Nole Slam vs Laver '62 amateur CYGS

[Pheasant]

Laver's Open Era CYGS > Nole's NCYGS > Laver's Pro Slam > Laver's Amateur era CYGS.

 

[Zhilady]

None of them was better than him (that year), so it's not like his title was apparently dependent on anyone missing.

That’s poor logic. You can always lose to worse players. That’s why you play the matches instead of handing over trophies to the favorite on paper.

You're conflating your reasoning with mine. Stop doing this.

Stop doing what? Making sense? Or being consistent? It’s getting pretty embarrassing on your part right now. If Emerson’s titles mean less because his draws were missing top players, so does Laver’s 1969 AO. I can’t believe we’re still arguing about something this straight-forward.

You don't play the entire field, you play the draw, so it doesn't make sense to compare the field instead of the draws, and Laver's may have actually been tougher despite two matches fewer because of the Roche match (and Emerson gave a decent fight too, going by the scoreline).

Summation: Emerson's results before (i.e. 1962, when he was already thoroughly bested by Laver as an amateur) and after his 1963-67 amateur reign heavily suggest he was unlikely to beat the best pros during his reign if he played them, which is why his titles are strongly devalued. Laver's 1969 results suggest he was entirely capable to win big titles in full attendance, so the absence of some top players doesn't serve to devalue titles when there were still multiple top players in the draw. Since Laver did, in fact, have to get through a fairly tough match against Emerson and a very tough match against Roche, it stands to reason then for his draw to be considered properly difficult despite reduced tournament attendance, so it doesn't get devalued compared to better attended slams.

That's it, that's my reasoning. Time for you to realise your take on this is an opinion too. We can have different takes, no problem.

It’s not my opinion that Laver’s field was missing 4 of the top 10 players. It’s funny how you were saying earlier in the thread that the AO wasn’t a full-fledged Slam until the late ‘80s, and here you are arguing the exact opposite despite the fact that the 1969 AO had a depleted draw.

Let’s face it, Djokovic won against a full draw in the 2016 AO. Laver didn’t in 1969. So, the 2016 AO > 1969 AO. Your opinions about how tough Laver’s draw or matches were don’t change the facts.

 

[Dan Lobb]

You could say the same about how Laver and Rosewall conceded the Majors Emerson won by opting to play on the Pro tour.

Well, it is not quite comparable, because there was a ban by the amateur managers of pro players. The players could not choose to play against all the top

players, they had to pick amateur or pro circuits.

The situation of 1969 was Ashe CHOOSING not to make the trip down under.

The great irony of the 1960's was that the amateur circuit leap-frogged over the pro circuit and offered more money to the top names in the amateur game

than the top pros received. You can imagine how the pros felt about that.

 

[Zhilady]

Well, it is not quite comparable, because there was a ban by the amateur managers of pro players. The players could not choose to play against all the top

Laver and Rosewall didn’t have to turn pro. They made that choice.

 

[DSH]

Laver's Open Era CYGS > Nole's NCYGS > Laver's Pro Slam > Laver's Amateur era CYGS.

steffi golden slam is better.

 

[Dan Lobb]

Laver and Rosewall didn’t have to turn pro. They made that choice.

Laver and Rosewall strongly believed that they would make much more money by turning pro....it didn't turn out that way, and Laver was quite disappointed at

how the amateur circuit upped their pay to the top amateurs. It became impossible to sign Emerson or Santana to pro contracts in 1964.

In 1969 Ashe chose to skip the Australian, for his own reasons. Perhaps Ashe needed some rest, and knew that he could not overcome a tough Aussie field.

You have to take a skip as a concession.

Ashe sacrificed his own chances to win the GS in 1969 by skipping the Aussie in 1969.

But with the downgrade in importance of the Davis Cup after open tennis arrived, and the pro circuit interfering with Davis Cup participation, the whole concept

of GS became an anachronism.

Davis Cup eventually was won by many new nations, so the original basis for the GS was removed.

In fact, it makes more sense to think of the Big Two (Wimbledon and U.S.) Titles as today's GS.

 

[Zebrev]

What about Novaks 2019 CYGS?

 

[Zhilady]

Laver and Rosewall strongly believed that they would make much more money by turning pro....it didn't turn out that way, and Laver was quite disappointed at

Whatever the reasons, it was Laver’s choice. So, by your reasoning, he conceded the Slams he missed to Emerson.

