Don Budge: The Greatest Player of All Time

[NadalandFedererfan]

Spitz would still be a great swimmer today. Going on sheer velocity of these swimmers one could falsely conclude that Phelps is incrementally better than swimmers from eight years ago, even four years ago. Did anyone notice how all the swimming records were shattered at this year's Olympics? Did the swimmers really get that much better?

Nah. All information I've read points to changes in regulation, pools and uniforms as causes of this. Now, I'm not expert at swimming, but I read that the way these guys push off now is very different than the way they did it four years, ago due to a crucial rule change that speeds up their times considerably.

Spitz, interestingly enough, swam with a moustache - something that would probably not come as recommended today (body hair is discouraged). Spitz, at the peak of his powers, under today's conditions would probably be a dominant swimmer.

Definitely all true, and even casual swimming fans dont doubt this. Which is what makes the reasoning of so many casual and even some dedicated tennis fans who seem to think you can compare players by watching guys from the 60s and 70s on film and comparing how hard they hit the ball and look to todays directly, all the more silly.

You never hear track or swimming fans saying "so and sos best times 20, 30, 40+ years ago are so much slower then today, they obviously were weaker and would not stand up to todays best at all." However you hear tennis fans frequently say "look at how much harder so and so hits then this great 40 years ago, they would never stand up today."

 

[dpfrazier]

I think a fair way to judge the greatness of an athlete is by how much they dominate the competition in their era. Athletes will get stronger/faster, equipment and technique will improve, etc., so it's not reasonable to compare athletes from different eras.

Using this approach, I would suggest a few GOATs in various sports:

Baseball - Babe Ruth
Hockey - Wayne Gretzky
Football - Jim Brown
Basketball - Wilt Chamberlain

Tennis - Roger Federer (even though Laver is my favorite!)

 

[JoshDragon]

Of course a player of the 2000s should look better then a player of the 1960s and god for sure the 1920s (what on earth would you expect someone from the 1920s to look like) and even the 1980s, especialy with the wood to graphite racquet change made later in the 1980s after Borg retired. You cant compare players that way. An example would be in swimming. Mark Spitz's winning times from 1972 in his longtime historic 7 Olympic gold performance (finally eclipsed by Michael Phelps this year) would be a complete joke for a wannabee elite today, and in fact a few of them would only win the womens gold by a second or two at a 100 or 200 distance in Beijing. Yet you hear nobody say he was an umimpressive champion who was so much slower then todays faster and stronger swimmers, and only won due to a weak field, in fact the concept would be laughable. It is the same with many other sports, and the same with tennis. How players each did in their own time is what really matters.

Champions should have to beat other champions to prove they are the best. As a fan of both Federer and Nadal I have cheered for Federer to win the French since I know him meaningful it is to his total legacy, and I have often cheered for Nadal to beat Federer at other slams for the same reason. However in the end all that matter is whether you achieved something or not, if Federer doesnt manage to win the French then it doesnt matter who stopped him each time, he just wasnt able to do it. Champions should be expected to be able to overcome the tougher competition at some point. If Nadal is kept to winning lower # of slams and less time at #1 elsewhere by Federer the same applies to him. Of course both will be remembered as truly great players, probably among the best in history when they are done, but that they had each other in the way is not an excuse for whatever either might fail to achieve.

You cant prove whether or not Laver would have been able to win a French Open vs Nadal or not, all you can prove is that so far Federer unfortuantely hasnt. Laver beat Rosewall who is also an all time great clay courter to win his 1969 French and Grand Slam. Laver never had a chance to play grand slams on hard courts, so you cant speak against his ability on hard courts, like you could to a degree Borg because he failed in the U.S Open hard court slam from 78-81 to a degree, as Federer has with even more chances at the French clay court slam. Laver's record on hard courts in events that existed on them then, even though none were the grand slams, were outstanding generally.

Lastly I saw Borg play on tape and I was very impressed, even playing with a wood racquet and playing in the 80s. He would give anyone today a run for their money, including Federer or Nadal. In fact those are the only two players at this moment who could have even been competitive with him at all if he were playing today IMO. Even watching old tapes with Borg playing with wood it quickly becomes clear with a graphite racquet he would take apart the likes of recent/current top 5 players Ferrer and Davydenko who have nothing to hurt him with at all, while someone like perennial top 5 player of today Roddick would only be able to survive a complete murder by his serve winning him so many points.

