McEnroe discusses rivalries with Jimbo, Borg and Lendl

Equalized for equipment, prime Borg, McEnroe, and/or Connors would compete very well in today's game. The sheer physicality is different nowadays, especially due to the demands of today's baseline-oriented play and the technology utilized, but guys like McEnroe were extremely versatile, so they would figure out ways to compete (all three were Competitive with a capital "C"). Of the three, I think Borg may very well have fared the best in today's climate, given all of his strengths. Why? There are very few players even today who could have dealt with his speed, fitness, and yes, even his underrated strength. So, of the three, he is the best equipped to have done well in today's climate. Back then, Borg was winning with a style of play that predominates today, and that was with old technology, and on the faster grass courts at Wimbledon. I also think Lendl would do well in today's climate. So, of the four, if they played today, I'd go with Borg, Lendl, and then Connors/McEnroe. By 1980-1981, it was so intriquing, with Borg, McEnroe, Connors, Lendl, and Vilas. Now that's "depth at the very top" so to speak.
 
I actually think that given they are at the same level of fitness as the players of today, that Connors would fare best, he was already scorching the lines in his prime with that tiny racket! then Mac with his speed and touch, I think Borg would also do very well but last of the 3 because he didnt have any big weapons, just his speed and timing! which is why he had so many 5 set matches with many players not just Mac and Connors..he wore opponents down..
 
Cuculain said:
I actually think that given they are at the same level of fitness as the players of today, that Connors would fare best, he was already scorching the lines in his prime with that tiny racket! then Mac with his speed and touch, I think Borg would also do very well but last of the 3 because he didnt have any big weapons, just his speed and timing! which is why he had so many 5 set matches with many players not just Mac and Connors..he wore opponents down..
Click to expand...

His forehand was a great weapon. The best in the Game during his time. Plus, as Ashe once said, Borg's "body is his weapon". His first serve also. He often hit his first serve harder than even McEnroe. His serve was actually one of the best serves around by the late 1970's-1981. So, given today's Game, where so much is required on defense from the baseline, I think he would actually fare better than either Connors or McEnroe, but of course this is a hypo. Connors would perhaps have a serve liability, somewhat, and with McEnroe, could he "chip and charge" like he used to with wood frames? Neither was as fast or as conditioned as either Borg or Lendl, so that is another aspect to consider. Yet, they had their own particular strengths (both very versatile, as was Borg actually, see the '76 W for example). I think all three would do QUITE well even in this era, equalized for equipment. What a handful they would be for the top 10, in my opinion.
 
Last edited:
I believe Connors would fare best in today's climate. The biting depth on that backhand, the relentlessness, the sheer gamesmanship abilities, that fiery approach shot, all would bode well today. I just watched the 89 US Open and his shots were so hard and brutal...fantastic stuff.

Borg in his prime wearing 200 dollar shoes is scary though.
 
maxplymac said:
I believe Connors would fare best in today's climate. The biting depth on that backhand, the relentlessness, the sheer gamesmanship abilities, that fiery approach shot, all would bode well today. I just watched the 89 US Open and his shots were so hard and brutal...fantastic stuff.

Borg in his prime wearing 200 dollar shoes is scary though.
Click to expand...

Borg's fitness would be a tremendous edge...a lot of the guys nowadays don't seem to be in very good condition, stamina wise. Tho', I wonder how he would deal with the more powerful shot making? I tend to think that he and Lendl would be ok...Mac would need to adjust things a bit, and Connors would be in heaven. He liked nothing more than a ball with pace on it. Even at 39/40 he could hold his own w/Andre...no mean feat by any stretch.
 
maxplymac said:
I believe Connors would fare best in today's climate. The biting depth on that backhand, the relentlessness, the sheer gamesmanship abilities, that fiery approach shot, all would bode well today. I just watched the 89 US Open and his shots were so hard and brutal...fantastic stuff.

