Nole Slam vs Laver '62 amateur CYGS

Roche was either the #5 or the #6. The #2 at the time skipped the tournament because he couldn’t be damned.
He was the year-end #2, too. Which is more significant? Take Safin AO 04, Tsonga AO 08, Federer AO 17. What was more telling, their ranking at the time or their year-end ranking?

You mean:

1. The absence of two top 4 players
2. The absence of three top 10 players
3. The absence of eight top 20 players
4. The absence of sixteen top 30 players

Deliberately misrepresenting the facts won’t change them. LOL
The presence of three top 5 players, seven top 10 players and to hell with the rest, yeah.
 

Zhilady

Professional
He was the year-end #2, too. Which is more significant? Take Safin AO 04, Tsonga AO 08, Federer AO 17. What was more telling, their ranking at the time or their year-end ranking?
Their ranking at the time is more relevant than their ranking 11 months later. Your cherry-picked examples mean nothing. I could come up with 100 examples illustrating my point.


The presence of three top 5 players, seven top 10 players and to hell with the rest, yeah.
So these are the advantages Laver had, objectively:

1. Started off in the 2nd round in a 48-man draw. So he only had to play and win 5 matches

2. The tournament draw was missing two top 4 players.

3. The tournament draw was missing three top 10 players.

4. The tournament draw was missing eight top 20 players.

5. The tournament draw was missing sixteen top 30 players.

6. The 48-man draw was missing 30 of the top 48 players.


And these are the advantages Djokovic had, objectively:


















Djokovic beat the entire field to win a full-fledged Slam. Laver beat half the field to win a depleted Slam. 2016 AO > 1969 AO. Objectively.
 
Last edited:
If we’re going to do away with that, all of the Australian Open tournaments in the Open Era should be afforded full-Slam status. You can’t pick and choose depending on who won and what suits your biases.
This statement is an opinion.
If you pick on a case-by-case basis, bias is just about certain to enter. But suppose we establish a certain sensibly-looking threshold and proceed to hold all tournaments against it uniformly - though I suspect no threshold may look sensible to you, which disqualifies the idea from being considered - then no bias would be added to the original judgment.

Upon some deliberation, I would offer 50+% of top 2 (at least one of top 2), top 5 and top 10. Apparently this disqualifies '74 and '75, shame for the latter on account of the super tough path. Would have to settle for a glorified BO5 masters a la 80s Miami, works well I guess.
 
So these are the advantages Laver had, objectively:

1. Started off in the 2nd round in a 48-man draw. So he only had to play and win 5 matches
Countered by the one-week length, meaning 5 matches were crammed in one week, as opposed to 7 matches over two weeks.

2. The tournament draw was missing two top 4 players.

3. The tournament draw was missing three top 10 players.

4. The tournament draw was missing eight top 20 players.

5. The tournament draw was missing sixteen top 30 players.

6. The 48-man draw was missing 30 of the top 48 players.
Not an advantage unless you can prove it made Laver's path to the title easier.

Equal worth ftw, try again.
 

Zhilady

Professional
This statement is an opinion. If you pick on a case-by-case basis, bias is just about certain to enter. But suppose we establish a certain sensibly-looking threshold and proceed to hold all tournaments against it uniformly - though I suspect no threshold may look sensible to you, which disqualifies the idea from being considered - then no bias would be added to the original judgment.

Upon some deliberation, I would offer 50+% of top 2 (at least one of top 2), top 5 and top 10. Apparently this disqualifies '74 and '75, shame for the latter on account of the super tough path. Would have to settle for a glorified BO5 masters a la 80s Miami, works well I guess.
Thank you for offering your carefully cherry-picked system, but I think I’ll reject it.

Oh, and it’s not binary. Even if we could come up with a non-cherry-picked system that we both agreed was fair, it wouldn’t change the matter of the 1969 AO being clearly inferior to the 2016 AO. There is simply too much separating them.
 

Zhilady

Professional
Countered by the one-week length, meaning 5 matches were crammed in one week, as opposed to 7 matches over two weeks.
For all players. Not sure how that’s a disadvantage for Laver and not for everybody else in the draw.

Not an advantage unless you can prove it made Laver's path to the title easier.
Doesn’t matter what Laver’s path was. I’m saying the tournament as a whole was worth less. For the same reason you consider the 1974/1975 AO tournaments to be worth less than the 1974/1975 Wimbledon tournaments. Participation.
 
Oh, and it’s not binary. Even if we could come up with a non-cherry-picked system that we both agreed was fair, it wouldn’t change the matter of the 1969 AO being clearly inferior to the 2016 AO. There is simply too much separating them.
As a tournament, AO '69 was category B while AO '16 was category A, nominally they're in different categories. The topic concerns '69 AO's worth as a Slam leg, though. There were three Triple Crown events at the time, pick the fourth best out of the rest. AO wasn't the fourth by attendance, but that's not what the topic is about either. Point is that AO carried the traditional Slam label and the Grand Slam mystique would lift its greatness (which is by nature open to subjective interpretation) above its nominal status, hence I'm inclined to grant it full worth as long as there was enough competitive substance, which there was in '69 by the outook offered.
 