I wrote a post on my blog about comparing Laver to Federer if you or anyone else would like to read it here is the link:

http://millennialtennis.blogspot.com/2008/09/rod-rocket-laver-vs-roger-federer.html

 

[urban]

In terms of legacy, Federer's big problem will be Nadal. First: The missing RG will be a missing link. People will say: If he was indeed so dominant, why he couldn't win a Grand Slam or at least a French Open, especially in the light of the assimilation of surfaces. If Nadal could win the RG-Wim combo, why not his contemporary? Second: A point that Newcombe already made: How can a pretender for best alltime, have a such negative record (including finals on the biggest stages)against a contemporary rival?
I am tired of this surface argument for the pre 1978 era: Laver, due to his medium hight not the biggest server and more depending on his return, would have been happy to play on trustful surfaces like hard courts. In fact, he won the two most important hard court events in 1969, the South African Open (with a 96 men field with best of five matches all the way) and the US pro.

 

[NadalandFedererfan]

In terms of legacy, Federer's big problem will be Nadal. First: The missing RG will be a missing link. People will say: If he was indeed so dominant, why he couldn't win a Grand Slam or at least a French Open, especially in the light of the assimilation of surfaces. If Nadal could win the RG-Wim combo, why not his contemporary? Second: A point that Newcombe already made: How can a pretender for best alltime, have a such negative record (including finals on the biggest stages)against a contemporary rival?

Even though I am just as big a Federer fan as a Nadal fan I am starting to think it is possible that Nadal ends up a stronger candidate then Federer as the best of all time when their careers are both over. I fully expect Federer to break Sampras's slam record. However Nadal himself could be in that territory if his body doesnt break down as everyone is predicting (hoping). Furthermore Nadal looks like he will have a better shot at the career slam then Federer, provided he finds a way to be fresher come the U.S Open (in a non-Olympic year it should be more doable), plus he already has the Olympic Gold in singles and the Davis Cup. As well as you said the Federer-Nadal rivalry looks to be in his favor, which is something else in his favor in the long run.

 

[CyBorg]

Hockey - Wayne Gretzky

The name is spelled Bobby Orr.

 

[dpfrazier]

The name is spelled Bobby Orr.

Man, I guess that was my worst typo ever... missed almost every letter!

 

[urban]

In most sports it is a difficult thing, to single out one goat. Although i am no expert in NHL-hockey, from what i read, i also would put Orr, who completely reconstructed the role of the defender, on the same level as Gretzky. In boxing, most current fans will say Ali, but real experts like Bert Sugar would rate Robinson or Louis as greater or at least as level par.
To Nadal: It is interesting to compare the Sampras-Agassi rivalry in their era. Undoubtedly, Sampras ranks higher in most people's mind. But i think, that Sampras' claim for goat was severely hurt by Agassi's RG win in 1999. AA showed, that it was no utopy, but real possibility, wo win all four under modern conditions. But even think further, if Agassi, with more Masters, Olympic gold and better DC record, would have beaten Sampras at Wimbledon and would hold a 20-14 record in his favor. Who would then rank higher?

 

[garcia_doomer]

I think a fair way to judge the greatness of an athlete is by how much they dominate the competition in their era. Athletes will get stronger/faster, equipment and technique will improve, etc., so it's not reasonable to compare athletes from different eras.

Using this approach, I would suggest a few GOATs in various sports:

Baseball - Babe Ruth
Hockey - Wayne Gretzky
Football - Jim Brown
Basketball - Wilt Chamberlain

Tennis - Roger Federer (even though Laver is my favorite!)

Basket: M. Jordan
Soccer: D. Maradona
Tennis: R. Laver

 

[garcia_doomer]

The number two spots:

Basket: Wilt
Soccer: Pele
Tennis: Gonzalez/Budge

 

[CyBorg]

Man, I guess that was my worst typo ever... missed almost every letter!

hehe .. yeah, Gretzky was good too.

 

[Steve132]

Even though I am just as big a Federer fan as a Nadal fan I am starting to think it is possible that Nadal ends up a stronger candidate then Federer as the best of all time when their careers are both over. I fully expect Federer to break Sampras's slam record. However Nadal himself could be in that territory if his body doesnt break down as everyone is predicting (hoping). Furthermore Nadal looks like he will have a better shot at the career slam then Federer, provided he finds a way to be fresher come the U.S Open (in a non-Olympic year it should be more doable), plus he already has the Olympic Gold in singles and the Davis Cup. As well as you said the Federer-Nadal rivalry looks to be in his favor, which is something else in his favor in the long run.

Nadal is a LONG way away from GOAT consideration. He has never won or even reached the finals of a hard court major.

 

[NadalandFedererfan]

Nadal is a LONG way away from GOAT consideration. He has never won or even reached the finals of a hard court major.

Of course I know that. Nowhere in my post did I imply Nadal was even a top 10 player in history at the moment. However it is fair to point out he could be on course to reach the same territory Federer is heading towards when you consider his youth, his steady improvements on hard courts, and his achievements already. If that were to happen then Nadal's ability to come into Federer's turf and beat him which Federer has never been able to do vs Nadal on his turf, and his general dominance over Federer, and higher likelihood of the career slam (since it is seems increasingly unlikely for Roger to ever win the French, and I say that as an equal fan of both Nadal and Federer) are all things that could cause people to even favor Nadal over Federer in history.

