Laver's Grand Slams not "true" by today's standards?

boojay

boojay

Hall of Fame
From the bits and pieces of information I've gathered passively through the years (no concrete research yet), I've always had an inkling that past majors were played on different surfaces and some surfaces were not played on altogether, but according to Mats Wilander, Rod Laver's grand slams were won by playing THREE of the slams on grass and none of Borg's slam wins were on a hardcourt (6 French, 5 Wimbledons.)

That alone cements Federer's status as GOAT with no more possible arguments. Any real tennis player knows that playing on a different surface changes the complexity of the game completely and seeing as how those former greats never needed to or were never able to master all surfaces simply magnifies Fed's greatest ever title.

Here's the vid: http://sports.espn.go.com/sports/tennis/wimbledon09/columns/story?id=4304546

BTW, it's obvious Wilander is quite adamant that Fed's not the GOAT, but from past interviews/quotes, it's apparent he's out of his mind and doesn't want to diminish his own accomplishments. At least he's confirmed that Laver's Grand Slam was not a true slam and only Agassi and Fed have really won slams on ALL surfaces. There's no such thing as a True Grand Slam yet, only 2 True Career Grand Slams. Fed should change that within the next few years.
 
Last edited:
Its not Laver's fault that slams were only played on two surfaces in his day. We cant fault him for that . He was a very good hardcourt player as well. Truly one of the all time greats.
 
It's not Federer's fault that most ofhis slams came at the ends of non-slam holders. We can't fault him for that. He's been very good on all surfaces. Truly one of the all time greats.
 
JeMar said:
It's not Federer's fault that most ofhis slams came at the ends of non-slam holders. We can't fault him for that. He's been very good on all surfaces. Truly one of the all time greats.
Click to expand...

I agree. No doubt he is one of the greatest. But who to say who is greater than who? I dont understand why just look at stats as the be all end all in sports. Other aspects should be taken into account. But people have a tendancy to try and downplay certain aspects and only mentioning others when trying to make a case for their favorite player. We are all biased in some senses.


Case in point.. Fed is greater than Pete just because of his success on clay, but apparently his h2h against his rival (and only other proven champion in this era) in the slams should not be even discussed.

Some people want one thing and not the other
 
Ridiculous post. Not Laver's fault that 3 of the Grand Slams were played on grass. He won a ton of big titles against the best players on surfaces other than grass and clay.

Perhaps the most unique thing about Laver's Grand Slam was the fact that for probably the only year from the point where Jack Kramer established the professional circuit until the AO moved venues in 88, all 4 Grand Slams were contested by all the top players.
 
Let's put it this way, how many slams (including grand slams) would Fed have already won (and will win) if 3 of the 4 slams were on grass? I'm not even going to discuss the power and depth of the game these days compared to back then.

Laver, Borg, Sampras, etc. are definitely the greatest, but greatest of all is now reserved for Mr. Federer and there should be no opposition to it.
 
The depth at the top of today's game is pretty awful compared to other eras. 2004 and 2005 Roddick no. 3 2006 Davydenko no.3 2007 and 2008 Djokovic.
 
David_86 said:
The depth at the top of today's game is pretty awful compared to other eras. 2004 and 2005 Roddick no. 3 2006 Davydenko no.3 2007 and 2008 Djokovic.
Click to expand...

First off, Roddick's no pushover, he's just really unlucky to be playing in this era.

From the same article I posted above:

"The player ranked 30 today is probably better than the guy ranked 30 in my time, so it is maybe a little bit deeper." -Pete Sampras

We all know how dangerous individual sport is, particular in tennis, that it's possible for one hot (lower ranked) player to knock out a top seed in any given round. Nadal/Djokovic/Murray/Roddick have all been recipients of these defeats at one time or another except.........Fed. It's bound to happen, I know, but as far as I know, no top player has ever dominated the way Fed has. I mean, c'mon, after all these years Fed has brushed aside challenge after challenge and has only lost to top ranked players that actually win the slam in the end.
 
Laver would have won 20 slams if he could compete in slams from '63-'67 and/or other guys would have challenged that 12-20 range if pros could play slams.
 