Goret

Rookie
He was the year-end #2, too. Which is more significant? Take Safin AO 04, Tsonga AO 08, Federer AO 17. What was more telling, their ranking at the time or their year-end ranking?
Using this kind of argument, Nole actually had to beat the YE#1 at his AO 2016... can't say this wasn't tough, if year end rank is the argument.
And anyway, taking rank at tournament date he had to beat both the then #2 and #3...

5 rounds with a 48 players draw is closer to a M1000 draw than a current slam draw, and the missing players make it closer to an usual Bercy draw; the main difference being it was BO5 not BO3 like M1000... This doesn't mean winning a M1000 isn't difficult (and some M1000 victories may have been more difficult than slams, depending on lucky/unlucky draw...). But it's tough to consider the tournament prestige (and thus, motivation) was the same as it is now...

Still, I'd consider Laver'd 69 CYGS above Nole's NCYGS, because of the added mental pressure of a CYGS at the final stages, and because there are fewer opportunities to win a CYGS. These are, IMHO, valid enough reasons, and independent of theoretical and actual difficulty of AO at the time (let's not forget the other three slams had full draws and fields).
 

Zhilady

Professional
As a tournament, AO '69 was category B while AO '16 was category A, nominally they're in different categories.
Coolio, so we’re in agreement. I knew you’d come to your senses sooner or later in the face of overwhelming evidence.

Djokovic’s NCYGS > Laver’s Open Era CYGS.
 
Using this kind of argument, Nole actually had to beat the YE#1 at his AO 2016... can't say this wasn't tough, if year end rank is the argument.
And anyway, taking rank at tournament date he had to beat both the then #2 and #3...
Obviously AO '16 is full worth even if actual tennis competition wasn't mind-boggling, Novak played real well too.

Still, I'd consider Laver'd 69 CYGS above Nole's NCYGS, because of the added mental pressure of a CYGS at the final stages, and because there are fewer opportunities to win a CYGS. These are, IMHO, valid enough reasons, and independent of theoretical and actual difficulty of AO at the time (let's not forget the other three slams had full draws and fields).
It's the traditional label granting prestige and a nigh-mythical status to the calendar Grand Slam even with a nominally weaker leg, whose nominal weakness is vindicated anyway by the actual difficulty Laver faced (try playing 90 games with no changeover breaks under the scorching sun).
 

Zhilady

Professional
Still, I'd consider Laver'd 69 CYGS above Nole's NCYGS, because of the added mental pressure of a CYGS at the final stages
There is no evidence to suggest that the CYGS is tougher to achieve than any other sequence of the 4 Slams. In fact, the CYGS has been achieved more often than winning FO-W-USO-AO, which has never been achieved in the men’s game.

As for comparing the CYGS to W-USO-AO-FO, the CYGS has been achieved one more time. In the Open Era, they’re tied at 1-1.

and because there are fewer opportunities to win a CYGS.
There are as many opportunities to win the CYGS as there are W-USO-AO-FO.

These are, IMHO, valid enough reasons, and independent of theoretical and actual difficulty of AO at the time (let's not forget the other three slams had full draws and fields).
I’d disagree. Even if both of your arguments were true, it still wouldn’t put CYGS over the NCYGS. 4 Slams is 4 Slams is 4 Slams, no matter what order or sequence they’re achieved.
 
Coolio, so we’re in agreement. I knew you’d come to your senses sooner or later in the face of overwhelming evidence.

Djokovic’s NCYGS > Laver’s Open Era CYGS.
No, that doesn't mean Djokovic's is greater, because of the traditional Grand Slam prestige, which obviously exists, subjective as people's views are.

There were three Triple Crown events that year. By your acceptance of nominal worth only, there was nothing Laver could've done to achieve the full worth of the 4-streak. What a doofish idea... let's say it's like arguing runner A's peak > runner B's peak because runner A set a higher record, even if they ran fifty years apart in rather different conditions.
 

Goret

Rookie
Obviously AO '16 is full worth even if actual tennis competition wasn't mind-boggling, Novak played real well too.

It's the traditional label granting prestige and a nigh-mythical status to the calendar Grand Slam even with a nominally weaker leg, whose nominal weakness is vindicated anyway by the actual difficulty Laver faced (try playing 90 games with no changeover breaks under the scorching sun).
Whether going by prestige at the time, draw size or rank of players, 2016 AO was a more prestigious and tougher tournament than 1969 AO. By the way, all players of the tournament face the same conditions, so harder or easier conditions don't make the tournament harder or easier to win.
I really can't put both on equal footing.