Borg in his prime wearing 200 dollar shoes is scary though.
Click to expand...
Connors wouldn't be allowed to get away with a lot of his gamesmanship these days; things are much more tightly controlled. He was cut so much slack back then, especially when it came to working the crowd and stalling to annoy his opponents. With him, it was always about gaining an edge; with Mac, I think it was often just emotions running amok. I think Borg is the guy who would do the best today; his fitness, determination, and demeanor are perfectly suited to today's game. He'd be Nadal with a better serve, heavier top, and more footspeed.
 
adidasman said:
Connors wouldn't be allowed to get away with a lot of his gamesmanship these days; things are much more tightly controlled. He was cut so much slack back then, especially when it came to working the crowd and stalling to annoy his opponents. With him, it was always about gaining an edge; with Mac, I think it was often just emotions running amok. I think Borg is the guy who would do the best today; his fitness, determination, and demeanor are perfectly suited to today's game. He'd be Nadal with a better serve, heavier top, and more footspeed.
Click to expand...

perhaps you are right, but I do wonder what we have gained by enforcing some rigid code of behavior? pretty, but boring, tennis matches? most lacking real emotion? sure, Mac & Jimmy crossed the line many times, but there was a lot more excitement and energy in many/most of their matches...even when Borg was involved...ice vs. heat, IHMO
 
adidasman said:
Connors wouldn't be allowed to get away with a lot of his gamesmanship these days; things are much more tightly controlled. He was cut so much slack back then, especially when it came to working the crowd and stalling to annoy his opponents.
Click to expand...

He'd find a way. Connors was never intimidated on court, by either his opponent or the umpire. Players these days seem to think more about their image or the fines they might get if they take things too far with the umpire on court. Connors wouldn't give a damn about all that, only about dictating the match at the pace he likes and in winning the match. He's a master at playing the crowd and those around him. He'd most likely get to crowd to really jeer at the umpire and then use that emotion to pump himself up while he wins some points and mocks the umpire. Players today are just much more polite than that, even the ones who might have a bit of a rant.

adidasman said:
With him, it was always about gaining an edge; with Mac, I think it was often just emotions running amok.
Click to expand...

McEnroe would still be whinging if he was playing today, pushing the boundaries of the rule book as much as possible.

adidasman said:
I think Borg is the guy who would do the best today; his fitness, determination, and demeanor are perfectly suited to today's game. He'd be Nadal with a better serve, heavier top, and more footspeed.
Click to expand...

Connors would be better today IMO. As jrepac said, there's nothing Connors likes more than hard, pacy balls being hit at him. He'd absolutely love all the extra pace of today's game.
 
Last edited:
jrepac said:
perhaps you are right, but I do wonder what we have gained by enforcing some rigid code of behavior? pretty, but boring, tennis matches? most lacking real emotion? sure, Mac & Jimmy crossed the line many times, but there was a lot more excitement and energy in many/most of their matches...even when Borg was involved...ice vs. heat, IHMO
Click to expand...

What's funny is that the same media types who moan about the supposed "lack of character" in tennis since the 1980s, were the same people who ranted and raged at how the likes of Connors and McEnroe behaved on court. One of these journalists asked Connors towards the end of his career about this supposed "lack of character in the game" and Connors fumed back "You guys are unbelievable. You've spent all this time knocking us and demanding that they clamp down on us, and now you're asking where all the characters in tennis have gone?".
 
Mustard said:
He'd find a way. Connors was never intimidated on court, by either his opponent or the umpire. Players these days seem to think more about their image or the fines they might get if they take things too far with the umpire on court. Connors wouldn't give a damn about all that, only about dictating the match at the pace he likes and in winning the match. He's a master at playing the crowd and those around him. He'd most likely get to crowd to really jeer at the umpire and then use that emotion to pump himself up while he wins some points and mocks the umpire. Players today are just much more polite than that, even the ones who might have a bit of a rant.



McEnroe would still be whinging if he was playing today, pushing the boundaries of the rule book as much as possible.



