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

[Chopin]

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.

Yeah, to understand the "intricacies" of the game at the time involves acknowledging that tennis was a country club sport that is dwarfed by today's superior infrastructure and talent pool. If you put Vince Spadea in Laver's era and gave him a wooden racquet, he'd destroy his competition! I sometimes wonder if you've seen modern professional tennis in person Cyborg.

 

[Valdez737]

Roger in his prime woulde bagel Laver's in his prime at any courts useing any Racket.

 

[boojay]

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.

Hardly anything to be embarrassed about. It's quite amusing you think the game back then and today are the same. I never felt the need to bring up the fact because it should be obvious to anyone (but I guess not you.) Aside from what another poster had mentioned, about the game being more global and accessible to greater numbers today than it was back in past years, the biomechanics and evolution of tennis strokes has reached higher and higher levels and is currently at its peak.

Back then, due to lack of spin, whether it be because of technique or technology, the ideal strike zone for a ball was knee to hip height. As the game progressed and became faster, more spin was being applied and the strike zone eventually shifted one level higher from hip to chest height. These days, there's so much spin and power, balls jump to ridiculous heights and players need to routinely strike the ball from chest height and above.

It wouldn't be a stretch to say the modern player can handle the low, flatter balls of yore, but it doesn't take a genius to figure out that players of the older generation would have a pretty tough time handling today's modern rally.

I suggest you try picking up a racquet sometime, and then realize your game mirrors that of Laver more than the pros of today before you post again.

 

[obsessedtennisfandisorder]

Hardly anything to be embarrassed about. It's quite amusing you think the game back then and today are the same. I never felt the need to bring up the fact because it should be obvious to anyone (but I guess not you.) Aside from what another poster had mentioned, about the game being more global and accessible to greater numbers today than it was back in past years, the biomechanics and evolution of tennis strokes has reached higher and higher levels and is currently at its peak.

Back then, due to lack of spin, whether it be because of technique or technology, the ideal strike zone for a ball was knee to hip height. As the game progressed and became faster, more spin was being applied and the strike zone eventually shifted one level higher from hip to chest height. These days, there's so much spin and power, balls jump to ridiculous heights and players need to routinely strike the ball from chest height and above.

It wouldn't be a stretch to say the modern player can handle the low, flatter balls of yore, but it doesn't take a genius to figure out that players of the older generation would have a pretty tough time handling today's modern rally.

I suggest you try picking up a racquet sometime, and then realize your game mirrors that of Laver more than the pros of today before you post again.

Boojay, It is exactly because the game has changed so much...it the
reason we can't call fed, or anyone for that matter GOAT....so many
posters on here are trying to tell you that.

For example...you say returners are "better" today...well...that's very
difficult to distinfuish because no serve and volleyers anymore put any
pressure on the returners...THE RETURNERS HAVE ZERO PRESSURE.

Look at yesterdays final set Roddick vs Fed....

Why didn't Roddick serve out wide and try serve and volley fifth set.

fed can slice it back all day because he knows rod not coming in...

The tactic worked a treat avainst murray sometimes.

What happened to djokovics almighty return at wimbledon LOL.

 

[Eviscerator]

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.

.

:roll:

You may wish that there are no arguments or opposing points of view, but clearly your attempt at a definitive statement falls short or reality. Just because two of the four slams today are played on hard courts does not carry much weight. While Federer's accomplishments are great, playing on one extra surface does not settle anything. Laver won on grass and clay, and he also won major championships on hard courts as well. So if one of the slams were on hard, it is likely he still would have won during his Grand Slam years.

If and until Federer wins at least one Grand Slam, the GOAT question will never be settled in many peoples mind.

 

[boojay]

Boojay, It is exactly because the game has changed so much...it the
reason we can't call fed, or anyone for that matter GOAT....so many
posters on here are trying to tell you that.

For example...you say returners are "better" today...well...that's very
difficult to distinfuish because no serve and volleyers anymore put any
pressure on the returners...THE RETURNERS HAVE ZERO PRESSURE.

Look at yesterdays final set Roddick vs Fed....

Why didn't Roddick serve out wide and try serve and volley fifth set.

fed can slice it back all day because he knows rod not coming in...

The tactic worked a treat avainst murray sometimes.

What happened to djokovics almighty return at wimbledon LOL.

Granted, but there's a reason why there are so few serve and volleyers today. With the current string and racquet technology, players can take bigger swipes at the ball and produce tremendous pace and spin, either blasting an outright return winner against an incoming volleyer or dipping it at his feet, causing either an error or a weak reply. Volleying today is used more to 'mix it up', but is a dead strategy.

