WARNING: This is VERY long but very serious
I had written a 6 page paper on this topic but apparently deleted it (lack of interest). So I will write another 6 pages on this topic.
I find it interesting that people keep having this "GOAT" arguing. I find it entertaining yet absolutely ********.
The concept of a GOAT is impossible. I will save everyone the trouble of using wikipedia to look up players from 1930 and will only talk about Rod Laver for a bit.
Laver and Federer are the only two players that should even be discussed when talking about the "greatest of all time".
Rod Laver won the "calendar slam" in 1969. Let us take a trip back to 1969 and look at that year. It is very important to note that although Laver won all four majors in 1969 he never won a slam after that. Having done vast research on the history of tennis we run into very specific roadblocks that make this "GOAT" concept very difficult. The first is airfare.
Transport: First we need to understand the history of transportation and why this is such an important factor for this conversation. Back in 1960-1970 air travel was a luxury usually reserved for the wealthy and businessman predominately traveled to meetings of large corporations. Air fare was very expensive and for someone like Rod Laver, flying to NYC, London and Paris was a big ask, even for one year. Historically, we can see that most players before 1990 players closer to their home tournaments and the vast majority of players did not attend the Australian Open. Due to financial strain the tournaments (like the AOpen) started paying players to actually show up and compete. Even this was difficult as the pay was very low (due to lack of corporate backing) and dealing with jet lag. Laver has gone on record saying that many people did not bother with the "majors" as players back then did not have "careers" since they were mainly amateur players. The concept of the professional tour took some time to catch-on and that had to do with corporate backing. Air fare SLOWLY became more affordable over the decades which saw more players showing up at tournaments.
Show me the money: From 1967 back into the 1800’s the concept of prize money at a tournament was unheard of. Would you pay to fly all over the world to compete in tournaments that you might win a trophy for? You would go broke. Prize money was introduced in 1968 and it was very little. In 1969 the prize money at Wimbledon was $3,342 USD (converted) and with inflation that is $21,213 (up 534%). That means by today’s standards Rod Laver would have received a check for $21,000 (remember that the cost of living and inflation has already been taken into account). The 2013 prize money at Wimbledon was 2.67 million dollars. Although the numbers are not identical, here is a breakdown; if Federer was to win all four majors in 2013 he would receive 10.6 million dollars, Rod Laver received $84,852 for his calendar slam. Money and nothing more is what has driven tennis forward. With corporate sponsorships and tennis academies springing up around the world we saw the sport grow larger and larger. As this happened tennis began to reach new countries like Serbia and Croatia. Any aspiring star would train hard to potentially win tens of millions of dollars, but to win tens of thousands of dollars (as your peak income)? Laver did not play for the money, it was a joke. He played because he loved tennis and wanted to compete. If you really do not have much on the line there is no reason to train and fight so hard to win. Money is what changed tennis. Giant stadiums were built. New events were created to attract more people. Above all else, tennis is a business and its main goal if profit.
The prestige: Although tennis first started back in the 1500’s the concept of the Grand Slam events was not established until 1925. This alone means that the concept of a GOAT automatically excludes everyone before 1925. Wimbledon and the French, for example, were private tournaments until 1926 although dominated by French winners until 1947. We know that players did not take tennis very seriously before 1968 so anyone winning the calendar slam or winning many majors happened to have a good year or was a good player at one particular event. Max Decugis won 8 FO titles and reached 12 FO finals before the era of the slams. Don Budge and Rod Laver completed the calendar slams during the amateur era. If the open era concept is constricting the past due to complications then the discussion limits anyone prior to 1968. We start getting into the Connors/Borg era where players started to take the Pro tour seriously but were still earning small prize money. We land somewhere around 1978 when we start being able to find criteria for players attempting to actually covet grand slam titles and win a conceptual calendar slam. Finance still plays a huge deterrent as most players cannot afford to travel the world and compete in tournaments. Tennis is still for the rich..but things are slowly changing. As prize money grows and money pours into the sport of tennis through corporate backing we see the sport grow and with the concept of winning more money we see more new talents pouring into the Pro tour to make it big. 1978 until 2014 is only 36 years. These “grand slam” trophies and historical prestige is an illusion as we have been forced to dismiss nearly 500 years of tennis history or nearly 100 years of history at Wimbledon and other tournaments.
Even during 1969 Laver did not consider himself the GOAT, he simply says he had a good year. He did not even consider himself the best player in the world during 1969.
Laver interview –
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KlHhmp1UlSk
Wimbledon prize money history - http://www.wimbledon.com/en_GB/about_aeltc/201205091336574569863.html
I had written a 6 page paper on this topic but apparently deleted it (lack of interest). So I will write another 6 pages on this topic.