 

[chaognosis]

hehe .. yeah, Gretzky was good too.

My all-star team:

Forwards - Bobby Hull (LW), Wayne Gretzky (C), Maurice Richard (RW)

Defenders - Doug Harvey, Bobby Orr

Goalies - Terry Sawchuk

 

[NadalandFedererfan]

My all-star team:

Forwards - Bobby Hull (LW), Wayne Gretzky (C), Maurice Richard (RW)

Defenders - Doug Harvey, Bobby Orr

Goalies - Terry Sawchuk

Mine is almost exactly the same, but my all star goaltender is probably Dominik Hasek at his peak. I probably dont consider him the best goaltender ever when you talk about a whole career, but at his peak I doubt anyone was more dominant.

 

[CyBorg]

My all-star team:

Forwards - Bobby Hull (LW), Wayne Gretzky (C), Maurice Richard (RW)

Defenders - Doug Harvey, Bobby Orr

Goalies - Terry Sawchuk

Greatly underrated in all-time discussions are European and Russian players who never played in the NHL.

My two teams of great Europeans of those eras past:

Team A

F: Vsevolod Bobrov/Vaclav Nedomansky/Boris Mikhailov
D: Nikolai Sologubov/Jiri Suchy
G: Vladislav Tretiak/Jan Holecek

Team B

F: Vladimir Martinec/Tumba Johansson/Valeri Kharlamov
D: Valeri Vasiliev/Alexander Ragulin
G: Viktor Konovalenko/Vladimir Dzurilla

A great and proficient hockey player AND tennis player was Jaroslav Drobny.

 

[chaognosis]

I'm sure you're right, and I simply don't have the expertise. My team was consciously limited to NHL players.

Very informative, CyBorg.

 

[hoodjem]

Any player Pre-Open Era is not on the G.O.A.T. List.

Anyone who states that any pre-Open Era player or any player we have not seen extensively on video cannot be GOAT may not comment on the GOAT.

There, take that for your silly, indefensible, arbitrary opinions.

 

[hoodjem]

I wish we could all agree to stop calling each of the four majors "grand slams."

As everyone should know, the Grand Slam is constituted by winning all four majors in a single calendar year, as Budge, Laver, Connolly, Smith Court, Graf have done.

It's okay if you want to call a major a "slam" but not a grand slam. It confuses lots of people, and encourages misinterpretation and ignorance.

Federer has won 13 majors, but zero grand slams. Laver won 11 majors and two Grand Slams. There is a difference.

 

[JoshDragon]

I wish we could all agree to stop calling each of the four majors "grand slams."

As everyone should know, the Grand Slam is constituted by winning all four majors in a single calendar year, as Budge, Laver, Connolly, Smith Court, Graf have done.

It's okay if you want to call a major a "slam" but not a grand slam. It confuses lots of people, and encourages misinterpretation and ignorance.

Federer has won 13 majors, but zero grand slams. Laver won 11 majors and two Grand Slams. There is a difference.

Laver, only won 5 professional slams to Rogers 13. The other 6 were amateur.

 

[grafrules]

Laver, only won 5 professional slams to Rogers 13. The other 6 were amateur.

Yes and yet if there had been open pro tennis from 1964-1967 he would have probably won atleast 10 slams those 4 years to go with those 5 later professional slams.

 

[FiveO]

Laver, only won 5 professional slams to Rogers 13. The other 6 were amateur.

During the pro/amateur split and into 1969, Laver won eleven of the three professional "Majors" which were the measuring sticks of the best pros during that era.

5 US Pros
4 London Indoor Pros
2 French Pro Championships

Immediately before winning those 11 professional "Majors" Laver had been denied 2 more US Pros and 4 French Pro Championships, by the then reigning #1 pro Ken Rosewall who Laver eventually dethroned h2h.

Add the five Open Major titles to the eleven above and you have a number more indicative of Laver's level during that time and one to use for comparisons v. those who played their entire careers within the open era.

16.

 

[hoodjem]

Laver, only won 5 professional slams to Rogers 13. The other 6 were amateur.

Josh,

Show us your top 15 list. I'm curious.

 

[JoshDragon]

Josh,

Show us your top 15 list. I'm curious.

OK.

#1 I think would be Federer. Although Sampras, owns 14 majors Federer, is a much more accomplished clay court player. He would have had many more clay court titles if it hadn't been for Rafa (who I think is the greatest clay court player of all time.) It's also possible that Federer, will still win the French at some point. Nadal, could get an injury at some point (hopefully that won't happen) and Federer could wind up in the French Open final against a much easier opponent.