Certainly Federer's not aggressive on his returns as he should be, but he likely does it for a reason. Fed's game is not based on risk taking, but more on probability. His baseline game is second to none so he likely feels all that's needed is to start the point, afterwards, he has a greater chance of winning the point. Let's not forget, he started off his career with a Sampras-like serve-and-volley game and it evolved into more of a baseline game because it was more effective at winning him matches.

 

[egn]

Hardly anything to be embarrassed about. It's quite amusing you think the game back then and today are the same. I never felt the need to bring up the fact because it should be obvious to anyone (but I guess not you.) Aside from what another poster had mentioned, about the game being more global and accessible to greater numbers today than it was back in past years, the biomechanics and evolution of tennis strokes has reached higher and higher levels and is currently at its peak.

Back then, due to lack of spin, whether it be because of technique or technology, the ideal strike zone for a ball was knee to hip height. As the game progressed and became faster, more spin was being applied and the strike zone eventually shifted one level higher from hip to chest height. These days, there's so much spin and power, balls jump to ridiculous heights and players need to routinely strike the ball from chest height and above.

It wouldn't be a stretch to say the modern player can handle the low, flatter balls of yore, but it doesn't take a genius to figure out that players of the older generation would have a pretty tough time handling today's modern rally.

I suggest you try picking up a racquet sometime, and then realize your game mirrors that of Laver more than the pros of today before you post again.

Good take away those over bloated heads that modern players have and force them to have to develop strategy. Do some research of your won, imagine how bad Roddick would be trying to play net with a small head wodden racket. For all your little oh it would be impossible for them to handle this same time you stick them back they would have to make tons of adjustments. If you gave them the old school wooden rackets they would not be able to stand back from the baseline and bash tons of shots like they do now. It would be about intricate shot making. Both eras switched would suffer. To say one era would flourish in another era is ridiculous.

Also watch these...you can see that the game really was not hugely different just more serve and volley going on.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wHaN2h21ANs
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Q13_STOUBc&feature=related

 

[boojay]

Good take away those over bloated heads that modern players have and force them to have to develop strategy. Do some research of your won, imagine how bad Roddick would be trying to play net with a small head wodden racket. For all your little oh it would be impossible for them to handle this same time you stick them back they would have to make tons of adjustments. If you gave them the old school wooden rackets they would not be able to stand back from the baseline and bash tons of shots like they do now. It would be about intricate shot making. Both eras switched would suffer. To say one era would flourish in another era is ridiculous.

Also watch these...you can see that the game really was not hugely different just more serve and volley going on.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wHaN2h21ANs
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Q13_STOUBc&feature=related

Tee hee....are you serious?

Let's compare that to today's game, shall we?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DoUFX8DmKcE

 

[Deleted member 21996]

Tee hee....are you serious?

Let's compare that to today's game, shall we?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DoUFX8DmKcE

the problem is not you trying to make your point. it's you refusing to debate and remaining in ignorance with a falacious concept that todays game is more powerfull, therefore better!

to use your own arguments, send Vincent Spadea back in time, Feed him and train him with what they had back then, put him a 65sqin wood bat with gut strings and canvas plimsoles an i think you get the picture!

yeah.. he would devastate the competition alright....

 

[hoodjem]

Roger in his prime woulde bagel Laver's in his prime at any courts useing any Racket.

Learn to spell, please. Learn to think, also.

 

[Eviscerator]

Roger in his prime woulde bagel Laver's in his prime at any courts useing any Racket.

Rather than debate with you, I will suggest something more interesting. Assuming you can play tennis at a decent level, go buy a cheap old wood racquet off of ****, say a Jack Kramer model. Put some cheap single core synthetic gut in it, and play against your usual hitting partners. I think you will be amazed at how small the sweet spot is, and how well you need to move your feet to get into perfect position to be able to hit the limited sweet spot. The other thing you will rapidly notice is that you cannot generate anywhere near the topspin of todays racquets, nor the power. After a set, your arm is going to feel tired, and the next day it will be sore from swinging such a heavy racquet.
The point you will quickly learn is that old racquet's& strings did not allow for full out swings to generate the dipping topspin of today. Combine that with much less power and tiny sweet spot, and any current player would be humbled with how much they would need to adjust their game to keep the ball in play, much less do anything special.