In 1969 Ashe chose to skip the Australian, for his own reasons.

Ashe sacrificed his own chances to win the GS in 1969 by skipping the Aussie in 1969.

Just like Laver sacrificed his own chances to win Slams by going Pro.

 

[Dan Lobb]

Let's see what Novak does at RG and Wimbledon.

 

[Dan Lobb]

Whatever the reasons, it was Laver’s choice. So, by your reasoning, he conceded the Slams he missed to Emerson.

Just like Laver sacrificed his own chances to win Slams by going Pro.

I think that Laver had some decent reason to regret turning pro (although he denied regretting it) in 1963, because that was the beginning of the golden (as in $$$$) age of amateur tennis.

Also, considering how often Laver's GS totals are mentioned in his appraisals, it would have served his long term esteem better by piling up more GS titles.

But that is all in hindsight.

 

[Zhilady]

I think that Laver had some decent reason to regret turning pro (although he denied regretting it) in 1963, because that was the beginning of the golden (as in $$$$) age of amateur tennis.

Also, considering how often Laver's GS totals are mentioned in his appraisals, it would have served his long term esteem better by piling up more GS titles.

I don’t think Laver would have won the 1969 Grand Slam if he had remained amateur. The pro tour really made him the player he became. And without that Grand Slam, for better or worse, I don’t think he’d have distanced himself from Rosewall and Gonzales, legacy-wise, the way he has.

 

[Dan Lobb]

I don’t think Laver would have won the 1969 Grand Slam if he had remained amateur. The pro tour really made him the player he became. And without that Grand Slam, for better or worse, I don’t think he’d have distanced himself from Rosewall and Gonzales, legacy-wise, the way he has.

Laver was going to win AT LEAST another GS, regardless of whether or not he turned pro. Perhaps several.

Assuming that Laver stayed amateur in 1963, there would have been no incentive to bring in open tennis in 1968.

 

[Zhilady]

Laver was going to win AT LEAST another GS, regardless of whether or not he turned pro. Perhaps several.

Sure, but not against the entire field.

 

[AnOctorokForDinner]

That’s poor logic. You can always lose to worse players. That’s why you play the matches instead of handing over trophies to the favorite on paper.

Anyone can lose to anyone, that doesn't say anything.

Stop doing what? Making sense? Or being consistent? It’s getting pretty embarrassing on your part right now. If Emerson’s titles mean less because his draws were missing top players, so does Laver’s 1969 AO. I can’t believe we’re still arguing about something this straight-forward.

You appear incapable of processing any reasoning you don't accept as your own. I laid it out and you still ignored it. Emerson's draws were missing players who were superior to him, Laver's was not.

It’s not my opinion that Laver’s field was missing 4 of the top 10 players. It’s funny how you were saying earlier in the thread that the AO wasn’t a full-fledged Slam until the late ‘80s, and here you are arguing the exact opposite despite the fact that the 1969 AO had a depleted draw.

Let’s face it, Djokovic won against a full draw in the 2016 AO. Laver didn’t in 1969. So, the 2016 AO > 1969 AO. Your opinions about how tough Laver’s draw or matches were don’t change the facts.

A reduced field, not draw. Big difference. Djokovic's AO 16 title > Laver's AO 69 title if and only if Djokovic's draw was more difficult than Laver's, which is not clear at all.

By the way, I accept 1971, 1974 and 1975 AO tournaments as worthy for having the topmost players (Laver and Rosewall, both still in top 3/4, in 1971 and 1974 YE #1 and #2 Connors and Newcombe in 1974/75 AO). Can't say that about the rest during the 1970-1982 period.

 

[Dan Lobb]

Sure, but not against the entire field.

The pro game was in serious decline in the early sixties, they needed Laver to bail them out.

There was no pro tour in 1962, because Laver refused Kramer's offer of a pro contract in 1961. Kramer resigned as pro chief.

Without Laver, there was no pro show.

If Laver had remained amateur, I don't see open tennis coming in 1968.

 

[Zhilady]

Anyone can lose to anyone, that doesn't say anything.

Just because you’re the best player doesn’t mean your chances of winning won’t be affected at all by who’s in the draw.

You appear incapable of processing any reasoning you don't accept as your own. I laid it out and you still ignored it. Emerson's draws were missing players who were superior to him, Laver's was not.

