Does Rod Laver's GOAT case grow stronger as the Big 3 achieve more and more

[martinezownsclay]

I am not generally a big fan of GOAT talks but one ironic thing is I think as the Big 3 win more and more, in many ways Laver's GOAT case grows stronger.

The reason being it is becoming increasingly clear none of Djokovic, Nadal, Federer can completely seperate in this era in the end. At one point it looked like Federer had for good, but that is no longer. Djokovic and Nadal are unable to completely seperate either, and atleast from each other might never manage this.

Contrast that to Laver who was by far the best of his own time, even a time with other major first tier all time greats like Gonzales and Rosewall. He did seperate himself. His Grand Slam in 1969 looks better and better all the time as Djokovic and Nadal can't even manage it against this garbage field. Now they are in their 30s and past their prime, but Laver was also in his 30s when he achieved his against a stellar field with some insanely tough draws in 1969.

 

[NatF]

I am not generally a big fan of GOAT talks but one ironic thing is I think as the Big 3 win more and more, in many ways Laver's GOAT case grows stronger.

The reason being it is becoming increasingly clear none of Djokovic, Nadal, Federer can completely seperate in this era in the end. At one point it looked like Federer had for good, but that is no longer. Djokovic and Nadal are unable to completely seperate either, and atleast from each other might never manage this.

Contrast that to Laver who was by far the best of his own time, even a time with other major first tier all time greats like Gonzales and Rosewall. He did seperate himself. His Grand Slam in 1969 looks better and better all the time as Djokovic and Nadal can't even manage it against this garbage field. Now they are in their 30s and past their prime, but Laver was also in his 30s when he achieved his against a stellar field with some insanely tough draws in 1969.

I don't think it's clear at all that Laver was by far better than Gonzalez or even Rosewall tbh.

 

[martinezownsclay]

I don't think it's clear at all that Laver was by far better than Gonzalez or even Rosewall tbh.

I think it is clear he was better than Rosewall. I have never heard anyone dispute it.

Gonzales I guess you could debate about being a debate, but I think Gonzales never winning a major clay title, automatically puts him behind. When Laver's career is already as or more impressive in every other year- atleast as long at #1, overall and consecutively, winning all the majors in one year (even if we count only his 1969 one), even longevity was pretty similar as he excelled well into the 70s, even if he wasn't winning majors as he was focusing more on exhibitions and big money events by then. Gonzales's surface limitations then put him clearly behind Laver, even as great as he is.

 

[NatF]

I think it is clear he was better than Rosewall. I have never heard anyone dispute it.

Gonzales I guess you could debate about being a debate, but I think Gonzales never winning a major clay title, automatically puts him behind. When Laver's career is already as or more impressive in every other year- atleast as long at #1, overall and consecutively, winning all the majors in one year (even if we count only his 1969 one), even longevity was pretty similar as he excelled well into the 70s, even if he wasn't winning majors as he was focusing more on exhibitions and big money events by then. Gonzales's surface limitations then put him clearly behind Laver, even as great as he is.

Laver was the better and greater player than Rosewall, but saying he was by far better is an exaggeration. Gonzalez IMO is the greatest player of the three, the lack of a major clay title is mostly due to circumstance with limited opportunities to compete in his prime - judging these guys by modern criteria such as "career slams" or the equivalent is foolhardy IMO. I do think Laver has a case for GOAT, likewise does Gonzalez I don't eithers case is clearly greater than the other. Rosewall lags a bit behind as I think his GOAT case rests on his longevity and I prefer the sustained dominance and highs of Laver and Gonzalez' career.

 

[martinezownsclay]

Laver was the better and greater player than Rosewall, but saying he was by far better is an exaggeration. Gonzalez IMO is the greatest player of the three, the lack of a major clay title is mostly due to circumstance with limited opportunities to compete in his prime - judging these guys by modern criteria such as "career slams" or the equivalent is foolhardy IMO. I do think Laver has a case for GOAT, likewise does Gonzalez I don't eithers case is clearly greater than the other. Rosewall lags a bit behind as I think his GOAT case rests on his longevity and I prefer the sustained dominance and highs of Laver and Gonzalez' career.