Connors would be better today IMO. As jrepac said, there's nothing Connors likes more than hard, pacy balls being hit at him. He'd absolutely love all the extra pace of today's game.
Click to expand...
I don't see Connors having the footspeed or fitness today's game would demand of him - and I think the heavy, spinning ball would be hard for him to attack. And you say you think he'd be able to work the crowd and all that - but you're assuming he'd be where he is now, beloved by the fans. Bring Connors up today, in this climate, and have him act the way he did - and he'd never be able to get away with it. He never had the fans behind him until late in his career, when he had taken on the elder statesman role; before that, he was an outsider who was despised by many (and for good reason).
 
Mustard said:
What's funny is that the same media types who moan about the supposed "lack of character" in tennis since the 1980s, were the same people who ranted and raged at how the likes of Connors and McEnroe behaved on court. One of these journalists asked Connors towards the end of his career about this supposed "lack of character in the game" and Connors fumed back "You guys are unbelievable. You've spent all this time knocking us and demanding that they clamp down on us, and now you're asking where all the characters in tennis have gone?".
Click to expand...

Truly Jimbo answer.

The 4 big players at the beginning of the 80´s had a superior degree of creativity and versatility than any of today´s, except Federer and Nadal.

Remember Borg innovated the game back in the 70´s using the best conditioned body you can find along the greatest amount of top spin.Lendl prefigured the modern hard hitting from the baseline but his serve was even better than most of todays baseliners.

Connors fed on pace, he is the only player to hit flat from then till now, and took the ball uprising in a way only the best Agassi could match.And Mc is a non standart megatalent, who would have found the way to dismantle today´s baseline shots with his touch and variety.

All 4 , again with the possible exeption of Nadal and Fed had something that no other player today has: an ultracompetitive edge and a hunger for winning
that would scare all players today ranked from the nº 3 downwards
 
maxplymac said:
I believe Connors would fare best in today's climate. The biting depth on that backhand, the relentlessness, the sheer gamesmanship abilities, that fiery approach shot, all would bode well today. I just watched the 89 US Open and his shots were so hard and brutal...fantastic stuff.

Borg in his prime wearing 200 dollar shoes is scary though.
Click to expand...

Really good post maxplymax! Your mention of Borg in $200 shoes cracked me up and actually I think it raises a subtle point. How well would have players like Borg and Connors moved in today's tennis shoes versus the ones they played in. No difference? Picture Federer or Nadal wearing Diadora's from the 1970's (which were considered the "rolls royce" of tennis shoes back then by the way). Hello blisters and less ability to make sharp cuts to the ball, hit great on the run, etc.! I also think Connors would do very well too, it's just that I'd give the edge to Borg. Suffice it to say that I think that besides Nadal and Federer, the mental aspect would hurt many players if they faced this "terrifying trio". I must say, these three guys were something special. It was pure magic for a while.

1081894_display_image.jpg


0708-borg-connors.jpg


1529672.jpg


2006-05-25-borg-med.jpg
 
Last edited:
jrepac said:
Borg's fitness would be a tremendous edge...a lot of the guys nowadays don't seem to be in very good condition, stamina wise. Tho', I wonder how he would deal with the more powerful shot making? I tend to think that he and Lendl would be ok
Click to expand...
Love to see Djokovic versus Borg: Djoker would start pooping out in the fourth set, getting really winded (if it gets that far); Bjorn would be fresh as a daisy.

By the fifth, they call an ambulance for Djorky.
 
adidasman said:
I don't see Connors having the footspeed or fitness today's game would demand of him - and I think the heavy, spinning ball would be hard for him to attack. And you say you think he'd be able to work the crowd and all that - but you're assuming he'd be where he is now, beloved by the fans. Bring Connors up today, in this climate, and have him act the way he did - and he'd never be able to get away with it. He never had the fans behind him until late in his career, when he had taken on the elder statesman role; before that, he was an outsider who was despised by many (and for good reason).
Click to expand...