The point is that both of their tournament draws were missing top players and that Djokovic’s wasn’t. I’d accept your reasoning if it made sense. Alas, it doesn’t.

A reduced field, not draw. Big difference. Djokovic's AO 16 title > Laver's AO 69 title if and only if Djokovic's draw was more difficult than Laver's, which is not clear at all.

I’m talking about the tournament draw; not Laver’s draw. The 1969 AO tournament draw was missing 4 top 10 players.

By the way, I accept 1971, 1974 and 1975 AO tournaments as worthy for having the topmost players (Laver and Rosewall, both still in top 3/4, in 1971 and 1974 YE #1 and #2 Connors and Newcombe in 1974/75 AO). Can't say that about the rest during the 1970-1982 period.

I accept that the 2016 AO was a fully worthy Slam for having all of the (fit) top players. Can’t say that about the 1969 AO, which was missing 4 top 10 players.

 

[Zhilady]

The pro game was in serious decline in the early sixties, they needed Laver to bail them out.

There was no pro tour in 1962, because Laver refused Kramer's offer of a pro contract in 1961. Kramer resigned as pro chief.

Without Laver, there was no pro show.

If Laver had remained amateur, I don't see open tennis coming in 1968.

The question isn’t about whether there would have been an Open tour in 1968 (which I’m absolutely sure would have happened at some point, regardless of what Laver did). I’m saying I don’t think Laver would have won the Grand Slam against the entire field (like he did in 1969) if he hadn’t turned pro.

 

[DSH]

What about Novaks 2019 CYGS?

not faith in your guy?.

 

[Dan Lobb]

The question isn’t about whether there would have been an Open tour in 1968 (which I’m absolutely sure would have happened at some point, regardless of what Laver did). I’m saying I don’t think Laver would have won the Grand Slam against the entire field (like he did in 1969) if he hadn’t turned pro.

It's an interesting speculation.

Assuming that Laver remains amateur in 1963, he has a good chance to win another GS or two in the mid-60's, and that would probably add lustre to his

current assessment in the history of the game.

As far as the "entire" field is concerned, it would depend on how soon open tennis arrives with Laver still an amateur.

It probably does not arrive as soon as 1968, so, if we further assume that Newk/Roche remain amateur, the pro field (Rosewall, Gimeno) would kind of fade

away.

I think it looks better for Laver's assessment today if he takes those amateur slams in the sixties.

 

[AnOctorokForDinner]

I’d accept your reasoning if it made sense. Alas, it doesn’t.

So your attitude is "I reject anything as I see fit" along with "whatever I consider obvious is in fact obvious". Discussion failure.

 

[Deleted member 762343]

I don't know what you've seen, but I see Djokovic being 1-6 down against Nadal at the French Open, with the 1 win coming in the year Nadal failed to win a single Masters event on clay.

If there is any guy in history that has shown that he can beat any version of Nadal at the French Open, it's Soderling at the 2009 French Open. Nadal won two Masters on clay that year.

Nadal had tendinitis, he was very far from his best level. He won 2 Masters on clay before he got injured. After his injury, he lost almost all his matches. At RG 2010, an in form Nadal decimated Soderling in straights, it wasn’t close at all. So I really doubt he showed he could beat any version of Nadal at RG, far from it. Djokovic is the only one who almost beat an in form Nadal at RG.

 

[thrust]

Which one do you rate higher? Imo, Djokovic's NCYGS is greater achievement than Laver's amateur CYGS.

Sent from my Redmi Note 4 using Tapatalk

For sure, as the top male players were on the pro tour.

 

[thrust]

For me there are two reasons that Laver's close era amateur CYGS doesn't compare to today's CYGS or NCYGS.

First, AO was not an equal of the other 3 back then. In 1962 AO, Laver played just 5 matches in a 48-player draw (39 of whom were Australian). He also played only 6 matches in a 112-player French Open.

Second, there was a distinct gap between amateurs and pros at the time. After winning the 1962 amateur CYGS, Laver turned pro the next year, when he lost to Rosewall 13-38 in one year (Rosewall turned 29, Laver 25 in 1963. And yes pros played each other a lot back then.). Although Laver gained an upper hand over Rosewall in the following years, that 13-38 H2H epitomized amateur-pro difference. In other words, Laver didn't play the best tennis players in the world in 1962.

