Laver vs. Roger : Who was the greatest of their era?

[lessthanjake]

Laver had much much deeper and tougher competition than Roger, was more dominant, was more versatile and balanced on all surfaces, and had more longevity than Roger has reached so far. At this moment Laver >>>>>> Federer. The end.

1. Laver's good competition was primarily composed of only people from the 2-3 countries that actually were producing tennis players at that time (US, Australia, and Spain). All logical reasoning would tell us that his competition was less tough and less deep.

2. Laver was not more dominant. Getting a calendar slam doesn't tell the whole story. Federer has 6 slams in 2 years, 8 slams in 3 years, 11 slams in 4 years. Laver can't compare to those things at all. In contrast, Laver crashed out in an early upset in 6 of the 11 slams he played in the Open Era while #1 in the world. That is NOT dominance. That is inconsistency.

3. Laver was not more versatile. Both were great everywhere, but slightly less suited to clay.

4. You can't possibly be using longevity as a reason for taking Laver over Federer when Federer has not retired and is still #1 in the world. That is the most ridiculous argument.

 

[grafselesfan]

1. Laver's good competition was primarily composed of only people from the 2-3 countries that actually were producing tennis players at that time (US, Australia, and Spain). All logical reasoning would tell us that his competition was less tough and less deep.

Who cares if a few countries were dominant then. 2 of those (U.S and Australia) are two of the most populated and most developed countres in the World. It is easy to see how it can be a tougher time for tennis when 2 of the biggest countries with some of the best resources available are in a golden period than when a bunch of smaller countries with lower population, less advanced training and coaching, etc...are. Tennis if anything suffers a great deal from the fact the U.S and Australia dont attract the numbers, interest, and arent producing the # or caliber of skilled players they used to. That is also probably a large reason we see more other countries in the mix. Many of them would be blocked from the top group in the golden days of U.S and Australian tennis.

Laver had depleted competition to win his early 60s slams no doubt. However in the pros he faced an incredible field including some of the all time greats mixed with other great players- Rosewall, Gonzalez, Hoad, Gimeno. Then his amateur competition in 68-69 including when he attained his calender slam, WOW! A field consisting of Rosewall, Newcombe, Emerson, Ashe, Smith, Gimeno, an aging but still formdiable Gonzales, highly touted up and coming Roche. Then behind them other dangerous players like Okker, Drysdale, Richey, young Nastase. Federer has NEVER faced an overall field anything close to that, dont kid yourself.

2. Laver was not more dominant. Getting a calendar slam doesn't tell the whole story.

Laver won 3 different Calender Slams. The amateur slam in 1962, the pro slams in 1967 (where most of the very best of the time were), and the Open slam in 1969. OK granted if you want to do what ifs I hugely doubt he attains the Grand Slam in 1962 had it been Open Era tennis, but in 1967 he still likely does as I said the best players were in the Pro ranks then anyway. That alone makes him more dominant than Federer.

Federer has 6 slams in 2 years, 8 slams in 3 years, 11 slams in 4 years. Laver can't compare to those things at all. In contrast, Laver crashed out in an early upset in 6 of the 11 slams he played in the Open Era while #1 in the world. That is NOT dominance. That is inconsistency.

Laver was in his 30s when Open Era began. After 1969 he was clearly past his prime despite that in 1970 and 1971 many still considered him the best player in the World, especialy 1970. In the first half of the 70s the slams were not even neccessarily considered the biggest events for awhile, particularly the Australian and French Opens.

3. Laver was not more versatile. Both were great everywhere, but slightly less suited to clay.

Laver is way better than Federer on clay. He had many wins over all the greats of his time on clay, including Rosewall one of the greatest clay courters ever. He won the French Open in his Grand Slam year by beating Rosewall in straight sets. Federer has failed miserably overall vs Nadal on the red stuff, and his only other chance to prove himself vs a great clay courter in todays relatively shallow clay court field in the French Open vs Kuerten he lost in straight sets to hip crippled way past his prime Kuerten while #1 in the World. Federer has NEVER won Monte Carlo or Rome, the 2nd and 3rd biggest clay court events today. Dont throw me the Nadal excuse since he missed many chances at Rome regardless. Losing the Rome final to Mantilla in 2003, losing to Stepanek in Rome last year when Djokovic went on to win, blowing 2 match points vs Nadal in the 2006 final, losing to an aging Costa in 2004 when Moya went on to win. Monte Carlo probably less but still losing to Gasquet in 2005 when Rafa hadnt even won a Masters on clay yet.

Given that Laver is also clearly superior on grass had hard courts been more prominent then we might well be saying Laver is superior to Federer on every surface especialy since many feel hard courts was even Laver's best surface based on his play on the hard court events that did exist and overall game.

4. You can't possibly be using longevity as a reason for taking Laver over Federer when Federer has not retired and is still #1 in the world. That is the most ridiculous argument.

I said at this point. Of course Federer can continue adding to his current longevity.

 

[NonP]

I included the early 60s because Laver played into the 70s, and young players playing then learned in the 60s.

Anyways, I'm not saying tennis wasnt popular at all, but I do not think it was nearly as popular as it became in the 90s. Consider that virtually any American knows who Pete Sampras is. I doubt that was true of those players in the 50s, though I have no statistics to back it up.

Now you admit you just “think” tennis wasn’t so popular back then. I suggest you learn more about the pre-Open era. There were times when Kramer or Gonzales used to be a household name, and when tennis wasn’t the marginal sport that it is in the US today.

You make my case for me. My point was that the difference in income between sports is not that relevant now when sports all give so much money. Your point about a lack of "economic rationality" (in quotes because technically economic rationality includes things like love of a sport because it all affects utility. I knew what you meant though) is true, but it just further makes my point.

It actually doesn’t. See below.

The point is that the natural preference between sports as well as the opportunity to play the sport is what affects WHICH sport an athlete plays more than money, especially when the money is so high like it is now. When we consider it like that, then tennis was less able to compete with other sports for athletes in the 1960s, when the opportunity to play tennis was much less relative to other sports than it is now.

On the contrary, tennis paid pretty darn well compared to other sports in Laver’s era. Oscar Robertson, for one example, writes in his autobiography that the average NBA salary in ’65 was $18k, and $110k in ’75 when he stepped down as the association’s president after his famous antitrust suit triumph. That’s actually less than what Laver made five years earlier in ’70. You really need to check the figures before you make assertions like this.

Operating under this set of assumptions, the biggest effect from an increase in income for sports, is the overall affect. By this, I mean if we consider "sports" and "other occupations" competing for people, then sports will get better quality people if they all pay a lot of money. But then, within the umbrella of "sports," we have established that the money made between sports is less of a factor in what sport a player chooses. Rather natural preference for and opportunity to play a sport are the major factor involved in what sports potentially great athletes choose.

What this means is that sports as a whole nowadays get better athletes than they did in the 1960s. So the overall talent pool is better. And within the overall pool, tennis is better off in terms of relevant infrastructure than it was in the 1960s. This means that tennis manages to get more of the best sports players than it did in the 1960s. Overall, then, tennis should have WAY better athletes than it did in the 1960s.

What you haven’t grasped is that a sport isn’t a mere economic good. It’s also a social activity, hobby, avenue to prestige, and many other things that are all but impossible to measure in economic terms.

And even if we treat it as an economic good, the likelihood of hitting it big in pro sports, especially tennis, is so small that almost all recreational players should make the rational choice of choosing other occupations that offer considerably more stable employment and also more pay. Plus many other sports provide job security to the journeymen, tennis doesn’t. And again there are now more pro sports to pursue than ever. Like I said, this isn’t as simple as you think.

This point is irrelevant to this argument. What you say is true, but that factor has ALWAYS been true, so it doesnt affect the difference in quality of play between the 1960s and now.

My point wasn’t about the quality of play, but the relative inaccessibility of tennis to many a budding player. Soccer is clearly more accessible.

Nice attempt at sounding smart. Of course I know this is exceptionally complicated. I was simplifying it earlier (and am still simplifying it now) because I did not want to write a complicated dissertation on the economics of tennis that no one would read, and if they did, they probably wouldn't understand.

Again, tennis isn’t just an economic commodity.

 

[NonP]

Now streaky players vs consistent ones? I see you are changing your argument as a weathercock. And FYI when a certain player is able to finish the match his injury is not as serious as Scud retiring against Sampras, or Nalbandian retiring against Federer etc.
So we are talking about injuries in the matches? # or medical time outs maybe? At least try to make a single point for 2 minutes.

I made new points unlike you who changed the subject. This difference shouldn't be so hard to understand. And yeah, of course the seriousness of an injury matters. Insightful, and great way to avoid addressing the point.

Everything contributes to fitness. From training regimes, to nutrition, to tournament schedule etc.

Distinction between health and fitness? They are interconnected no matter how you twist it. Do spell the distinction.

Where's medicine? Maybe you did see it was absurd to mention that? Not that I'm expecting an admission, of course.

And FYI tournament schedules have to do with the player's condition at that particular tournament. Fitness covers a longer period of time. So does health, but it's more of an indicator of his lack of ailments and other unusual adverse conditions. No one denies that these are all interconnected.

This is the second time I'm spelling out the distinction. Even you should be able to get this.

 

[lessthanjake]

Who cares if a few countries were dominant then. 2 of those (U.S and Australia) are two of the most populated and most developed countres in the World. It is easy to see how it can be a tougher time for tennis when 2 of the biggest countries with some of the best resources available are in a golden period than when a bunch of smaller countries with lower population, less advanced training and coaching, etc...are. Tennis if anything suffers a great deal from the fact the U.S and Australia dont attract the numbers, interest, and arent producing the # or caliber of skilled players they used to. That is also probably a large reason we see more other countries in the mix. Many of them would be blocked from the top group in the golden days of U.S and Australian tennis.

That is just absurd and you know it. Right now, tennis is being played in the US by players who grew up in the 1990s when tennis was HUGELY popular in the US. This SHOULD mean that US players are as good as ever because popularity is a big factor in quality. Do you think maybe the reason that the US isn't dominant is partially because the players from other countries are better? I do. THere is simply no logical reason that the 1960s should have been some golden age in the quality of US tennis players.

Consider this. Lets say every player was given a score out of 10 based on how good they are. In the 1960s, America produces 10 players that are an 8/10. Other countires only produced players that were a 6/10. America dominated. In the 2000s, America still produces 10 players that are an 8/10. The difference is that other countries also produce a bunch of 8/10 type players and even some 9/10s. American players don't dominate. According to you, that would mean American tennis got worse and made other countries look better. But that would obviously not be the case, as we are keeping the American players equal. This example is likely how it has gone given that tennis is way more popular in other countries than it was when Laver played. This logically means that players from the rest of the world should be better, and therefore make American players look worse, when they aren't necessarily.