But that's not where the CYGS main difficulty is.
 

Zhilady

Professional
No, that doesn't mean Djokovic's is greater, because of the traditional Grand Slam prestige, which obviously exists, subjective as people's views are.
Thankfully, I rely on logic and reasoning and not on argumentum ad populum.

There were three Triple Crown events that year. By your acceptance of nominal worth only, there was nothing Laver could've done to achieve the full worth of the 4-streak. What a doofish idea...
On the contrary. He did achieve the full worth of the 4-streak. For his time.

let's say it's like arguing runner A's peak > runner B's peak because runner A set a higher record, even if they ran fifty years apart in rather different conditions.
Not really sure if that’s supposed to be an argument against my position.
 
On the contrary. He did achieve the full worth of the 4-streak. For his time.
"Sorry bud, you live in the wrong time when the tour is still messy so the guys that come after you to play in better structured tours will have greater max attainable value to reap per season and you'll always suffer in comparison, which you cannot do anything about, suck it boiii!"

Not really sure if that’s supposed to be an argument against my position.
'Higher record' isn't the same as 'greater value' in terms of achievement greatness or whatever you term it.
 
Whether going by prestige at the time, draw size or rank of players, 2016 AO was a more prestigious and tougher tournament than 1969 AO. By the way, all players of the tournament face the same conditions, so harder or easier conditions don't make the tournament harder or easier to win.
I really can't put both on equal footing.

But that's not where the CYGS main difficulty is.
On its own, one-on-one, sure enough. The Grand Slam is more than the sum of its parts though.
 

thrust

Hall of Fame
There is no evidence to suggest that the CYGS is tougher to achieve than any other sequence of the 4 Slams. In fact, the CYGS has been achieved more often than winning FO-W-USO-AO, which has never been achieved in the men’s game.

As for comparing the CYGS to W-USO-AO-FO, the CYGS has been achieved one more time. In the Open Era, they’re tied at 1-1.

There are as many opportunities to win the CYGS as there are W-USO-AO-FO.

I’d disagree. Even if both of your arguments were true, it still wouldn’t put CYGS over the NCYGS. 4 Slams is 4 Slams is 4 Slams, no matter what order or sequence they’re achieved.
IMO, both Laver and Novak's feats are equally great. Why must some fanatical fans of today's players feel the need to trash great players of the past? The 69 AO was open to any top player who cared to compete. IF they chose to not compete, that was their problem. What great players did Nadal beat to win the 17 USO or Federer in the 18 AO?
 

Zhilady

Professional
"Sorry bud, you live in the wrong time when the tour is still messy so the guys that come after you to play in better structured tours will have greater max attainable value to reap per season and you'll always suffer in comparison, which you cannot do anything about, suck it boiii!"
Not really. I give Laver full credit for what he achieved. No more, no less. To give him as much credit for his 4-in-a-row as for Djokovic’s 4-in-a-row would be to give him more credit than he deserves.


'Higher record' isn't the same as 'greater value' in terms of achievement greatness or whatever you term it.
I would agree. A lot of competitors slow down when they’re too far ahead just because they can, or so they can showboat. Still not getting your argument here.
 

Zhilady

Professional
IMO, both Laver and Novak's feats are equally great.
Cool. I think Djokovic’s feat is greater, for reasons I’ve already mentioned.

Why must some fanatical fans of today's players feel the need to trash great players of the past?
Beats me.

The 69 AO was open to any top player who cared to compete. IF they chose to not compete, that was their problem.
Just like the Grand Slam tournaments from 1963-1967 were open to any player who cared to remain amateur. If they chose to go pro, that was their problem. Right?

What great players did Nadal beat to win the 17 USO or Federer in the 18 AO?
They beat the entirety of the rest of the field.
 

Goret

Rookie
There is no evidence to suggest that the CYGS is tougher to achieve than any other sequence of the 4 Slams. In fact, the CYGS has been achieved more often than winning FO-W-USO-AO, which has never been achieved in the men’s game.

As for comparing the CYGS to W-USO-AO-FO, the CYGS has been achieved one more time. In the Open Era, they’re tied at 1-1.

There are as many opportunities to win the CYGS as there are W-USO-AO-FO.
There are three possibilities for a NCYGS, for a single CYGS possibility. It doesn't matter where each NCYGS starts as long as it's nit calendar.

After all, it seems the YE#1 has more prestige than, say, being the Week 26 #1 - though there's a single opportunity each year for both... When talking about achievements, one is called reaching #1, the other being YE#1...