Even in 1969, the first full year of the open era when pieces were still following into places, Laver played 5 rounds in a 48-player AO. Novak is the first to win 4 Majors in a row with a 128-player full draw at each major.

Quantity does not always mean Quality. Still I rate Novak's achievement over Laver's 62 Grand Slam

 

[Dan Lobb]

Sometimes the top players were amateur, but they required a brief adjustment period to show their best level against the reigning pros.

https:www.gettyimages.ca/detail/video/bobby-riggs-defeats-jack-kramer-in-a-1947-tennis-match-at-news-footage/1B012197_014

 

[Zhilady]

So your attitude is "I reject anything as I see fit" along with "whatever I consider obvious is in fact obvious". Discussion failure.

LOL, of course I’m going to reject things which I feel deserve to be rejected. Nothing you say can change the fact that the 1969 AO was missing 4 top 10 players including the #2.

At least I’m not arguing for the invalidity of the AO in latter years for having depleted draws while simultaneously arguing for the validity of the 1969 AO with its depleted draw. I have that going for me.

 

[Zhilady]

Nadal had tendinitis, he was very far from his best level. He won 2 Masters on clay before he got injured. After his injury, he lost almost all his matches. At RG 2010, an in form Nadal decimated Soderling in straights, it wasn’t close at all. So I really doubt he showed he could beat any version of Nadal at RG, far from it. Djokovic is the only one who almost beat an in form Nadal at RG.

When exactly did Nadal get injured in 2009?

 

[AnOctorokForDinner]

LOL, of course I’m going to reject things which I feel deserve to be rejected.

I reject you, then. Go choke on that attitude of yours.

At least I’m not arguing for the invalidity of the AO in latter years for having depleted draws while simultaneously arguing for the validity of the 1969 AO with its depleted draw. I have that going for me.

Those draws were too depleted to count for a full title despite the Slam label, simple as that. Yes it's subjective where to draw the line. I judge 1969, 1971, 1974, 1975 had enough top presence to validate the tournament as a worthy Slam (plus, 1969 and 1975 had actual difficult paths, garnering extra respect and hence reason to preserve full title worth) - really, if not for that traditional label, AO could easily be rated as a secondary tournament until at least 1995, but it's not fair for cross-era comparisons and so can't be done. But the third-rate editions from 1970-82 except the aforementioned, with one or no top 5 (current or YE) participants, were too bad for even tradition to lift them. Makes comparisons tough, have to try compensating by awarding Connors/Borg/McEnroe some extra title values for that purpose, but how much is a difficult question.[/QUOTE][/QUOTE]

 

[Deleted member 762343]

When exactly did Nadal get injured in 2009?

In May, just after Madrid. This year, he even easily destroyed Soderling in Rome (6-1, 6-0) before his injury.

 

[Zhilady]

In May, just after Madrid. This year, he even easily destroyed Soderling in Rome (6-1, 6-0) before his injury.

Do you have any source for Nadal getting injured after Madrid?

 

[Zhilady]

I reject you, then. Go choke on that attitude of yours.

LOL, sure.

Those draws were too depleted to count for a full title despite the Slam label, simple as that. Yes it's subjective where to draw the line. I judge 1969, 1971, 1974, 1975 had enough top presence to validate the tournament as a worthy Slam

Yeah, nonsense. No way that a Slam that was missing 4 top 10 players wasn’t depleted. Where you choose to “draw the line” reveals your biases.

 

[AnOctorokForDinner]

Yeah, nonsense. No way that a Slam that was missing 4 top 10 players wasn’t depleted. Where you choose to “draw the line” reveals your biases.

No way facing seven pants-crapping mugs and chokers is better than facing one super peak opponent just because there were fewer players missing. According to your lolgic, full attendance automatically makes a title better even if all opponents were to play like absolute dogshit. Same kind of crapgic as 'more top 10 wins = stronger competition', of course it's the ********* spouting that 'cause it benefits their man very much.

 

[thrust]

I don’t think Laver would have won the 1969 Grand Slam if he had remained amateur. The pro tour really made him the player he became. And without that Grand Slam, for better or worse, I don’t think he’d have distanced himself from Rosewall and Gonzales, legacy-wise, the way he has.