I would have to disagree with you on Gonzales not winning a clay title as being a mark against his legacy in comparision to Laver, and some of the current greats. I do think Career Slam is overrated sure, but not winning even one title on a major surface is bad for a potential GOAT. It is also not true Gonzales had limited opportunities on clay, there were many significant clay events as a pro, including the French Pro annualy. He just wasn't that good on them. The only years the French Pro was held on wood was 1963 to 1967, which is the point when Gonzales was already past his prime.

And because he couldn't win on clay he never could have achived Laver's 1969 Grand Slam in any situation. Now even if you think the Career Slam sort of stuff is overrated, a Calendar Grand Slam 100% is not. And that is only crediting his 69 Slam, I don't take his 1962 slam seriously for obvious reasons, but technically it happened as well, and he also had a Pro Grand Slam in 1967, which is where all the best players were playing at the time.

 

[sureshs]

Laver's doubles and mixed doubles Slams alone put him at a different level as a complete all-round player compared to any of the existing ones.

 

[NatF]

I would have to disagree with you on Gonzales not winning a clay title as being a mark against his legacy in comparision to Laver, and some of the current greats. I do think Career Slam is overrated sure, but not winning even one title on a major surface is bad for a potential GOAT. It is also not true Gonzales had limited opportunities on clay, there were many significant clay events as a pro, including the French Pro annualy. He just wasn't that good on them. The only years the French Pro was held on wood was 1963 to 1967, which is the point when Gonzales was already past his prime.

And because he couldn't win on clay he never could have achived Laver's 1969 Grand Slam in any situation. Now even if you think the Career Slam sort of stuff is overrated, a Calendar Grand Slam 100% is not. And that is only crediting his 69 Slam, I don't take his 1962 slam seriously for obvious reasons, but technically it happened as well, and he also had a Pro Grand Slam in 1967, which is where all the best players were playing at the time.

The French Pro wasn't held from 1950 to 1955, at least not in the manner you're thinking of. There were Pro events in Paris those years but they were four-man events that could hardly be called majors and were not always clay. It was also not held in 1957. From the time he turned Pro until Gonzalez was 33 years old he only took part in three French Pro's, unless you want to count the four man events of the early 50's. Now it was his choice to be absent in 1959 and 1960 but he retired after the World Series in 1960 and evidently had other priorities in 1959. His record in the editions he took part in were 2 F's and a SF, so I certainly think he had the capability to win one - although his game was clearly less suited to clay than Laver or Rosewall. But like I said it's not a big mark on his legacy when you consider the circumstances. He did win numerous clay titles, though I'm not expert enough to compare their worth to more modern standards.

 

[urban]

I can see the argument of the OP, that the Big 3 today somewhat neutralize themselves, because they all 3 have such incredible numbers at quite the same time. Now, if Noval alone would have won 7 Wimbies and 21 slams, all press and public would fall down and pray to their idol. So now it has become a bit stale and routine, good, he has 21 slams, but like in the old fairy tale, there is still someone with more. I don't see that Nadal or Djoker have broken free from each other yet, the race ist still quite open. Djoker has the more rounded record overall, but Nadal has the unsurpassable special record, 14 RGs and he has still the lead in the slam race, which is declared the most significant parameter by all 3 contestants. Djokovic last year had that great chance, to put all questions behind him, when he fell to his nerves and the pressure at the last hurdle of the Grand Slam. To a lesser degree, in 2022 Nadal suddenly had a chance too. So Lavers second Grand Slam still stands alone in open era since 53 years, and he had pretty perfect years in amateur and pro context, too.
Maybe we can draw a historical parallel. In the 1930, 3 top players won virtually all big events, Vines, Perry, Budge. For most experts, Budge got the most acclaim among these 3, due to his Grand Slam 1938. But they were very close, and could not really break free from each other. That worked in a way to the advantage of Tilden, who remained the hero of the pre war champions in most eyes. In an AP poll of 1950, Tilden lead all tennis contenders by quite big a margin, although many thought of Budge and Vines as better players..