I’d disagree. Even if both of your arguments were true, it still wouldn’t put CYGS over the NCYGS. 4 Slams is 4 Slams is 4 Slams, no matter what order or sequence they’re achieved.
Tennis seems to value a "season" / year aspect, probably for historic reasons, so the calendar achievement has more prestige. This seems universally recognized - Djokovic himself considers the CYGS as the ultimate challenge in tennis, and acknowledges only Laver did it [in the OE].

Additional prestige means additional mental pressure at the end. And this does make a difference. After all, even a hyper-dominant player like S. Williams failed and choked... against the unknown R. Vinci.
 
Not really. I give Laver full credit for what he achieved. No more, no less. To give him as much credit for his 4-in-a-row as for Djokovic’s 4-in-a-row would be to give him more credit than he deserves.
Now you changed the phrasing. If the question is how much credit Laver deserves (not how much every tournament is worth nominally), then I don't see any problem saying he deserves equal credit on the basis of the 90-game match. Makes sense to credit for especially difficult quality matches. (Quality judgment is subjective but reasonable based on the available footage. It's grounded in reality, like the forced/unforced error distinction.)

I would agree. A lot of competitors slow down when they’re too far ahead just because they can, or so they can showboat. Still not getting your argument here.
If runner A has a higher career record in the same distance than runner B, does that automatically mean runner A is a better runner at their best?
 

Zhilady

Professional
There are three possibilities for a NCYGS, for a single CYGS possibility. It doesn't matter where each NCYGS starts as long as it's nit calendar.
There is only one possibility for the sequence Djokovic achieved.

After all, it seems the YE#1 has more prestige than, say, being the Week 26 #1 - though there's a single opportunity each year for both... When talking about achievements, one is called reaching #1, the other being YE#1...
I consider the YE#1 as just another week at #1. I don’t think being YE#1 is more valuable than being #1 at any other point of the year. The actual achievement is the same, regardless of the sequence.


Tennis seems to value a "season" / year aspect, probably for historic reasons, so the calendar achievement has more prestige. This seems universally recognized - Djokovic himself considers the CYGS as the ultimate challenge in tennis, and acknowledges only Laver did it [in the OE].
Sounds to me like you’re either appealing to the people, or appealing to authority. There seems to be nothing about the achievement itself that sets it apart.

Additional prestige means additional mental pressure at the end. And this does make a difference. After all, even a hyper-dominant player like S. Williams failed and choked... against the unknown R. Vinci.
Why, then, has the CYGS been the most common way of winning 4-in-a-row in the men’s game?
 

Zhilady

Professional
Now you changed the phrasing. If the question is how much credit Laver deserves (not how much every tournament is worth nominally), then I don't see any problem saying he deserves equal credit on the basis of the 90-game match.
How does winning a B tournament warrant the same credit as winning an A tournament?


If runner A has a higher career record in the same distance than runner B, does that automatically mean runner A is a better runner at their best?
What do you mean by a “higher career record”? A faster running time? If so, no, I don’t necessarily think so, because you run to beat your opposition and not necessarily to record the fastest time possible.

But I don’t see how that’s relevant to what we’re taking about here. To make an imperfect analogy, Laver won a race that was missing 2 of the top 4 runners, and 16 of the top 30 runners. Djokovic won a race that had all of the best runners in the world.
 
Thankfully, I rely on logic and reasoning and not on argumentum ad populum.
You're confusing opinions and facts again. There's traditional prestige that one may or may not be willing to accept. If you wish to argue that it's not merely a personal choice, but that this extra prestige granted to CYGS shouldn't be accepted, then you need to prove it is wrong to accept it.
 

Zhilady

Professional
You're confusing opinions and facts again. There's traditional prestige that one may or may not be willing to accept. If you wish to argue that it's not merely a personal choice, but that this extra prestige granted to CYGS shouldn't be accepted, then you need to prove it is wrong to accept it.
You don’t ask people to prove a negative. The onus is not on me. The onus is on the people making a claim that the CYGS is special.

What if I said that the W-USO-AO-FO sequence is the best and asked you to prove me wrong? Doesn’t make a whole of sense, does it?
 
How does winning a B tournament warrant the same credit as winning an A tournament?
How does beating insipid opposition warrant the same credit as besting a top opponent at their apparent peak, then?

So do we stick plainly to nominals? I'd rather not, level of play has no exact measure but big differences are clear, as much as you may shot subjectivity. I'd rather grant Nadal's 2008 Queen's better respect (hence 'greatness') than Sock's 2017 Paris Masters. Very fortunate circumstances for Jock Sack.

What do you mean by a “higher career record”? A faster running time? If so, no, I don’t necessarily think so, because you run to beat your opposition and not necessarily to record the fastest time possible.
What if both runners set their record running for the time (such runs exist)?