True, but Rod did have the age advantage vs Rosewall and especially against Gonzalez in 69, as Ken was 34 and Pancho was 41. Still, Ken went on to win 3 more slams, 70-72 and beat Rod in two WCT finals in 71-72. I read recently that Rod said that he learned a lot about tennis thanks to having played against Pancho and Ken.

 

[Zhilady]

No way facing seven pants-crapping mugs and chokers is better than facing one super peak opponent just because there were fewer players missing. According to your lolgic, full attendance automatically makes a title better even if all opponents were to play like absolute dogshit.

Yes, for sure. That you think they’re playing like dog crap is subjective. That they beat a complete draw with all the best players is objective. Objectivity > subjectivity, every time.

Same kind of crapgic as 'more top 10 wins = stronger competition', of course it's the ********* spouting that 'cause it benefits their man very much.

That’s actually a nonsense argument, because you’re either playing top 10 players or the players that beat the top 10 players. It’d make no sense that the top 10 players would be stronger competition when they’ve already lost earlier in the tournament to lower ranked players. Current form is more relevant than 12-month form for a match.

 

[AnOctorokForDinner]

Yes, for sure. That you think they’re playing like dog crap is subjective. That they beat a complete draw with all the best players is objective. Objectivity > subjectivity, every time.

You hhave no objective argument that Djokovic's title was more difficult than Laver's.

It is a fact that A) Djokovic played 7 matches and Laver 5; B) the draw of AO 16 included more top 10 players than the draw of AO 69. Positing that it follows from A and B that Laver's title was easier is not factual. One very tough match may be more difficult to pull through than seven average.

 

[Zhilady]

You hhave no objective argument that Djokovic's title was more difficult than Laver's.

Djokovic had to win against a complete draw after playing 7 matches, while Laver had to win in a draw missing 4 top 10 players after playing 5 matches. Those are objective. Those are facts.

It is a fact that A) Djokovic played 7 matches and Laver 5; B) the draw of AO 16 included more top 10 players than the draw of AO 69. Positing that it follows from A and B that Laver's title was easier is not factual. One very tough match may be more difficult to pull through than seven average.

Okay, forget about whether it was “easier” or “tougher”. The fact remains that Djokovic beat the entire field. Laver didn’t. That is objective and factual. My argument is backed up by facts and objective reality. Your argument is backed up by opinion and subjectivity.

If the 1969 AO missing 4 top 10 players doesn’t detract from its value, all of the Open Era AO tournaments would hold the same value. You can’t have it both ways, no matter how many mental gymnastics you try.

 

[Zhilady]

So I just looked it up, and it’s looking even worse for Laver.

On the date the Australian Open began, both Arthur Ashe (#2) and Clark Graebner (#4) would have been ranked over Tony Roche, who was ranked no higher than #5 at the time. Perhaps even #6, because he was seeded behind Tom Okker. On the flip side, it turns out Drysdale was just outside the top 10 at #11, so I stand corrected there.

So, overall, the 1969 AO was missing:

1. The world #2
2. The world #4
3. 3 top 10 players
4. 8 top 20 players
5. 16 top 30 players

That’s right, the 1969 Australian Open was missing most of the top 30 players. Not a few, not several. Most.

How that is supposed to be an equal of the 2016 AO, I have no idea.

Oh, right, because the world #5/#6 took the eventual champion to 5 sets. How objective.

 

[AnOctorokForDinner]

If the 1969 AO missing 4 top 10 players doesn’t detract from its value, all of the Open Era AO tournaments would hold the same value. You can’t have it both ways, no matter how many mental gymnastics you try.

Baseless statement. No reason why there shouldn't be a threshold. Better attended tournaments also miss players, usually due to injury, but what does it matter to the ones in the draw?

You forgot two mention 4 of the top 6 players were present, except Ashe. (Sure it had something to with all of them being Aussies, still the fact is here.) That's if we go by Collins's rankings. Going by Slasher's ranking formula, which I respect rather more because of its mathematical objectivity, 7 of the top 10 were playing at the AO, except #2 Ashe, #5 Graebner and #6 Okker. That's a lesser impact than, for example, all top 3 players missing 2006 Paris Masters, voluntarily at that (all were healthy and played the YEC, Federer won, Nadal lost SF to Fed, Nalbandian lost SF to Blake), yet that tournament has the full value of a masters, doesn't it? I'm pretty sure it does officially. Well then, there's the basis.