If he was playing in his prime today. by the very nature of the game he would be at the same level of fitness.. and Connors footwork was unbelievable in his day..
And the more pace the ball came to him the more he'd like it!!
 
adidasman said:
I don't see Connors having the footspeed or fitness today's game would demand of him - and I think the heavy, spinning ball would be hard for him to attack. And you say you think he'd be able to work the crowd and all that - but you're assuming he'd be where he is now, beloved by the fans. Bring Connors up today, in this climate, and have him act the way he did - and he'd never be able to get away with it. He never had the fans behind him until late in his career, when he had taken on the elder statesman role; before that, he was an outsider who was despised by many (and for good reason).
Click to expand...

?? no way ...Connors (in his prime now), was very, very fast....and he was one of the fittest guys on the tour...which is why he played for as long as he
did
 
hoodjem said:
Love to see Djokovic versus Borg: Djoker would start pooping out in the fourth set, getting really winded (if it gets that far); Bjorn would be fresh as a daisy.

By the fifth, they call an ambulance for Djorky.
Click to expand...

Oh come on. Maybe a marathon match with a 130 degree heat wave. But on average, Nole should be just fine. Keep in mind he's short of breath, and it's the fast pace of the game that he has trouble keeping up. However, during borg's heyday, the pace is slower and the you don't have to chase down ball constantly. Steady pace is fine, but today, you have to run your tail off b/c of constant pressure. And hence, takes more toll on the body.
 
TMF said:
Oh come on. Maybe a marathon match with a 130 degree heat wave. But on average, Nole should be just fine. Keep in mind he's short of breath, and it's the fast pace of the game that he has trouble keeping up. However, during borg's heyday, the pace is slower and the you don't have to chase down ball constantly. Steady pace is fine, but today, you have to run your tail off b/c of constant pressure. And hence, takes more toll on the body.
Click to expand...

Completely agree. Borg was one of the fittest ever, but today's guys are great athletes and to think that they would not be able to grind it out is ridiculous. Djokovic isn't what I'd call an iron-man, but Davydenko, for example, is easily as fit as any of the pros of old in my estimation. Yeah Borg is obviously stronger than Novak physically, but under normal circumstances, I don't see this factor being a decider, as you said.

Also, I vigorously object to hoodjem's classifications of today's pros as a group of pampered poodles. Such claims are just more evidence that as nice a guy as he is, and as interesting a poster as he can be, that he just does not "get" modern tennis. The grind and wear on the players is greater today due to the increased physical demands of the games. What's more is that player's of today are under incredibly media scrutiny and experience the pressures of being "stars" in a way that Laver never really dealt with. Yeah Borg and Mac were rock stars (and think about what the media did to Borg during the "late" stages of his career), but Laver never dealt with the type of stardom and press that follows a guy like Federer or even Djokovic around. These things should not underestimated.

Furthermore, Hoodjem's "travel" argument should be suspect. Yeah taking a long car ride from Albany to Bufallo or wherever for a match is a pain, but so is flying to Japan or China from New York.
 
Last edited:
borg number one said:
Really good post maxplymax! Your mention of Borg in $200 shoes cracked me up and actually I think it raises a subtle point. How well would have players like Borg and Connors moved in today's tennis shoes versus the ones they played in. No difference? Picture Federer or Nadal wearing Diadora's from the 1970's (which were considered the "rolls royce" of tennis shoes back then by the way). Hello blisters and less ability to make sharp cuts to the ball, hit great on the run, etc.! I also think Connors would do very well too, it's just that I'd give the edge to Borg. Suffice it to say that I think that besides Nadal and Federer, the mental aspect would hurt many players if they faced this "terrifying trio". I must say, these three guys were something special. It was pure magic for a while.
* * *
Click to expand...

Back in the day, real men wore Bata Bullets! We used to call the tennis version "tug boats" because the toe had a huge built up rubber bumper for us toe dragging servers.
 