But I don’t see how that’s relevant to what we’re taking about here. To make an imperfect analogy, Laver won a race that was missing 2 of the top 4 runners, and 16 of the top 30 runners. Djokovic won a race that had all of the best runners in the world.
But you don't know which of the two set the higher time (too bad tennis isn't that simple). Perhaps Laver would have beaten them all anyway, or perhaps not - you don't know. Given the other three full-draw slams, it makes more sense to assume that he likely would've than the opposite.
 
You don’t ask people to prove a negative. The onus is not on me. The onus is on the people making a claim that the CYGS is special.

What if I said that the W-USO-AO-FO sequence is the best and asked you to prove me wrong? Doesn’t make a whole of sense, does it?
You may well think it's the best, why should I bother? You're confusing opinions and facts again, apparently. The onus is on those who make a factual claim; if you say something is true as a matter of fact, you gotta prove it. Opinions can be whatever one wishes. If you wish to opine djoelslam is the prettiest, go ahead. But if you claim your opinion is a fact and those who do not share it are thus objectively wrong, then of course you have to prove it as a fact.

I do not claim CYGS>NCYGS is a fact, it's a common opinion I like to share as the calendar year distinction feels special to me, as I presume to others who think that. I don't need to prove that as a fact because I don't advertise it as one. If you present your opinions as facts, you're the one who should be proving stuff.
 

Zhilady

Professional
How does beating insipid opposition warrant the same credit as besting a top opponent at their apparent peak, then?
LOL, we’re back to your opinions again. Djokovic played the best, and beat the best. Or, at least, he beat the players who beat the best.

So do we stick plainly to nominals?
What are nominals? If you’re asking me if we shouldn’t subjectively analyze levels of play of competition, yes, I think we shouldn’t.



What if both runners set their record running for the time (such runs exist)?
Then, yeah, the faster runner had the higher peak. Is this supposed to be contentious?



But you don't know which of the two set the higher time (too bad tennis isn't that simple). Perhaps Laver would have beaten them all anyway, or perhaps not - you don't know. Given the other three full-draw slams, it makes more sense to assume that he likely would've than the opposite.
Like I’ve already said many times, I think Laver would have probably won even if all of them played. He was far and away the best player that year. However, we have to go by what actually happened. And what happened is that Laver won a depleted Slam.
 
Last edited:

Zhilady

Professional
You may well think it's the best, why should I bother? You're confusing opinions and facts again, apparently. The onus is on those who make a factual claim; if you say something is true as a matter of fact, you gotta prove it. Opinions can be whatever one wishes. If you wish to opine djoelslam is the prettiest, go ahead. But if you claim your opinion is a fact and those who do not share it are thus objectively wrong, then of course you have to prove it as a fact.
If you’re going to claim something and your only defense for that claim is, “it’s my opinion,” sure, you can certainly do whatever you want, but that doesn’t mean I can’t argue against opinions which I think have no basis in reality. If you find my reasoning unnecessary or unwelcome, you’re free to ignore my posts. By the same token, I’m free to express my opinions (with more backing in reality and facts) with regard to your opinions.

I do not claim CYGS>NCYGS is a fact, it's a common opinion I like to share as the calendar year distinction feels special to me, as I presume to others who think that. I don't need to prove that as a fact because I don't advertise it as one. If you present your opinions as facts, you're the one who should be proving stuff.
Again, if that’s your opinion, great! I have a different opinion, and I like to think I’ve explained it in a logical way, using facts and reason. I haven’t claimed any of my opinions are facts. I’ve only ever claimed that I use facts as basis for my opinions. That’s a heck of a lot of better than using opinions as basis for more opinions.
 

Goret

Rookie
You don’t ask people to prove a negative. The onus is not on me. The onus is on the people making a claim that the CYGS is special.

What if I said that the W-USO-AO-FO sequence is the best and asked you to prove me wrong? Doesn’t make a whole of sense, does it?
Actually, there are objective elements indicating higher prestige of the CYGS.

The ITF roll of honor starts with listing players who won the "Grand Slam", which is defined as winning the four slams during the same calendar year. On a second page, the ITF then lists players who won four-in-a-row but not in a calendar year (by the way, the ITF does not call it "NCYGS", this achievement does not have a "Grand Slam" naming). This does indicate that, for the ITF, the calendar GS has higher prestige than the non-calendar one.

You may argue that this is only the ITF opinion, but prestige is indeed defined by the value given to something by people or organizations.