 

[AnOctorokForDinner]

So I just looked it up, and it’s looking even worse for Laver.

On the date the Australian Open began, both Arthur Ashe (#2) and Clark Graebner (#4) would have been ranked over Tony Roche, who was ranked no higher than #5 at the time. Perhaps even #6, because he was seeded behind Tom Okker. On the flip side, it turns out Drysdale was just outside the top 10 at #11, so I stand corrected there.

So, overall, the 1969 AO was missing:

1. The world #2
2. The world #4
3. 3 top 10 players
4. 8 top 20 players
5. 16 top 30 players

That’s right, the 1969 Australian Open was missing most of the top 30 players. Not a few, not several. Most.

How that is supposed to be an equal of the 2016 AO, I have no idea.

Oh, right, because the world #5/#6 took the eventual champion to 5 sets. How objective.

"Dude, your title is worth less because world #24 didn't play the tournament, see!" How objective, indeed. Such an impactful absence, so sure to prevent Laver from winning if only he played, how can anyone possibly doubt that?

 

[Zhilady]

Baseless statement. No reason why there shouldn't be a threshold. Better attended tournaments also miss players, usually due to injury, but what does it matter to the ones in the draw?

You forgot two mention 4 of the top 6 players were present, except Ashe. (Sure it had something to with all of them being Aussies, still the fact is here.) That's if we go by Collins's rankings. Going by Slasher's ranking formula, which I respect rather more because of its mathematical objectivity, 7 of the top 10 were playing at the AO, except #2 Ashe, #5 Graebner and #6 Okker. That's a lesser impact than, for example, all top 3 players missing 2006 Paris Masters, voluntarily at that (all were healthy and played the YEC, Federer won, Nadal lost SF to Fed, Nalbandian lost SF to Blake), yet that tournament has the full value of a masters, doesn't it? I'm pretty sure it does officially. Well then, there's the basis.

According to Slasher’s ranking formula (which is also what I generally follow, because it’s more mathematically objective, like you said), the 1969 Australian Open was missing 16 players from the top 30.

When was the last time 16 players from the top 30 were missing in a Grand Slam tournament? I’ll wait.

 

[AnOctorokForDinner]

According to Slasher’s ranking formula (which is also what I generally follow, because it’s more mathematically objective, like you said), the 1969 Australian Open was missing 16 players from the top 30.

When was the last time 16 players from the top 30 were missing in a Grand Slam tournament? I’ll wait.

How would the world #30 missing impact the tournament value in an objective sense? I'll wait...

 

[Zhilady]

"Dude, your title is worth less because world #24 didn't play the tournament, see!" How objective, indeed. Such an impactful absence, so sure to prevent Laver from winning if only he played, how can anyone possibly doubt that?

It wasn’t just #24 that was missing.

It was:

#2
#4
#9
#11
#13
#16
#17
#19
#21
#22
#23
#24
#25
#28
#29
#30

That’s 16 of the top 30 players. When was the last time that happened at a Grand Slam tournament?

 

[Zhilady]

How would the world #30 missing impact the tournament value in an objective sense? I'll wait...

Are you seriously asking how more than half of the top 30 players missing from a Grand Slam tournament is going to impact it? You’re just a joke now. A really bad joke. Almost troll-like.

 

[AnOctorokForDinner]

Are you seriously asking how more than half of the top 30 players missing from a Grand Slam tournament is going to impact it? You’re just a joke now. A really bad joke. Almost troll-like.

"If you do not accept my reasoning, you are a troll." More of that narrow-minded attitude.

 

[AnOctorokForDinner]

It wasn’t just #24 that was missing.

It was:

#2
#4
#9
#11
#13
#16
#17
#19
#21
#22
#23
#24
#25
#28
#29
#30

That’s 16 of the top 30 players. When was the last time that happened at a Grand Slam tournament?

Golly gee, 6 top 8 players present and it's supposed to be an unworthy tournament because of the lesser mugs not playing. Ha ha!

 

[Zhilady]

"If you do not accept my reasoning, you are a troll." More of that narrow-minded attitude.

LOL. Continue to embarrass yourself.

You: How is the 2016 AO more valuable than the 1969 AO?

Me: Because the 1969 AO was missing 2 of the top 4 and 16 of the top 30, and because Laver only had to play 5 matches. Objective facts.