Chopin said:
Completely agree. Borg was one of the fittest ever, but today's guys are great athletes and to think that they would not be able to grind it out is ridiculous. Djokovic isn't what I'd call an iron-man, but Davydenko, for example, is easily as fit as any of the pros of old in my estimation. Yeah Borg is obviously stronger than Novak physically, but under normal circumstances, I don't see this factor being a decider, as you said.

Also, I vigorously object to hoodjem's classifications of today's pros as a group of pampered poodles. Such claims are just more evidence that as nice a guy as he is, and as interesting a poster as he can be, that he just does not "get" modern tennis. The grind and wear on the players is greater today due to the increased physical demands of the games. What's more is that player's of today are under incredibly media scrutiny and experience the pressures of being "stars" in a way that Laver never really dealt with. Yeah Borg and Mac were rock stars (and think about what the media did to Borg during the "late" stages of his career), but Laver never dealt with the type of stardom and press that follows a guy like Federer or even Djokovic around. These things should not underestimated.

Furthermore, Hoodjem's "travel" argument should be suspect. Yeah taking a long car ride from Albany to Bufallo or wherever for a match is a pain, but so is flying to Japan or China from New York.
Click to expand...

Completely agree too.
I also want to add that today's players are prone to injury than in the past b/c they put so much stress on the body. B/c of the physical demand to keep up with the competition, they have no choice. Not a whole of players can compete high level in their 30s...too many young talented players will replace them, not to mention the wear and tear on their body. The notion about old school tennis players are so fit are just a myth, simply b/c the game is much less taxing on the body. Also vast majority of the events today are played on hc, which is painful to the joint. AS you mention, Davy is an incredibly fit player, but the distinction between him and laver having to put so much stress on their body is night and day!
 
TMF said:
Completely agree too.
I also want to add that today's players are prone to injury than in the past b/c they put so much stress on the body. B/c of the physical demand to keep up with the competition, they have no choice. Not a whole of players can compete high level in their 30s...too many young talented players will replace them, not to mention the wear and tear on their body. The notion about old school tennis players are so fit are just a myth, simply b/c the game is much less taxing on the body. Also vast majority of the events today are played on hc, which is painful to the joint. AS you mention, Davy is an incredibly fit player, but the distinction between him and laver having to put so much stress on their body is night and day!
Click to expand...

Pro players in the 60´s and 70´s played many more matches under much worse conditions.There was not even 5% of today´s prize money, 10 torunaments would amount as much as one single second serie tournament today.They abused of their fitness and, even when injuried, had no way to go but keeping playing.

I wonder how many years would many of the pros today - and years ago- if they had to endure, all of a sudden, those bitter conditions.
 
kiki said:
Pro players in the 60´s and 70´s played many more matches under much worse conditions.There was not even 5% of today´s prize money, 10 torunaments would amount as much as one single second serie tournament today.They abused of their fitness and, even when injuried, had no way to go but keeping playing.

I wonder how many years would many of the pros today - and years ago- if they had to endure, all of a sudden, those bitter conditions.
Click to expand...

some matches were played indoors on WOOD, by the way...LOL!

I'm not sure how the court surface truly corresponds to fitness; I can understand the "wear and tear" part, as hard courts are tougher on the knees and back. But really, from the mid to late 70's onwards, there were LOTS of hard court events, so not sure how you could say that "old school' guys could not play a full hard court season.
 
borg number one said:
Really good post maxplymax! Your mention of Borg in $200 shoes cracked me up and actually I think it raises a subtle point. How well would have players like Borg and Connors moved in today's tennis shoes versus the ones they played in. No difference? Picture Federer or Nadal wearing Diadora's from the 1970's (which were considered the "rolls royce" of tennis shoes back then by the way). Hello blisters and less ability to make sharp cuts to the ball, hit great on the run, etc.! I also think Connors would do very well too, it's just that I'd give the edge to Borg. Suffice it to say that I think that besides Nadal and Federer, the mental aspect would hurt many players if they faced this "terrifying trio". I must say, these three guys were something special. It was pure magic for a while.