I find it interesting that people keep having this "GOAT" arguing. I find it entertaining yet absolutely ********.
The concept of a GOAT is impossible. I will save everyone the trouble of using wikipedia to look up players from 1930 and will only talk about Rod Laver for a bit.
Laver and Federer are the only two players that should even be discussed when talking about the "greatest of all time".
Rod Laver won the "calendar slam" in 1969. Let us take a trip back to 1969 and look at that year. It is very important to note that although Laver won all four majors in 1969 he never won a slam after that. Having done vast research on the history of tennis we run into very specific roadblocks that make this "GOAT" concept very difficult. The first is airfare.
Transport: First we need to understand the history of transportation and why this is such an important factor for this conversation. Back in 1960-1970 air travel was a luxury usually reserved for the wealthy and businessman predominately traveled to meetings of large corporations. Air fare was very expensive and for someone like Rod Laver, flying to NYC, London and Paris was a big ask, even for one year. Historically, we can see that most players before 1990 players closer to their home tournaments and the vast majority of players did not attend the Australian Open. Due to financial strain the tournaments (like the AOpen) started paying players to actually show up and compete. Even this was difficult as the pay was very low (due to lack of corporate backing) and dealing with jet lag. Laver has gone on record saying that many people did not bother with the "majors" as players back then did not have "careers" since they were mainly amateur players. The concept of the professional tour took some time to catch-on and that had to do with corporate backing. Air fare SLOWLY became more affordable over the decades which saw more players showing up at tournaments.
Show me the money: From 1967 back into the 1800’s the concept of prize money at a tournament was unheard of. Would you pay to fly all over the world to compete in tournaments that you might win a trophy for? You would go broke. Prize money was introduced in 1968 and it was very little. In 1969 the prize money at Wimbledon was $3,342 USD (converted) and with inflation that is $21,213 (up 534%). That means by today’s standards Rod Laver would have received a check for $21,000 (remember that the cost of living and inflation has already been taken into account). The 2013 prize money at Wimbledon was 2.67 million dollars. Although the numbers are not identical, here is a breakdown; if Federer was to win all four majors in 2013 he would receive 10.6 million dollars, Rod Laver received $84,852 for his calendar slam. Money and nothing more is what has driven tennis forward. With corporate sponsorships and tennis academies springing up around the world we saw the sport grow larger and larger. As this happened tennis began to reach new countries like Serbia and Croatia. Any aspiring star would train hard to potentially win tens of millions of dollars, but to win tens of thousands of dollars (as your peak income)? Laver did not play for the money, it was a joke. He played because he loved tennis and wanted to compete. If you really do not have much on the line there is no reason to train and fight so hard to win. Money is what changed tennis. Giant stadiums were built. New events were created to attract more people. Above all else, tennis is a business and its main goal if profit.
The prestige: Although tennis first started back in the 1500’s the concept of the Grand Slam events was not established until 1925. This alone means that the concept of a GOAT automatically excludes everyone before 1925. Wimbledon and the French, for example, were private tournaments until 1926 although dominated by French winners until 1947. We know that players did not take tennis very seriously before 1968 so anyone winning the calendar slam or winning many majors happened to have a good year or was a good player at one particular event. Max Decugis won 8 FO titles and reached 12 FO finals before the era of the slams. Don Budge and Rod Laver completed the calendar slams during the amateur era. If the open era concept is constricting the past due to complications then the discussion limits anyone prior to 1968. We start getting into the Connors/Borg era where players started to take the Pro tour seriously but were still earning small prize money. We land somewhere around 1978 when we start being able to find criteria for players attempting to actually covet grand slam titles and win a conceptual calendar slam. Finance still plays a huge deterrent as most players cannot afford to travel the world and compete in tournaments. Tennis is still for the rich..but things are slowly changing. As prize money grows and money pours into the sport of tennis through corporate backing we see the sport grow and with the concept of winning more money we see more new talents pouring into the Pro tour to make it big. 1978 until 2014 is only 36 years. These “grand slam” trophies and historical prestige is an illusion as we have been forced to dismiss nearly 500 years of tennis history or nearly 100 years of history at Wimbledon and other tournaments.
Even during 1969 Laver did not consider himself the GOAT, he simply says he had a good year. He did not even consider himself the best player in the world during 1969.
Laver interview –
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KlHhmp1UlSk
Wimbledon prize money history - http://www.wimbledon.com/en_GB/about_aeltc/201205091336574569863.html
Agassi and Borg.. AOpen, makes more sense now, right?