Laver had depleted competition to win his early 60s slams no doubt. However in the pros he faced an incredible field including some of the all time greats mixed with other great players- Rosewall, Gonzalez, Hoad, Gimeno. Then his amateur competition in 68-69 including when he attained his calender slam, WOW! A field consisting of Rosewall, Newcombe, Emerson, Ashe, Smith, Gimeno, an aging but still formdiable Gonzales, highly touted up and coming Roche. Then behind them other dangerous players like Okker, Drysdale, Richey, young Nastase. Federer has NEVER faced an overall field anything close to that, dont kid yourself.

You don't realize that your argument is a gigantic fallacy. You consider those players to have all been so great because they did extremely well in their era. You are not considering the fact that they only had this success against players of their OWN ERA. If their era is weak (as all logic says it should have been) then achieving a lot in that era does not AT ALL make them better than players who achieved less in a better era. So your point proves ABSOLUTELY NOTHING.

Laver won 3 different Calender Slams. The amateur slam in 1962, the pro slams in 1967 (where most of the very best of the time were), and the Open slam in 1969. OK granted if you want to do what ifs I hugely doubt he attains the Grand Slam in 1962 had it been Open Era tennis, but in 1967 he still likely does as I said the best players were in the Pro ranks then anyway. That alone makes him more dominant than Federer.

I doubt Laver would have won more than ONE slam against everyone in 1962, let alone all 4. In 1967, you say all the best players were in the pros. Wrong. Ashe, Newcombe, Santana, Emerson, Roche, Drysdale, Kodes, Okker, and Metreveli ALL PLAYED IN THE AMATEURS THAT YEAR!

Laver was in his 30s when Open Era began. After 1969 he was clearly past his prime despite that in 1970 and 1971 many still considered him the best player in the World, especialy 1970. In the first half of the 70s the slams were not even neccessarily considered the biggest events for awhile, particularly the Australian and French Opens.

1. He was still #1 in the world. He was at a similar period of his career as Federer is now; #1 but not at his best. It doesn't excuse losses to players who just were not very good at the slams.
2. Interesting that you say the slams weren't the biggest events back then. Seems to make Laver's calendar slam not worth as much as it would be now, doesnt it?

Laver is way better than Federer on clay. He had many wins over all the greats of his time on clay, including Rosewall one of the greatest clay courters ever. He won the French Open in his Grand Slam year by beating Rosewall in straight sets. Federer has failed miserably overall vs Nadal on the red stuff, and his only other chance to prove himself vs a great clay courter in todays relatively shallow clay court field in the French Open vs Kuerten he lost in straight sets to hip crippled way past his prime Kuerten while #1 in the World. Federer has NEVER won Monte Carlo or Rome, the 2nd and 3rd biggest clay court events today. Dont throw me the Nadal excuse since he missed many chances at Rome regardless. Losing the Rome final to Mantilla in 2003, losing to Stepanek in Rome last year when Djokovic went on to win, blowing 2 match points vs Nadal in the 2006 final, losing to an aging Costa in 2004 when Moya went on to win. Monte Carlo probably less but still losing to Gasquet in 2005 when Rafa hadnt even won a Masters on clay yet.

Your argument is idiotic. You can mention some losses Federer took all you want but Laver took losses in tournaments he could have won too, I assure you. THAT HAPPENS TO EVERY PLAYER! You are being foolish to use that as an argument as it just sound stupid.

Laver's resume on clay is not greater than Federer's. He didn't win more on clay. Yes, he beat Rosewall in 1969, but Rosewall was like 35 when Laver beat him at the French Open. Laver won some other stuff, and was a great clay courter, but multiple others were better on clay in his own era.

Dont compare Rosewall to Nadal. Nadal is a way better clay courter. THe fact is that Federer has DOMINATED all other clay court players of his era. Laver did not. He was good enough to win plenty on clay, but did not dominate like Federer has dominated everyone except the clay GOAT.

And I didn't realize that winning Rome was necessary to be considered great on clay...Federer has 5 clay Masters titles. Thats enough for me. You'd really be hard pressed to come up with a good argument for why Laver was clearly a better clay courter than Federer. The results are pretty similar there.

Given that Laver is also clearly superior on grass had hard courts been more prominent then we might well be saying Laver is superior to Federer on every surface especialy since many feel hard courts was even Laver's best surface based on his play on the hard court events that did exist and overall game.

Are you an idiot? How can someone be clearly a superior grass court player than Federer, who has gone like 72-1 on grass since 2003? You are wrong. Laver was very vulnerable on grass, far more vulnerable than Federer. How in the world is Laver clearly superior on grass?

 

[Enigma_87]

I made new points unlike you who changed the subject. This difference shouldn't be so hard to understand. And yeah, of course the seriousness of an injury matters. Insightful, and great way to avoid addressing the point.

I think you completely lost your plot of what you're trying to say.

Where's medicine? Maybe you did see it was absurd to mention that? Not that I'm expecting an admission, of course.

And FYI tournament schedules have to do with the player's condition at that particular tournament. Fitness covers a longer period of time. So does health, but it's more of an indicator of his lack of ailments and other unusual adverse conditions. No one denies that these are all interconnected.

This is the second time I'm spelling out the distinction. Even you should be able to get this.

Absurd? So medicine doesn't develop?

Fitness covers a longer period of time than health? Boy you're clueless.

 

[NonP]

I think you completely lost your plot of what you're trying to say.

Another great way to avoid addressing the point. Typical.

Absurd? So medicine doesn't develop?

OK, you still don't get it. Forget it, you're beyond help.

Fitness covers a longer period of time than health? Boy you're clueless.

And now you can't even read. What part of "So does health" was so hard to understand? Boy, you crack me up.

 

[lessthanjake]

Now you admit you just “think” tennis wasn’t so popular back then. I suggest you learn more about the pre-Open era. There were times when Kramer or Gonzales used to be a household name, and when tennis wasn’t the marginal sport that it is in the US today.

Compared to the 90s, buddy? Sampras and Agassi? Neither of us have statistics on this, but I really think that tennis was nowhere near as popular in the US then as it was in the 90s and early 2000s when it was huge. Tennis really got a huge boost in the early 1970s in the US. It was less popular prior to that. I thought that was common knowledge.

On the contrary, tennis paid pretty darn well compared to other sports in Laver’s era. Oscar Robertson, for one example, writes in his autobiography that the average NBA salary in ’65 was $18k, and $110k in ’75 when he stepped down as the association’s president after his famous antitrust suit triumph. That’s actually less than what Laver made five years earlier in ’70. You really need to check the figures before you make assertions like this.

Average NBA player compared to the highest paid tennis player??? That is clearly not fair. How about this? In 1969, Laver made 120,000 dollars. It was the record for tennis at the time, and the first time anyone had made above 100,000 dollars in a year. That same year, Luke Jackson, a random above average NBA player who was not even an all star that year and had only even made one all star game in his entire career, made 150,000 dollars. A borderline all star made more than the #1 player in the world having a very dominant year. Looks like you are the one who needs to check his figures, especially since the average tennis player would only have made A FRACTION of what Laver made.

What you haven’t grasped is that a sport isn’t a mere economic good. It’s also a social activity, hobby, avenue to prestige, and many other things that are all but impossible to measure in economic terms.

And even if we treat it as an economic good, the likelihood of hitting it big in pro sports, especially tennis, is so small that almost all recreational players should make the rational choice of choosing other occupations that offer considerably more stable employment and also more pay. Plus many other sports provide job security to the journeymen, tennis doesn’t. And again there are now more pro sports to pursue than ever. Like I said, this isn’t as simple as you think.

How does any of this mean that quality in the 1960s was higher than quality now? You seem to only be pointing out problems for tennis that have always been problems and still are. That doesnt add anything to your argument.

My point wasn’t about the quality of play, but the relative inaccessibility of tennis to many a budding player. Soccer is clearly more accessible.

Again, that is true. It has always been true. But it is less true now when there are more public courts around places. So, while it is still a problem now, it is LESS of a problem than it was in the 1960s. This should increase the quality of players tennis gets.

Again, you keep mentioning problems for tennis that have always been true. A constant problem does not affect the relative quality between players in the 1960s and the 2000s.

 

[Enigma_87]

Another great way to avoid addressing the point. Typical.

Well when looking what you are doing, I'd play along

OK, you still don't get it. Forget it, you're beyond help.

Get what? Simple question, according to you are todays players fitter than before. No elaboration yes or no?

And now you can't even read. What part of "So does health" was so hard to understand? Boy, you crack me up.

and what about "but" etc?

In the end you say exactly nothing with a lot of sentences...

 

[NonP]

Compared to the 90s, buddy? Sampras and Agassi? Neither of us have statistics on this, but I really think that tennis was nowhere near as popular in the US then as it was in the 90s and early 2000s when it was huge. Tennis really got a huge boost in the early 1970s in the US. It was less popular prior to that. I thought that was common knowledge.

Sampras and Agassi got more airtime and coverage because we now have 24/7 media. That’s true of any other public commodities today. But the Sampras-Agassi rivalry was only a small part of the information overload. By contrast, tennis was in fact big in Laver’s era because there were fewer forms of public consumption.

And since we’re talking name recognition, Tilden used to be as famous as Babe Ruth in their heyday. That was at least 2 or 3 generations before Laver’s own. You can’t simply assume that tennis was less popular before the early ‘70s without taking these factors into account, especially as you admit you don’t’ have any stats to back up your assumption.

Average NBA player compared to the highest paid tennis player??? That is clearly not fair. How about this? In 1969, Laver made 120,000 dollars. It was the record for tennis at the time, and the first time anyone had made above 100,000 dollars in a year. That same year, Luke Jackson, a random above average NBA player who was not even an all star that year and had only even made one all star game in his entire career, made 150,000 dollars. A borderline all star made more than the #1 player in the world having a very dominant year. Looks like you are the one who needs to check his figures, especially since the average tennis player would only have made A FRACTION of what Laver made.

My point was not that tennis players got paid more. We all know it’s been the case that the NBA, NFL, MLB and NHL players make more on average. Rather my point was that tennis players in Laver’s time got paid pretty well by comparison.

How does any of this mean that quality in the 1960s was higher than quality now? You seem to only be pointing out problems for tennis that have always been problems and still are. That doesnt add anything to your argument.

I’ve never said anything about quality. I’m just saying your attempt to explain the quality of competition based on simplified economics is flawed.

Again, that is true. It has always been true. But it is less true now when there are more public courts around places. So, while it is still a problem now, it is LESS of a problem than it was in the 1960s. This should increase the quality of players tennis gets.

Again, you keep mentioning problems for tennis that have always been true. A constant problem does not affect the relative quality between players in the 1960s and the 2000s.

Yes, there are more public courts now, but tennis is still an expensive sport to pursue compared to other sports like basketball and soccer, not to mention that there are more sports and other occupations of diversion to pursue than ever before. That’s why this point is relevant.

