If the big 3 had played in the 60s...

[Spencer Gore]

We all know tennis was a very different game back in the 60s and early 70s, and it is very difficult to compare eras due to the amateur/pro situation, but here are some intriguing statistics:

If the big 3 had missed the seasons that Laver missed -at the same age- these are the respective slams they would have won -

LAVER -11 slams, 6 times R-U
3 Australian Opens
2 French Opens
4 Wimbledons
2 US Opens

2 Calendar Year Grand Slams
Career Grand Slam

FEDERER -6 slams, 4 times R-U
2 Australian Opens
0 French Opens
3 Wimbledons
1 US Open

0 Calendar Year Grand Slams
No Career Grand Slam

NADAL -11 slams 3 times R-U
1 Australian Open
6 French Opens
2 Wimbledons
2 US Opens

0 Calendar year Grand Slams
Career Grand Slam

DJOKOVIC 4 slams, 2 times R-U
2 Australian Opens
0 French Opens
1 Wimbledon
1 US Open

0 Calendar year Grand Slams
No career Grand Slam


Interesting...

 

[Deleted member 307496]

Please stop posting.

 

[EdSWright]

There you have it - the smoking gun. I am especially taken by the unquestionable sanity and good use of time behind it.

How about we get an injunction to stop the WTF based on the finalists being out of sync with Laver's playing age in the 60s?

 

[Spencer Gore]

There you have it - the smoking gun. I am especially taken by the unquestionable sanity and good use of time behind it.

How about we get an injunction to stop the WTF based on the finalists being out of sync with Laver's playing age in the 60s?

Well, it's not a smoking gun. Just some fun, but intriguing stats. It really shows how seriously Laver suffered in the all-time stakes by missing out for five of his prime years.

 

[EdSWright]

Well, it's not a smoking gun. Just some fun, but intriguing stats. It really shows how seriously Laver suffered in the all-time stakes by missing out for five of his prime years.

You raised Laver as an illustration of why eras are different and cannot be compared, then used his situation to compare eras, proposing it as evidence of your same, tiresome point.

Here's the only valid comparison: the 60s era was what it was; the current era is what it is.

 

[Antonio Puente]

You raised Laver as an illustration of why eras are different and cannot be compared, then used his situation to compare eras

And?

It's TTW? What the hell.

 

[Spencer Gore]

You raised Laver as an illustration of why eras are different and cannot be compared, then used his situation to compare eras, proposing it as evidence of your same, tiresome point.

Here's the only valid comparison: the 60s era was what it was; the current era is what it is.

You guys need to stop taking yourself so seriously.

 

[True Fanerer]

 

[Federer and Del Potro]

It's honestly actually incredible how your threads manage to get more and more nonsensical.

 

[NoleFam]

Nadal winning 11 Slams back in the 60s to match Laver with a wooden racket? Winning 5 Slams between AO, Wimbledon and USO which all would have been played on grass? There is nothing about Nadal's game that translates to that era to give an indication that he would dominate in that way, especially with those huge swings, and he is not even the best grasscourt player of his era. Clearly, Federer's game is more adaptable to that era than Nadal's.

 

[Meles]

Well, it's not a smoking gun. Just some fun, but intriguing stats. It really shows how seriously Laver suffered in the all-time stakes by missing out for five of his prime years.

http://www.ultimatetennisstatistics.com/goatList
Check extrapolate career and weep.

 

[metsman]

Nadal is definitely winning 4 slams on super slick grass with a wood racket...

 

[Federer and Del Potro]

If Spencer Gore keeps this up in this current TTW era

300 posts
40 deleted threads
1 permanent ban

We all know TTW was very different back in the days, but these are my surefire extrapolated statistics.

 

[Deleted member 688153]

http://www.ultimatetennisstatistics.com/goatList
Check extrapolate career and weep.

Okay who made that lol

 

[dh003i]

That is one way to do it, but any methodology that drops Federer to 6 Majors, Djokovic to 4 and puts Nadal at 11 hs to be looked at with skepticism.

How about adding Laver's Professional Majors such as Wembley, the US Pro, and the French Pro, to his totals? That brings him to 19 Majors, the same as Federer.

I think by that standard Roy Emerson might have had 23.

We all know tennis was a very different game back in the 60s and early 70s, and it is very difficult to compare eras due to the amateur/pro situation, but here are some intriguing statistics:

If the big 3 had missed the seasons that Laver missed -at the same age- these are the respective slams they would have won -

LAVER -11 slams, 6 times R-U
3 Australian Opens
2 French Opens
4 Wimbledons
2 US Opens

2 Calendar Year Grand Slams
Career Grand Slam

FEDERER -6 slams, 4 times R-U
2 Australian Opens
0 French Opens
3 Wimbledons
1 US Open

0 Calendar Year Grand Slams
No Career Grand Slam

NADAL -11 slams 3 times R-U
1 Australian Open
6 French Opens
2 Wimbledons
2 US Opens

0 Calendar year Grand Slams
Career Grand Slam

DJOKOVIC 4 slams, 2 times R-U
2 Australian Opens
0 French Opens
1 Wimbledon
1 US Open

0 Calendar year Grand Slams
No career Grand Slam


Interesting...