0708-borg-connors.jpg





Great photo of the 3 Kings of tennis! what was it? McEnroe , Connors and Borg on a skiing trip together? :)
Where and when was this taken?
Click to expand...
 
^^^Yes, I believe it is a point that is oft overlooked. The way that Borg glided around the court in those POS kicks makes me wonder how he would have done lacing up a pair of Adidas Barricades LMAO!
The man was a freak of nature. Is it myth or reality he had a heart rate of 25 beats per minute?


BTW, it looks like that picture was taken on a beautiful summer day in San Francisco.
 
jrepac said:
some matches were played indoors on WOOD, by the way...LOL!

I'm not sure how the court surface truly corresponds to fitness; I can understand the "wear and tear" part, as hard courts are tougher on the knees and back. But really, from the mid to late 70's onwards, there were LOTS of hard court events, so not sure how you could say that "old school' guys could not play a full hard court season.
Click to expand...

Many were indoors, with a lot of adjustement, not just to the court itself, but to the lights.Plus air transport was not on equal terms to today.Plus, their contracts obliged them to play,directing their rest time, off season and so on.It is not so much a matter of just physical conditions but environtment and menthal adjustments.

Today a player can decide not to play for a whole month.¿Could the old pros afford it ? - and to earn much less money than a second stringer of today-
 
borg number one said:
Equalized for equipment, prime Borg, McEnroe, and/or Connors would compete very well in today's game. The sheer physicality is different nowadays, especially due to the demands of today's baseline-oriented play and the technology utilized, but guys like McEnroe were extremely versatile, so they would figure out ways to compete (all three were Competitive with a capital "C"). Of the three, I think Borg may very well have fared the best in today's climate, given all of his strengths. Why? There are very few players even today who could have dealt with his speed, fitness, and yes, even his underrated strength. So, of the three, he is the best equipped to have done well in today's climate. Back then, Borg was winning with a style of play that predominates today, and that was with old technology, and on the faster grass courts at Wimbledon. I also think Lendl would do well in today's climate. So, of the four, if they played today, I'd go with Borg, Lendl, and then Connors/McEnroe. By 1980-1981, it was so intriquing, with Borg, McEnroe, Connors, Lendl, and Vilas. Now that's "depth at the very top" so to speak.
Click to expand...


yes, and not just " depth" in terms of competition but also in terms of different types of play.Today the top 4, except for some Federer special shots play very much the same way...with, also, 2 winning everything on sight.

If the top 4-5 guys play the very same, and they are supossed to be the cream of the cream, what can you imagine will happen to the next 30-50 players??

In reverse in the late 70´s-early 80´s, the variety was astonishing.Just a reflex of times... ( it also happens with music and movies, f.i)
 
Kiki, you and others are not distinguishing between different tiers of pros though. Do you actually think the average player outside the top 100 has an "easy" life as far as these things go? Easier than working a coal miner, yes, but not exactly the most stable, long-term career.
 
I've read so much about this famous match, but I didn't see it back then. Here's video of the Ashe-Connors 1975 Wimbledon final.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4PShShFBh6E

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GJ2s89U9jKY

Ashe wins a W title. This is his only win in 6 meetings against Connors. He looks like a man on a mission on this day. What a great win for a great man and great former player. Then, see him against Laver in 1969.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=43csIDKmkMk

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8eiBr8T8On0&NR=1&feature=fvwp (Ashe on a backboard on Sesame Street)
 
Last edited:
Chopin said:
Kiki, you and others are not distinguishing between different tiers of pros though. Do you actually think the average player outside the top 100 has an "easy" life as far as these things go? Easier than working a coal miner, yes, but not exactly the most stable, long-term career.
Click to expand...