Borg won 6 French, 5 Wimbledon......3 times won both of those in the same year, and two of those years he was runner up at the US Open......Fed got his French......not to take anything from Laver, but Borg and Fed are on the top of my list.....and since Samprass didn't get a French, he can just slide on doen to number four and I might even put Agassi ahead of him
 
It's true Fed usually beats 1-time or 0-time slam holders in the finals, or old crippled players... take a look

2003 Wimby - Scud(0 slams)
2004 AO - Safin(2 slams)
2004 Wimby - Roddick(1 slam)
2004 USO - Hewitt(2 slams)
2005 Wimby - Roddick(1 slam)
2005 USO - Agassi(8 slams, 35 years old)
2006 AO - Baggy(0 slams)
2006 Wimby - Nadal(6 slams)
2006 USO - Roddick(1 slam)
2007 AO - Gonzalez(0 slam)
2007 Wimby - Nadal(6 slams)
2007 USO - Nole(1 slam)
2008 USO - Murray(0 slams)
2008 FO - Soderling(0 slams)
2008 Wimby - Roddick(1 slam)

Roger is really cleaning up on non-multi-slam champs lately!
 
GameSampras said:
Its not Laver's fault that slams were only played on two surfaces in his day. We cant fault him for that . He was a very good hardcourt player as well. Truly one of the all time greats.
Click to expand...

So what if Laver won slams on two surfaces, today slams are played on two surfaces.....

Blue clay (Australia), Red Clay (Paris), Green clay (Wimbledon) and Deco Turf (US Open).

If they did the knowledge they would know Laver won slams, or slam equivalents (Pro Chamionships) on three surfaces grass, clay and wood, and there many who'd debate (and rightfully so), that the surfaces were more diverse, than the homoginixed surfaces that are played on today.
 
Last edited:
380pistol said:
So what if Laver won slams on two surfaces, today slams are played on two surfaces.....

Blue clay (Australia), Red Clay (Paris), Green clay (Wimbledon) and Deco Turf (US Open).

Blue Clay?........that's news to me......it's a rubberized hard court
Click to expand...
 
To boojay

Roddick just doesn't cut it as a great player. His serve is awesome, but which other parts of his game stand out.

forehand, backhand, return of serve, volleys, movement, speed, tactics, defensive play?
 
The players of today are much more athletic and I doubt Laver would have stood much of a chance. That is typically what happens over time. Athletes just keep getting better (like for instance sprinters, who continually break the world records). Tennis is no exception. Plus there is so much more competition today because of the money and fame at stake. Do you think they had qualifying and pre-qualifying events for tournaments back then?
 
Essentially Roland Garros this year was fast clay like Roma, so you can't even say it's the same year to year. Madrid was almost like a hard court but Wimbledon is like green clay.
 
Rhino said:
The players of today are much more athletic and I doubt Laver would have stood much of a chance. That is typically what happens over time. Athletes just keep getting better (like for instance sprinters, who continually break the world records). Tennis is no exception. Plus there is so much more competition today because of the money and fame at stake. Do you think they had qualifying and pre-qualifying events for tournaments back then?
Click to expand...

The athletes are better, but the geometry of the tennis court stays the same + height the net is unchanged. Maybe we need to make the court a bit bigger and the net a bit higher, no?
 
FedFan_2009 said:
It's true Fed usually beats 1-time or 0-time slam holders in the finals, or old crippled players... take a look

2003 Wimby - Scud(0 slams)
2004 AO - Safin(2 slams)
2004 Wimby - Roddick(1 slam)
2004 USO - Hewitt(2 slams)
2005 Wimby - Roddick(1 slam)
2005 USO - Agassi(8 slams, 35 years old)
2006 AO - Baggy(0 slams)
2006 Wimby - Nadal(6 slams)
2006 USO - Roddick(1 slam)
2007 AO - Gonzalez(0 slam)
2007 Wimby - Nadal(6 slams)
2007 USO - Nole(1 slam)
2008 USO - Murray(0 slams)
2008 FO - Soderling(0 slams)
2008 Wimby - Roddick(1 slam)

Roger is really cleaning up on non-multi-slam champs lately!
Click to expand...