 

[NonP]

Well when looking what you are doing, I'd play along

Then make new points instead of changing the subject.

Get what? Simple question, according to you are todays players fitter than before. No elaboration yes or no?

Get that medicine has more to do with the player's condition or health than fitness. And fitter compared to whom? The players since the string revolution? Guess what, they didn't have these magic potions and contraptions that you apparently think have improved today's players by leaps and bounds. That should illustrate the sheer absurdity of this comparison.

and what about "but" etc?

In the end you say exactly nothing with a lot of sentences...

That "but" was to note that health is more about absence of injuries and other adverse bodily conditions, not that fitness covers a longer time period than health. The least you can do is to read carefully.

 

[grafselesfan]

This SHOULD mean that US players are as good as ever

Yes since after all Roddick, Blake, Fish, Dent, and Querrey are just as good as Connors, McEnroe, Courier, Sampras, Gonzales, Agassi, and Smith.

THere is simply no logical reason that the 1960s should have been some golden age in the quality of US tennis players.

Yes there is. Tennis is losing popularity to other sports, especialy in the U.S. Thus more of the most potentialy most talented athletes in the U.S are going into other sports whose popularity is on the rise while tennis has been on the decline of late.

You don't realize that your argument is a gigantic fallacy. You consider those players to have all been so great because they did extremely well in their era.

The ability of a higher # of players to post many quality results and sustain a high level of consistency and longevity speaks to the quality of the field. Anyway these skills and what they are able to do with a wood racquet already says enough. Gonzales's serve is compared to the great Sampras's serve and that is with a wood racquet. Laver could hit virtually every shot better than most of todays players, and hit backhands, return of serves, and volleys better than Federer the games dominant player of today, and again even with a wood racquet in hand. Rosewall still is regarded to have one of the greatest if not the greatest backhand of all time, and was a better volleyer than Federer as well. Hoad many feel was the most explosive all around hitter of a tennis ball ever when he was healthy. These guys were monsters, it was evident by their tennis as well, even with the big disadvantage in equipment, technology, and all other chronological factors.

You are not considering the fact that they only had this success against players of their OWN ERA. If their era is weak (as all logic says it should have been) then achieving a lot in that era does not AT ALL make them better than players who achieved less in a better era. So your point proves ABSOLUTELY NOTHING.

This logic is only your own. The 60s and 70s were in many ways tennis's boom years on the mens side, while also its rising to prominence years on the womens. Many more people were interested in the sport than today. Logic would if anything suggest more players of the highest athletic talent especialy from the tennis powerhouses like U.S, Australia, Sweden, Germany, Spain, would get into the sport back then as opposed to now.

I doubt Laver would have won more than ONE slam against everyone in 1962, let alone all 4. In 1967, you say all the best players were in the pros. Wrong. Ashe, Newcombe, Santana, Emerson, Roche, Drysdale, Kodes, Okker, and Metreveli ALL PLAYED IN THE AMATEURS THAT YEAR!

Of course many of the great players which would have made 1967 an even deeper field (like 1969) were amateur. However the very best- Laver, Rosewall, Gonzales probably still, were amateur. Some of those others like Newcombe, Ashe, Smith, were not yet quite as good as they were when Laver still beat them all on his way to the grand slam in 1969.

1. He was still #1 in the world. He was at a similar period of his career as Federer is now; #1 but not at his best. It doesn't excuse losses to players who just were not very good at the slams.

He was not where Federer is now. He was 32-36 years old. Federer is now 28.

2. Interesting that you say the slams weren't the biggest events back then. Seems to make Laver's calendar slam not worth as much as it would be now, doesnt it?

I said in the first half of the 70s when exhibition tennis had a big rise, the WCT tour which opposed the ITF, all sorts of political rival organizations and other mess situations that deprived the slams of the best possible fields for awhile. The game just was fighting too much within itself for money, power, egos, and lost unity for awhile. This was not the case in 1969 when you look at the draw sheets for the slams. However when you look at the draw sheets for the slams much of the 70s you will see the difference.

Your argument is idiotic. You can mention some losses Federer took all you want but Laver took losses in tournaments he could have won too, I assure you. THAT HAPPENS TO EVERY PLAYER! You are being foolish to use that as an argument as it just sound stupid.

Fine, I will put it simply. Today the 3 biggest events in tennis are Rome, Monte Carlo, and the French Open. Federer has only won 1 total out of the 3.

Laver's resume on clay is not greater than Federer's. He didn't win more on clay. Yes, he beat Rosewall in 1969, but Rosewall was like 35 when Laver beat him at the French Open.

The great Rosewall was winning slams from ages 35-37 and making slam finals at 39. He has the greatest longevity of any player in history. Beating him even at 35 in a French Open final was no small feat, especialy in straight sets.

Laver won more on clay than Federer. He won the French Open twice for starters. He also won the French Pro in 1967. So even if it had been Open tennis and he hadnt won in 1962 he was likely to still win twice atleast- 1967 and 1969. He also won Rome in a very tough field, beating that years eventual French Open winner Jan Kodes in 3 straight sets in the final. He would have likely won the French Open that same year- 1971, but hardly any of the WCT entered the French then. His convincing win in Rome was over a much tougher field than that years French Open.

Laver won some other stuff, and was a great clay courter, but multiple others were better on clay in his own era.

Like who? Rosewall overall was superior to Laver on clay, though Laver still held his own with him and had his share of wins when they played on clay. Who else?

Dont compare Rosewall to Nadal. Nadal is a way better clay courter.

and how do you know this? Rosewall won the French Open 13 years apart, completely dominated the likes of Laver, Hoad, Gonzales (though clay wasnt his best surface), Gimeno, and others on the pro circuit for years in between. Amongst a super tough clay court group on the pro circuit he won 7 French Pros in a row at one point. It is not at all certain Nadal is greater at all than Rosewall on clay, let alone "way better".

THe fact is that Federer has DOMINATED all other clay court players of his era. Laver did not.

Here you fail. Laver did overall dominate everyone on clay for many years other than Rosewall, and he challenged Rosewall as well. Yes Federer is able to dominate clay court giants like Davydenko, Robredo, Ferrer, and Gonzalez on clay. Wow amazing.

He was good enough to win plenty on clay, but did not dominate like Federer has dominated everyone except the clay GOAT.

Here is where you so fail in every respect. So many failures in one short sentence it is amazing.

And I didn't realize that winning Rome was necessary to be considered great on clay...Federer has 5 clay Masters titles. Thats enough for me. You'd really be hard pressed to come up with a good argument for why Laver was clearly a better clay courter than Federer. The results are pretty similar there.

Rome and Monte Carlo are the 2nd and 3rd biggest events on clay today. If you wish to deny this obvious truth it is your perrogative. Hamburg many players even skipped for years due to its timing, hence why it was demoted to a non-Masters event.

Are you an idiot? How can someone be clearly a superior grass court player than Federer, who has gone like 72-1 on grass since 2003? You are wrong. Laver was very vulnerable on grass, far more vulnerable than Federer. How in the world is Laver clearly superior on grass?

Laver would likely have won atleast 6 Wimbledons in a row had it been Open tennis then. He was unbeatable on grass from 1964-1969. That was also very a deeper grass court field of specialists, than the current field which is mainly hard court specialists.

 

[フェデラー]

Lol this argument has become such a joke i dont know what to say.

 

[stanfordtennis alum]

u have to admire federer's records...

 

[フェデラー]

u have to admire federer's records...

thats my biggest problem with GSF, or Cesc, they call themselves fair and balanced posters, when both have come out and said they dislike Fed very much. They are as fair and balanced as Fox News. Which brings me to my point, anything Federer does right, as he breaks almost all of Pete's Records, they cant accept it, and its sad.

 

[lessthanjake]

Yes since after all Roddick, Blake, Fish, Dent, and Querrey are just as good as Connors, McEnroe, Courier, Sampras, Gonzales, Agassi, and Smith.

That is the most illogical statement you have yet made. Comparing one year's of American players to the previous 50 years of players. Absurd. American players aren't great now, but if there were few good foreign players like there were in the 60s, then you can be assured that Roddick and probably Blake would have won a lot.

Yes there is. Tennis is losing popularity to other sports, especialy in the U.S. Thus more of the most potentialy most talented athletes in the U.S are going into other sports whose popularity is on the rise while tennis has been on the decline of late.

Again, the people who are pros today grew up playing tennis in the 90s and early 2000s. It doesn't matter how popular tennis is now. For instance, if we woke up tomorrow and tennis were 10 times more popular than it is today, would that affect the quality of today's pros? No. It would affect things in about a decade. And tennis was gloriously popular in the 90s, especially in the US. Try again.

The ability of a higher # of players to post many quality results and sustain a high level of consistency and longevity speaks to the quality of the field.

No. That is a ridiculous statement. Players win and lose against OTHER PLAYERS IN THEIR ERA! How can you say that players losing to another player in their era shows that the era is weak? That is absurd. Everyone admits that the lower ranked players are better now, so that would logically mean the top players would not be able to be as consistent as before when the lower ranked players were not as good.

Anyway these skills and what they are able to do with a wood racquet already says enough. Gonzales's serve is compared to the great Sampras's serve and that is with a wood racquet. Laver could hit virtually every shot better than most of todays players, and hit backhands, return of serves, and volleys better than Federer the games dominant player of today, and again even with a wood racquet in hand. Rosewall still is regarded to have one of the greatest if not the greatest backhand of all time, and was a better volleyer than Federer as well. Hoad many feel was the most explosive all around hitter of a tennis ball ever when he was healthy. These guys were monsters, it was evident by their tennis as well, even with the big disadvantage in equipment, technology, and all other chronological factors.

Your points are again ridiculous. Those people did not objectively have better backhands or serves or anything than players today. They played a very different game where they hit it WAY less hard with WAY less spin. It was completely different, and for you to act like players of that day could do things better than players today is just ridiculous. They couldnt. And I don't hold that against them, because they had wooden rackets and not as good of fitness techniques, but they didn't have better shots by today's standards and you know it.

This logic is only your own. The 60s and 70s were in many ways tennis's boom years on the mens side, while also its rising to prominence years on the womens. Many more people were interested in the sport than today. Logic would if anything suggest more players of the highest athletic talent especialy from the tennis powerhouses like U.S, Australia, Sweden, Germany, Spain, would get into the sport back then as opposed to now.

Again, tennis boomed in the 1970s, but that couldnt possibly affect the actual quality of pros in the 1960s and early 1970s when Laver played. Also, just to point out, Sweden did not produce good tennis players until the 1970s as far as I know, so I dont know your point there.