I never said so; the 200 th ranked player ,of course, has to fight every day to keep his incomes leveled up.But, comparing the playing and living conditions of the top players back in the pro era to the playing and living conditions endured by todays elite, is talking about two different worlds.The only common thin´g being the size of the court and the racket - not even that, cause there was only wood then and different choices now-.
 
borg number one said:
I've read so much about this famous match, but I didn't see it back then. Here's video of the Ashe-Connors 1975 Wimbledon final.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4PShShFBh6E

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GJ2s89U9jKY

Ashe wins a W title. This is his only win in 6 meetings against Connors. He looks like a man on a mission on this day. What a great win for a great man and great former player. Then, see him against Laver in 1969.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=43csIDKmkMk

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8eiBr8T8On0&NR=1&feature=fvwp (Ashe on a backboard on Sesame Street)
Click to expand...

Ashe-Laver at the 69 W SF is one of the best matches ever played on the Centre Court.Look at how Ashe is trying to make an opening into Laver´s defenses, and see how Laver comes up with a different solution most of time.
 
kiki said:
I never said so; the 200 th ranked player ,of course, has to fight every day to keep his incomes leveled up.But, comparing the playing and living conditions of the top players back in the pro era to the playing and living conditions endured by todays elite, is talking about two different worlds.The only common thin´g being the size of the court and the racket - not even that, cause there was only wood then and different choices now-.
Click to expand...

Yeah, the top players today make a lot more money, and have larger support networks, and the advantages that come along with this. They also have more media to contend with, less privacy and play a more international schedule. It's different, yes. In many ways the old guys had it harder, though in some ways today's guys have it harder. I don't get what your big point is.
 
Chopin said:
Yeah, the top players today make a lot more money, and have larger support networks, and the advantages that come along with this. They also have more media to contend with, less privacy and play a more international schedule. It's different, yes. In many ways the old guys had it harder, though in some ways today's guys have it harder. I don't get what your big point is.
Click to expand...

its true that the old pros did not have the journalists all over them, but the explosion of tennis as a world mass spectacle started with the professioanlism of the 70´s and the appearance of a solid pro circuit, well financed and a lot of exhibitions supported by tv coverage.

The conditions in the 60´s, again, were not at all comparable to those enjoyed by today big stars.If you ask a Laver or a Rosewall if they´d like to switch situations, I bet 100 to 1 they would want to play under todays conditions.
 
kiki said:
its true that the old pros did not have the journalists all over them, but the explosion of tennis as a world mass spectacle started with the professioanlism of the 70´s and the appearance of a solid pro circuit, well financed and a lot of exhibitions supported by tv coverage.

The conditions in the 60´s, again, were not at all comparable to those enjoyed by today big stars.If you ask a Laver or a Rosewall if they´d like to switch situations, I bet 100 to 1 they would want to play under todays conditions.
Click to expand...

I disagree. Laver is a pretty humble, quiet guy and I doubt he'd want his life to be a media frenzy. Laver did so well under the conditions you're talking about that I don't think he'd say, "yeah, if I could do it over I'd do it in today's world."
 
Chopin said:
I disagree. Laver is a pretty humble, quiet guy and I doubt he'd want his life to be a media frenzy. Laver did so well under the conditions you're talking about that I don't think he'd say, "yeah, if I could do it over I'd do it in today's world."
Click to expand...

I agree with your first half of the post; he´d run away from the focus and lights, he was quite a man with simple and familiar habits.As for conditions, he sure adapted very well to them and when evaluating his greatness I´d say, career wise this is a big asset which involves a lot of menthal training.¿Would he switch eras? for the money now being in the game YES OF COURSE.I can´t remember how much prize money he made, but one of the reasons he played for so long, well into the 70´s was that he had , finally, the chance to have his reward for all his acomplishments.
 
kiki said:
I agree with your first half of the post; he´d run away from the focus and lights, he was quite a man with simple and familiar habits.As for conditions, he sure adapted very well to them and when evaluating his greatness I´d say, career wise this is a big asset which involves a lot of menthal training.¿Would he switch eras? for the money now being in the game YES OF COURSE.I can´t remember how much prize money he made, but one of the reasons he played for so long, well into the 70´s was that he had , finally, the chance to have his reward for all his acomplishments.
Click to expand...