The bottom line is that we cannot transport Federer back in time to face Laver in his prime with slick low bouncing grass courts, antiquated equipment, and the rules of yesteryear. Most knowledgeable people feel that Laver would win in his time, and Federer would win in his. Both men were at the top of their games in their respective times, so it is not realistic to look through a modern lens and apply todays game to that of years past.

 

[marcl65]

From the bits and pieces of information I've gathered passively through the years (no concrete research yet)

Here's an interesting article re. era comparison.

http://www.insidetennis.com/2009/06/agassi-caught-numbers/

Bjorn Borg closed his career with 11 Grand Slams, having played only one Australian Open (and that was in an era when it was played on grass - a surface on which the Swede dominated). So it’s not a stretch to think that Borg could have annihilated Emmerson’s then-record of 12 Slams, had it been a priority. In his first 12 years on the tour, John McEnroe only played the Aussie twice. How many times did Jimmy Connors play the AO? On only two occasions in his 20-plus-year career. Agassi himself snubbed Melbourne the first nine years of his career. Who knows how many Slam titles they would have bagged had they decided to travel Down Under.

I agree with Eviscerator, until you can create a time machine and send this player back or that player forward these debates are kind of pointless. It's futile to try to compare eras because the debate seems to bog down in unmeasurable quantities like surfaces, equipment differences, competition, tournament popularity, ad infinitum. I'm content to say that Laver was the best of his era and Federer is (to date) the best of his.

 

[bizarre_opinion]

Rather than debate with you, I will suggest something more interesting. Assuming you can play tennis at a decent level, go buy a cheap old wood racquet off of ****, say a Jack Kramer model. Put some cheap single core synthetic gut in it, and play against your usual hitting partners. I think you will be amazed at how small the sweet spot is, and how well you need to move your feet to get into perfect position to be able to hit the limited sweet spot. The other thing you will rapidly notice is that you cannot generate anywhere near the topspin of todays racquets, nor the power. After a set, your arm is going to feel tired, and the next day it will be sore from swinging such a heavy racquet.
The point you will quickly learn is that old racquet's& strings did not allow for full out swings to generate the dipping topspin of today. Combine that with much less power and tiny sweet spot, and any current player would be humbled with how much they would need to adjust their game to keep the ball in play, much less do anything special.

The bottom line is that we cannot transport Federer back in time to face Laver in his prime with slick low bouncing grass courts, antiquated equipment, and the rules of yesteryear. Most knowledgeable people feel that Laver would win in his time, and Federer would win in his. Both men were at the top of their games in their respective times, so it is not realistic to look through a modern lens and apply todays game to that of years past.

I agree. I very much doubt most of the guy's here play tennis. They seem like talkers to me.

 

[tacou]

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.

gilles simon

 

[clayman2000]

gilles simon

Ha ha ha.... Simon may the worst ever player in the top 10

But there is always an exception to the rule

 

[jackson vile]

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.

This is a false argument, by default as tennis progresses into the future the players are better even though they have less and less titles.

IE with this logicl a player from the year 3000 ranked #100 in the world is better than Roger could ever be.

Fact is that each one of those players were the best for their particular era, and Roger's era is not over yet.

IE if Nadal achives career grand slam with davis cup and olympic gold with winning record against Roger in and out of slams, then I would have to say Nadal is better than Roger flat out.

If so then how is Roger the "GOAT"

 

[CyBorg]

Hardly anything to be embarrassed about. It's quite amusing you think the game back then and today are the same. I never felt the need to bring up the fact because it should be obvious to anyone (but I guess not you.) Aside from what another poster had mentioned, about the game being more global and accessible to greater numbers today than it was back in past years, the biomechanics and evolution of tennis strokes has reached higher and higher levels and is currently at its peak.

Back then, due to lack of spin, whether it be because of technique or technology, the ideal strike zone for a ball was knee to hip height. As the game progressed and became faster, more spin was being applied and the strike zone eventually shifted one level higher from hip to chest height. These days, there's so much spin and power, balls jump to ridiculous heights and players need to routinely strike the ball from chest height and above.

It wouldn't be a stretch to say the modern player can handle the low, flatter balls of yore, but it doesn't take a genius to figure out that players of the older generation would have a pretty tough time handling today's modern rally.

I suggest you try picking up a racquet sometime, and then realize your game mirrors that of Laver more than the pros of today before you post again.

What does this post even have to do with your very own topic, pertaining to the respective surfaces of the grand slam?

Your facts and logic are wrong and devoid of a foundation. You are taken up on this and react by carefully changing the argument.

How very expected and unsurprising.

