Rod Laver has the right to the all time crown

[ProCoach]

After reading so many things about Federer, Nadal, Sampras, etc., I researched everyone of the older guys to see what they had for these young bucks that we all know and follow today. After doing a Wikipedia check on Laver, I was absolutely astonished. After winning the Grand Slam in 1962, he turned pro and was not allowed to actually play any of the Grand Slams until the Open era began back in 1968. So, for 5 years, he was not allowed to play the Slams, but there were professional tournaments held that were the equal of the Slams and he absolutely owned them for years. His tournament win record was psychotic.
-He won the U.S. Pro Championships (the equivalent to the U.S. Open) 5 times.
-He won the Wembley Pro Championships 4 times.
-He won the French Professional Championships 2 times.

None of those were counted as Grand Slam wins, even though Lew Hoad, Rosewall, and many of the greats we all knew played in the professional events. He beat the best to win those professional events and then came back and won the calendar Grand Slam again! That is crazy!!!!!

Had those professional championship tournaments been counted towards his Grand Slam total, he would have won an unprecedented 22 Grand Slam singles titles and that includes 2 calendar year Grand Slams!!!!! That is unbelievable to say the least. He very much has a say in being voted the very best of all time. The guys today are phenomenal, but when putting a vote in for the greatest, we'd all better keep up with Laver's stats. They are ridiculous.........

 

[Datacipher]

So you played on the ATP tour, coach ITF juniors, practice partner for Wilander,you were at Edberg's retirement, you coached for Bolletierri and Hopman, and you're reading up on these pros now?

 

[ProCoach]

So you played on the ATP tour, coach ITF juniors, practice partner for Wilander,you were at Edberg's retirement, you coached for Bolletierri and Hopman, and you're reading up on these pros now?

To be honest, I didn't realize just how great some of the older players were. I knew a bit about Laver, but didn't realize the amount he had done in the years when he wasn't allowed to play the Grand Slams.

 

[Rabbit]

To be honest, I didn't realize just how great some of the older players were. I knew a bit about Laver, but didn't realize the amount he had done in the years when he wasn't allowed to play the Grand Slams. There is quite a bit I don't know about players. I coach at the Smith Stearns Tennis Academy now and work with Stan Smith and there is a ton of stuff I don't know about him. Is that so strange? And the things you mentioned that I have done are a very small group of things. It seems there is a bit of doubt in the things I have done, and again, the door is always open for you to come and meet me in Hilton Head. I will gladly talk with you about any of these things and I will happily play you (for money). I will introduce you to some of the ITF ranked juniors, I will get you in touch with a number of former and current Swedish tennis professionals that I know, and we can call Howard Moore and Gabe Jaramillo or Red Ayme for proof of other academy work. I will also gladly introduce you to Stan Smith, Billy Stearns, and the rest of the staff. If you have an issue with who I am and what I have done, please feel free to come visit and I will be glad to set things straight. Otherwise, stick to the topic of the post.........

Based on the above, welcome to the boards! I think the vast majority of us appreicate someone in the know and with your kind of background.

As to the OP, I agree. Laver is one of a kind, even considering today's players.

 

[ProCoach]

Based on the above, welcome to the boards! I think the vast majority of us appreicate someone in the know and with your kind of background.

Thank you! I am not here to cause issues. I am a fan of the game just like the rest of you. It's fun to get other people's perspectives on what's going on in the game.

 

[Rabbit]

Thank you! I am not here to cause issues. I am a fan of the game just like the rest of you. It's fun to get other people's perspectives on what's going on in the game.

No, don't sweat it. There are just some folks, like Datacipher who are overly suspicious. Some folks like gut, some folks like poly.....same thing. Just don't let it run you off. The boards really appreciate some 'been there' experience.

I hope one day to visit your island and would love to pay you to beat my brains in and hopefully offer a few pointers.

 

[ProCoach]

No, don't sweat it. There are just some folks, like Datacipher who are overly suspicious. Some folks like gut, some folks like poly.....same thing. Just don't let it run you off. The boards really appreciate some 'been there' experience.

I hope one day to visit your island and would love to pay you to beat my brains in and hopefully offer a few pointers.

I will be glad to do it. The door is always open and we have year round tennis at the Sea Pines Resort. It's quite steamy on the courts right now though. Lots of rain, and with that, lots of humidity.