This is the worst argument ive ever heard in my life. The whole point is that if Fed wasnt so good, then these guys would have more. So what if Sampras beat players with more slams (which i doubt he did). That would be probably because he wasnt good enough to stop them most of the time. In fact your argument gives Fed more credibility,
 
Being a better athlete does make you a better tennis player, but it doesn't give you more touch, greater imagination, better anticipation or a better temperament.
 
FedFan_2009 said:
It's true Fed usually beats 1-time or 0-time slam holders in the finals, or old crippled players... take a look
Click to expand...

I believe a slam's difficult to win regardless of who it is you face because the best players always make it to the championship match. As I said before, there's always the danger of a top seed (defending champion even) to be knocked out in the earlier rounds.

A few examples: a prime Sampras going for his 5th straight Wimbledon in 2001 getting knocked out in the 4th round by some unknown 19-year old.....Roger Federer, who was probably playing out of his mind at the time, as is the case whenever a favorite falls. Hewitt getting knocked out in the 1st round of 2003 Wimbledon as defending champion by danger man Karlovic. Nadal getting knocked out time after time at slams in earlier rounds by in-form lower-ranked players every year. And so on and so on....
 
Hard courts are cement/rubber/black top are variations of that

Clay is brick/dirt and variations of that

Grass is green and a living thing and grows

Some of these explinations of how a clay court is palying like a grass court and a grass court is playing like a hard court are quite honestly a joke!
 
sanchino said:
Hard courts are cement/rubber/black top are variations of that

Clay is brick/dirt and variations of that

Grass is green and a living thing and grows

Some of these explinations of how a clay court is palying like a grass court and a grass court is playing like a hard court are quite honestly a joke!
Click to expand...

Because the grass is not 100% grass. When you add rye and you make what's underneath the grass, different and firmer, one can dictate how the grass plays, not just in the hands of nature.

They're not just growing the grass and saying play.
 
Last edited:
David_86 said:
To boojay

Roddick just doesn't cut it as a great player. His serve is awesome, but which other parts of his game stand out.

forehand, backhand, return of serve, volleys, movement, speed, tactics, defensive play?
Click to expand...

Most would not consider Roddick a great player because he doesn't have the resume to back it up and that's Roger's fault, not because he's a one-shot pony. Sure, the thing that stands out most about Roddick's game is his serve (possibly the best of all time), but I could almost say the same about Sampras' game. After watching this Wimbledon, it's obvious Roddick finally figured out that a big serve alone is not enough to win a slam anymore, as it was back in the day.

Sampras overpowered others with his serve and volley. His strokes were punishing too, but Agassi had his number from the baseline. With the level of today's returners, I'm not sure Sampras would be able to make it to the net on time to do his magic.

To be fair, I'll say that there are many other players out there who can produce a forehand (I don't actually believe this), backhand, serve, volley, footwork, speed, strategy, etc., as well or even better than Federer, but there exists no one who's excels in as many areas as Roger.

Roger is the new standard of tennis player by which all others will be gauged.
 
Sampras was an excellent volleyer. Not in the same class as McEnroe/Edberg but he had good technique and anticipation. And his forehand was one of the most famous shots in the game.

Was he a better server than Roddick? At the critical moments definately, but Roddick usually gets more aces and service winners throughout a match
 
380pistol said:
Because the grass is not 100% grass. When you add rye and you make what's underneath the grass, different and firmer, one can dictate how the grass plays, not just in the hands of nature.

there not just growing the grass and saying play.
Click to expand...

Rye is grass. The stuff underneath the grass was always made firmer so play was always dictated. They just dictate is differently now. It was never in the hands of nature.

Thanks for your contribution.
 
David_86 said:
Sampras was an excellent volleyer. Not in the same class as McEnroe/Edberg but he had good technique and anticipation. And his forehand was one of the most famous shots in the game.

Was he a better server than Roddick? At the critical moments definately, but Roddick usually gets more aces and service winners throughout a match
Click to expand...

If that's the case, you mean Sampras is a more clutch player than Roddick, not a better server.

Personally, I think Karlovic is the best server of all time. Most aces, most service games held, and so forth. I also believe it's his height that gives him this advantage, not because his serve has better pace, spin, or placement than other great servers.
 
AAAA said:
Rye is grass. The stuff underneath the grass was always made firmer so play was always dictated. They just dictate is differently now. It was never in the hands of nature.

Thanks for your contribution.
Click to expand...