See, I think Laver is content with what he did in his era and life as a tennis player. Besides, I think Laver would be a top 50 player today, perhaps, but not in the top ten or twenty on a consistent basis so I don't see the incentive of playing today in the same way as you do.
 
Chopin said:
See, I think Laver is content with what he did in his era and life as a tennis player. Besides, I think Laver would be a top 50 player today, perhaps, but not in the top ten or twenty on a consistent basis so I don't see the incentive of playing today in the same way as you do.
Click to expand...

Certainly, we do not see things the same and most likely never will in terms of tennis competition.I´ve stated my postion vs Laver so I will not insist anymore.

I´m sure that if I say I doubt Federer ould hardly be in the top 50 in the 1970´s, then TMF would have a hart attack, so I better not say it.
 
kiki said:
Certainly, we do not see things the same and most likely never will in terms of tennis competition.I´ve stated my postion vs Laver so I will not insist anymore.

I´m sure that if I say I doubt Federer ould hardly be in the top 50 in the 1970´s, then TMF would have a hart attack, so I better not say it.
Click to expand...

Can you explain to me what’s is a "hart attack" mean? I’m sorry my English isn’t as good as yours.
 
kiki said:
It happens when Gary Hart gets mad at you.He normaly attacks.
Click to expand...

Ok, that explains it. You invented your own words and the meaning. Well, next time when you make up new words, please be specific. Otherwise, we will just assumed that you don’t know how to spell.
 
TMF said:
That's a new word I've just learn hood, thanks(and it spell correctly:)). Next time when kiki invent some strange words, I'll just call him "Neologisms" to make it short.
Click to expand...

Justn for your knowledge.Gary Hart was an outstanding figure just at the golden age of tennis, the early 80´:

...Borg,Mac,Connors,Lendl,Evert,Navratilova,Mandlikova...
 
kiki said:
it spells, not it spell.Thank you
Click to expand...

The correct phrase would be:

'It is "it spells", not "it spell." Thank you.'

I bolded all the grammatical fixings in your post. Next time you correct someone's grammar (particularly one who is not a native English speaker), please ensure that your post is grammatically correct.

Thank you,
MD
 
TMF said:
That's a new word I've just learn hood, thanks(and it spell correctly:)). Next time when kiki invent some strange words, I'll just call him "Neologisms" to make it short.
Click to expand...
You're welcome TMF. (That's the professor in me coming out.)




Yipes! If I spent any time correcting spelling or grammar on here, I would have time for nothing else.
 
TMF said:
Well, English is my secondary language and I don't expect to be as good as other native language speakers. But such fluent speaking like yourself, can you care to explain what's "serie" and "torunaments" mean?
http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showpost.php?p=5190254&postcount=122
Click to expand...

Your english is better than mine, no doubt about it...so why do you bother with some written mistakes when you clearly understand the meaning?LOL.

By the way, ¿Where are you from, if you want to tell? .
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Riosfan
Ivan Lendl questionairre/interview
Replies
9
Views
2K
1970CRBase
1
C
"Big" Matches: Connors/Borg/McEnroe and Connors/McEnroe/Lendl
Replies
9
Views
3K
chaognosis
C
G
Is Connors friendsly with both McEnroe and Borg today, but not so much with Lendl?
2
Replies
69
Views
7K
WCT
W
S
Misconceptions about the Borg/McEnroe/Connors rivalry
2
Replies
81
Views
25K
barone
B
M
What if Borg had continued in 82 (and beyond)
Replies
38
Views
2K
grandefrankie
G
Back
Top