 

[MAX PLY]

I second the welcome. I think you are right on about Laver. His stats speak for themselves. You should ask Stan Smith about him sometime.

 

[urban]

In the older days it was usual, to rank players before the War (WW II) and after the War. Fred Perry did that around 1990, and he ranked Tilden the greatest pre WW II, and Laver the greatest after WW II. For me Tilden and Laver always stood out - Tilden the Ego, Laver the record. Gonzalez and Hoad are a bit enigmas to me, but who has seen them in their prime?From the board i learned more about the Dohertys, especially Laurie, and he could be on a similar level. Now we are living in a new era, and maybe Federer (or just maybe Nadal), whose careers are not over, can step up to a similar plate. I am quite happy, that through fine work of Krosero or Borgforever, we see more of Laver now on the internet, and that new kids can see his flashy, aggressive and spectacular allcourt style.

 

[ProCoach]

I second the welcome. I think you are right on about Laver. His stats speak for themselves. You should ask Stan Smith about him sometime.

Stan thinks he is as fine a player as ever picked up a stick. It was obviously hard to beat him consecutively as Stan said that at the very end of Laver's career, Stan was able to beat him four times in a row. That was a much older Laver than the young buck who was laying waste to the pro and amateur curcuit. Stan has some great stories and really likes to start up a conversation on Southern Cal athletics of any sort.

 

[Rabbit]

I will be glad to do it. The door is always open and we have year round tennis at the Sea Pines Resort. It's quite steamy on the courts right now though. Lots of rain, and with that, lots of humidity.

I live further south (and west) heat and humidity are no strangers to me.

Keep the posts coming!

OH...and BTW...I had the singular opportunity to talk to Mats Wilander at a seniors tournament a few years ago for a couple of nights in the Champion's Club deal that Outback hosted. He is definitely one of the most approachable and friendly guys I've ever met. I also got to hang out with Magnus Larsson too. He is just a big old goof, great guy.

 

[pc1]

Stan thinks he is as fine a player as ever picked up a stick. It was obviously hard to beat him consecutively as Stan said that at the very end of Laver's career, Stan was able to beat him four times in a row. That was a much older Laver than the young buck who was laying waste to the pro and amateur curcuit. Stan has some great stories and really likes to start up a conversation on Southern Cal athletics of any sort.

ProCoach,

Now I'm not sure if Stan Smith would like you asking about this but I always thought that perhaps the finest doubles performance I've ever seen was the Laver and Newcombe against Smith and van Dillen in the 1973 Davis Cup.

Newcombe wrote in his book that the best backhand return he had ever seen was Smith's first serve to Laver in that match. That backhand return, according to Newcombe was a blur and was going at warp speed.

I'm curious what Stan would say about the match.

 

[GS]

Hey, Coach! I plan to retire and move to Hilton Head soon, since it's paradise. (But I'll probably join Palmetto Dunes, sorry.) How is Dennis Van Der Meer doing these days? I hear he has Alzheimer's. I ran into him at the Charlotte airport a few years ago---a very nice guy.
Next time I'm in town, I'll give you some Laver matches on dvd, including the one where he played doubs with Borg against Ashe and Nastase at Sea Pines years ago.

 

[Rabbit]

^^^
I have a few Laver matches on DVD as well, including the'69 Open final.

 

[hoodjem]

So, for 5 years, he was not allowed to play the Slams, but there were professional tournaments held that were the equal of the Slams and he absolutely owned them for years. His tournament win record was psychotic.
-He won the U.S. Pro Championships (the equivalent to the U.S. Open) 5 times.
-He won the Wembley Pro Championships 4 times.
-He won the French Professional Championships 2 times.

Don't overlook 1967, maybe his peak year in which he won the three pro majors (plus the first pro tourney at Wimbledon on grass). Sometimes called the "pro grand slam."

 

[hoodjem]

So you played on the ATP tour, coach ITF juniors, practice partner for Wilander,you were at Edberg's retirement, you coached for Bolletierri and Hopman, and you're reading up on these pros now?

To be honest, I didn't realize just how great some of the older players were. I knew a bit about Laver, but didn't realize the amount he had done in the years when he wasn't allowed to play the Grand Slams. There is quite a bit I don't know about players. I coach at the Smith Stearns Tennis Academy now and work with Stan Smith and there is a ton of stuff I don't know about him. Is that so strange?