Rye is a type of grass, not the "grass" tradionally used at Wimbledon. According to groundskeppers they started using it in 2001. I was just telling that guy, that you can do things to grass, modify it, so it doesn;t play like grass.
 
While I love the GOAT argument for Roger, I definitely make a distinction between Laver's era and now. While Laver wasn't as "athletic" as today's player, he probably would have been had he had today's training techniques, diet, supplements and grown up playing a more athletic form of tennis with modern racquets and technology. Laver also likely didn't have a private NetJet whisking him around from tourney to tourney (imagine the travel hassels back then) and didn't have a posse of trainers/massage therapists/managers to help him out. That being said, the number of players from other countries has greatly changed the game too.
 
boojay said:
Let's put it this way, how many slams (including grand slams) would Fed have already won (and will win) if 3 of the 4 slams were on grass? I'm not even going to discuss the power and depth of the game these days compared to back then.
Laver, Borg, Sampras, etc. are definitely the greatest, but greatest of all is now reserved for Mr. Federer and there should be no opposition to it.
Click to expand...

wow.. just wow.. hold your horses right there! like said, you have not researched and that is pretty evident! HOw many years and wich years was Laver barred of the Slams?

and lets not talk about all the Major events being held by that time that were very much leveled with slams being held in Hard, Carpet and Wood (yes.. try it and let us know about it), the doubles career....


get your fatcs straight before posting such absurdities!

ps: as for the bolded.. that is plain simply stupid as an argument!
 
FedFan_2009 said:
It's true Fed usually beats 1-time or 0-time slam holders in the finals, or old crippled players... take a look

2003 Wimby - Scud(0 slams)
2004 AO - Safin(2 slams)
2004 Wimby - Roddick(1 slam)
2004 USO - Hewitt(2 slams)
2005 Wimby - Roddick(1 slam)
2005 USO - Agassi(8 slams, 35 years old)
2006 AO - Baggy(0 slams)
2006 Wimby - Nadal(6 slams)
2006 USO - Roddick(1 slam)
2007 AO - Gonzalez(0 slam)
2007 Wimby - Nadal(6 slams)
2007 USO - Nole(1 slam)
2008 USO - Murray(0 slams)
2008 FO - Soderling(0 slams)
2008 Wimby - Roddick(1 slam)

Roger is really cleaning up on non-multi-slam champs lately!
Click to expand...

Isn't it ironic that had Roger lost yesterday, you could put (2) after Roddick's name for 3 of Roger's wins? So instead of having 4 wins over a 1 Slam winner, he'd have 3 over a 2 time Slam winner! Ha! So Roger should have just lost yesterday to improve the total number of Slams won by his opponents!
 
GameSampras said:
Case in point.. Fed is greater than Pete just because of his success on clay, but apparently his h2h against his rival (and only other proven champion in this era) in the slams should not be even discussed.

Some people want one thing and not the other
Click to expand...

If Federer was as bad as Pete on clay, his H2H against Nadal would not be an issue. They would essentially be even.
 
I think Wilander gave a good interview. Fine we can't really compare Fed with Laver, they're just too far apart in generations. But surely we can now agree that Fed is better than Sampras in every aspect of the game. Once Fed gets 7 W titles, Pete's name will no longer be found in the tennis record books. :twisted:
 
Yes lets attack Laver for not having hard court slams to play in. How dare he win on what was in front of him. He should have laid down the hardcourts himself and created his own grand slam.

Also when the hell did winning the Grand Slam say you have to win it on three surfaces? I never read that anywhere, it is winning all four slams in a single year. Screw today's standards. Also there is evidence that the three grass surfaces actually did play differently there was an excellent post on it a while back look through the former pro player section you could find it..I mean how dare Laver be born in the early 1900s and play on surfaces that existed at the time and not the surfaces that exist today.
 
Rhino said:
The players of today are much more athletic and I doubt Laver would have stood much of a chance. That is typically what happens over time. Athletes just keep getting better
Click to expand...

I would love to see today's players make it thru continuous play (no sitting down at change overs) No Tie-breaks, no several minutes between sets. I can guarantee those old legends were were fit, old Harry Hopman saw to that.
 
Laver won around 30 hard court titles

So there can be no doubt that he would handle hard court slams.