Of course many of the great players which would have made 1967 an even deeper field (like 1969) were amateur. However the very best- Laver, Rosewall, Gonzales probably still, were amateur. Some of those others like Newcombe, Ashe, Smith, were not yet quite as good as they were when Laver still beat them all on his way to the grand slam in 1969.

Again, the 1967 pro championships Laver got were against a weak field with only about half the best players. That can NOT be compared with a slam now, just like an ATP 500 tournament cant be compared to a slam now.

He was not where Federer is now. He was 32-36 years old. Federer is now 28.

You and I both know that tennis is a way more physically demanding sport than it used to be. This has made the age in which one can play quality tennis much lower. 28 is getting old for tennis now. It wasn't old then. Being realistic, even if he was older, Laver was in his general prime in the Open Era when he crashed out early 6 times in slams WHILE RANKED #1!

I said in the first half of the 70s when exhibition tennis had a big rise, the WCT tour which opposed the ITF, all sorts of political rival organizations and other mess situations that deprived the slams of the best possible fields for awhile. The game just was fighting too much within itself for money, power, egos, and lost unity for awhile. This was not the case in 1969 when you look at the draw sheets for the slams. However when you look at the draw sheets for the slams much of the 70s you will see the difference.

Really? 1969 Australian Open? There weren't even enough players to make it a 128 person draw. In general you are right about the early 1970s, but something like that would never happen in the future. The slams mattered less in 1969 than they do now. That is fact, even if the draws, besides the Australian, were strong.

Fine, I will put it simply. Today the 3 biggest events in tennis are Rome, Monte Carlo, and the French Open. Federer has only won 1 total out of the 3.

Really? Monte Carlo can be counted as an ATP 500 event (it is the only Masters Series that can do that). Madrid can't. Madrid has significantly more prize money than Monte Carlo or Rome. And besides, Masters Series events are all mandatory now anyways, so for you to say that Rome and Monte Carlo are somehow better even though they have the same field and less prize money than Madrid is just ridiculous. Try again.

The great Rosewall was winning slams from ages 35-37 and making slam finals at 39. He has the greatest longevity of any player in history. Beating him even at 35 in a French Open final was no small feat, especialy in straight sets.

I agree that being 35 then was different than being 35 now, but it is undoubtedly true that Rosewall was not at his peak when Laver beat him in the French Open, even if he were good. It is like Federer beating Sampras in the 2001 Wimbledon. Sampras was still a great player, but he wasn't as good as before.

Laver won more on clay than Federer. He won the French Open twice for starters. He also won the French Pro in 1967. So even if it had been Open tennis and he hadnt won in 1962 he was likely to still win twice atleast- 1967 and 1969. He also won Rome in a very tough field, beating that years eventual French Open winner Jan Kodes in 3 straight sets in the final. He would have likely won the French Open that same year- 1971, but hardly any of the WCT entered the French then. His convincing win in Rome was over a much tougher field than that years French Open.

Wrong. He really only won the French Open once, not twice, because the 1962 win cannot be compared to a real slam win. And the French Pro in 1967 was held on wood. He won it in 1968 on clay, but your theory that he could win the French Open if he won the French Pro is pretty faulty given that he didn't win the French Open that year. And yeah, ill give you that the 1971 Rome Masters was a good win, but it is just one win in a non-slam. You act like it is greater than a slam win, which is just disingenuous as I doubt you even know what the draw looked like. 1 French Open + 1 French Pro + 1 Rome Masters + 1 French Open Final is NOT a better resume than 1 French Open + 3 French Open Finals + 4 Hamburg Masters + 1 Madrid Masters. I am not saying Federer is a way better clay player, but Laver's resume is not clearly better at all.

Like who? Rosewall overall was superior to Laver on clay, though Laver still held his own with him and had his share of wins when they played on clay. Who else?

I can't find the results of Pro years or WCT stuff, but I know he didn't win that many clay tournaments in his career, so I figure he lost to people plenty. For instance, he only won 2 WCT tournaments on clay (and I am counting 1 as a WCT tournament that I am not sure if it even was WCT). When he was a pro or in the Open Era, Laver won 15 tournaments on clay total. Some of them were 4-man draw tournaments (ie. jokes). Most of them were not particularly strong tournaments. Consider the number of tournaments that Laver played (WAY more than players can play nowadays because tennis was less physical). He lost a lot. I don't have the information of who he lost to, but I know it happened a lot.

 

[lessthanjake]

and how do you know this? Rosewall won the French Open 13 years apart, completely dominated the likes of Laver, Hoad, Gonzales (though clay wasnt his best surface), Gimeno, and others on the pro circuit for years in between. Amongst a super tough clay court group on the pro circuit he won 7 French Pros in a row at one point. It is not at all certain Nadal is greater at all than Rosewall on clay, let alone "way better".

Hahahaha. Only 3 of those French Pros were on clay. He won the French Open once in joke amateur conditions, and had one impressive French Open win the Open Era. His resume on clay simply does not measure up to Nadal's absolute dominance. Top 10 clay courter of all time? Probably. As good as Nadal? No.

Here you fail. Laver did overall dominate everyone on clay for many years other than Rosewall, and he challenged Rosewall as well. Yes Federer is able to dominate clay court giants like Davydenko, Robredo, Ferrer, and Gonzalez on clay. Wow amazing.

You only think Davydenko and Gonzalez or whoever aren't good on clay because they haven't won much. They haven't won much because clay GOAT Nadal and overall GOAT Federer have been winning everything. That doesn't mean they are bad. Don't scoff at those players.

Laver would likely have won atleast 6 Wimbledons in a row had it been Open tennis then. He was unbeatable on grass from 1964-1969. That was also very a deeper grass court field of specialists, than the current field which is mainly hard court specialists.

Except when he DIDNT win on grass like the 1965 US Championship and plenty of smaller tournaments. Laver was great on grass, though. I don't dispute that. But it is IMPOSSIBLE to be "clearly" better than Federer on grass given that he has been virtually invincible on the surface.

 

[lessthanjake]

Sampras and Agassi got more airtime and coverage because we now have 24/7 media. That’s true of any other public commodities today. But the Sampras-Agassi rivalry was only a small part of the information overload. By contrast, tennis was in fact big in Laver’s era because there were fewer forms of public consumption.

And since we’re talking name recognition, Tilden used to be as famous as Babe Ruth in their heyday. That was at least 2 or 3 generations before Laver’s own. You can’t simply assume that tennis was less popular before the early ‘70s without taking these factors into account, especially as you admit you don’t’ have any stats to back up your assumption.

I disagree with this, though I believe it is impossible for either of us to prove our perspective given a lack of information. But to me, tennis had a boom in the US in the 1970s and kept that level of popularity in the US through the 1990s. This inherently means that tennis was more popular in the 1990s than the 1960s because the 1960s were pre-boom.

My point was not that tennis players got paid more. We all know it’s been the case that the NBA, NFL, MLB and NHL players make more on average. Rather my point was that tennis players in Laver’s time got paid pretty well by comparison.

They get paid pretty well in comparison today too. Players can make huge money, and even bad pros do very well. For instance, in 1999, Federer lost 57% of his matches, but made 225,000 dollars. Thats not a HUGE amount, but he was a bad player who played basically part-time and made a good living. Again, tennis has always paid less than other sports, and today is no different, but the situation was pretty similar in the 1960s as it is today. So what's the point of your argument?

I’ve never said anything about quality. I’m just saying your attempt to explain the quality of competition based on simplified economics is flawed.

Undoubtedly simple economics do not explain every aspect of a person's decision. It NEVER does. But it always gives a good framework for how things should happen. In this case, the simple framework says that the quality of today should be WAY higher than the 1960s. You can try to distort that by pointing out that other factors are not being taken into account, but for the most part the factors you bring up are constants between the eras, so they do not change the end result.

Yes, there are more public courts now, but tennis is still an expensive sport to pursue compared to other sports like basketball and soccer, not to mention that there are more sports and other occupations of diversion to pursue than ever before. That’s why this point is relevant.

More public courts = easier to pursue tennis compared to other sports than it used to be = more possible great tennis players = better quality of play.

And more sports and other occupations is a silly point. There are also way more people. If we wanna talk about that type of stuff, population increases results in more great players around than ever before. And that likely far outweighs the effect of there being more sports and occupations around, since there really arent that many more popular sports now than there were then.

 

[NonP]

I disagree with this, though I believe it is impossible for either of us to prove our perspective given a lack of information. But to me, tennis had a boom in the US in the 1970s and kept that level of popularity in the US through the 1990s. This inherently means that tennis was more popular in the 1990s than the 1960s because the 1960s were pre-boom.

Again, it’s not just about popularity, but also prestige, pride, and many other intangibles. There were times when tennis meant a great deal to the public and had yet to become the marginal sport that it is in the US today. I’ll grant that the popularity reached its peak with Borg and later McEnroe challenging the Ice Man, but that level of popularity hasn’t been reached since and most likely never will be. The Samprases, Agassis, Federers and Nadals of the world cannot reverse the flow of time.

They get paid pretty well in comparison today too. Players can make huge money, and even bad pros do very well. For instance, in 1999, Federer lost 57% of his matches, but made 225,000 dollars. Thats not a HUGE amount, but he was a bad player who played basically part-time and made a good living. Again, tennis has always paid less than other sports, and today is no different, but the situation was pretty similar in the 1960s as it is today. So what's the point of your argument?

The key phrase there was “by comparison.” To repeat, Laver made $124k in ’69 and $201,453 in ’70. By comparison, Jerry West made $90k in the ’70-’71 season, and even the great Oscar Robertson’s salary was never higher than $250k per season. And that’s around what the top pros in other leagues made back then: Hank Aaron’s annual salary of $200k in ’72 was the highest at the time, and Dick Butkus' first five-year contract totaled $204k, giving him $18k in the 1st year.

In contrast, nowadays even a Federer or a Nadal can only dream of equaling the annual salary of the top players in the American pro leagues. Heck, he’d be hard-pressed to equal the salary of a merely good American-league player these days. Like I said, tennis used to matter more to the public in Laver’s heyday, and economics is only part of the equation.

Undoubtedly simple economics do not explain every aspect of a person's decision. It NEVER does. But it always gives a good framework for how things should happen. In this case, the simple framework says that the quality of today should be WAY higher than the 1960s. You can try to distort that by pointing out that other factors are not being taken into account, but for the most part the factors you bring up are constants between the eras, so they do not change the end result.

It does change the end result. Your original argument was purely based on simplified economics, which is absurd on its face. And now you say it merely provides a “good framework” rather than a basis of “all logical reasoning” (which is yet another absurd claim to make in a discussion, but I digress). Guess that’s progress, but the framework isn’t as good as you think it its. I just explained that even the relative economic factor favors the past era. And if you really think most of the other factors are constants between the eras, well, think what you want. Your argument was weak, and it remains weak.

More public courts = easier to pursue tennis compared to other sports than it used to be = more possible great tennis players = better quality of play.