This is just an honest (and thus authentically neutral) example of how little tennis history pro players know, precisely because they don't need to know it. Pro players spend their time practicing and working out, not reading about H.L. Doherty.

The pro player who knows a lot of tennis history is the exception.

 

[ProCoach]

Rabbit-yeah, Wilander is extremely cool. I actually remember having to talk him out of going shopping before his finals match against Pernfors at the Atlanta Athletic Club. He had like two hours before his match and was determined to go buy some cool shirts that he had seen down in Buckhead and was willing to be late for the final to do it. That's probably why he lost the first set and then had to come storming back to win the match. I met Magnus Larson in his final few months on tour while at Saddlebrook. The guy is a beast! We used to call him Lerch. Lol!

PC1-I will ask him about that if I can remember to do so. He went to the French Open about a week ago and I haven't seen him since he left. He should be back and at the academy in the next few days.

GS-Palmetto Dunes is a great club and place to be as well. It's a no lose situation down here, regardless of where you play. I would love the videos. Please drop by and say hello when you are in town. My name is Brett and you can drop by the academy or ask for me at the Sea Pines Racquet Club next to the Harbor Town Golf Club.....Oh yes, I saw Dennis the other day as they were having a women's $10,000 satellite at their club. He is looking very bad, but he was walking and smiling. He was having a rough time though. Stan Smith actually said something about that when we were talking about it not long ago. We all have alot of respect for Mr. Van Der Meer. No doubt about his contribution to tennis.

Hoodjem-Laver was just off the charts. The guys he was playing were awesome as well. The guy could just flat out play tennis. As for the history of us guys who played, I know quite a bit, but I never sat and read as much about it until I got on this tennis forum. Most people don't realize that after you have been training all day, you want to get away from tennis. As I have gotten older (37 years old now), I have more interest in the social and fun aspect of tennis. Back then, I just wanted to kick the hell out of anyone on the other side of the net. Reading these posts has sparked interest for me in the history of tennis. I have been chewed out so many times by family and friends about not taking pictures with all the players I coached and hit with, but it was my job. I never gave it a thought, and to be honest, I thought it would be unprofessional to whip the camera out like so many people do and start taking pictures of me with Hingis, Capriati, etc. None of the pros or coaches I worked with have ever done that. I kind of regret not doing it now, but only for nostalgic reasons, not for egotistical, gotta prove something to everyone reasons.

 

[CyBorg]

Unfortunately, amongst fans, media and even coaching specialists there's a real dearth of knowledge on the game as it was played before the open era began.

I'm glad that you took the time to do this research. It is indeed eye-opening. Make sure to check out some information on Rosewall, Gonzales and some of the other greats who committed their respective primes to the pro circuit.

 

[statto]

Had those professional championship tournaments been counted towards his Grand Slam total, he would have won an unprecedented 22 Grand Slam singles titles and that includes 2 calendar year Grand Slams!!!!! That is unbelievable to say the least. He very much has a say in being voted the very best of all time. The guys today are phenomenal, but when putting a vote in for the greatest, we'd all better keep up with Laver's stats. They are ridiculous.........

I wanted to address a couple of points in this sentence.

1. Laver got six slams before he turned pro, eleven "pro slam" titles, and five slams in the open era. While that adds up to 22, we need to put asterisks by his six slams before turning pro, because he won them without having to face any pros. Ordinarily we wouldn't disregard them, but we need to if we're taking his pro slams into account. That brings his figure to a Federer-equalling 16, but it brings me to my second point.

2. Three of the four slams were on grass when Laver played. How many slams could Federer, Sampras or Borg have won if three out of four slams were on grass (and for that matter, how many calender slams would Borg have)? Of course, they'd have had to face a lot more grass court specialists if that were the case, but my point is that we're comparing apples and oranges here.

In short, the comment Laver = 22 slams = GOAT, is an overly simplistic one. He's in the discussion, but he isn't a foregone conclusion.

 

[ProCoach]

I wanted to address a couple of points in this sentence.

1. Laver got six slams before he turned pro, eleven "pro slam" titles, and five slams in the open era. While that adds up to 22, we need to put asterisks by his six slams before turning pro, because he won them without having to face any pros. Ordinarily we wouldn't disregard them, but we need to if we're taking his pro slams into account. That brings his figure to a Federer-equalling 16, but it brings me to my second point.