 

[martinezownsclay]

I can see the argument of the OP, that the Big 3 today somewhat neutralize themselves, because they all 3 have such incredible numbers at quite the same time. Now, if Noval alone would have won 7 Wimbies and 21 slams, all press and public would fall down and pray to their idol. So now it has become a bit stale and routine, good, he has 21 slams, but like in the old fairy tale, there is still someone with more. I don't see that Nadal or Djoker have broken free from each other yet, the race ist still quite open. Djoker has the more rounded record overall, but Nadal has the unsurpassable special record, 14 RGs and he has still the lead in the slam race, which is declared the most significant parameter by all 3 contestants. Djokovic last year had that great chance, to put all questions behind him, when he fell to his nerves and the pressure at the last hurdle of the Grand Slam. To a lesser degree, in 2022 Nadal suddenly had a chance too. So Lavers second Grand Slam still stands alone in open era since 53 years, and he had pretty perfect years in amateur and pro context, too.

Maybe we can draw a historical parallel. In the 1930, 3 top players won virtually all big events, Vines, Perry, Budge. For most experts, Budge got the most acclaim among these 3, due to his Grand Slam 1938. But they were very close, and could not really break free from each other. That worked in a way to the advantage of Tilden, who remained the hero of the pre war champions in most eyes. In an AP poll of 1950, Tilden lead all tennis contenders by quite big a margin, although many thought of Budge and Vines as better players..

Thanks for your response, and the bolded part is particularly interesting. As there are a lot of parallels to that historic trio and the big 3 of today it sounds like. Or atleast it would if say Murray were as good as Perry and wreacked more havoc for Djokovic and Nadal the way Perry did, even if he was still 4th wheel of the 4 greats (1 older, 3 almost the same age) greats like Perry definitely still was.

 

[THUNDERVOLLEY]

Laver did not need any "helP" being recognized as one of the few GOAT players for more than half of a century, and his status remains in place, like others who won the Grand Slam.

 

[ChrisRF]

I don't think it's clear at all that Laver was by far better than Gonzalez or even Rosewall tbh.

I fully agree. Especially Laver and Rosewall are very close. Actually the only reason Rosewall is out of the discussion for most people is that Laver has the CYGS and Rosewall never won Wimbledon. But overall in big titles he is even slightly ahead. Also remember that when Laver won the 1962 CYGS, Rosewall already was a Pro and actually the better player. He showed it the next year when he dominated the Pro Tour despite Laver entered.

Gonzales is hard to compare because he was a Pro for most of his career. But it is likely that he was also very close to them both.

 

[BGod]

Dominance of Eras is correct.

The Big 3 brand is huge though in the internet age so sadly Sampras ruling the 90s or Laver the 60s gets lost in the shuffle. Nevermind Borg's still GOAT dominance for 6 seasons.

 

[CHillTennis]

I am not generally a big fan of GOAT talks but one ironic thing is I think as the Big 3 win more and more, in many ways Laver's GOAT case grows stronger.

The reason being it is becoming increasingly clear none of Djokovic, Nadal, Federer can completely seperate in this era in the end. At one point it looked like Federer had for good, but that is no longer. Djokovic and Nadal are unable to completely seperate either, and atleast from each other might never manage this.

Contrast that to Laver who was by far the best of his own time, even a time with other major first tier all time greats like Gonzales and Rosewall. He did seperate himself. His Grand Slam in 1969 looks better and better all the time as Djokovic and Nadal can't even manage it against this garbage field. Now they are in their 30s and past their prime, but Laver was also in his 30s when he achieved his against a stellar field with some insanely tough draws in 1969.

I'm not trying to take anything away from Rod Laver's grand slam.

It was an incredible achievement that hasn't been replicated in the 53 years since.

However, I do feel that it's quite a bit harder to achieve the grand slam, today, than it was back in the 1960s.

Rafael Nadal has proven to be nearly unbeatable at the French Open.

In the time since he first started winning in Paris (back in 2005) there have been only four years where he hasn't finish as the champion.

Djokovic was able to win his fourth consecutive grand slam at the 2016 French Open.

I would consider this to be very near on the same level as a true grand slam.

Laver, was the best player of his generation.

I wouldn't say the greatest of all time.

But certainly from the wood racquet era, he was one of the absolute best players.

Pancho Gonzalez and Bjorn Borg are really the only other players to come close to Laver's dominance.

At least, in my opinion.

 

[hoodjem]

I think it is clear he was better than Rosewall. I have never heard anyone dispute it.