You’re again conflating correlation with causation. There are many more factors involved.

And more sports and other occupations is a silly point. There are also way more people. If we wanna talk about that type of stuff, population increases results in more great players around than ever before. And that likely far outweighs the effect of there being more sports and occupations around, since there really arent that many more popular sports now than there were then.

Yet another unsubstantiated claim. You’re gonna have to provide relevant stats if you wanna show that the increase in population “far outweighs” the attraction of the other sports and occupations.

But I’ll have some fun disputing the population canard ‘cause it’s one I encounter all too often. China is by far the most populous country in the world. Now, if we’re to go by the simplified population theory it’s only natural that the basketball-crazed country should produce a fair share of top basketball stars in comparison with the rest of the world. So exactly how many basketball stars have come out of China and taken the world by storm? I can only think of one in Yao Ming, and even he doesn’t belong to the highest caliber of players.

There may be more depth and quality in sports now than ever, but the talent at the very top has always been rare and always will be. And Laver in fact had to play the top players more often than Sampras, Fed or Nadal because that was dictated by the times. You really need to learn more about Laver’s era—and make a more nuanced and convincing argument—before you attempt to compare it with the modern era. Now unless you have new points to make I think we’re done here.

 

[Iron Man]

comparing Laver to Federer is like comparing Maurice Greeen to Usain Bolt .. BOTH were champions and record holders but the latter is much stronger , faster and more skilled ...

 

[jackson vile]

i'd have to say laver, If it werent for those years he had to miss he'd probibly have 20+ slams

Even without those 20+ slams he still had two calendar Grand Slams.

The point of being the GOAT is that you have unique achievments that no one else could ever attain.

No matter what when compared players from past Roger is not the GOAT, one of the greats yes.

 

[jamesblakefan#1]

Even without those 20+ slams he still had two calendar Grand Slams.

The point of being the GOAT is that you have unique achievments that no one else could ever attain.

No matter what when compared players from past Roger is not the GOAT, one of the greats yes.

15 slams is pretty unique, seeing as how he's the only one to ever do it. Longest GC and HC win streak, 5 straight USO titles, 6 straight Wimby finals, those aren't unique achievements?

 

[Talker]

Seven straight Wimby finals.

 

[フェデラー]

most consecutive weeks at no.1? 10 straight slam finals (laver had 6)? 21 straight slam semifinals?!?! this conversation is so stupid. federer destroys all records and no one can accept it.

 

[lessthanjake]

Again, it’s not just about popularity, but also prestige, pride, and many other intangibles. There were times when tennis meant a great deal to the public and had yet to become the marginal sport that it is in the US today. I’ll grant that the popularity reached its peak with Borg and later McEnroe challenging the Ice Man, but that level of popularity hasn’t been reached since and most likely never will be. The Samprases, Agassis, Federers and Nadals of the world cannot reverse the flow of time.

I think it is interesting that you mention prestige, pride etc etc. In the 1950s and 1960s when Laver's era grew up, tennis was a mess in terms of prestige and such. The best players were primarily in the pros, but some were in the amateurs. There wasn't anything that was superbly prestigious, given that the slams were a big deal but didn't have the best players. So there was no route towards surefire glory. That is untrue in the 1990s when today's players grew up, when the slams get you instant complete fame.

Anyways, I think it would be hard for you to argue that tennis was more popular/prestigious/whatever in the 1950s than it was in the 1990s. Thus, with no big difference in popularity/prestige/whatever, there shouldnt have been a significant difference in the quality of US players in the 1960s and 2000s. And your entire argument rested on the idea that US players were obviously better in the 1960s than in the 2000s.

It does change the end result. Your original argument was purely based on simplified economics, which is absurd on its face. And now you say it merely provides a “good framework” rather than a basis of “all logical reasoning” (which is yet another absurd claim to make in a discussion, but I digress). Guess that’s progress, but the framework isn’t as good as you think it its. I just explained that even the relative economic factor favors the past era. And if you really think most of the other factors are constants between the eras, well, think what you want. Your argument was weak, and it remains weak.

It was purely based on simplified economics because I make long posts as it is and they didn't need to get any longer to explain my entire thought process when it was doubtful most people would even read and understand the simplified version. Now that you've delved into it more, so have I.

Again, you havent proved anything with relative economic factors. We have limited data for you to make that point. You pulled out some cherry picked stats. I could just point to my own cherry picked stats about how a not very good Luke Jackson made 150,000 dollars in the NBA in 1969 to show that you are wrong. Cherry picking of data is easy.

The fact is that the average tennis player likely was lucky to make a tenth as much as Laver. Consider how dominant Laver was that year. In 2007, Federer was dominant, and he made 10 times as much as the #11 in the world, let alone the AVERAGE player. So I think I am probably being generous by saying the average player made about 1/10 of Laver. Anyways, this would have put it at about half the average baseball salary in 1969 and about equal to the MINIMUM baseball salary. Today's average baseball salary is more than twice the average tennis salary, so your point is not actually wrong.

But the difference cannot be explained purely by comparing straight earnings for two big reasons:

1. Diminishing marginal utility comes into play. In the 1960s, the average tennis player did NOT make a good living, while the average baseball player did make a good living. Today, the average tennis player makes a very good living, while the average baseball player makes a great living. This means that in the 1960s, people who could have been tennis players might not have gone into it because they would have been afraid of being poor. That wouldn't happen now. This would not have happened in baseball now or then. So relatively speaking, tennis is better off now from the perspective of whether a person was DISCOURAGED from the sport, but maybe worse off in relative terms when it comes to being ENCOURAGED. So I really don't see how the relative effect of income definitely helps your argument. Diminishing marginal utility REALLY is a big factor here.

2. Furthermore, you are ignoring two HUGE factors. First, Laver's earnings probably counted EVERYTHING he played. The listings of players now only list official ATP tournaments. That is, by far, not all they play. Federer makes $1 million a pop at exhibition tournaments, for instance, and all players play exhibitions and make some money. Endorsements are also a big deal for tennis players. All kinds of players get endorsement deals now, which only the best players of most other sports get. According to Forbes, income for the top 10 tennis players is only 23% made up of actual earnings from tournaments. This is completely different in other sports, where their actual salary makes up most of their income. Let me illustrate. You said that Federer and Nadal couldn't dream of making what top baseball players make. This is true if you just look strictly at earnings from the sport. However accounting for everything, Forbes said in 2008 that Federer made a total of 35 million dollars. Sports Illustrated does a list of the 50 American athletes that make the most money overall (including off-field earnings). Tiger Woods, Phil Mickelson, LeBron James, and Alex Rodriguez are the ONLY American sports players who make more money than that. This is the thing with tennis players. Endorsements and exhibition money bridges the income gap in a way that it couldnt have in Laver's era because endorsement stuff didn't really exist back then. This is another HUGE hole in your argument about how relative incomes have gotten worse. Tennis players can make more in endorsement and advertisement deals because they are endorsed more and the sport has worldwide appeal for ads. This bridges the actual income gap in a way that didn't exist in Laver's era.

 

[lessthanjake]

You’re again conflating correlation with causation. There are many more factors involved.

Again, I don't mean to be condescending, but I was state debate champion twice; I dont confuse correlation and causation.

In this case it is CLEARLY causation. With more tennis courts around, more people have an opportunity to play. More people having an opportunity to play naturally results in tennis being better able to attract athletes. Clearly causation not correlation.

Yet another unsubstantiated claim. You’re gonna have to provide relevant stats if you wanna show that the increase in population “far outweighs” the attraction of the other sports and occupations.

You and I both know that it is impossible to statistically measure any effect from attraction from new sports and occupations. But that was YOUR argument. I don't need to substantiate YOUR argument. What I CAN substantiate is my point. There are slightly above 300 million people in America now. There were 200 million in 1969. Thats a 50% increase, which should mean 50% more potentially great players are around. Worldwide, there were about 3.7 billion people in the world in 1970. There are 6.7 billion now. An even bigger increase than in the US. These things should naturally raise quality of players. This is especially true if you subscribe to the idea that great players are naturally rare. This would mean that the more people, the more great players would be around.

But I’ll have some fun disputing the population canard ‘cause it’s one I encounter all too often. China is by far the most populous country in the world. Now, if we’re to go by the simplified population theory it’s only natural that the basketball-crazed country should produce a fair share of top basketball stars in comparison with the rest of the world. So exactly how many basketball stars have come out of China and taken the world by storm? I can only think of one in Yao Ming, and even he doesn’t belong to the highest caliber of players.

Hahaha basketball is also a 2nd world country, at best, and definitely third-world in many areas. There is a lack of basketball infrastructure, a lack of sophisticated fitness techniques, a lack of good diet amongst the population, etc etc. These things make the VAST majority of the population completely ineligible and unable to play basketball well. China is also new to basketball, which undoubtedly makes them not as good at it. That is a silly argument.

 

[NonP]

I think it is interesting that you mention prestige, pride etc etc. In the 1950s and 1960s when Laver's era grew up, tennis was a mess in terms of prestige and such. The best players were primarily in the pros, but some were in the amateurs. There wasn't anything that was superbly prestigious, given that the slams were a big deal but didn't have the best players. So there was no route towards surefire glory. That is untrue in the 1990s when today's players grew up, when the slams get you instant complete fame.

FYI the bigwigs were forced to initiate the Open era precisely because the public knew that the best players were on the pro tour, and followed them accordingly. You really need to read up on the pre-Open era before scribbling zillion-word essays on it. So far your pronouncements on Laver’s times have been all but facile assumptions, and uninformed ones at that.

Anyways, I think it would be hard for you to argue that tennis was more popular/prestigious/whatever in the 1950s than it was in the 1990s. Thus, with no big difference in popularity/prestige/whatever, there shouldnt have been a significant difference in the quality of US players in the 1960s and 2000s. And your entire argument rested on the idea that US players were obviously better in the 1960s than in the 2000s.

This is what I meant by conflating correlation with causation, and you’re doing just that. Again. For the umpteenth time, popularity does not equal depth. And popularity does not equal prestige, for that matter.

Also, I never argued that tennis was more popular in the ‘50s than in the ‘90s. I was just disputing your flawed reverse argument. And you haven’t been paying attention if you really think my “entire argument” has rested on the popularity of tennis in the US alone.

It was purely based on simplified economics because I make long posts as it is and they didn't need to get any longer to explain my entire thought process when it was doubtful most people would even read and understand the simplified version. Now that you've delved into it more, so have I.

Even if you had delved into your “entire thought process” your argument still would’ve been flawed. As I noted from the very beginning, a sport isn’t a simple economic good. Anyway let’s see what you have.

Again, you havent proved anything with relative economic factors. We have limited data for you to make that point. You pulled out some cherry picked stats. I could just point to my own cherry picked stats about how a not very good Luke Jackson made 150,000 dollars in the NBA in 1969 to show that you are wrong. Cherry picking of data is easy.