2. Three of the four slams were on grass when Laver played. How many slams could Federer, Sampras or Borg have won if three out of four slams were on grass (and for that matter, how many calender slams would Borg have)? Of course, they'd have had to face a lot more grass court specialists if that were the case, but my point is that we're comparing apples and oranges here.

In short, the comment Laver = 22 slams = GOAT, is an overly simplistic one. He's in the discussion, but he isn't a foregone conclusion.

No doubt about what you are saying is correct. It's actually impossible to compare any of these players from different times. But, Laver did step up to the challenge regardless of how it was put in front of him. He showed up and played on whatever surface was there to play on. Makes for fun discussions though as there is no real way of telling who would beat who and who would be the best. If all of these "GOATS" were 24 years old and in their prime, they would probably all beat each other on any given day if they could play each other.

 

[Datacipher]

To be honest, I didn't realize just how great some of the older players were. I knew a bit about Laver, but didn't realize the amount he had done in the years when he wasn't allowed to play the Grand Slams. There is quite a bit I don't know about players. I coach at the Smith Stearns Tennis Academy now and work with Stan Smith and there is a ton of stuff I don't know about him. Is that so strange? And the things you mentioned that I have done are a very small group of things. It seems there is a bit of doubt in the things I have done, and again, the door is always open for you to come and meet me in Hilton Head. I will gladly talk with you about any of these things and I will happily play you (for money). I will introduce you to some of the ITF ranked juniors, I will get you in touch with a number of former and current Swedish tennis professionals that I know, and we can call Howard Moore and Gabe Jaramillo or Red Ayme for proof of other academy work. I will also gladly introduce you to Stan Smith, Billy Stearns, and the rest of the staff. If you have an issue with who I am and what I have done, please feel free to come visit and I will be glad to set things straight. Otherwise, stick to the topic of the post.........

The doubt is ALWAYS there for me, b/c this board has seen EVERY manner of fraudster, from equipment, to instructional guru, to the I played on tour, to the I'm a 5.0!

However, I was not implying that, simply noting that as odd. Actually, we get very, very few former playing pros here, and certainly few that interested about tennis history.

I might take you up on your offer next year, BUT, I'm certainly not paying you! LOL! Unless it's a bet! I'll play you for a SMALL wager!

In any case, just private email me. I've been out of the coaching scene for some time, but I still have a few friends around. I am sure I can verify all you say!

Note: I may even know some former opponents.

PS. However, please don't tell me what or what not to talk about. That's not how a discussion forum works.

 

[ProCoach]

The doubt is ALWAYS there for me, b/c this board has seen EVERY manner of fraudster, from equipment, to instructional guru, to the I played on tour, to the I'm a 5.0!

However, I was not implying that, simply noting that as odd. Actually, we get very, very few former playing pros here, and certainly few that interested about tennis history.

I might take you up on your offer next year, BUT, I'm certainly not paying you! LOL! Unless it's a bet! I'll play you for a SMALL wager!

In any case, just private email me. I've been out of the coaching scene for some time, but I still have a few friends around. I am sure I can verify all you say!

Note: I may even know some former opponents.

PS. However, please don't tell me what or what not to talk about. That's not how a discussion forum works.

All is good. Tennis history is very interesting. It's hard not to be interested in something I am so tied to everyday. The competitive player in me is gone and I now consider myself a coach/FORMER player.

 

[Datacipher]

All is good. Tennis history is very interesting. It's hard not to be interested in something I am so tied to everyday. The competitive player in me is gone and I now consider myself a coach/FORMER player. I still beat these high level juniors and college players we work with at the academy, but I pay for it the next day when I go out and do serious hitting. Extreme soreness and hurting feet and knees being an issue. Hell, if I weren't all the things I said, I sure would like to know why my body hurts like all get out in the mornings after hitting! Maybe I have been caning myself in the legs and lower back in my sleep! Lol! I have always been a history buff and this is a great place to talk with people who are hungry for tennis.

Believe me. That I can relate to, I work pretty hard on conditioning still (I was a trainer for quite some time), so soreness isn't too much of an issue, but general wear and tear certainly is. I was never close to tour level, but I was an open class player. I can do a fascimile of that play, just can't sustain it for 2 days in a row! lol.