BobbyOne has since passed on, but on here he would dispute this all day and night long.

For him Rosewall was supreme, and he had good arguments.
One being that Rosewall has 23 total (am, pro, and open) majors, whereas Laver has 19.

 

[Martin J]

I don't think it's clear at all that Laver was by far better than Gonzalez or even Rosewall tbh.

The Vienna visionary likes this!

 

[Martin J]

There will always be arguments for Laver as his resume is sublime.
His 1962 was the most dominant season in the amateur era, in 1967 he had the most dominant season in the professional era, and, of course, 1969 was the greatest Open Era season. With these achievements, Laver should always be a part of the GOAT conversations.

 

[hoodjem]

The Vienna visionary likes this!

Long live the Vienna Visionary!
(May he never be forgotten.)

 

[Martin J]

Long live the Vienna Visionary!
(May he never be forgotten.)

I hope he is good and healthy. He was a bit of a pain in the *** when it comes to Rosewall though, lol.

 

[NatF]

I hope he is good and healthy. He was a bit of a pain in the *** when it comes to Rosewall though, lol.

He passed away a few years ago sadly.

 

[Martin J]

He passed away a few years ago sadly.

Oh! I wasn't aware of it, really sad to hear that. Thx for the info...

 

[Steffi-forever]

I am not generally a big fan of GOAT

Please don’t make me laugh! You have been talking and making GOAT threads continuously for the last 15 years!

 

[martinezownsclay]

Please don’t make me laugh! You have been talking and making GOAT threads continuously for the last 15 years!

No I haven't been. I don't know who you think I am, but I can already tell by your username you are more likely to do that than I am. I have a username heralding a mere 1 slam winner, which says it all.

 

[thrust]

Laver was the better and greater player than Rosewall, but saying he was by far better is an exaggeration. Gonzalez IMO is the greatest player of the three, the lack of a major clay title is mostly due to circumstance with limited opportunities to compete in his prime - judging these guys by modern criteria such as "career slams" or the equivalent is foolhardy IMO. I do think Laver has a case for GOAT, likewise does Gonzalez I don't eithers case is clearly greater than the other. Rosewall lags a bit behind as I think his GOAT case rests on his longevity and I prefer the sustained dominance and highs of Laver and Gonzalez' career.

Gonzalez did reach the semi's of the French Open of 68 being 40 years old. Too bad Pancho was alreadyy 36 when he first played Rod as the age difference between them was about 11 years.

 

[NatF]

Gonzalez did reach the semi's of the French Open of 68 being 40 years old. Too bad Pancho was alreadyy 36 when he first played Rod as the age difference between them was about 11 years.

Laver was the more versatile player, probably Rosewall as well, but I think outside of clay Gonzalez was the best of them. Like all these discussions it depends what you value.

 

[CyBorg]

Djokovic's and Nadal's dominance just makes me wonder why this era is such a joke, rather than fawn over them.

 

[martinezownsclay]

Laver and Gonzales's primes did not coincide at all really. Would be interesting to see how the matches (outside of clay where Laver would normally win I am pretty sure) would go if they had.

Rosewall did have some of his prime coinciding with both Laver and Gonzales, and was proven inferior to both IMO, but his longevity, consistency, and versatility in the game is amongst the best ever.

 

[martinezownsclay]

The French Pro wasn't held from 1950 to 1955, at least not in the manner you're thinking of. There were Pro events in Paris those years but they were four-man events that could hardly be called majors and were not always clay. It was also not held in 1957. From the time he turned Pro until Gonzalez was 33 years old he only took part in three French Pro's, unless you want to count the four man events of the early 50's. Now it was his choice to be absent in 1959 and 1960 but he retired after the World Series in 1960 and evidently had other priorities in 1959. His record in the editions he took part in were 2 F's and a SF, so I certainly think he had the capability to win one - although his game was clearly less suited to clay than Laver or Rosewall. But like I said it's not a big mark on his legacy when you consider the circumstances. He did win numerous clay titles, though I'm not expert enough to compare their worth to more modern standards.