 

[Backspin1183]

Nadal is definitely winning 4 slams on super slick grass with a wood racket...

You never know. He may have turned out to be a grass court serve and volley specialist in the 60s and not that great on clay.

 

[Backspin1183]

We all know tennis was a very different game back in the 60s and early 70s, and it is very difficult to compare eras due to the amateur/pro situation, but here are some intriguing statistics:

If the big 3 had missed the seasons that Laver missed -at the same age- these are the respective slams they would have won -

LAVER -11 slams, 6 times R-U
3 Australian Opens
2 French Opens
4 Wimbledons
2 US Opens

2 Calendar Year Grand Slams
Career Grand Slam

FEDERER -6 slams, 4 times R-U
2 Australian Opens
0 French Opens
3 Wimbledons
1 US Open

0 Calendar Year Grand Slams
No Career Grand Slam

NADAL -11 slams 3 times R-U
1 Australian Open
6 French Opens
2 Wimbledons
2 US Opens

0 Calendar year Grand Slams
Career Grand Slam

DJOKOVIC 4 slams, 2 times R-U
2 Australian Opens
0 French Opens
1 Wimbledon
1 US Open

0 Calendar year Grand Slams
No career Grand Slam


Interesting...

Spencer, why give Nadal only 11 Slams? How can you have so much hate for Rafa?

 

[Newballs]

We all know tennis was a very different game back in the 60s and early 70s, and it is very difficult to compare eras due to the amateur/pro situation, but here are some intriguing statistics:

If the big 3 had missed the seasons that Laver missed -at the same age- these are the respective slams they would have won -

LAVER -11 slams, 6 times R-U
3 Australian Opens
2 French Opens
4 Wimbledons
2 US Opens

2 Calendar Year Grand Slams
Career Grand Slam

FEDERER -6 slams, 4 times R-U
2 Australian Opens
0 French Opens
3 Wimbledons
1 US Open

0 Calendar Year Grand Slams
No Career Grand Slam

NADAL -11 slams 3 times R-U
1 Australian Open
6 French Opens
2 Wimbledons
2 US Opens

0 Calendar year Grand Slams
Career Grand Slam

DJOKOVIC 4 slams, 2 times R-U
2 Australian Opens
0 French Opens
1 Wimbledon
1 US Open

0 Calendar year Grand Slams
No career Grand Slam


Interesting...

I’m so pleased that you went with the big 3, that made me happy, beyond that the post is crap

 

[TheGhostOfAgassi]

 

[Deleted member 77403]

Nadal winning 11 Slams back in the 60s to match Laver with a wooden racket? Winning 5 Slams between AO, Wimbledon and USO which all would have been played on grass? There is nothing about Nadal's game that translates to that era to give an indication that he would dominate in that way, especially with those huge swings, and he is not even the best grasscourt player of his era. Clearly, Federer's game is more adaptable to that era than Nadal's.

Lets take into account not just the advances in technology, but also in sport science, nutrition. One of the biggest reasons why Nadal's knees have not ended his career is because of the better treatment methods. Put him in 60s with his bad knees, and none of that medical support and it will be a completely different world.

 

[NoleFam]

Lets take into account not just the advances in technology, but also in sport science, nutrition. One of the biggest reasons why Nadal's knees have not ended his career is because of the better treatment methods. Put him in 60s with his bad knees, and none of that medical support and it will be a completely different world.

Very true. Compounded by the fact that the bounce on the grass was lower back then compared to now. We already know that Nadal doesn't like lower bounce surfaces and 3 of 4 Slams would play this way with his bad knees. That is not a good formula.

 

[Poisoned Slice]

It's honestly actually incredible how your threads manage to get more and more nonsensical.

 

[Charlie]

Nadal the only one of the Big 3 accomplishing the Career Slam...

 

[merlinpinpin]

The point is moot, anyway. If the three had played in the 60"s, Federer and Djokovic would have slugged it out with the pros and Nadal would have played on the amateur tour so he could vulture the slams without having to face the top players--par for the course.

 

[NatF]

If the Big 3 had played in the 60's our OP Spencer Gore would have surely never seen any of them play - contrary to what he tries to tell everyone

 

[Spencer Gore]

The stats prove how damaging losing five years of your peak career is to everyone's overall achievement. Federer won 13 of his slams during the same age period when Laver was ineligible.

That's why talk of ANY of the big 3 being GOAT due to slam count is nonsense.

 

[Maestroesque]

NADAL -11 slams 3 times R-U
1 Australian Open
6 French Opens
2 Wimbledons
2 US Opens

.

Love how, even when Nadal is in the hypothetical lead most of his GS wins still come on clay...

 

[Fedforever]

Borg is the GOAT. 11 GS titles in 8 years. Clearly if he had carried on for the next 8 years he would have won 22. That seems like sound statistical reasoning to me.