 

[urban]

I think Rod Laver himself once had a tennis ranch at Palmetto Dunes.

 

[ProCoach]

I think Rod Laver himself once had a tennis ranch at Palmetto Dunes.

He did. This place was a hot bed for big name pros in the 70's and 80's. Stan Smith has been associated with this area and Sea Pines since the early 70's.

 

[Marius_Hancu]

No doubt he can have claims at it.

 

[Rabbit]

ProCoach -alright, you've done it now. I'm looking at booking a vacation in Hilton Head or Tybee. Do you have recommendations at Hilton Head? And, should I do this, what is the best way to contact you for an ass whupping?

 

[hoodjem]

My dad has a house on HH, although I don't get there but once a year or so. And even when I do, I don't have access to the swanky gated communities, where the hoi oligoi reside.

I guess you need to have money to have access to Stan Smith: it's the American way.

 

[ProCoach]

My dad has a house on HH, although I don't get there but once a year or so. And even when I do, I don't have access to the swanky gated communities, where the hoi oligoi reside.

I guess you need to have money to have access to Stan Smith: it's the American way.

If you have $5 you can get a day pass and come right in. Then just come on over to the Sea Pines Racquet Club. The Smith Stearns Academy office is located right next to the Sundeck Cafe and the Pool. 20 steps from the courts.

 

[drakulie]

Had those professional championship tournaments been counted towards his Grand Slam total, he would have won an unprecedented 22 Grand Slam singles titles and that includes 2 calendar year Grand Slams!!!!! That is unbelievable to say the least. He very much has a say in being voted the very best of all time. The guys today are phenomenal, but when putting a vote in for the greatest, we'd all better keep up with Laver's stats. They are ridiculous.........

Not really. You need to remember something about this particular era. Although Laver turned Pro, many of the best players in the world did not opt to turn pro, rather, stayed in the amateur circuit. So, Laver was playing against a very diluted field when he won all those championiships.

 

[urban]

Really? As far as i know, all players of the world were present, when Laver won his second Grand Slam. And in 1967, when he won The Pro foursome, top amateurs like Stolle (Nr. 1 amateur of 1966) and Ralston already had turned pro.

 

[CyBorg]

Really?

More trolling.

 

[Big Dave]

I know i'll probably get flamed, but i've honestly never understood why Laver is even considered in a GOAT discussion.

There's soooo much that has changed in the last 40 years of tennis, that theres really no way to tell. He was certainly the greatest of his era, based on his stats, but i think his era was pretty weak imo.

I've watched several of his matches and was certainly not over-awed by his game. He was a good player... but i think his results are more of a result of him playing in a weak era than anything else. I don't see him as the kind of physical athlete of a sampras, borg, nadal, etc.

Anyways, i could be completely wrong, but thats just my own personal humble opinion, no disrespect to the rocket.

 

[JoshDragon]

After reading so many things about Federer, Nadal, Sampras, etc., I researched everyone of the older guys to see what they had for these young bucks that we all know and follow today. After doing a Wikipedia check on Laver, I was absolutely astonished. After winning the Grand Slam in 1962, he turned pro and was not allowed to actually play any of the Grand Slams until the Open era began back in 1968. So, for 5 years, he was not allowed to play the Slams, but there were professional tournaments held that were the equal of the Slams and he absolutely owned them for years. His tournament win record was psychotic.
-He won the U.S. Pro Championships (the equivalent to the U.S. Open) 5 times.
-He won the Wembley Pro Championships 4 times.
-He won the French Professional Championships 2 times.

None of those were counted as Grand Slam wins, even though Lew Hoad, Rosewall, and many of the greats we all knew played in the professional events. He beat the best to win those professional events and then came back and won the calendar Grand Slam again! That is crazy!!!!!

Had those professional championship tournaments been counted towards his Grand Slam total, he would have won an unprecedented 22 Grand Slam singles titles and that includes 2 calendar year Grand Slams!!!!! That is unbelievable to say the least. He very much has a say in being voted the very best of all time. The guys today are phenomenal, but when putting a vote in for the greatest, we'd all better keep up with Laver's stats. They are ridiculous.........

The competition level at the pro tournaments, varied during the 1960s. Oddly enough, pro tennis was not as popular as the amateur circuit. Most people chose to watch Wimbledon or the US Open over the Pro championships.

