats his winning percentages may tend to be lower. It's a question also of exhaustion due to the daily grind of playing from city to city and driving on his own to some not exactly luxury hotels. Yet he was arguably the best player in the world for close to a decade.
Budge had some higher winning percentages when he was dominant and he of course won the Amateur Grand Slam which normally would look great. However Vines, Perry, von Cramm, Nusslein and Tilden were not playing in the majors in that year which left a huge opening for Budge to win the Grand Slam and to win many tournaments. Would he have done it against these greats? I doubt it.
pc1
G.O.A.T.
Yes of course. It was no doubt a great feat as Laver's 1962 Grand Slam was in the amateurs but it wasn't the equivalent of the 1969 Grand Slam against all comers.
However as we have discussed before, if Laver played in Open competition from the very beginning I'm sure he would have super competitive against all in the early 1960s. We play to the level of our competition. Hoad was great in the amateurs but playing in the Pro improved his play tremendously. Would he have improved so much if he stayed in the amateurs? I don't think so.
pc1
G.O.A.T.
I think that's why they were great. Yes money is important to put bread on the table but it was their zest for playing the best that was more important to them. The great champions are generally of that mindset.
Limpinhitter
G.O.A.T.
I think the money was the primary motivation.
pc1
G.O.A.T.
To be fair, Laver has said that it wasn't mainly for the money but to test himself against the best. I don't think he minded the money however. LOL.
hoodjem
G.O.A.T.
I think you are both correct: money was the primary factor, and higher competition was the secondary factor.
Limpinhitter
G.O.A.T.
I agree with Hood. Laver wasn't going to say he did it for the money, but, that's what he did it for, and good for him. For the same reason, after he won the Grand Slam, Laver focused on the big money events. The majors disgracefully paid peanuts. Trophy's don't fund retirement. If the majors were the highest paying events, I'm confident Laver would have played them all, and won many more of them. Laver knew his time was limited. He did what he had to do, and he succeeded at being the best at that as well.
pc1
G.O.A.T.
The Pros weren't playing in the big money tournaments that they play in now. They needed financial security. The beginning of the Open Era had a number of big money tournaments that immediately gained huge prestige and a lot of that prestige was because of the huge monetary payouts. The announcers for the early WCT Championships often focused on the big prize money in those tournaments. The Tennis Champions Classic in the early 1970s had a lot of prize money at stake. Just about all the top players wanted to be in that tournaments.
Limpinhitter
G.O.A.T.
pc1
G.O.A.T.
I think a ton of money was there and that the officials didn't want to give it up. Obviously they didn't have the media contracts they have now but it was a large sum I believe. The true disgrace was the amateur/pro divide because of monetary concerns.
So yes I do agree with you.
I do agree that Laver's champions classic wins in 1970 and 1971 should be regarded as major wins - especially 1971 (where he was unbeaten). In fact I think that particularly 1971 should be worth more than a major. Best of five sets every round - 13 rounds - where first round is Rosewall and second is Newcombe, then Roche, then Emerson, then Ashe etc etc? Have to play these 13 rounds on average every 4 days? Worth more than a slam in my opinion.
The 1971 TCC was not really tournament, more of a tour.
it played like a tournament - round robin, then semi's and then finals. It is also credited as a tournament win in Laver's statistics.
pc1
G.O.A.T.
Can anyone think of a tournament that's best of five all the way that had a tougher field than the 1971 Tennis Champions Classic with more matches played? I can't think of one.
timnz, I must contradict. The 1970 TCC was not a big event. The 1971 issue was big and should be rated as a major but it still was not more than a major. It was clearly behind the WCT Finals at Dallas. Dallas was even greater than the French Open and maybe the US Open that year. The TCC did not have the huge prestige of Dallas.
timnz, Yes we can consider it a tournament. The early matches were not a true RR though.
It was a mini-tour played over many weeks in many different cities. Not that it wasn't a great achievement for Laver, given the prestige and the money, probably more than the first year of WCT at Dallas.
Last edited:
It didn't have the ongoing prestige of the WCT finals, but in year 1971 it was a very big deal. In the article linked below they say that the TCC achievement was bigger than Laver's 2 Grand Slams (I disagree - but the point is that it was a huge achievement).
https://news.google.com/newspapers?...AIBAJ&sjid=FkoDAAAAIBAJ&pg=2713,4349824&hl=en
Limpinhitter
G.O.A.T.
In my view, the 71' TCC was bigger and more prestigious than any WCT final. It has more rounds, tougher competition and double the prize money.
pc1
G.O.A.T.
And that's in the Open Era when he was 30 or over most of the time. Laver has joked that he loses so many first sets that he was used to it. Laver was known to be a slow starter.
Limpinhitter
G.O.A.T.
I keep telling you guys, Laver was still peak until 1970, and still the best player for a few years after that. Laver didn't have to be peak to be #1. As I recall, the one player that Laver had the most difficulty with in the early 70's was Smith.
Limpinhitter, Very interesting view on tennis history! Laver after 1969 won no single GS tournament, Rosewall won 3 of them. Laver mostly was ranked by top experts behind Rosewall (1970; 1971 by Collins; 1972; 1973; 1974 by Tingay). If you have any questions about that time, please ask me, and I will gladly help you.
When Laver declined, he was no longer number one...I can agree with that.
Limpinhitter
G.O.A.T.
Perhaps, but, it depends on what you mean by #1 and what you mean by decline. Laver was still the best player for a few years even after his peak.
Phoenix1983
G.O.A.T.
Am I right in thinking that, although Laver won no more majors after 1969, he did extremely well in the big-money tournaments which he focused on during those years?
It's a shame that the majors weren't set up, financially and in terms of prestige, as they are today. If they were, then Laver would surely have won a bunch more of them in the early 70s (despite being past peak).
Limpinhitter
G.O.A.T.
I think you are correct. For example, the WCT tour was the biggest prize money tour of the early 70's. For several years, Laver was the regular season leader in points and money going into the finals in Dallas. There was a local 32 man WCT event that paid a higher purse to the winner than the majors. After winning the one and only open Grand Slam, what more did Laver have to prove in terms of being the best player? At that point, it seems to me that he was more concerned with making enough money with what remained of his career to retire. Why would Laver focus on playing two week events that paid less than 1 week events? My recollection is that he was the money leader every year in the early 70's and the career money leader when he retired.
D
Deleted member 307496
Guest
No.
Limpinhitter
G.O.A.T.
The question is rhetorical. If, as some have argued, Rosewall won 25 majors, then, in my view, it is fair to say that Laver won 36 majors as enumerated in my OP.
Limpin, At least we do know that Laver was eager to win the Dallas finals but never won them. His losses to Rosewall were his worst ones.