I did know about the years the French Pro was not held in the 50s, but I did not know Gonzales missed it as many times as he did. Thanks for that info, as it does shed some more light on things. I do still fault Gonzales for never winning it and never winning a major title on clay in GOAT discussion, but less than I had before now. That is what I love about these discussions, is you always learn some new bits on info you didn't know before, or atleast I do.

 

[NatF]

I did know about the years the French Pro was not held in the 50s, but I did not know Gonzales missed it as many times as he did. Thanks for that info, as it does shed some more light on things. I do still fault Gonzales for never winning it and never winning a major title on clay in GOAT discussion, but less than I had before now. That is what I love about these discussions, is you always learn some new bits on info you didn't know before, or atleast I do.

Fair enough. I don't think it's anythings to disqualify Gonzalez over but understand if it docks him some points.

 

[sandy mayer]

The reason Nadal Federer and Djokovic have so many majors is because of their AMAZING longevity. Never in the history of tennis have there been 3 GOAT contenders at the same time who have had such long careers.
I don't agree that because there hasn't been one dominant over the others that Laver is greater. Laver wasn't more dominant than Federer, Nadal or Djokovic. Laver had six years when he was clearly number one (1964-1969,). Some put a case that he was number one in 1970. Federer has 5 years when he ended number one, Nadal 5, and Djokovic 7. Laver's period of dominance is comparable to the modern trio. Personally, I believe the longevity of Federer, Nadal and Djokovic puts all three ahead of Laver. I believe the battle for GOAT is now between Djokovic and Nadal.

 

[PMChambers]

No, it's a different sport. No one is saying he's GOAT as most can't remember his career or understand the tour then.
Most people determine GOAT from the Open era. And as there wasn't a long-time dominant player outside Sampras, it's going to be the current Big 3 followed by Sampas and maybe Borg. No one wants a historic GOAT, that doesn't sell products or fit the now is a better concept.

 

[martinezownsclay]

In the future they will try and market some 8 slam champion as GOAT, since it will probably be a long time before another guy comes who wins 20+ majors.

 

[Dan Lobb]

I would have to disagree with you on Gonzales not winning a clay title as being a mark against his legacy in comparision to Laver, and some of the current greats. I do think Career Slam is overrated sure, but not winning even one title on a major surface is bad for a potential GOAT. It is also not true Gonzales had limited opportunities on clay, there were many significant clay events as a pro, including the French Pro annualy. He just wasn't that good on them. The only years the French Pro was held on wood was 1963 to 1967, which is the point when Gonzales was already past his prime.

And because he couldn't win on clay he never could have achived Laver's 1969 Grand Slam in any situation. Now even if you think the Career Slam sort of stuff is overrated, a Calendar Grand Slam 100% is not. And that is only crediting his 69 Slam, I don't take his 1962 slam seriously for obvious reasons, but technically it happened as well, and he also had a Pro Grand Slam in 1967, which is where all the best players were playing at the time.

No one at the time was aware of Laver's "pro Slam", and certainly not Laver himself. It simply did not exist at the time.
The traditional Grand Slam had become stabilized by 1956 to refer to the Big Four national tournaments, although other definitions of Grand Slam had existed prior to that time.
There was plenty of press attention focused on Laver's 1962 and 1969 Grand Slam campaigns.
But nothing on that 1967 series.

 

[Tshooter]

I am not generally a big fan of GOAT talks but one ironic thing is I think as the Big 3 win more and more, in many ways Laver's GOAT case grows stronger.

The reason being it is becoming increasingly clear none of Djokovic, Nadal, Federer can completely seperate in this era in the end. At one point it looked like Federer had for good, but that is no longer. Djokovic and Nadal are unable to completely seperate either, and atleast from each other might never manage this.

Contrast that to Laver who was by far the best of his own time, even a time with other major first tier all time greats like Gonzales and Rosewall. He did seperate himself. His Grand Slam in 1969 looks better and better all the time as Djokovic and Nadal can't even manage it against this garbage field. Now they are in their 30s and past their prime, but Laver was also in his 30s when he achieved his against a stellar field with some insanely tough draws in 1969.

Reminds me a bit of the posters that argue that Rafa harms his GOAT credentials everytime he wins another FO because his major count gets increasingly uneven across majors.