Also, the majors were played on grass or clay. Laver, was very tough on grass, which was his best surface. He dominated most of his rivals but it's pretty much impossible to compare him with Roger.

Too many things have changed since the 1960s to have a fair comparison.

http://millennialtennis.blogspot.com/2008_09_01_archive.html

 

[ProCoach]

ProCoach -alright, you've done it now. I'm looking at booking a vacation in Hilton Head or Tybee. Do you have recommendations at Hilton Head? And, should I do this, what is the best way to contact you for an ass whupping?

Stay away from Tybee. It's kind of dirty. Downtown Savannah is nice and a lot of fun though. There are numerous places to stay on Hilton Head. The Inn at Sea Pines is quite nice and about 20 yards from the tennis and golf club. Not sure about the rates though. Best bet would be to google places to stay on Hilton Head and you will be able to find some places. Just shoot me a line on here or go to the Smith Stearns Academy website and our phone number is on there. I will be glad to hit with you. Be ready for some serious humidity! All of the rain we have gotten has been evaporating and we are getting it on the courts! Wow! I am going through 2-3 sets of clothes a day when I am just feeding. Playing-double that amount..............

 

[hoodjem]

If you have $5 you can get a day pass and come right in. Then just come on over to the Sea Pines Racquet Club. The Smith Stearns Academy office is located right next to the Sundeck Cafe and the Pool. 20 steps from the courts.

Heck, you might see me this summer. I've been to the Sundeck Café. Nice Place.

 

[hoodjem]

Not really. You need to remember something about this particular era. Although Laver turned Pro, many of the best players in the world did not opt to turn pro, rather, stayed in the amateur circuit. So, Laver was playing against a very diluted field when he won all those championiships.

Funny. Ho ho ho, ha ha ha. Great facetiousness!

Here's a partial list of pros in 1967 (in no particular order).
1. Ken Rosewall
2. Mal Anderson
3. Mike Davies
4. Pierre Barthes
5. Pancho Segura
6. Andres Gimeno
7. Dennis Ralston
8. Butch Buchholz
9. Fred Stolle
10. Barry MacKay
11. Luis Ayala
12. Sammi Giammalva
13. Rod Laver
14. Alex Olmedo
15. Owen Davidson
16. Lew Hoad
17. Alan Mills
18. Robert Haillet
19. Jean Claude Molinari
20. Pancho Gonzales

 

[ProCoach]

I know i'll probably get flamed, but i've honestly never understood why Laver is even considered in a GOAT discussion.

There's soooo much that has changed in the last 40 years of tennis, that theres really no way to tell. He was certainly the greatest of his era, based on his stats, but i think his era was pretty weak imo.

I've watched several of his matches and was certainly not over-awed by his game. He was a good player... but i think his results are more of a result of him playing in a weak era than anything else. I don't see him as the kind of physical athlete of a sampras, borg, nadal, etc.

Anyways, i could be completely wrong, but thats just my own personal humble opinion, no disrespect to the rocket.

That's understandable to think that way, but the guys athleticism is off the charts! Really. I am all about the new players and I play a game very similar to Felix Mantilla which is nothing like the old school guys, but that guy is bad to the bone. I watched a video of him against Ashe as he was getting older, and man, he was blistering forehand and backhand winners against a very, very competent Ashe. It was pretty sick to watch. Those guys could play. I know it's apples to oranges due to the changes, but the guy was wielding a racquet that weighed a good 15 to 16 ounces and was mastering it like it weighed 2 ounces. The racquet head was 85 or less (quite sure less) and he was nailing the sweetspot nearly ever single time. Watch some of those running backhand passes and watch his balance and quickness. I think a 24 year old Laver playing a 24 year old Federer with the same equipment would be a draw or very possible in Laver's favor. The guy knew and understood the game and really new how to win. However, as you know, we can only talk about it. I am sure the two have a tremendous amount of respect for each other.

 

[ProCoach]

Heck, you might see me this summer. I've been to the Sundeck Café. Nice Place.

Come on by. Maybe we can do 5 minutes of hitting before we have to drag our dehydrated carcasses over there for a drink. It was so humid today that my actual bush hat (the large brimmed hat that is a full circle around the head) was fully soaked and had to be ringed out like a wash cloth. That's bad!