And let's not forget that Djokovic himself ranks the CYGS above his NCYGS (he called it the ultimate challenge in tennis), also stating only Laver did it (among the living persons - when he joked he'd have to recruit Laver in his team).
As Djokovic is one of only two men to have achieved a four-in-a-row in the Open Era, I'd think his opinion weights more.
 

thrust

Hall of Fame
This forum is becoming more depressing day by day, as some here are just looking to be argumentative. The constant trashing of other and older era players to boost the accomplishments of today's greatest players is both meanspirited and stupid. Trashing Laver's 69 GS, Rosewall and Federer's longevity and other ridiculous posts is unfortunate. Fact is that Rosewall was ranked #6 in 75 at age 40. The 74 slam finals were depressing, but the fact that he even got that far, in non depleted fields beating top players to get there, is highly admirable. He won his last tournaments in 77, beating Nastase in one of his last tournament wins. IF Ken stayed around too long it probably was due to the fact that he was making more money than in his prime years. Also, like Federer he was still winning important tournaments between ages 33-38. Players should ONLY be judged by the era they payed in, as tennis today is far different than it was 50 years ago. The same is true of all sports.
 

Dan Lobb

G.O.A.T.
Their ranking at the time is more relevant than their ranking 11 months later. Your cherry-picked examples mean nothing. I could come up with 100 examples illustrating my point.


So these are the advantages Laver had, objectively:

1. Started off in the 2nd round in a 48-man draw. So he only had to play and win 5 matches

2. The tournament draw was missing two top 4 players.

3. The tournament draw was missing three top 10 players.

4. The tournament draw was missing eight top 20 players.

5. The tournament draw was missing sixteen top 30 players.

6. The 48-man draw was missing 30 of the top 48 players.


And these are the advantages Djokovic had, objectively:


















Djokovic beat the entire field to win a full-fledged Slam. Laver beat half the field to win a depleted Slam. 2016 AO > 1969 AO. Objectively.
You overlook the most important point....Ashe CHOSE not to contest that 1969 AO.

For all we know, Ashe may have felt that the top Aussies were bound to win it, so it could be seen as a concession to not appear.

That is how you have to look at these no-shows.....Ashe gets no credit for not showing up, and Laver loses nothing because Ashe did not show.

It could well have been Laver's formidable presence which caused Ashe to skip, we do not know.

It only matters if Ashe was boycotting, was banned, or was injured. Then it would not be Ashe's personal choice to not appear.
 

Zhilady

Professional
You overlook the most important point....Ashe CHOSE not to contest that 1969 AO.
Yes, and I agree that is the vital point. When so many players choose to skip something, it’d suggest that it wasn’t that important.

For all we know, Ashe may have felt that the top Aussies were bound to win it, so it could be seen as a concession to not appear.

That is how you have to look at these no-shows.....Ashe gets no credit for not showing up, and Laver loses nothing because Ashe did not show.
Just like Laver was a no-show for the Grand Slam tournaments when he went pro. It was, after all, his choice to go pro. Why is this a concession and not that? Why can’t we just agree that there are factors for why Laver chose to go pro and that there are factors for why a lot of players skipped the 1969 AO. I think we can both agree that it wasn’t because they didn’t think they would or could win, or they wouldn’t have all played Wimbledon later that year which was a lot more competitive in terms of participation.

It could well have been Laver's formidable presence which caused Ashe to skip, we do not know.
Or it could be that Laver bribed Ashe not to appear so that Laver could win more easily. We do not know.

It only matters if Ashe was boycotting, was banned, or was injured. Then it would not be Ashe's personal choice to not appear.
It was also Laver’s choice to go pro knowing full well he couldn’t participate in the Grand Slam tournaments, but I don’t see you treating those as a concession.
 

Dan Lobb

G.O.A.T.
Yes, and I agree that is the vital point. When so many players choose to skip something, it’d suggest that it wasn’t that important.

Just like Laver was a no-show for the Grand Slam tournaments when he went pro. It was, after all, his choice to go pro. Why is this a concession and not that? Why can’t we just agree that there are factors for why Laver chose to go pro and that there are factors for why a lot of players skipped the 1969 AO. I think we can both agree that it wasn’t because they didn’t think they would or could win, or they wouldn’t have all played Wimbledon later that year which was a lot more competitive in terms of participation.

Or it could be that Laver bribed Ashe not to appear so that Laver could win more easily. We do not know.

It was also Laver’s choice to go pro knowing full well he couldn’t participate in the Grand Slam tournaments, but I don’t see you treating those as a concession.
No, it suggests to me that Ashe and the other U.S. players did not like their chances of winning against Laver.

I don't like their chances, either.

That is how you have to interpret it.

If a player skips, he has to take the consequences of his no-show. That includes Laver and Rosewall.

But they get some credit for the pro majors, and Laver signed for the hope of greater income.....you have to pay a price for choosing.

I think that it would have been better for Laver and Rosewall to have been amateur in the 1960's, both for prestige and money.
 

Zhilady

Professional
Actually, there are objective elements indicating higher prestige of the CYGS.

The ITF roll of honor starts with listing players who won the "Grand Slam", which is defined as winning the four slams during the same calendar year. On a second page, the ITF then lists players who won four-in-a-row but not in a calendar year (by the way, the ITF does not call it "NCYGS", this achievement does not have a "Grand Slam" naming). This does indicate that, for the ITF, the calendar GS has higher prestige than the non-calendar one.