 

[boojay]

What does this post even have to do with your very own topic, pertaining to the respective surfaces of the grand slam?

Your facts and logic are wrong and devoid of a foundation. You are taken up on this and react by carefully changing the argument.

How very expected and unsurprising.

Guess again, I merely went with the flow of the discussion as the topic began to change based on others' responses. The original intent of my post was to point out that Laver's Grand Slam and today's Grand Slam are not equivalent.

I not only question your tennis knowledge now, but also your reading skills.

 

[CyBorg]

Guess again, I merely went with the flow of the discussion as the topic began to change based on others' responses. The original intent of my post was to point out that Laver's Grand Slam and today's Grand Slam are not equivalent.

I not only question your tennis knowledge now, but also your reading skills.

My post was a response to your topic post.

If it makes you feel better to say that I have no knowledge or insights to offer then fine. It absolves you from having to think, reason and learn new things.

 

[robow7]

Rather than debate with you, I will suggest something more interesting. Assuming you can play tennis at a decent level, go buy a cheap old wood racquet off of ****, say a Jack Kramer model. Put some cheap single core synthetic gut in it, and play against your usual hitting partners. I think you will be amazed at how small the sweet spot is, and how well you need to move your feet to get into perfect position to be able to hit the limited sweet spot. The other thing you will rapidly notice is that you cannot generate anywhere near the topspin of todays racquets, nor the power. After a set, your arm is going to feel tired, and the next day it will be sore from swinging such a heavy racquet.
The point you will quickly learn is that old racquet's& strings did not allow for full out swings to generate the dipping topspin of today. Combine that with much less power and tiny sweet spot, and any current player would be humbled with how much they would need to adjust their game to keep the ball in play, much less do anything special.

The bottom line is that we cannot transport Federer back in time to face Laver in his prime with slick low bouncing grass courts, antiquated equipment, and the rules of yesteryear. Most knowledgeable people feel that Laver would win in his time, and Federer would win in his. Both men were at the top of their games in their respective times, so it is not realistic to look through a modern lens and apply todays game to that of years past.

+1 All very good points and well said

 

[Chopin]

Rather than debate with you, I will suggest something more interesting. Assuming you can play tennis at a decent level, go buy a cheap old wood racquet off of ****, say a Jack Kramer model. Put some cheap single core synthetic gut in it, and play against your usual hitting partners. I think you will be amazed at how small the sweet spot is, and how well you need to move your feet to get into perfect position to be able to hit the limited sweet spot. The other thing you will rapidly notice is that you cannot generate anywhere near the topspin of todays racquets, nor the power. After a set, your arm is going to feel tired, and the next day it will be sore from swinging such a heavy racquet.
The point you will quickly learn is that old racquet's& strings did not allow for full out swings to generate the dipping topspin of today. Combine that with much less power and tiny sweet spot, and any current player would be humbled with how much they would need to adjust their game to keep the ball in play, much less do anything special.

The bottom line is that we cannot transport Federer back in time to face Laver in his prime with slick low bouncing grass courts, antiquated equipment, and the rules of yesteryear. Most knowledgeable people feel that Laver would win in his time, and Federer would win in his. Both men were at the top of their games in their respective times, so it is not realistic to look through a modern lens and apply todays game to that of years past.

I've tried that experiment before. I admit that I had to come through the ball more and I couldn't really kick my second serve like I normally can, but I still serving aces and beating a few guys I normally beat (they were using their modern racquets). My arm was fine the next day. I doubt a guy like Federer would have a problem adjusting enough that he couldn't handle Laver. Sampras played an exhibition a few year back with wood and he was bombing serves. The guys today are just better. Bottom line.

 

[OddJack]

I just watched this match...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7-VeBIal8TU

they served with both feet on the ground? hmm....and they still serve and volley lol..this is Badminton dude.

 

[EtePras]

Arguing that the past great would beat even the #100 player today is like arguing that Isaac Newton would do better on a physics test than the average professor of today. Sure, Newton may be more famous and have made great contributions, but he would get laughably destroyed if he actually went head to head with a physics professor today on an objective exam.

 

[David_86]

Arguing that the past great would beat even the #100 player today is like arguing that Isaac Newton would do better on a physics test than the average professor of today. Sure, Newton may be more famous and have made great contributions, but he would get laughably destroyed if he actually went head to head with a physics professor today on an objective exam.

Newton would get destroyed in an objective physics exam by the average professor of today....the first time.

But give Newton all the time and resources in the world to figure out the answers and he would reach a level of understanding unknown to these people.