How many slams could laver have won...

[dominikk1985]

...if he hadn't turned pro?

Laver won 11 GS, but his career was disrupted because he turned pro and pros weren't allowed until 68.

Laver won the grand slam in 62 and then missed five full seasons. In 69 he won the slam again at age 30. If a player dominates and then comes back to dominate again at age 30 there is no reason to believe that he couldn't have dominated in between, isn't it?

I'm not suggesting that he would have won the slam five times to win 31 slams, but I think 2 slams a years wouldn't have been too unreasonable.

so based on that calculation laver could have won 21 slams. do you think that is reasonable?


Everyone is talking sampras vs roger, but shouldn't lave be the goat? I mean he won the slam 2 times (rog and pete couldn't do it once-BTW rafa also not-just said so that the pete-,rafa-, and rogertards stay home and don't make stupid hater accusation posts) and did that with 5 years in between. he was also robbed of a lot of slams. You could make a case that this outweighs the extra slams of pete an rog (esp. if some people rank seles ahead of graf based on "what if").

 

[krosero]

Laver himself was asked this question right after the '08 Wimbledon final (and other times). He pointed out that if he had been able to play the Slams, well he's in there, but so is Kenny, so is Pancho, so is Lew. And they would be sharing Slams among them.

So it's complicated, because it's much more than a question of taking Laver's career as an individual and adding Slams to it. With everybody playing in '62, it's likely he would not have won his calendar Grand Slam, for one. But trying to imagine not just how Laver's career would have changed, but how a whole community of champions would have faced off against each other in the late 50s and 60s, well who knows what it would have looked like. It would have been a dynamic scene, and plenty of unpredictable things would have happened (as they do today).

 

[urban]

Laver won 11 out of 19 majors played in the 60s. You have basically two options and scenarios, if you want to change history:
1 Laver remains amateur until 1968 like Emerson did. He would have won majors umpteen times, other option: maybe bored to death he would retire around 1965.
2 Ther is no amateur-pro split, open tennis has arrived around 1958. Maybe Laver would have won not 6 majors until 1962, but around 3 or 4 i think he would have won any way with all pros in the field. Biggest rival would be Rosewall, Gonzalez slowly fades away, and Hoad would be a quite inconsistent factor (regarding bid draw conditions at majors). Between 1964 and 1967 Laver was in his prime, and i think, he would have won around at least 10-11 out of 16 in that time frame.

 

[pc1]

Laver himself was asked this question right after the '08 Wimbledon final (and other times). He pointed out that if he had been able to play the Slams, well he's in there, but so is Kenny, so is Pancho, so is Lew. And they would be sharing Slams among them.

So it's complicated, because it's much more than a question of taking Laver's career as an individual and adding Slams to it. With everybody playing in '62, it's likely he would not have won his calendar Grand Slam, for one. But trying to imagine not just how Laver's career would have changed, but how a whole community of champions would have faced off against each other in the late 50s and 60s, well who knows what it would have looked like. It would have been a dynamic scene, and plenty of unpredictable things would have happened (as they do today).

It's a lot of conjecture as you pointed out. I think Hoodjem also mentioned that if Open tennis was always around, perhaps Laver would have been a better player than he actually was in 1962 and all bets would have been off.

My general feeling is that Laver, when he turned Pro in 1963 played in the highest possible competition available. He played Rosewall, Hoad, Gimeno, Segura, Sedgman, Trabert, Cooper, Anderson, and a little later Pancho Gonzalez. This is a lineup of legends. Laver had to learn to improve his almost superb game to cope with the great competition.

So I do think that if Open Tennis was around starting in 1964 (giving Laver a chance to become greater) that it's very possible Laver would have won another Grand Slam, especially considering three of the four slams were on grass. It would be extremely tough with Rosewall around who was the best clay court player in the world (with Laver the second best) and the second best grass court player, maybe even the best grass court player in some years.

I think Rosewall would have won a Grand Slam also and perhaps Gonzalez somewhere.

 

[hoodjem]

Tough call. I believe the estimates are circa 19. (Yes Muscles might have a GS; probably also Pancho in the 50s.)

 

[CyBorg]

He's the best.

 

[dominikk1985]

Shouldn't he still not be considered the GOAT even if he had won "only" 15 or so?

IMO those 2 GS is more worth than the extra slams of pete and rog. I'm not hating on those guys, esp. Rog is an awesome player, but I think those 2 GSs is even more impressive.