Not his fault there were no hard court slams during his era. You can only play what is available to you.
 
Let me end this. Laver won 7 Pro Majors on indoor or Hard courts. And from 1963 onwards, he won at least 60 hard court titles. I say at least cause Wikipedia has ???? on many of the surfaces for each title he won. 60 was what i got, but it could be as high as 80
 
boojay said:
Any real tennis player knows that playing on a different surface changes the complexity of the game completely and seeing as how those former greats never needed to or were never able to master all surfaces simply magnifies Fed's greatest ever title.
Click to expand...

My advice to you is to pick up a good book on tennis history or perhaps at a minimum read some wikipedia entries so you can familiarize yourself with the way professional and amateurs tours were organized in past years, and what surfaces players dealt with.

Just so you don't embarrass yourself any further.
 
clayman2000 said:
Let me end this. Laver won 7 Pro Majors on indoor or Hard courts. And from 1963 onwards, he won at least 60 hard court titles. I say at least cause Wikipedia has ???? on many of the surfaces for each title he won. 60 was what i got, but it could be as high as 80
Click to expand...

It's the same persistent fallacy that comes up again, and again, and again, and again on these boards.

People assume that simply because the grand slam holds the most important events in tennis today, therefore the same always held true historically.

To truly comprehend why Laver is regarded as the greatest of all time, one has to understand the intricacies of the game pertaining to his time. One has to appreciate his dominance on the professional tour and the subsequent excellence in the early years of the open era.

The grand slam is not even in the discussion until 1968!

I suppose we have the media to blame for the spread of this misinformation, because this ghastly cliche about Laver's grand slam is used as a replacement for a well-developed and coherent argument. This results in some kid who thinks he's smarter than everyone else, picking up on some smidgeon of a fact and then smugly announcing to everyone that he's got it all figured out.

Well, thanks very much. If certitude is to be as cherished as knowledge then I suppose we may as well just all stop thinking and accept this awful fatality.
 
boojay said:
If that's the case, you mean Sampras is a more clutch player than Roddick, not a better server.

Personally, I think Karlovic is the best server of all time. Most aces, most service games held, and so forth. I also believe it's his height that gives him this advantage, not because his serve has better pace, spin, or placement than other great servers.
Click to expand...

How often do you watch Karlovic matches, or do you just skip because you know it will be boring to watch? His height gives him much, much better placement on the serve than anyone else who has ever served. And when you can place a ball as well as Karlovic does, suddenly you feel a lot more confident going for bigger serves and getting them in.
 
bruce38 said:
If Federer was as bad as Pete on clay, his H2H against Nadal would not be an issue. They would essentially be even.
Click to expand...

exactly. Also, if Nadal was better on hardcourt and grass earlier in his career, then Fed probably would not have the mental problems he has had with Nadal. He lost so many clay court matches early on that he could have won, that it started playing with his psyche. Fed would have won the matches on hardcourt at the US Open or Australian, just by playing his normal standard. The fact that most of their big matches occurred first on clay in their rivalry is HUGE.
 
sgulla said:
exactly. Also, if Nadal was better on hardcourt and grass earlier in his career, then Fed probably would not have the mental problems he has had with Nadal. He lost so many clay court matches early on that he could have won, that it started playing with his psyche. Fed would have won the matches on hardcourt at the US Open or Australian, just by playing his normal standard. The fact that most of their big matches occurred first on clay in their rivalry is HUGE.
Click to expand...

Two out of Federer's first three losses to Nadal came on hardcourt.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

D
  • Poll Poll
CYGS in 1969 or 3 surface slam in 21st century?
Replies
27
Views
588
Krish872007
Krish872007
T
Let's not forget Don Budge' 6-consecutive Grand Slams and Rosewall's 23 Grand Slams!
Replies
26
Views
2K
Tennis_Monk
T
Sport
Why there will never be a tennis GOAT
3 4 5
Replies
208
Views
11K
MeatTornado
MeatTornado
hoodjem
If Nadal wins a true Grand Slam . . .
2
Replies
82
Views
5K
cknobman
cknobman
Halba
Federer is 10-21 versus Djokodal in grand slams
2 3 4
Replies
174
Views
6K
duaneeo
duaneeo
Back
Top