You may argue that this is only the ITF opinion, but prestige is indeed defined by the value given to something by people or organizations.
Honestly, this is the only logical factor in favor of the CYGS. With that said, I just don’t think the order in which the ITF lists people on one list somewhere is all that significant. For instance, the specifics of the titles that were won would seem far more important. The ITF also lists Laver’s amateur Grand Slam over Djokovic’s NCYGS. Would you also claim that Laver’s amateur Grand Slam is a greater achievement than Djokovic’s Open Era NCYGS?

And let's not forget that Djokovic himself ranks the CYGS above his NCYGS (he called it the ultimate challenge in tennis), also stating only Laver did it (among the living persons - when he joked he'd have to recruit Laver in his team).
As Djokovic is one of only two men to have achieved a four-in-a-row in the Open Era, I'd think his opinion weights more.
Players have wonky rankings for a lot of things. If I remember correctly, Del Potro put his Olympic Bronze Medal over his Grand Slam title. Also, what the top players say is often times PR fodder. How would Djokovic look if he claimed his NCYGS was better than Laver’s CYGS? Not very good. It really doesn’t matter what Djokovic or any other player thinks. Federer has said that being #1 for one week at any point in the year is the same for him as being #1 at the end of the year. I think you wouldn’t lend too much credence to that argument (though I would, but not because Federer said it).
 

Zhilady

Professional
No, it suggests to me that Ashe and the other U.S. players did not like their chances of winning against Laver.

I don't like their chances, either.

That is how you have to interpret it.
So 16 of the top 30 players skipped the Australian Open because they didn’t like their chances against Laver, but then figured they liked their chances against Laver at Wimbledon where Laver was the defending champion? Makes sense.

Why can’t we be honest and just agree that the AO wasn’t that important back then? Why else would so many players skip the AO and then play the rest of the Slams?

If a player skips, he has to take the consequences of his no-show. That includes Laver and Rosewall.

But they get some credit for the pro majors, and Laver signed for the hope of greater income.....you have to pay a price for choosing.

I think that it would have been better for Laver and Rosewall to have been amateur in the 1960's, both for prestige and money.
So you’re saying that when Laver chose to go pro, he conceded all the Amateur Slams because he didn’t like his chances against Emerson?
 

Dan Lobb

G.O.A.T.
So 16 of the top 30 players skipped the Australian Open because they didn’t like their chances against Laver, but then figured they liked their chances against Laver at Wimbledon where Laver was the defending champion? Makes sense.

Why can’t we be honest and just agree that the AO wasn’t that important back then? Why else would so many players skip the AO and then play the rest of the Slams?

So you’re saying that when Laver chose to go pro, he conceded all the Amateur Slams because he didn’t like his chances against Emerson?
Well, in any year Wimbledon is #1, and U.S. Open is #2.....always has been that way.

It's an honour for an American to qualify to play at Wimbledon, so, of course, they will try their best to show up there.

You did not have to beat Laver to make it worthwhile to go to Wimbledon.

But they would certainly not make the effort to go to AO if there is little chance of success, and none against Laver.

AO had some status in 1969, a strong group of Aussie players. That changed in the 1970's when the Aussies ran out of young stars.

Laver turned pro because he thought that he could make a lot more money as a pro....but that proved to be a wrong assumption, the amateur

players made more money in the mid sixties.

In retrospect, I think that Laver should have stayed amateur.
 

-NN-

G.O.A.T.
This forum is becoming more depressing day by day, as some here are just looking to be argumentative. The constant trashing of other and older era players to boost the accomplishments of today's greatest players is both meanspirited and stupid. Trashing Laver's 69 GS, Rosewall and Federer's longevity and other ridiculous posts is unfortunate. Fact is that Rosewall was ranked #6 in 75 at age 40. The 74 slam finals were depressing, but the fact that he even got that far, in non depleted fields beating top players to get there, is highly admirable. He won his last tournaments in 77, beating Nastase in one of his last tournament wins. IF Ken stayed around too long it probably was due to the fact that he was making more money than in his prime years. Also, like Federer he was still winning important tournaments between ages 33-38. Players should ONLY be judged by the era they payed in, as tennis today is far different than it was 50 years ago. The same is true of all sports.
Fat chance this is gonna happen. Sports tend to evolve and players do what they can in the time they have to do it in, and the staggered careers of various greats will often see the younger player eclipse the older player, will see the game continue to change, the wheel of fortune continue to turn, and the standard continue to evolve. Some like to sort of make an arbitrary cutoff for when they treat players seriously, such as say the Open Era, yet I'm sure Djokovic would annihilate Borg as brutally as Borg would obliterate Tilden as Tilden would eradicate William Renshaw if we placed them against each other in a vacuum with the standard they reached in their time with the equipment and paradigms of the game in action. Therefore, trying to be partially inclusive really makes very little sense. The reality is that Rosewall would get trashed by Federer, which shows how useless these comparisons are. There may or may not be evidence of diminishing returns in the rate of evolution in sport regarding pure level of play as we head into the year 2019 but I'm sure on the whole that sports will continue to improve and the greats in 20 years time or whatever would trash Nadal. Big Whoop.
 