 

[urban]

Its certainly not all about sheer numbers of majors won. For instance, what is more worth: a greater number of majors over a long distance, or a more condensed block of success over a shorter period? I would see Federer as a candidate for all time greatness even more for his block of success in the years 2004-2007 (including majors, masters wins, tour wins, number one position), than for the sheer number of 16 major wins. And lets not forget, that many candidates as Tilden Budge, Gonzalez or Rosewall (and Laver) couldn't participate or hadn't even the chance to participate on the majors schedule, as the modern players from 1985 or so can do.

 

[Devilito]

I don’t think you can start using majors as a basis for GOAT until about the mid 90s. Up until the 90s most top players wouldn’t even play Australia. Some fast court players would skip the French and some clay courters would skip Wimbledon. Majors just weren’t as “major” as they are now. Heck, you couldn’t even get TV coverage for Australia and the French Open most years.

 

[TMF]

This is all speculation. Sure, you can argue Laver would have won more slam had he got more chance to play, but can also argue would he have won 11 if both amateur & pro competing at the slam during his entire career. Also would he have won that much if there were 3 surfaces to conquer. The point is Laver missed some years but at the same time the standard in the 60s was lower than today, so it canceled out.

The speculation can be use for Fed and Sampras too. How much they would have won if the slams in their era was played only on grass and hc, and divided into two circuits(amateur/pro).

Saying Laver would have won 19 slams is no different than saying Fed would have won 21 slams by now(given only 2 surfaces to conquer).

I think people are giving Laver more credit than he deserve but low-ball the modern tennis.

 

[pc1]

This is all speculation. Sure, you can argue Laver would have won more slam had he got more chance to play, but can also argue would he have won 11 if both amateur & pro competing at the slam during his entire career. Also would he have won that much if there were 3 surfaces to conquer. The point is Laver missed some years but at the same time the standard in the 60s was lower than today, so it canceled out.

The speculation can be use for Fed and Sampras too. How much they would have won if the slams in their era was played only on grass and hc, and divided into two circuits(amateur/pro).

Saying Laver would have won 19 slams is no different than saying Fed would have won 21 slams by now(given only 2 surfaces to conquer).

I think people are giving Laver more credit than he deserve but low-ball the modern tennis.

TMF,

I don't think they are giving Laver more credit in this circumstance. It's just a fact that the best players, the top Pros of the time weren't allowed to play the majors. Laver is interesting in that he won the Amateur Grand Slam in 1962 and it's probable he would not have come close to doing that if the top players like Rosewall played. Laver won the Open Grand Slam over everyone in 1969. He also won the Pro Grand Slam over the top players. It's interesting to speculate here because Laver would probably have lost some majors in the years he won them and may have won majors in other years he was banned from playing them if Open Tennis was around.

You can also speculate that if Open Tennis was always around Laver may have be competitive with greats like Rosewall, Hoad and Gonzalez much earlier.

So many of the amateurs who won majors weren't near the best, like Ashley Cooper or Mal Anderson. Who were the likely winners?

It's all "what if" but it is fun to look at the possible outcomes if Open Tennis was around. Laver is the most interesting to look at in this scenario because he won Grand Slams as an amateur, Pro and during Open Tennis.

 

[Mustard]

Laver won 6 slams when he was an amateur and professionals like Gonzales, Rosewall etc. weren't playing.

We have no way of knowing for sure how Laver would have done in a complete open era situation. 1962 was Rosewall at his best on the pro circuit, and Laver won the amateur CYGS in the absence of pros like Rosewall and Gonzales.

 

[kiki]

Laver won 11 out of 19 majors played in the 60s. You have basically two options and scenarios, if you want to change history:
1 Laver remains amateur until 1968 like Emerson did. He would have won majors umpteen times, other option: maybe bored to death he would retire around 1965.
2 Ther is no amateur-pro split, open tennis has arrived around 1958. Maybe Laver would have won not 6 majors until 1962, but around 3 or 4 i think he would have won any way with all pros in the field. Biggest rival would be Rosewall, Gonzalez slowly fades away, and Hoad would be a quite inconsistent factor (regarding bid draw conditions at majors). Between 1964 and 1967 Laver was in his prime, and i think, he would have won around at least 10-11 out of 16 in that time frame.

16 is a pretty safe assumption.Since his 5 years of non open tennis matched also his top form ( 24-29 years old).But it wouldn´t have been easy winning the french against Rosewall,Santana,Emmo or Gimeno, or any of the 3 grass court GS against Pancho, a top form Hoad, a top form Emmo, Fraser,Stolle...

 

[pc1]

16 is a pretty safe assumption.Since his 5 years of non open tennis matched also his top form ( 24-29 years old).But it wouldn´t have been easy winning the french against Rosewall,Santana,Emmo or Gimeno, or any of the 3 grass court GS against Pancho, a top form Hoad, a top form Emmo, Fraser,Stolle...