I presented the facts that Oscar Robertson never made more than $250k per season and that Hank Aaron’s annual salary of $200k in ’72 was the highest at the time. These two were the cream of the crop in their respective sports, and they still got paid similar amounts to Laver’s. Go ahead and see if you can find your own cherry-picked stats that can counter my point as to the relative earnings back then. Good luck with that.

The fact is that the average tennis player likely was lucky to make a tenth as much as Laver. Consider how dominant Laver was that year. In 2007, Federer was dominant, and he made 10 times as much as the #11 in the world, let alone the AVERAGE player. So I think I am probably being generous by saying the average player made about 1/10 of Laver. Anyways, this would have put it at about half the average baseball salary in 1969 and about equal to the MINIMUM baseball salary. Today's average baseball salary is more than twice the average tennis salary, so your point is not actually wrong.

So now you admit I did have a point. BTW $20k, which is about 1/10 of Laver’s prize money in ’70, is worth over $110k today. That’s considerably more than what the journeymen make these days. Take only 5% and we still get over $55k in ’09. That’s about what Bjorn Phau and his fellow sluggers made just last year.

But the difference cannot be explained purely by comparing straight earnings for two big reasons:

1. Diminishing marginal utility comes into play. In the 1960s, the average tennis player did NOT make a good living, while the average baseball player did make a good living. Today, the average tennis player makes a very good living, while the average baseball player makes a great living. This means that in the 1960s, people who could have been tennis players might not have gone into it because they would have been afraid of being poor. That wouldn't happen now. This would not have happened in baseball now or then. So relatively speaking, tennis is better off now from the perspective of whether a person was DISCOURAGED from the sport, but maybe worse off in relative terms when it comes to being ENCOURAGED. So I really don't see how the relative effect of income definitely helps your argument. Diminishing marginal utility REALLY is a big factor here.

Again I never made such an argument. And you’re still assuming that pursuing tennis is nothing but an economic decision, and a purely rational one to boot. One doesn’t have to be a behavioral economist to see the absurdity of this question-begging. You really think Emerson and other players held off turning pro just for the economics?

2. Furthermore, you are ignoring two HUGE factors. First, Laver's earnings probably counted EVERYTHING he played. The listings of players now only list official ATP tournaments. That is, by far, not all they play. Federer makes $1 million a pop at exhibition tournaments, for instance, and all players play exhibitions and make some money. Endorsements are also a big deal for tennis players.

Now you’re confusing omission and commission. I very much expected you to say something about the endorsements, and it’s nothing I didn’t expect. Before I start the dissection, I should note that Laver’s earnings in ’70 were indeed all from legit tournaments. I like how you sneaked in that “probably.” Like I said, reading up on the subject beforehand would do you good.

All kinds of players get endorsement deals now, which only the best players of most other sports get. According to Forbes, income for the top 10 tennis players is only 23% made up of actual earnings from tournaments. This is completely different in other sports, where their actual salary makes up most of their income.

It’s very unwise to use such absolutist words as “completely” in a discussion, especially when the facts don’t confirm your claim. I notice this unironic tendency on your part too often. You might wanna heed what they say about intelligence and nuance.

You said that Federer and Nadal couldn't dream of making what top baseball players make. This is true if you just look strictly at earnings from the sport. However accounting for everything, Forbes said in 2008 that Federer made a total of 35 million dollars. Sports Illustrated does a list of the 50 American athletes that make the most money overall (including off-field earnings). Tiger Woods, Phil Mickelson, LeBron James, and Alex Rodriguez are the ONLY American sports players who make more money than that. This is the thing with tennis players. Endorsements and exhibition money bridges the income gap in a way that it couldnt have in Laver's era because endorsement stuff didn't really exist back then. This is another HUGE hole in your argument about how relative incomes have gotten worse. Tennis players can make more in endorsement and advertisement deals because they are endorsed more and the sport has worldwide appeal for ads. This bridges the actual income gap in a way that didn't exist in Laver's era.

That’s your simplistic view. Another view would be that tennis players get a disproportionately higher share in endorsements because their counterparts in the American pro leagues get more in salary, or that the American-league players get a lesser share not because they’re forced to but because they choose not to seek more given their higher salary.

Let’s first look at the NBA players. Tim Duncan has always been an unassuming chap, so he naturally makes “only” $3.5 million in endorsements. His annual endorsements have remained pretty much the same ever since his championship years. Contrast him with LeBron James, whose well-known monetary ambition drives him to seek more lucre off court. It’s no wonder, then, that his endorsements amounted to twice his salary. In fact he made a virtually same $25m in ’07 even when he was earning less than $6m from the league. And we have another flashy NBA figure in Shaq, who’s well past his prime but almost equaled his $20m salary in extra-league deals. In fact he made $5m more in endorsements than Kobe Bryant, and Kobe himself, though still arguably the best player in the league, is already entering the last phase of his career, which is why he earned $6m less than his younger self just 2 years ago.

And if you wanna talk “worldwide appeal,” there are sports like golf and soccer that may well hold more appeal worldwide and offer more lucrative endorsements than tennis. It’s important to consider and account for these other factors when comparing the numbers. You can’t simply take the #s at their face value and assume there’s no “logical reasoning” to refrain from a rote comparison.

Also, your claim is based on the earnings by the top 10 players only. You’d be hard-pressed to find any journeyman getting such a high share in commercial deals. Compare that with the minimum salary in the NBA, NFL, MLB and NHL, and guess whether a 200th-ranked ATP player or a similarly ranked American-league player is better off financially.

 

[NonP]

Again, I don't mean to be condescending, but I was state debate champion twice; I dont confuse correlation and causation.

In this case it is CLEARLY causation. With more tennis courts around, more people have an opportunity to play. More people having an opportunity to play naturally results in tennis being better able to attract athletes. Clearly causation not correlation.

I don’t know why you insist on this irrelevant d*ck-measuring. FYI I’ve debated with Harvard grad students and also an associate professor there on other forums, and humbled them each time. Just stick to the argument.

And it is not “CLEARLY” causation. Recreation and profession are two very different things, and the fact is that tennis is a more consuming (in just about every sense) sport to pursue professionally than many other pro sports that offer significantly more job safety. This last point is important, as tennis players are practically self-employed while their brethren in many other sports are not. And this is assuming that tennis can be reduced to simple economics, which is an absurd premise on its face.

You and I both know that it is impossible to statistically measure any effect from attraction from new sports and occupations. But that was YOUR argument. I don't need to substantiate YOUR argument. What I CAN substantiate is my point.

I never asked you to substantiate my argument. The burden of proof is on you because you’re the one who first questioned the depth of Laver’s era. You just have yet to make a legit case yet.

There are slightly above 300 million people in America now. There were 200 million in 1969. Thats a 50% increase, which should mean 50% more potentially great players are around. Worldwide, there were about 3.7 billion people in the world in 1970. There are 6.7 billion now. An even bigger increase than in the US. These things should naturally raise quality of players. This is especially true if you subscribe to the idea that great players are naturally rare. This would mean that the more people, the more great players would be around.

Yet again you conflate correlation with causation. Population isn’t the sole magic indicator of quality/depth. Today there are also more means of recreation, more occupations, and indeed more distractions thanks to the 24/7 media and the Internet. You can’t simply beg the question and presuppose that the increase in population overrides the increase in distractions and information overload. You need to substantiate this claim with relevant data and stats, as you just said you should. Otherwise your argument remains weak, not to mention fallacious.

Hahaha basketball is also a 2nd world country, at best, and definitely third-world in many areas. There is a lack of basketball infrastructure, a lack of sophisticated fitness techniques, a lack of good diet amongst the population, etc etc. These things make the VAST majority of the population completely ineligible and unable to play basketball well. China is also new to basketball, which undoubtedly makes them not as good at it. That is a silly argument.

Basketball is more popular in China than almost every other sport, genius. And you cite “lack of basketball infrastructure” but claim at the same time that tennis infrastructure isn’t so “2nd world country” and “third-world” around the globe? Boy, comedy routines don’t get much better than this.

And you’re again showing your typical ignorance with the claim that China is new to basketball. The game in fact saw a spike at least a decade or two earlier, when Jordan was Air Jordan and the NBA began to grow in international influence. And no, this doesn’t reinforce your point that popularity = quality. Maybe even you will realize it this time, but I’m not holding my breath.

 

[SLD76]

Poster here just to drive some people crazy:

Rod Laver, two years ago:

“But also the other thing that Roger has that I don't think that I had was the amount of great champions that are actually in the draw. There are so many players now competing and the world is playing the game of tennis and I think that's the thing, it's hard to challenge and say my era was tougher than his era.”

- Brad Gilbert, two years ago:

“One of the differences in the ATP Tour that Andy Murray's looking at that Andre Agassi didn't face is this: only Pete Sampras was a realistic challenger to Agassi for the No 1 ranking. For Andy he's got five real serious challengers who are about his age…And, of course, there's that guy on top: Roger Federer, maybe the greatest tennis player ever. We've got a really strong and deep field on the men's tour - maybe the strongest of all time.”

Rod Laver (11 Slams): Asked directly if the Swiss Ace (Federer) was the greatest player ever, Laver said:

"I have to believe it because he's got every shot in the book… I think the art of Roger is probably the best player I've ever seen.”

 

[lessthanjake]

I don’t know why you insist on this irrelevant d*ck-measuring. FYI I’ve debated with Harvard grad students and also an associate professor there on other forums, and humbled them each time. Just stick to the argument.

And it is not “CLEARLY” causation. Recreation and profession are two very different things, and the fact is that tennis is a more consuming (in just about every sense) sport to pursue professionally than many other pro sports that offer significantly more job safety. This last point is important, as tennis players are practically self-employed while their brethren in many other sports are not. And this is assuming that tennis can be reduced to simple economics, which is an absurd premise on its face.

Again, you aren't making any point here. Is tennis more consuming and less secure than other sports? Yes. But it has ALWAYS been that way. You'd only have a point if it wasn't that way before but is now.

Btw, debating on a forum is different than an actual debate competition. Its harder to win in actual debate, because forums are just ridiculous and both sides think they have won.

I never asked you to substantiate my argument. The burden of proof is on you because you’re the one who first questioned the depth of Laver’s era. You just have yet to make a legit case yet.

The burden of proof is not on me to show the effect of the issue YOU brought up.