You: Okay, but Laver played 5 sets against the world #5, so, yay! I win!

 

[AnOctorokForDinner]

LOL. Continue to embarrass yourself.

You: How is the 2016 AO more valuable than the 1969 AO?

Me: Because the 1969 AO was missing most of the top 30, and because Laver only had to play 5 matches. Objective facts.

You: Okay, but Laver played 5 sets against the world #5, so, yay! I win!

Objective facts, subjective conclusions. Like for like.

Indeed, playing a 90-game match against the YE#2 vindicates the top-lighter draw as far as Laver's title is concerned. This is evidently a subjective statement, but apparently reasonable (unless proven otherwise, I wonder how), more reasonable than letting the absence of sub-top-10 players detract from World No.1 winning another title.

 

[thrust]

All this, sometimes bitter, debate proves that the players from the open era should not be ranked with the players of the pro or amateur tout. I think it is generally conceded that Gonzalez, Hoad, Rosewall, Trabert and Sedgman were the top players in the fifties when they were on the pro tour. Gonzalez, Rosewall and Hoad were the best players 60-63, then Laver and Rosewall from 64-70. After 72, Laver and Ken went into slow decline and another began. The following era 74-90 had: Connors, McEnroe, Lendl, Borg, Becker, Wilander and Edberg were the top players.

So I just looked it up, and it’s looking even worse for Laver.

On the date the Australian Open began, both Arthur Ashe (#2) and Clark Graebner (#4) would have been ranked over Tony Roche, who was ranked no higher than #5 at the time. Perhaps even #6, because he was seeded behind Tom Okker. On the flip side, it turns out Drysdale was just outside the top 10 at #11, so I stand corrected there.

So, overall, the 1969 AO was missing:

1. The world #2
2. The world #4
3. 3 top 10 players
4. 8 top 20 players
5. 16 top 30 players

That’s right, the 1969 Australian Open was missing most of the top 30 players. Not a few, not several. Most.

How that is supposed to be an equal of the 2016 AO, I have no idea.

Oh, right, because the world #5/#6 took the eventual champion to 5 sets. How objective.

 

[Zhilady]

Indeed, playing a 90-game match against the YE#2

Roche was either the #5 or the #6. The #2 at the time skipped the tournament because he couldn’t be damned.

the absence of sub-top-10 players detract from World No.1 winning another title.

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

 

[thrust]

All this, sometimes bitter, debate proves that the players from the open era should not be ranked with the players of the pro or amateur tout. I think it is generally conceded that Gonzalez, Hoad, Rosewall, Trabert and Sedgman were the top players in the fifties when they were on the pro tour. Gonzalez, Rosewall and Hoad were the best players 60-63, then Laver and Rosewall from 64-70. After 72, Laver and Ken went into slow decline and another began. The following era 74-90 had: Connors, McEnroe, Lendl, Borg, Becker, Wilander and Edberg were the top players.

So I just looked it up, and it’s looking even worse for Laver.

On the date the Australian Open began, both Arthur Ashe (#2) and Clark Graebner (#4) would have been ranked over Tony Roche, who was ranked no higher than #5 at the time. Perhaps even #6, because he was seeded behind Tom Okker. On the flip side, it turns out Drysdale was just outside the top 10 at #11, so I stand corrected there.

So, overall, the 1969 AO was missing:

1. The world #2
2. The world #4
3. 3 top 10 players
4. 8 top 20 players
5. 16 top 30 players

That’s right, the 1969 Australian Open was missing most of the top 30 players. Not a few, not several. Most.

How that is supposed to be an equal of the 2016 AO, I have no idea.

Oh, right, because the world #5/#6 took the eventual champion to 5 sets. How objective.

I am inclined to believe that neither Ashe, Graebner, or any of the other missing players could have defeated Laver at the 69 AO.

 

[Zhilady]

I am inclined to believe that neither Ashe, Graebner, or any of the other missing players could have defeated Laver at the 69 AO.

While I think they could have, I think that they probably wouldn’t have. But that is besides the point.

The point is that the 1969 AO was not a full-fledged Slam like the 2016 AO was. Grand Slam tournaments are where all the best players come together and compete, and one guy comes out on top. When most, and I repeat, most of the top 30 players in the world don’t show up, it’s not a full-fledged Slam. 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.