Discussion in 'General Pro Player Discussion' started by downthewall, Jul 10, 2007.
What do you think? I think 5.5 at best.
Yup, Laver would probably win most 5.0 matches today. 5.5 would be questionable, since he's older and a little bit slower.
I was going to ask what the OP was smoking, assuming he was referring to Laver in his prime. I like your answer better, Granitechief. Good one!
LOL!! Great response granitecheif.
You're a moron downthewall!
Another excellent thread
What is todays 5.0 playing on wood racket and strings of those days? Maybe 3.0.
Man, that's hilarious. In the other thread you said he was maybe as good as a "club player" and had the "ugliest strokes ever". I'm glad to see he is now up to a 5.0/5.5 level.
You continue to build upon your great reputation.
didn't this thread just get pulled for it's stupidity. If not, it should.
Talent is never inferior in a different era. Laver has just as much if not more talent than most players on the tour this year. What differs between eras is the technology and knowledge about tennis. Give a 25 year old Laver the same training as any modern tennis player and he would be giving Federer a run for his money.
Agreed, there were nowhere near the number of tennis academies back in those days. Especially in Australia. Full-time coaches? Hah.
Also, there wasn't nearly as much money so very few players could afford to train full-time so you hardly ever saw beasts like Nadal on the court.
I saw Laver play in a doubles exhibition match about 6 years ago. I was quite impressed with him. He still had quite a wallop on his forehand.
I think people don't quite understand the concept of evolution. It doesn't mean that each generation is stronger than the next. Laver could beat your ass with nothing but that giant forearm of his. That thing was like a caveman's club.
It's not what I think, but what I know>>>> you know nothing!
This moronic thread reminds me of a scene from the movie Cobb. In the scene, Cobb and his ghost writer have journeyed to Reno I believe for an outing of gambling, drinking, and hooring. When they walk in the casino, Cobb is recognized and called to the stage. The MC begins to ask Cobb about the differences in the game between when he played and the current crop.
Louis Prima shakes hands with Ty Cobb and asks "I've always wanted to ask you something, Mr. Cobb, with all the great ballplayers playing right now -- how well do you think you'd do against today's players?"
Ty Cobb doesn't bat an eye and replies "Well, I figure against today's picthers I'd only hit about .275, .280..."
"That's amazing, Mr. Cobb," exclaims Louis Prima, "considering your lifetime average is nearly a hundred points higher. Why do you think you'd only hit .275 against today's pitchers?"
"Because I'm 72 f#&*ing years old, that's why, goddamn it."
Laver at his age could still do plenty of damage on the court. I know for sure that he'd beat me 6-0 6-0.
Perfect answer to a troll post.
Kind of reminds of another question regarding a sports legend of yesteryear:
"Do you think Babe Ruth would have hit 714 home runs today?"
"Probably not. He's been dead for over fifty years."
Yeah, that's probably about right. I mean he's in his mid 70's and has almost fully recovered from a pretty severe stroke. So I guess he'd probably be pretty competitive at 5.0 for sure.
Hummmm..........I wonder if he could beat you playing RIGHT handed?
P.S. Rocket is a lefty.
Just a question: Laver was 5' 8"- average by those day's standards, I guess, but damn near diminutive compared to today's players. That surely would give him a marked disadvantage on the serve?
Olivier Rochus for example, has amazing strokes, volleys, etc.... yet just can't serve decent to save his life, because of his height. How would Laver stack up to bigger players?
When Laver was a pro, it was illegal for your feet to leave the ground when you served. So, the pros of the day had to keep both feet on the ground when they served. Laver's serve and the serves of many pros of that day were not based on power. They were based on percentages. As someone who has recently played with wood competitively, I can tell you that the biggest difference serving with wood is not the first serve, it's the second. In other words, you've got a lot of incentive to get your first serve in.
The size of the frames also made playing percentages and fewer errors the way to play.
At 5'8" or 5'9", Grosjean has a pretty mean serve. I think Rocket would be fine in that department.
He was short by those standards as well. look how tall Newcombe, Ashe, Smith, Nastase, Tanner, Alexander were. Laver didn't seem to have much trouble returning their serves (& Tanner could serve 140)
And wasn't 5'8" Rios #1 not long ago? despite his stature, he frequently pops in so many of the 'most talented player' threads. Laver had more talent than Rios, using height to evaluate one of the alltime greats is rather strange, we aren't talking about Donald Young here.
Maybe we should use the fact that Laver's forearm is twice as big as anyone on tour today to prove that he is stronger than they are, if you're gonna dwell on height?
Separate names with a comma.