I have shown the effect of the issues I have brought up:

1a. Sports as a whole having a HUGE increase in money earned attracts more and better athletes to sports as a whole.
1b. When it comes to what sports get the best athletes, other sports don't need infrastructure nearly as much and so the level of infrastructure for them has stayed relatively the same. On the other hand, infrastructure for tennis has increased a lot. This gives possible athletes a better chance of choosing tennis over other sports than they might have had before. This gives this era a relative advantage over Laver's era in taking the best athletes from other sports.
1c. You tried to say that my last point is negated by an increase in the gap of relative income between tennis and other sports. For that point, I believe I have pointed out that a lack of data on that point, the idea of diminishing marginal utility, and the new effect of exhibitions and endorsements, muddle your point a lot at the very best for you.
1d. You also tried to say that other factors besides economics and the infrastructure factor into what sport/occupation someone chooses. And that is surely the case. But everything you seem to mention on this account are things that were true of both eras, thus wouldnt really have an effect on quality between eras. As such, you have yet to show how any other factor would expressely negate the undoubtedly large effect of economics and infrastructure that I pointed out.

2a. Tennis is way more popular around the world than it was in Laver's era or the time period in which Laver's era grew up and started playing. There are plenty of ways to try to demonstrate this, but it really is just common knowledge. This should results in much better players from around the world.
2b. You tried to argue that this increase in popularity around the world is negated by a decrease in popularity in the US. I pointed out that players in each respective era grew up and learned to play tennis in the 1950s and 1990s respectively. Tennis was still quite popular in the 1990s in the US and in the 1950s it had not yet gotten even close to its boom years. You would be hard pressed to show that tennis was more popular in the 50s than the 90s. So you'd be hard pressed to show that your counterargument has any weight.


Sounds to me like your arguments have been shot down. Or at the very least, your arguments are muddled such that it is unclear whether the effects of the factors you mentioned even help your case or not.

Yet again you conflate correlation with causation. Population isn’t the sole magic indicator of quality/depth. Today there are also more means of recreation, more occupations, and indeed more distractions thanks to the 24/7 media and the Internet. You can’t simply beg the question and presuppose that the increase in population overrides the increase in distractions and information overload. You need to substantiate this claim with relevant data and stats, as you just said you should. Otherwise your argument remains weak, not to mention fallacious.

No population is not a magic indicator. As I pointed out with China, population sometimes doesn't mean a thing if the country is 2nd or 3rd world. But that is not true of the US, and for a large portion of tennis playing countries, so it is not quite relevant here.

There is no burden of proof on me here. I have substantiated my issue. There are 50% more Americans than ever before, and there are more people in other tennis playing nations as well. These things should naturally increase quality.

You have yet to even show that your counterpoint about greater "distractions and information overload" even has an effect in your direction. I could just as easily point to greater information as resulting in greater desemination of knowledge on how to play tennis. This would naturally make the overall level of play better, as ANY prospective tennis player or any tennis coach would be able to get good information on how to play. Again, at best for you, this muddles your idea to the point where it is not even clear whether it works for or against your argument.

And it is not my responsibility to figure out what effect YOUR point has or whether it even has a point. I said that population probably outweighs your point just as a figure of speech. I didn't mean that I knew that to be fact. But since I have substantiated my point about population, and you have yet to elaborate or make any real point about yours, it sure looks like population outweighs your point.

Basketball is more popular in China than almost every other sport, genius. And you cite “lack of basketball infrastructure” but claim at the same time that tennis infrastructure isn’t so “2nd world country” and “third-world” around the globe? Boy, comedy routines don’t get much better than this.

1. Of course tennis infrastructure sucks in some places. That's not the point. The point is that it is undoubtedly better than ever. And that's what matters for this argument.
2. Tennis isn't really played in 2nd and 3rd world countries anyways (except I suppose South America).
3. As I pointed out about China, the economic situation of a country DOES affect how well they can play sports. And the world (including the tennis playing world) as a whole is better off economically than it was in Laver's era. More fodder to my argument.

And you’re again showing your typical ignorance with the claim that China is new to basketball. The game in fact saw a spike at least a decade or two earlier, when Jordan was Air Jordan and the NBA began to grow in international influence. And no, this doesn’t reinforce your point that popularity = quality. Maybe even you will realize it this time, but I’m not holding my breath.

I dont know about you, but I consider a game which only got popular a decade or two ago is new to a country. Look at Europe. They've been playing basketball for way longer than that, and they still arent up to speed with the US, though it is getting closer.

 

[CyBorg]

These threads are hilarious. Such incessant high-falutin' vitriol flying like airborne shit.

Did someone really just question Rosewall's greatness on clay?

Time to hit the books.

 

[CyBorg]

I don’t know why you insist on this irrelevant d*ck-measuring. FYI I’ve debated with Harvard grad students and also an associate professor there on other forums, and humbled them each time. Just stick to the argument.

Oh, this is my favorite. This one's debated with Harvard professors. And seems like he owned them pretty good too.

I wonder what those discussions were about.

 

[CyBorg]

1a. Sports as a whole having a HUGE increase in money earned attracts more and better athletes to sports as a whole.
1b. When it comes to what sports get the best athletes, other sports don't need infrastructure nearly as much and so the level of infrastructure for them has stayed relatively the same. On the other hand, infrastructure for tennis has increased a lot. This gives possible athletes a better chance of choosing tennis over other sports than they might have had before. This gives this era a relative advantage over Laver's era in taking the best athletes from other sports.
1c. You tried to say that my last point is negated by an increase in the gap of relative income between tennis and other sports. For that point, I believe I have pointed out that a lack of data on that point, the idea of diminishing marginal utility, and the new effect of exhibitions and endorsements, muddle your point a lot at the very best for you.
1d. You also tried to say that other factors besides economics and the infrastructure factor into what sport/occupation someone chooses. And that is surely the case. But everything you seem to mention on this account are things that were true of both eras, thus wouldnt really have an effect on quality between eras. As such, you have yet to show how any other factor would expressely negate the undoubtedly large effect of economics and infrastructure that I pointed out.

2a. Tennis is way more popular around the world than it was in Laver's era or the time period in which Laver's era grew up and started playing. There are plenty of ways to try to demonstrate this, but it really is just common knowledge. This should results in much better players from around the world.
2b. You tried to argue that this increase in popularity around the world is negated by a decrease in popularity in the US. I pointed out that players in each respective era grew up and learned to play tennis in the 1950s and 1990s respectively. Tennis was still quite popular in the 1990s in the US and in the 1950s it had not yet gotten even close to its boom years. You would be hard pressed to show that tennis was more popular in the 50s than the 90s. So you'd be hard pressed to show that your counterargument has any weight.

So neatly organized and precisely numbered. He must know what he's talking about. And so many words. "Infrastructure factor" - oooh, that sounds important.

And so much confidence. He's really sure of himself. Must mean he's propertly informed on the issues.

 

[CyBorg]

More public courts = easier to pursue tennis compared to other sports than it used to be = more possible great tennis players = better quality of play.

wooooooooooooaaaaaaa... I think my head is going to exploooode.

Such... deep... ideas.

 

[フェデラー]

Poster here just to drive some people crazy:

Rod Laver, two years ago:

- Brad Gilbert, two years ago:


Rod Laver (11 Slams): Asked directly if the Swiss Ace (Federer) was the greatest player ever, Laver said:

This thread just got LOCKED DOWN.

 

[Chadwixx]

Oh, this is my favorite. This one's debated with Harvard professors. And seems like he owned them pretty good too.

I wonder what those discussions were about.

Probably what color crayon he should use for his project

 

[SLD76]

Poster here just to drive some people crazy:

Rod Laver, two years ago:
Quote:
“But also the other thing that Roger has that I don't think that I had was the amount of great champions that are actually in the draw. There are so many players now competing and the world is playing the game of tennis and I think that's the thing, it's hard to challenge and say my era was tougher than his era.”

- Brad Gilbert, two years ago:
Quote:
“One of the differences in the ATP Tour that Andy Murray's looking at that Andre Agassi didn't face is this: only Pete Sampras was a realistic challenger to Agassi for the No 1 ranking. For Andy he's got five real serious challengers who are about his age…And, of course, there's that guy on top: Roger Federer, maybe the greatest tennis player ever. We've got a really strong and deep field on the men's tour - maybe the strongest of all time.”


Rod Laver (11 Slams): Asked directly if the Swiss Ace (Federer) was the greatest player ever, Laver said:
Quote:
"I have to believe it because he's got every shot in the book… I think the art of Roger is probably the best player I've ever seen

 

[lessthanjake]

So neatly organized and precisely numbered. He must know what he's talking about. And so many words. "Infrastructure factor" - oooh, that sounds important.

And so much confidence. He's really sure of himself. Must mean he's propertly informed on the issues.

I called it "infrastructure factor" because in the course of the discussion he and I had spoken in depth about what that was a bunch of times. I wanted to talk about it without bothering to needlessly keep defining what I meant when he already knows, hence I used a two word phrase. Big deal, buddy. It's not supposed to sound important, just more succinct than constantly defining it. If you are trying to make me sound ridiculous, that was a silly thing to point to.

And since when is confidence bad? You don't win arguments with a lack of confidence, so I don't see your point.

Lastly, what is your problem with something being neatly organized? I made a long post. Without numbering it or organizing it in some other way, it would've been a lot harder to follow.

Did someone really just question Rosewall's greatness on clay?

Time to hit the books.

Maybe that was me? I dont even know, but I think I remember saying on this forum recently that Rosewall is not as good as Nadal on clay. Do you have an issue with that? That doesn't question his greatness, but rather questions whether he is better than the guy who is IMO the 2nd greatest clay courter of all time (and could end up the greatest by the end of his career).

 

[CyBorg]

Maybe that was me? I dont even know, but I think I remember saying on this forum recently that Rosewall is not as good as Nadal on clay. Do you have an issue with that? That doesn't question his greatness, but rather questions whether he is better than the guy who is IMO the 2nd greatest clay courter of all time (and could end up the greatest by the end of his career).

Issue? Who's got an issue? No issue.

An issue would arise maybe when coherent argumentation is presented. You know, methodological. Then perhaps an issue. An exchange of ideas.

Until then, no issue.

 

[CyBorg]

Probably what color crayon he should use for his project

Yeah, what a champ. Round of applause for him.

 

[lessthanjake]

Issue? Who's got an issue? No issue.

An issue would arise maybe when coherent argumentation is presented. You know, methodological. Then perhaps an issue. An exchange of ideas.

Until then, no issue.

Haha ironic that you were basically getting on me for sounding arrogant, but you sound quite arrogant there yourself.

If you are so great at coherent argumentation, then tell me how Laver's era is not weaker than today's era.

 

[NonP]

Again, you aren't making any point here. Is tennis more consuming and less secure than other sports? Yes. But it has ALWAYS been that way. You'd only have a point if it wasn't that way before but is now.

But the other factors haven’t been the same. You still don’t get it.

Btw, debating on a forum is different than an actual debate competition. Its harder to win in actual debate, because forums are just ridiculous and both sides think they have won.

Yeah, I’m sure you did well, judging by the level of intelligence and coherence you exhibit on this and other threads.