With 237 straight weeks as #1 and 13 majors including 5 straight US Open (and growing) and 5 straight Wimbledon titles. I can't think of another player who has dominated the game like he has.


#2 Sampras. Personally, I hate watching allot of serve and volleying but I have to put Sampras, here just based on the number of slams that he won. Sampras, was a great grass and hard court player and had an aggressive and tough game.



I don't think that it's fair to continue the list past this point. Guys like Borg, Connors, and Lendl would come next on the list, if it were based only on achievements. They won too many majors for me to put them any lower on my list but the game has changed so much since they played, that I feel I would be short changing the present day players. For instance, can you imagine Rod Laver, with a wooden racquet, trying to return one of Roddick's 140 an hour serves. I can't. The fitness level, of the players has also improved since back then and if you don't believe it just think about it. Did the guys at the top of the game 30 years ago, look like Roddick or Nadal? No. I can remember when Nadal, came out to play the US Open, in 2005 and the announcers were amazed by how fit he was. Borg, was a very fit player for his time period and that enabled him to win the French Open 6 times. If Borg, were to play today, his fitness would not be enough to win the French Open. Guys, like Nadal, who are at least as fit and much stronger, would take it from him every time.

That's why I can't continue this list any further. Based on achievements Borg, should definitely be next but I don't feel that he would have the game to compete with the top players today and it's hard for me to justify putting Borg, as the 3rd best player of all time when I don't believe he would be able to beat a present day player in the top 40 during his prime.

 

[hoodjem]

Here let me help:

1. Federer
2. Sampras
3. Nadal
4. Borg
5. Connors
6. Lendl
7. Roddick

 

[JediMindTrick]

Imagine a player possessing all of Roger Federer’s qualities but with a more consistent backhand (similar to Richard Gasquet’s) and a heavier serve (similar to Marat Safin’s)

You're joking, right?

 

[CyBorg]

You're joking, right?

Why would he be?

 

[lambielspins]

Here let me help:

1. Federer
2. Sampras
3. Nadal
4. Borg
5. Connors
6. Lendl
7. Roddick

I cringe at that list, my eyes almost bleed. Roddick a player who is not even at top 100 groundstroker TODAY, and who relies totally on his serve and fighting spirit, the #7 player all time. Let me run screaming for the door now please, hehe.

 

[sheq]

its not sensible at all to mention the amateur years' players as the greatests..we all know that in these years winning a slam, being no1, competition, training session are much much more easy..

ok they contirbuted to tennis in many aspects and started it off we all have to respect for these..but saying that gonzalez, laver or whatever is better than roger, sampras, nadal, agassi is not sensible and is not fair at all..

its the same with saying porsche 60' 911 faster or better than porsche 00' 911

 

[CyBorg]

ok they contirbuted to tennis in many aspects and started it off we all have to respect for these..but saying that gonzalez, laver or whatever is better than roger, sampras, nadal, agassi is not sensible and is not fair at all..

its the same with saying porsche 60' 911 faster or better than porsche 00' 911

Just as it's not sensible to say that Mickey Mantle is better than Mark McGwire?

Has Mark McGwire ever hit a homerun farther than Mantle deepest shot? I'll tell you: he hasn't.

The analogy to cars is a poor one - technological progress is rapid. But people are not cyborgs. They're people. They don't come packed with greater horsepower by virtue of some kind of technological determinism. A player as athletic and powerful as Pancho Gonzales would handle anyone in today's era.

 

[sheq]

Just as it's not sensible to say that Mickey Mantle is better than Mark McGwire?

Has Mark McGwire ever hit a homerun farther than Mantle deepest shot? I'll tell you: he hasn't.

The analogy to cars is a poor one - technological progress is rapid. But people are not cyborgs. They're people. They don't come packed with greater horsepower by virtue of some kind of technological determinism. A player as athletic and powerful as Pancho Gonzales would handle anyone in today's era.

ı do not agree with you..ı am only 21 years old and have never watched gonzalez..but if you say he is great because of his majors he won or his no1 spot, its ridicilous because there were no competitions as there are today..no travelling, no heavy training tennis had not surrounded around the world yet..so the numbers or records cant make him any better..

however if you say he is great because of his movement, strenght, technique..its acceptable..

still, my example is ok..because even if human being is not cyborg technological progress have been shown on their equipmnets...and that makes modern players better..ı do not know or we can not know how would gonzalez or his other competitors react this transition..

 

[CyBorg]

ı do not agree with you..ı am only 21 years old and have never watched gonzalez..but if you say he is great because of his majors he won or his no1 spot, its ridicilous because there were no competitions as there are today..no travelling, no heavy training tennis had not surrounded around the world yet..so the numbers or records cant make him any better..

You should be more open-minded at your age and rather than taking a hard-line stance about topics such as this you could instead inform yourself about tennis of those times by reading about it. There have been numerous threads on TW about pertinent literature.