 

[Dan Lobb]

The French Pro wasn't held from 1950 to 1955, at least not in the manner you're thinking of. There were Pro events in Paris those years but they were four-man events that could hardly be called majors and were not always clay. It was also not held in 1957. From the time he turned Pro until Gonzalez was 33 years old he only took part in three French Pro's, unless you want to count the four man events of the early 50's. Now it was his choice to be absent in 1959 and 1960 but he retired after the World Series in 1960 and evidently had other priorities in 1959. His record in the editions he took part in were 2 F's and a SF, so I certainly think he had the capability to win one - although his game was clearly less suited to clay than Laver or Rosewall. But like I said it's not a big mark on his legacy when you consider the circumstances. He did win numerous clay titles, though I'm not expert enough to compare their worth to more modern standards.

Those events in the early fifties should be regarded as major clay events. They were held at Roland Garros in some years and featured the top four pros in a round robin format. I would call that a major pro event.
Gonzales did not win them, though.
Gonzales won important clay tournaments in the late forties (U.S. Clay Court Championships). He won on clay at Berlin in 1952 against a strong field, he won the Toronto championships on red clay in 1959 beating Trabert and Sedgman, and won the Dallas CBS tournament on clay in 1965, the biggest money event of the year.
He had a good record at Roland Garros, SF in 1949 losing to Patty, the 1950 champion. In 1968 he again reached the semi at RG, beating the defending champion Emerson.
The trouble was that clay fields were very strong in the 1950's and 1960's, much stronger than today.

 

[Dan Lobb]

The reason Nadal Federer and Djokovic have so many majors is because of their AMAZING longevity. Never in the history of tennis have there been 3 GOAT contenders at the same time who have had such long careers.
I don't agree that because there hasn't been one dominant over the others that Laver is greater. Laver wasn't more dominant than Federer, Nadal or Djokovic. Laver had six years when he was clearly number one (1964-1969,). Some put a case that he was number one in 1970. Federer has 5 years when he ended number one, Nadal 5, and Djokovic 7. Laver's period of dominance is comparable to the modern trio. Personally, I believe the longevity of Federer, Nadal and Djokovic puts all three ahead of Laver. I believe the battle for GOAT is now between Djokovic and Nadal.

Djokovic literally couldn't hold Laver's racquet. Those old wood racquets were much heavier and with a much smaller hitting surface than today. Djokovic apparently tried playing an event with wood racquets and could not do it. His backhand grip is not capable of working with the woods.
Likewise Nadal, those funny backhand grips don't work with wood.

 

[Dan Lobb]

I can see the argument of the OP, that the Big 3 today somewhat neutralize themselves, because they all 3 have such incredible numbers at quite the same time. Now, if Noval alone would have won 7 Wimbies and 21 slams, all press and public would fall down and pray to their idol. So now it has become a bit stale and routine, good, he has 21 slams, but like in the old fairy tale, there is still someone with more. I don't see that Nadal or Djoker have broken free from each other yet, the race ist still quite open. Djoker has the more rounded record overall, but Nadal has the unsurpassable special record, 14 RGs and he has still the lead in the slam race, which is declared the most significant parameter by all 3 contestants. Djokovic last year had that great chance, to put all questions behind him, when he fell to his nerves and the pressure at the last hurdle of the Grand Slam. To a lesser degree, in 2022 Nadal suddenly had a chance too. So Lavers second Grand Slam still stands alone in open era since 53 years, and he had pretty perfect years in amateur and pro context, too.
Maybe we can draw a historical parallel. In the 1930, 3 top players won virtually all big events, Vines, Perry, Budge. For most experts, Budge got the most acclaim among these 3, due to his Grand Slam 1938. But they were very close, and could not really break free from each other. That worked in a way to the advantage of Tilden, who remained the hero of the pre war champions in most eyes. In an AP poll of 1950, Tilden lead all tennis contenders by quite big a margin, although many thought of Budge and Vines as better players..

Those polls usually degenerate into popularity contests rather than reasoned discussions. Unlike the high level of reasoned discussion here.

 

[timnz]

I think it is clear he was better than Rosewall. I have never heard anyone dispute it.