The burden of proof is not on me to show the effect of the issue YOU brought up.

No, you did. Go back and see who conjured up grade-school economics to question Laver’s era. But whatever makes you feel better.

I have shown the effect of the issues I have brought up:

1a. Sports as a whole having a HUGE increase in money earned attracts more and better athletes to sports as a whole.

Trotting out the same point over and over does not make your argument stronger. If you still don’t see why money isn’t the only factor here you’re beyond help.

1b. When it comes to what sports get the best athletes, other sports don't need infrastructure nearly as much and so the level of infrastructure for them has stayed relatively the same. On the other hand, infrastructure for tennis has increased a lot. This gives possible athletes a better chance of choosing tennis over other sports than they might have had before. This gives this era a relative advantage over Laver's era in taking the best athletes from other sports.

Yet another ignorant claim. The level of infrastructure for the other sports has not stayed relatively the same. Just ask the old-timers. And you’re still belting out these assertions with no evidence whatsoever.

1c. You tried to say that my last point is negated by an increase in the gap of relative income between tennis and other sports. For that point, I believe I have pointed out that a lack of data on that point, the idea of diminishing marginal utility, and the new effect of exhibitions and endorsements, muddle your point a lot at the very best for you.

I like how desperate you sound here. First of all, you didn’t just say there was “a lack of data” on the issue of relative income. You then said you could find other cherry-picked stats that support your view, so I presented the facts that Robertson never made $250k per season and that Aaron’s annual salary of $200k in ’72 was the highest in the league at the time. The least you can do is to be honest. And I’ve been pointing out how absurd it is to reduce the quality of a sport to a simplistic issue of marginal utility. You just don’t get it.

And I’ve already addressed your other point regarding endorsements. Funny how you chose not to deal with that part. This wasn’t even a decent comeback.

1d. You also tried to say that other factors besides economics and the infrastructure factor into what sport/occupation someone chooses. And that is surely the case. But everything you seem to mention on this account are things that were true of both eras, thus wouldnt really have an effect on quality between eras. As such, you have yet to show how any other factor would expressely negate the undoubtedly large effect of economics and infrastructure that I pointed out.

No, these other factors aren’t true of both eras. For one thing (or two), there are more forms of leisure and occupations now than ever. Then there are factors like prestige, cultural climate, international relations and others that have changed over time. And again, the onus is on you.

2a. Tennis is way more popular around the world than it was in Laver's era or the time period in which Laver's era grew up and started playing. There are plenty of ways to try to demonstrate this, but it really is just common knowledge. This should results in much better players from around the world.

Popularity doesn’t equal quality, genius. And yeah, I’m sure this is just “common knowledge.” In your alternate reality.

2b. You tried to argue that this increase in popularity around the world is negated by a decrease in popularity in the US. I pointed out that players in each respective era grew up and learned to play tennis in the 1950s and 1990s respectively. Tennis was still quite popular in the 1990s in the US and in the 1950s it had not yet gotten even close to its boom years. You would be hard pressed to show that tennis was more popular in the 50s than the 90s. So you'd be hard pressed to show that your counterargument has any weight.

Nothing new here. Again, repeating your flawed argument over and over doesn’t make it stronger.

Sounds to me like your arguments have been shot down. Or at the very least, your arguments are muddled such that it is unclear whether the effects of the factors you mentioned even help your case or not.

It’s not my problem if you can’t see the obvious by this point. But feel free to think you somehow have the upper hand. It’s very amusing.

No population is not a magic indicator. As I pointed out with China, population sometimes doesn't mean a thing if the country is 2nd or 3rd world. But that is not true of the US, and for a large portion of tennis playing countries, so it is not quite relevant here.

So you really think China is “2nd or 3rd world” but the Eastern European and South American countries are not. Never mind the distinction between urban and rural areas, the income disparity, governmental “support” of the particular sports, etc. Again, reading up on the subject beforehand would do you good. Also you get bonus points for describing an entire country as belonging to the “2nd or 3rd world.”

There is no burden of proof on me here. I have substantiated my issue.

Yes there is, and no, you didn’t. All your “substantiation” has been ignorant and fallacious question-begging. But hey, keep trying.

There are 50% more Americans than ever before, and there are more people in other tennis playing nations as well. These things should naturally increase quality.

Same old fallacy. You’ve made this same unsubstantiated point how many times by now? At least try to be brief. That’s what proofreading is for.

You have yet to even show that your counterpoint about greater "distractions and information overload" even has an effect in your direction. I could just as easily point to greater information as resulting in greater desemination of knowledge on how to play tennis. This would naturally make the overall level of play better, as ANY prospective tennis player or any tennis coach would be able to get good information on how to play. Again, at best for you, this muddles your idea to the point where it is not even clear whether it works for or against your argument.

For the umpteenth time, there was no “argument” on my part. I never argued that popularity was higher in this or that era. I’m just saying your own argument is weak.

And it is not my responsibility to figure out what effect YOUR point has or whether it even has a point. I said that population probably outweighs your point just as a figure of speech. I didn't mean that I knew that to be fact. But since I have substantiated my point about population, and you have yet to elaborate or make any real point about yours, it sure looks like population outweighs your point.

Yet more unsupported assertions and delusions. I’m enjoying this.

1. Of course tennis infrastructure sucks in some places. That's not the point. The point is that it is undoubtedly better than ever. And that's what matters for this argument.

No, you didn’t get the point. The point was to point out your incoherence and desperation in dismissing the basketball infrastructure but touting the tennis infrastructure in the same “2nd or 3rd world” countries. And no, that’s not what matters for your “argument.”

2. Tennis isn't really played in 2nd and 3rd world countries anyways (except I suppose South America).

So now you admit South America is “2nd and 3rd world.” Well done. BTW, if tennis ain’t so popular in the “2nd and 3rd world countries,” that actually reinforces the focus on the Davis Cup powerhouses. Again, well done.

3. As I pointed out about China, the economic situation of a country DOES affect how well they can play sports. And the world (including the tennis playing world) as a whole is better off economically than it was in Laver's era. More fodder to my argument.

No one said the economic conditions have no effect. I’m just saying your “argument” based on simplistic economics is flawed.

I dont know about you, but I consider a game which only got popular a decade or two ago is new to a country. Look at Europe. They've been playing basketball for way longer than that, and they still arent up to speed with the US, though it is getting closer.

So tennis is new to the Eastern European and South American countries you referred to. Gotcha. And you need to hit the library again if you really think the Chinese hadn’t been playing basketball before that.

 

[lawrence]

i like how the debates stray so far off topic they aren't even relevant to the OP anymore

 

[NonP]

Oh, this is my favorite. This one's debated with Harvard professors. And seems like he owned them pretty good too.

I wonder what those discussions were about.

I was just having some fun with lessthanjake. He seems to think being an Ivy Leaguer and a former state debate champion (whatever that is) somehow gives him the edge. And he still thinks the quality of a sport can be broken down to simple "marginal utility." Just wanted to call him out on his pretensions.

 

[Andy G]

Greatest of the Open Era is between Laver, Sampras, and Borg. You could make arguments for any of those 3. Federer is a solid 4th but distant 4th at the moment. If he was born in another era he would probably be behind Connors, Lendl, McEnroe, and maybe Agassi as well, and if he were born a couple years later he would be behind Nadal, but that is the way things go sometimes.

Borg and Laver. Why people think they are so great is beyond me. I've seen some of their stuff on youtube. Its like watching leather helmet football games. Their rallies look more like 'dancin to the oldies', 'and a hop and a skip and a jump'. Budge and Tilden are even more off. If they played today they would get crushed. Sampras?? He had no game on clay, please explain how he qualifies when an entire portion of his game sucks. And now he would be behind Nadal, yet Nadal has one only 1 wimby and 1 ao, and just barely in 5 setters, and no uso. Fed is the not the greatest on any one surface, but collectively on all, and overall, yes, he is the greatest ever.

 

[jstr]

The tennis of the 60's and tennis of today are 2 different sports.

 

[FlamEnemY]

Fed is the not the greatest on any one surface, but collectively on all, and overall, yes, he is the greatest ever.

He has a pretty good argument of being the best on HC.

 

[Audiophile]

WOW, Unreal......

Borg and Laver. Why people think they are so great is beyond me. I've seen some of their stuff on youtube. Its like watching leather helmet football games. Their rallies look more like 'dancin to the oldies', 'and a hop and a skip and a jump'. Budge and Tilden are even more off. If they played today they would get crushed. Sampras?? He had no game on clay, please explain how he qualifies when an entire portion of his game sucks. And now he would be behind Nadal, yet Nadal has one only 1 wimby and 1 ao, and just barely in 5 setters, and no uso. Fed is the not the greatest on any one surface, but collectively on all, and overall, yes, he is the greatest ever.

Well, another great example of a post from someone who apparently has no idea about this game. "Why people think they are so great". Why not ask the experts, some of their peers that actually played against them, and then you will understand. I'm sorry, but asking the question why people think Borg and Laver are so great is a question that should never be asked.

 

[Andy G]

Well, another great example of a post from someone who apparently has no idea about this game. "Why people think they are so great". Why not ask the experts, some of their peers that actually played against them, and then you will understand. I'm sorry, but asking the question why people think Borg and Laver are so great is a question that should never be asked.

Yes lets ask experts. They say how great they were in their time. Key words: in their time. Laver used to play in slacks and sweater vests. If you took him out of 1965 and put him in 2009, he would get destroyed. Todays players are so physically superior and the game so much faster, it would barely be a match. Same thing with Borg, although he was faster. Pancho is the only one, I think, with enough raw talent, given a modern racquet, to compete at todays level. And the term GOAT means of all time. So, by that, if they can't compete at todays level, than they can not even be considered for the greatest ever category. By todays standard, their level of play is a joke. Thats why I say they are no way considered great. And in 20 or 40 years when the game is even stronger, todays players will be the same way. Greatest of their time, but their time is gone.

 

[clayman2000]

Yes lets ask experts. They say how great they were in their time. Key words: in their time. Laver used to play in slacks and sweater vests. If you took him out of 1965 and put him in 2009, he would get destroyed. Todays players are so physically superior and the game so much faster, it would barely be a match. Same thing with Borg, although he was faster. Pancho is the only one, I think, with enough raw talent, given a modern racquet, to compete at todays level. And the term GOAT means of all time. So, by that, if they can't compete at todays level, than they can not even be considered for the greatest ever category. By todays standard, their level of play is a joke. Thats why I say they are no way considered great. And in 20 or 40 years when the game is even stronger, todays players will be the same way. Greatest of their time, but their time is gone.

By your logic then the top 5 players of all time should be the top 5 in the entry rankings.

Look if Laver was born in 1980 things would be a lot different for him. Hed have a metal raquet, coaches telling him to stay back, and probably a 2 hand backhand