Your post is incredibly wrong on every single point. You clearly know next to nothing about the travel of those times, about training and depth of competition. If you did you wouldn't be making such uninformed statements.

That is really all I can say. Here's a thread I made some time ago asking for recommendations of literature and have since read several of the books that were suggested: http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showthread.php?t=153450

however if you say he is great because of his movement, strenght, technique..its acceptable..

Players of Gonzalez's/Laver's era employed technique that was ideal for their times, their conditions and equipments.

still, my example is ok..because even if human being is not cyborg technological progress have been shown on their equipmnets...and that makes modern players better..ı do not know or we can not know how would gonzalez or his other competitors react this transition..

Graphite racquets do not automatically make players better. They have changed the game of tennis, but many would argue that this has been at the expense of certain facets of the game that were staples decades ago. This has all been discussed at great length and with particular nuance on these boards many times and it's kind of deflating to see someone clearly not taking the time to read and educate himself and posting one-dimensional and ignorant point-of-review completely unsupported by anything but naive assumptions.

 

[sheq]

Of course a player of the 2000s should look better then a player of the 1960s and god for sure the 1920s (what on earth would you expect someone from the 1920s to look like) and even the 1980s, especialy with the wood to graphite racquet change made later in the 1980s after Borg retired. You cant compare players that way. An example would be in swimming. Mark Spitz's winning times from 1972 in his longtime historic 7 Olympic gold performance (finally eclipsed by Michael Phelps this year) would be a complete joke for a wannabee elite today, and in fact a few of them would only win the womens gold by a second or two at a 100 or 200 distance in Beijing. Yet you hear nobody say he was an umimpressive champion who was so much slower then todays faster and stronger swimmers, and only won due to a weak field, in fact the concept would be laughable. It is the same with many other sports, and the same with tennis. How players each did in their own time is what really matters.

Champions should have to beat other champions to prove they are the best. As a fan of both Federer and Nadal I have cheered for Federer to win the French since I know him meaningful it is to his total legacy, and I have often cheered for Nadal to beat Federer at other slams for the same reason. However in the end all that matter is whether you achieved something or not, if Federer doesnt manage to win the French then it doesnt matter who stopped him each time, he just wasnt able to do it. Champions should be expected to be able to overcome the tougher competition at some point. If Nadal is kept to winning lower # of slams and less time at #1 elsewhere by Federer the same applies to him. Of course both will be remembered as truly great players, probably among the best in history when they are done, but that they had each other in the way is not an excuse for whatever either might fail to achieve.

You cant prove whether or not Laver would have been able to win a French Open vs Nadal or not, all you can prove is that so far Federer unfortuantely hasnt. Laver beat Rosewall who is also an all time great clay courter to win his 1969 French and Grand Slam. Laver never had a chance to play grand slams on hard courts, so you cant speak against his ability on hard courts, like you could to a degree Borg because he failed in the U.S Open hard court slam from 78-81 to a degree, as Federer has with even more chances at the French clay court slam. Laver's record on hard courts in events that existed on them then, even though none were the grand slams, were outstanding generally.

Lastly I saw Borg play on tape and I was very impressed, even playing with a wood racquet and playing in the 80s. He would give anyone today a run for their money, including Federer or Nadal. In fact those are the only two players at this moment who could have even been competitive with him at all if he were playing today IMO. Even watching old tapes with Borg playing with wood it quickly becomes clear with a graphite racquet he would take apart the likes of recent/current top 5 players Ferrer and Davydenko who have nothing to hurt him with at all, while someone like perennial top 5 player of today Roddick would only be able to survive a complete murder by his serve winning him so many points.

guys come on!! ı have full of respect for these legends laver,gonzalez, budge etc, but please just try being honest; can laver beat nadal on clay or can gonzalez beat roger on hard court if it would be possible to make a match between them on their best shape??..ı watched some videos of laver and borg to have some thoughts about their game and how tennis was played in these days..first of all really poor legs' movement, lack of powerfull groundstrokes, and different style of striking on FH and BH that cant be effective as the current one..also if you are able to be fair you can easily see that roger's technigue is really really unique and best..

the things that are shown good even better than modern era are services and volleys

 

[hoodjem]

You're joking, right?

No, he's not. Budge was THAT good.

 

[sheq]

You should be more open-minded at your age and rather than taking a hard-line stance about topics such as this you could instead inform yourself about tennis of those times by reading about it. There have been numerous threads on TW about pertinent literature.

Your post is incredibly wrong on every single point. You clearly know next to nothing about the travel of those times, about training and depth of competition. If you did you wouldn't be making such uninformed statements.

That is really all I can say. Here's a thread I made some time ago asking for recommendations of literature and have since read several of the books that were suggested: http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showthread.php?t=153450

Players of Gonzalez's/Laver's era employed technique that was ideal for their times, their conditions and equipments.