Zhilady

Professional
Well, in any year Wimbledon is #1, and U.S. Open is #2.....always has been that way.

It's an honour for an American to qualify to play at Wimbledon, so, of course, they will try their best to show up there.

You did not have to beat Laver to make it worthwhile to go to Wimbledon.

But they would certainly not make the effort to go to AO if there is little chance of success, and none against Laver.
None against Laver? Seriously? Are you forgetting that Laver didn’t even make the quarterfinal of the previous Slam and that Ashe had won it? It would be mighty weird if Ashe thought, “You know, I won the US Open, and I know Laver didn’t even make the quarters, but, eh, I’m not feeling I have any chance against Laver at the Australian Open.” I really don’t think Ashe was that stupid.
 

Dan Lobb

G.O.A.T.
None against Laver? Seriously? Are you forgetting that Laver didn’t even make the quarterfinal of the previous Slam and that Ashe had won it? It would be mighty weird if Ashe thought, “You know, I won the US Open, and I know Laver didn’t even make the quarters, but, eh, I’m not feeling I have any chance against Laver at the Australian Open.” I really don’t think Ashe was that stupid.
Well, any home championship has the home players playing hard, Laver, Roche, Rosewall, Emerson, Newcombe, Stolle....a strong lineup of Aussies to overcome, any of whom could beat Ashe.

Ashe won his own home title.
 

Dan Lobb

G.O.A.T.
None against Laver? Seriously? Are you forgetting that Laver didn’t even make the quarterfinal of the previous Slam and that Ashe had won it? It would be mighty weird if Ashe thought, “You know, I won the US Open, and I know Laver didn’t even make the quarters, but, eh, I’m not feeling I have any chance against Laver at the Australian Open.” I really don’t think Ashe was that stupid.
Looks like Ashe had a bad time with Laver in those days, going 0 for 18 against Laver.

If I were Ashe, I would not have spent the time and money chasing Laver to Australia, just concede it....which is what happened.
 
Last edited:

Zhilady

Professional
Looks like Ashe had a bad time with Laver in those days, going 0 for 18 against Laver.

If I were Ashe, I would not have spent the time and money chasing Laver to Australia, just concede it....which is what happened.
Which is what didn’t happen at the French Open, Wimbledon, and the US Open, so your theory falls apart. Nice try, though.
 

BGod

Legend
The Novak Slam is greater than either Laver 4 consecutive Majors because 3/4 were on grass and with smaller draws in AO.

Case. Closed.

 

thrust

Hall of Fame
Well, in any year Wimbledon is #1, and U.S. Open is #2.....always has been that way.

It's an honour for an American to qualify to play at Wimbledon, so, of course, they will try their best to show up there.

You did not have to beat Laver to make it worthwhile to go to Wimbledon.

But they would certainly not make the effort to go to AO if there is little chance of success, and none against Laver.

AO had some status in 1969, a strong group of Aussie players. That changed in the 1970's when the Aussies ran out of young stars.

Laver turned pro because he thought that he could make a lot more money as a pro....but that proved to be a wrong assumption, the amateur

players made more money in the mid sixties.

In retrospect, I think that Laver should have stayed amateur.
IMO, had Laver not turned pro he would not have won the 69 CYGS as turning pro made him a better player than he was in 62, due to playing: Gonzalez, Rosewall and Hoad on the pro tour.
 

thrust

Hall of Fame
Looks like Ashe had a bad time with Laver in those days, going 0 for 18 against Laver.

If I were Ashe, I would not have spent the time and money chasing Laver to Australia, just concede it....which is what happened.
Ashe and Laver played the AO in 71, with Ashe losing to Rosewall in the final and Laver losing early to a lower ranked player in an early round. Perhaps Ashe had personal business to attend to in 69 which kept him from playing the AO in 69, as he had played in the AO before 69. All this talk in nonsense, as players miss other slams too, for personal reasons.
 

Dan Lobb

G.O.A.T.
Which is what didn’t happen at the French Open, Wimbledon, and the US Open, so your theory falls apart. Nice try, though.
Those other three majors had higher status than the AO, and you could play both the French and Wimbledon in one trip.

Of course, Ashe could not handle Laver anywhere, so it is no surprise that he skipped the Aussie Open....it has to register as a concession by Ashe.
 
Top