Gonzales I guess you could debate about being a debate, but I think Gonzales never winning a major clay title, automatically puts him behind. When Laver's career is already as or more impressive in every other year- atleast as long at #1, overall and consecutively, winning all the majors in one year (even if we count only his 1969 one), even longevity was pretty similar as he excelled well into the 70s, even if he wasn't winning majors as he was focusing more on exhibitions and big money events by then. Gonzales's surface limitations then put him clearly behind Laver, even as great as he is.

Most of Gonzales career a clay major wasn’t available to him. The French pro wasn’t always played on clay.

 

[Djokovic2011]

He passed away a few years ago sadly.

Very sad to hear this. I know you had your disagreements with him but I thought he was a lovely man. To this day whenever I see Rosewall at a major tournament I think of Bobby and how he used to passionately defend him. RIP.

 

[hoodjem]

Very sad to hear this. I know you had your disagreements with him but I thought he was a lovely man. To this day whenever I see Rosewall at a major tournament I think of Bobby and how he used to passionately defend him. RIP.

Hear! Hear!




"separate"

 

[Waves]

Was just watching a Borg McEnroe match, I have no idea how they were so good with those racquets. I think the lack of homogenized racquet/string/ball and court material/conditions also contributed to the inability to be as consistent as players and the game is today. Also, there certainly seems, statistically at least, to be a weird unexplained dynamic between the big 3 and the younger generations…why hasn’t someone humiliated these 3 yet? GS numbers just seem to be so bloated. And poor Novak choking on that CYGS burger, while no one else even has gotten as close as he did?

I think you may be on to something. I would have no issue with someone feeling Laver or Borg are Goats.

 

[NatF]

Very sad to hear this. I know you had your disagreements with him but I thought he was a lovely man. To this day whenever I see Rosewall at a major tournament I think of Bobby and how he used to passionately defend him. RIP.

Indeed, feels like a long time ago now - reflecting on it does make me feel a bit sad. For sure he did a lot for many when it comes to recognising Rosewall's legacy.

 

[thrust]

Very sad to hear this. I know you had your disagreements with him but I thought he was a lovely man. To this day whenever I see Rosewall at a major tournament I think of Bobby and how he used to passionately defend him. RIP.

Sorry to hear about Bobby, as he and I were probably Rosewall's chief defenders and promotors.

 

[thrust]

Most of Gonzales career a clay major wasn’t available to him. The French pro wasn’t always played on clay.

Gonzalez lost 3 French Pro finals. In 53 he lost to Sedgman which was not on clay and best of 3 match. In 55 he lost to Trabert in 5, on clay. In 61, he lost to Rosewall on clay in 4 sets. Pancho must have had a bad day in the 53 final as he lost to Sedgman, 6-1, 6-3. Probably, Pancho's serve was not as effective on clay as it was on grass or indoor fast surfaces.

 

[Dan Lobb]

Sorry to hear about Bobby, as he and I were probably Rosewall's chief defenders and promotors.

My most treasured recollections of exchanges with Bobby were connected with classical music, he was a great fan of the classics.
He and I achieved consensus on the musical front, and those exchanges are still available in this forum.

 

[Tennfan123]

Yes, as career inflation becomes more gross and obvious, the old GOATs' stock rises.

 

[Dan Lobb]

The French Pro wasn't held from 1950 to 1955, at least not in the manner you're thinking of. There were Pro events in Paris those years but they were four-man events that could hardly be called majors and were not always clay. It was also not held in 1957. From the time he turned Pro until Gonzalez was 33 years old he only took part in three French Pro's, unless you want to count the four man events of the early 50's. Now it was his choice to be absent in 1959 and 1960 but he retired after the World Series in 1960 and evidently had other priorities in 1959. His record in the editions he took part in were 2 F's and a SF, so I certainly think he had the capability to win one - although his game was clearly less suited to clay than Laver or Rosewall. But like I said it's not a big mark on his legacy when you consider the circumstances. He did win numerous clay titles, though I'm not expert enough to compare their worth to more modern standards.

Gonzales won the U.S. Clay Court against strong fields which included Parker, the French champion, in 1948 and 1949.
He won the O'Keefe Toronto Lawn Tennis Club title on red clay in 1959 beating Cooper, Trabert, and Sedgman, all of them good on clay.
Gonzales won the biggest money tournament of 1965 at Dallas on clay beating both Rosewall and Laver in close matches.