Graphite racquets do not automatically make players better. They have changed the game of tennis, but many would argue that this has been at the expense of certain facets of the game that were staples decades ago. This has all been discussed at great length and with particular nuance on these boards many times and it's kind of deflating to see someone clearly not taking the time to read and educate himself and posting one-dimensional and ignorant point-of-review completely unsupported by anything but naive assumptions.

ı am totally agree.. ı lack of knowledges about pre modern area tennis and thats why ı made comments with some doubts..thanks for your sharing..

yet, ı do not agree that all my points are nonsense...ı still claim that modern players are better than pre-moderns..because they were not totally proffesional and thats a fact..

so let me ask you if you would make poll with tennis fans, current players, legend players, or tennis experts ( you look at me as a child its normal )..who gonna be shown as the greatest?

 

[hoodjem]

During the pro/amateur split and into 1969, Laver won eleven of the three professional "Majors" which were the measuring sticks of the best pros during that era.

5 US Pros
4 London Indoor Pros
2 French Pro Championships

Immediately before winning those 11 professional "Majors" Laver had been denied 2 more US Pros and 4 French Pro Championships, by the then reigning #1 pro Ken Rosewall who Laver eventually dethroned h2h.

Add the five Open Major titles to the eleven above and you have a number more indicative of Laver's level during that time and one to use for comparisons v. those who played their entire careers within the open era.

16.

So 16 professional slams plus 6 amateur slams.

I guess that equals 22 pro/am slam singles titles.

 

[CyBorg]

guys come on!! ı have full of respect for these legends laver,gonzalez, budge etc, but please just try being honest; can laver beat nadal on clay or can gonzalez beat roger on hard court if it would be possible to make a match between them on their best shape??..ı watched some videos of laver and borg to have some thoughts about their game and how tennis was played in these days..first of all really poor legs' movement, lack of powerfull groundstrokes, and different style of striking on FH and BH that cant be effective as the current one..also if you are able to be fair you can easily see that roger's technigue is really really unique and best..

the things that are shown good even better than modern era are services and volleys

If armed with wooden or metal racquets of past eras, legends like Laver and Gonzales (assuming in their respective primes) would have a considerable advantage on today's players, because the power of their opponents would be stifled and the small game of the old-timers would take control.

Today a nifty slice hit at an angle with the intent to get the opponent to come in is nothing but an occasional trick shot - a surprise tactic. In the days of Rosewall, for example, it was something that was done regularly to force the opponent to hustle and volley. Today this is mostly avoided, because guys aren't comfortable volleying. What we see instead are occasional drop shots, most of which have a really poor success rate, because if an opponent catches up to a drop shot the initiator doesn't have the net skills to respond effectively.

Graphite eliminates all of these little nuances and keeps players on the baseline exchanging missiles back and forth. But take these racquets away from them and you'll be amazed just how human these players are and how little they would be able to do with smaller, heavy woodies. It's amazing just how few players today can hit a basic volley or an effective slice or an accurate lob. A lob used to be an essential shot at a time when passing shots didn't suffice.

Quite recently I had an exchange on here with a poster who compared tennis and baseball and we had a general agreement that baseball remained basically the same over the years. There was a time when there was some fear that baseball would go to alluminum bats, but wood is still being used. This was a concern, because the use of alluminum would mean that small ball would be dead. No more slap hitters, fewer expert bunters, no pure Tony Gwynn-type hitters. Power still went up due to the use of alluminum in college, though.

But tennis, unlike baseball, went ridiculously commercial by transforming racquets into silly toys with larger frames and strings allowing for greater control and power. The effect, in my opinion, can be compared to alluminum in baseball. Very few singles players who don't play doubles have a repertoire of shots beyond the big serve, the topspin forehand and backhand. Would they be as effective if forced to vary their strokes and come in and volley on occasion with a racquet that would produce a third of the passing shots they can normally generate with graphite? I don't think so.

And as for fitness you don't get much fitter than guys like Gonzales and Rosewall who played gruelling schedules and lasted in the game much longer than today's pros, all the while making much less money and tolerating awful airplane seating.

 

[CyBorg]

yet, ı do not agree that all my points are nonsense...ı still claim that modern players are better than pre-moderns..because they were not totally proffesional and thats a fact..

That's not a fact. That doesn't even make sense. Do you even know what 'professional' means? Do you know what 'amateur' means?

so let me ask you if you would make poll with tennis fans, current players, legend players, or tennis experts ( you look at me as a child its normal )..who gonna be shown as the greatest?

I can't say. Most historians do say Laver, this is quite well documented.

 

[dpfrazier]

Equipment "improvements" can actually reduce the amount of skill needed to play the game at a high level.

For example, in both golf and tennis, the precision necessary to play with yesterday's equipment hasn't been developed by the current generation of players.