It's always tough to figure since the tennis climate today is also far different from even when Open Tennis started. Laver and Rosewall didn't play as many majors as they could have even after Open Tennis. There were some boycotts and they often didn't play the majors for various reasons. I think this is true of Connors, Borg and McEnroe among others. Now everyone plays the majors.

 

[kiki]

I don´t think there can be any reasonable doubt that if the USO or Ao was played on hard during Laver´s days, he´d still emerge as the dominating player he was.He won many hard court or indoor court WCT events against the toughest field that one can pit in an event.His game matched superbly the requirements to dominate on those surfaces.Such enormous was his talent, and so great his winning focus and tactichal sense.He beat Rosewall at the french playing Rosewall´s game, and next month dispatched Newk at Wimbledon, excelling at newk´s own game.True genious is whta that is called in my neighborhood.

 

[dominikk1985]

This is all speculation. Sure, you can argue Laver would have won more slam had he got more chance to play, but can also argue would he have won 11 if both amateur & pro competing at the slam during his entire career. Also would he have won that much if there were 3 surfaces to conquer. The point is Laver missed some years but at the same time the standard in the 60s was lower than today, so it canceled out.

The speculation can be use for Fed and Sampras too. How much they would have won if the slams in their era was played only on grass and hc, and divided into two circuits(amateur/pro).

Saying Laver would have won 19 slams is no different than saying Fed would have won 21 slams by now(given only 2 surfaces to conquer).

I think people are giving Laver more credit than he deserve but low-ball the modern tennis.

Aren't you one of the frontrunners in all those seles vs graf threads?

 

[TMF]

Aren't you one of the frontrunners in all those seles vs graf threads?

No, I'm more interested in a Seles vs. Serena.

Joe Pike and Bottomfeeder are the frontrunner. samboy01 too but he got banned.

 

[NadalAgassi]

Laver would not have won nearly as many slams in the early 60s and would definitely not have won the Grand Slam in 1962 if it was Open tennis then. People only talk about what he would gain but not what he would lose. On the whole he would probably come out with more, but not as much as some think, and would he even still have 2 Calendar Slams or just his 69 one in that case? Maybe he is better off how it turned out.

 

[timnz]

Earlier Peak

My view is that Laver would have peaked earlier if open tennis had been around for all his career. He was 24 when he completed the Amateur Grand Slam in late 1962. And then he was nearly 26 before he won his first Pro Slam tournament. Hence, given the fact that great players are normally showing great stuff much earlier - he might have got to top form in 1960/1961 given full competition. He still would have been able to hold his form at the top level until he was 32/33 (which is what happened - around mid 1971 his form started to trail off). Hence, I believe he would have got more - but maybe not as many as people think. I am thinking around 16. He would have got 2 Calendar Grand Slams as his peak was around 1967 on top of the one he got in 1969.

 

[abmk]

^^

Would he ? considering :

1. 1967 French Pro was on wood and if it was open tennis, FO would played on clay at RG.

2. rosewall beat him at RG in 68 as well and was better on clay in 67 and 68 than in 69 final where he didn't play all that well ( from what I've read anyways )

3. possibility of an upset exists because of a deeper field

 

[urban]

Laver won the important pro majors on clay in 1967 as well. Oklahoma Wold Champs of Tennis was the most important clay pro event of the year. His pro hth record against Rosewall on clay between 1963 and 1967 is by all accounts i have positive.

 

[abmk]

Laver won the important pro majors on clay in 1967 as well. Oklahoma Wold Champs of Tennis was the most important clay pro event of the year. His pro hth record against Rosewall on clay between 1963 and 1967 is by all accounts i have positive.

the list of their matches on clay in that period and the source(s) ?

Either ways facing Rosewall on clay at RG in 67 would definitely have been tougher than in 69 , even for the younger laver

 

[urban]

Main Sources: Joe McCauley, History of Professional tennis. Buy the book, and read it.

 

[timnz]

1968 French Pro

^^

Would he ? considering :

1. 1967 French Pro was on wood and if it was open tennis, FO would played on clay at RG.

2. rosewall beat him at RG in 68 as well and was better on clay in 67 and 68 than in 69 final where he didn't play all that well ( from what I've read anyways )

3. possibility of an upset exists because of a deeper field

Laver won the 1968 French Pro just after Wimbledon. From what I have heard it had a deeper field (more top players) than the French Open that year, even though it has lesser numbers overall.

 

[Deleted member 21996]

Laver won more than 11 slams. doubles is tennis too!