Golf balls have been engineered to reduce spin, so shots that were once vicious slices/hooks now only curve slightly and don't end up in as much trouble. Golf clubs now have huge sweet spots and gear-effect corrections built-in, so now shots can be hit on the heel/toe and still fly far and straight.

In tennis, of course the racquets are substantially different from those in the pre-Open era. Larger racquet heads, much larger sweet spots; lighter weight, with much more maneuverability; and better flex and torsion characteristics. And strings can be tailored to achieved the desired level of power, control, and spin.

So just as it would be interesting to see current golfers play the old timers with balata balls, traditional forged irons, and actual wood "woods", it would also be interesting to see today's baseline bashers take on Laver or Gonzales in their primes with a wood racquet.

I would bet on the old guys!

P.S. Looks like CyBorg and I were thinking along the same lines...

 

[CyBorg]

Equipment "improvements" can actually reduce the amount of skill needed to play the game at a high level.

For example, in both golf and tennis, the precision necessary to play with yesterday's equipment hasn't been developed by the current generation of players.

Golf balls have been engineered to reduce spin, so shots that were once vicious slices/hooks now only curve slightly and don't end up in as much trouble. Golf clubs now have huge sweet spots and gear-effect corrections built-in, so now shots can be hit on the heel/toe and still fly far and straight.

In tennis, of course the racquets are substantially different from those in the pre-Open era. Larger racquet heads, much larger sweet spots; lighter weight, with much more maneuverability; and better flex and torsion characteristics. And strings can be tailored to achieved the desired level of power, control, and spin.

So just as it would be interesting to see current golfers play the old timers with balata balls, traditional forged irons, and actual wood "woods", it would also be interesting to see today's baseline bashers take on Laver or Gonzales in their primes with a wood racquet.

I would bet on the old guys!

P.S. Looks like CyBorg and I were thinking along the same lines...

This is all commercialism. Equipment is designed to please the consuming masses. It is made easier to handle, more adaptable for the average Joe to feel like he can 'play like the pros'.

But it's ruining professional tennis. We have two guys at the top of the rankings right now who transcend eras, in my opinion, in Federer and Nadal. Both of them have multidimensional games in spite these facts. But the rest of the tour borders on sheer rubbish. The grass court specialist is dead. The clay court specialist is dead. There is basically just one type of player for every surface. Serves and forehands. That's it.

 

[dpfrazier]

This is all commercialism. Equipment is designed to please the consuming masses. It is made easier to handle, more adaptable for the average Joe to feel like he can 'play like the pros'.

But it's ruining professional tennis. We have two guys at the top of the rankings right now who transcend eras, in my opinion, in Federer and Nadal. Both of them have multidimensional games in spite these facts. But the rest of the tour borders on sheer rubbish. The grass court specialist is dead. The clay court specialist is dead. There is basically just one type of player for every surface. Serves and forehands. That's it.

True, the primary motivation for equipment changes is commercial and targeted at consumers. But the pros take advantage of and adapt to the new equipment as well, as we've both pointed out.

Your baseball bat example is a great one. Kudos to MLB for sticking with wood bats, or baseball fields would be obsoleted just like golf courses have been.

If the current pace of tennis equipment evolution continues, perhaps we will have to take the direction that golf has and change the playing field to counteract the improvements in equipment. Golf courses have been lengthened and/or tightened; tennis courts could be made bigger or smaller, or the net height could be raised or lowered. I haven't given it enough thought to know which directions to go, though...!

 

[CyBorg]

True, the primary motivation for equipment changes is commercial and targeted at consumers. But the pros take advantage of and adapt to the new equipment as well, as we've both pointed out.

Certainly. Sadly the players little to no incentive to learn to play a complete game. But that's human nature - they are the byproducts of the factory.

Nadal has an old-school type of upbringing. Taught almost entirely by his family. Kind of like Kenny Rosewall was. Developing a unique approach to the game with strong values and hard work. This is why he destroys today's clones so easily.

 

[sheq]

That's not a fact. That doesn't even make sense. Do you even know what 'professional' means? Do you know what 'amateur' means?



I can't say. Most historians do say Laver, this is quite well documented.

yea ı am sure that all the historians would consider laver as the greatest no doubt but here is an advise for you get rid of this historical points of view for tennis and add some other aspects in your evaluations

also, ı know the difference between professional and amateur..but you should know the difference if something is done with paid it brings competition to sport..and where the competition occurs the things improve

and just read it '' Many tennis critics, legendary players, and current players consider him the greatest tennis player ever. ''

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roger_Federer

 

[sheq]

This is all commercialism. Equipment is designed to please the consuming masses. It is made easier to handle, more adaptable for the average Joe to feel like he can 'play like the pros'.

But it's ruining professional tennis. We have two guys at the top of the rankings right now who transcend eras, in my opinion, in Federer and Nadal. Both of them have multidimensional games in spite these facts. But the rest of the tour borders on sheer rubbish. The grass court specialist is dead. The clay court specialist is dead. There is basically just one type of player for every surface. Serves and forehands. That's it.

'The grass court specialist is dead' is accaptable.. because the serve and volley game is dead..and nobody can use it effectively..

The clay court specialist is dead.. ı wonder whats your argument making you do this comment..if nadal is not a specialist who is ?..havent you ever heard what borh said for nadal or what vilas said..

and the main question is this why people underestimate the greatness of roger and nadal..ı know you are fewer than who overestimates them..

 

[Q&M son]

Anyone who states that any pre-Open Era player or any player we have not seen extensively on video cannot be GOAT may not comment on the GOAT.

There, take that for your silly, indefensible, arbitrary opinions.

Well done buddy!

 

[akv89]

Here's a link to a small video snippet of the famed Don Budge backhand along with a short article about him:
http://www.tennisplayer.net/public/champions/Ed_Atkinson_Don_Budge_samplearticle.html

 

[urban]

This wikipedia article on Federer is a joke.Just read the citated quotations on Federer's greatness. They begin with Federer's own webside: Ask Roger! Actually no quotation besides Ferrer says, that Federer is the greatest player ever, but that he might become it and so on.

 

[sheq]

This wikipedia article on Federer is a joke.Just read the citated quotations on Federer's greatness. They begin with Federer's own webside: Ask Roger! Actually no quotation besides Ferrer says, that Federer is the greatest player ever, but that he might become it and so on.

only ferrer why are you trying to be ridicilous...ok lets start...have you have heard what nadal, djokovic, murray ( the current top players ), sampras, wilander, borg, laver, agassi ( the legends ), almost all the polls on the web or tv, and so many tennis critics have said for roger... if you havent tell me ı will give you all the links and quotations..

but afterward you will have to confirm that at least many people think roger is the best ever..ok not everyone should think like that..but saying not many people think so requries to be blind

 

[urban]

Please give me exact quotations of experts (not fans), that Federer IS the greatest ever - besides actual players like Murray who just lost to him. Without precaution notes: He is the greatest ever; not might become or has the talent to become or if he wins that and that, he will be. I haven't seen them, even not in Rogers fanbases.

 

[asafi2]

Please give me exact quotations of experts (not fans), that Federer IS the greatest ever - besides actual players like Murray who just lost to him. Without precaution notes: He is the greatest ever; not might become or has the talent to become or if he wins that and that, he will be. I haven't seen them, even not in Rogers fanbases.

Well...you asked for it...

"I thought Ellsworth Vines and Don Budge were pretty good. And Gonzalez and Hoad could play a bit, too, but I have never seen anyone play the game better than Federer. He serves well and has a great half-volley. I've never known anyone who can do as many things on a court as he can. " - Jack Kramer his quote from The Observer on Sunday June 24 2007

"He's an artist on this surface. He can stay back. He can come in. No weaknesses. Federer could win Wimbledon six, seven, eight times. He can play on any kind of surface, he is so complete. And if he continues the way he has been doing and stays away from injuries and still has the motivation, he will be the greatest player ever. I think the motivation is the key thing and he has the motivation to continue to play for another three or five years." - Borg

"He's the most gifted player that I've ever seen in my life. I've seen a lot of people play. I've seen the (Rod) Lavers, I played against some of the great players—the Samprases, Beckers, Connors', Borgs, you name it. This guy could be the greatest of all time. That, to me, says it all. " - John McEnroe from the USTA website

"He's probably the greatest player that ever lived." - John McEnroe, BBC Wimbledon 2006 live broadcast.

"Oh, I would be honoured to even be compared to Roger. He is such an unbelievable talent, and is capable of anything. Roger could be the greatest tennis player of all time." - Rod Laver

"He's the best I've ever played against. There's nowhere to go. There's nothing to do except hit fairways, hit greens and make putts. Every shot has that sort of urgency on it. I've played a lot of them (other players), so many years, there's a safety zone, there's a place to get to, there's something to focus on, there's a way. Anything you try to do, he potentially has an answer for and it's just a function of when he starts pulling the triggers necessary to get you to change to that decision." - Andre Agassi 2005 US Open

"We have a guy from Switzerland who is just playing the game a way I haven't seen anyone—and I mean anyone—play before. How fortunate we are to be able to see that. If he stays healthy and motivated—and the wonderful feel he has stays with him—he is the kind of guy who can overtake the greatest." - Boris Becker

"I'd like to be in his shoes for one day to know what it feels like to play that way." - Mats Wilander

"Roger Federer is the most talented tennis player I have ever seen. He has the capacity to become the greatest in history." - Nick Bollettieri

And those are just from tennis greats...