 

[TMF]

“Rod Laver has the right to the all time crown”

I don’t understand this thread. If Laver has the right, certainly Borg, Sampras and Federer themselves have the right to the all time crown. It’s silly for a player to self proclaim himself as the greatest ever anyway. It’s all up to the fans around the world to be the judge. And as far as I know, the general consensus that Federer is the greatest, hence, he’s crowned.

Also, Laver did not win 22 GS, the book still say he got 11. If you argue he won 22, then I can argue today they should include all the MS events as the slam since all top players participates. Fair enough? And even if Laver did win 22 GS, there’s no way it’s equal to winning 22 GS in modern era. That’s just like saying Court winning 24 GS is as tough winning them today. LOL

 

[ProCoach]

“Rod Laver has the right to the all time crown”

I don’t understand this thread. If Laver has the right, certainly Borg, Sampras and Federer themselves have the right to the all time crown. It’s silly for a player to self proclaim himself as the greatest ever anyway. It’s all up to the fans around the world to be the judge. And as far as I know, the general consensus that Federer is the greatest, hence, he’s crowned.

Also, Laver did not win 22 GS, the book still say he got 11. If you argue he won 22, then I can argue today they should include all the MS events as the slam since all top players participates. Fair enough? And even if Laver did win 22 GS, there’s no way it’s equal to winning 22 GS in modern era. That’s just like saying Court winning 24 GS is as tough winning them today. LOL

Laver and his competition had the same training and practice regimens and things were equal across the board. Same with todays players. The top guys rise to the top. I truly believe that Laver would be absolute hell on the court if he were to train and play with todays gear and technology. I am no more a follower of Rod Laver than I am of Nadal and Federer, but look at the numbers. And yes, he was excluded from the Grand Slams for 5 years. Imagine Federer not playing from 22 to 27 years old. And Laver's professional wins in the majors numbered 11. Laver also won the calendar Grand Slam against all comers in 1969. No other man has done that since. Not only that, he did it twice. Unheard of. I know things have changed, but had the rule books been different and allowed those major wins to count for Laver, Federer would have another 6 to go to catch him. Hell, Pancho Gonzalez and Lew Hoad were considered to be legends and they played the pro tour against Laver. But, again, it's a mute point because they obviously will never play each other. I would actually put my money on Laver back in the day. And, by the way, look at Laver's record in the other major tournaments that were like the MS series you talk of. If you want to go that route, Laver will really drop the bomb on Federers' numbers.

 

[JoshDragon]

That's understandable to think that way, but the guys athleticism is off the charts! Really. I am all about the new players and I play a game very similar to Felix Mantilla which is nothing like the old school guys, but that guy is bad to the bone. I watched a video of him against Ashe as he was getting older, and man, he was blistering forehand and backhand winners against a very, very competent Ashe. It was pretty sick to watch. Those guys could play. I know it's apples to oranges due to the changes, but the guy was wielding a racquet that weighed a good 15 to 16 ounces and was mastering it like it weighed 2 ounces. The racquet head was 85 or less (quite sure less) and he was nailing the sweetspot nearly ever single time. Watch some of those running backhand passes and watch his balance and quickness. I think a 24 year old Laver playing a 24 year old Federer with the same equipment would be a draw or very possible in Laver's favor. The guy knew and understood the game and really new how to win. However, as you know, we can only talk about it. I am sure the two have a tremendous amount of respect for each other.

No, absolutely not.

1. Roger is more familiar with the graphite racquets, he's used them his whole life, Laver has not.

2. Roger is taller than Laver, and hit's with more power than Laver did (not just because of the technology either.) Roger has served in the 130s before, the average fast serve back in the 60s was around 100 mph.

3. Laver used a continental grip when playing from the baseline. A grip which is more popular among serve and volleyers, but it makes it very difficult to get topspin on the ball. Roger uses a semi-western on both groundstrokes, (sometimes he flattens it out) the advantage to the semi-western is that it gives Roger spin (safety) while not sacrificing too much power.

Roger, would have the edge over Laver if they played.

 

[Clintspin]

I have to agree with ProCoach. Laver could play with anyone now or then. You can't help but be amazed by his speed moving around the court and his hands and quick reflexes. His serve looks completely sweet. Watch the YouTube clip of him playing Connors.

Something else to the credit of players from the past is their mixed doubles and doubles records. A Federer or Nadal typically plays only singles. Back then, they typically played mixed and men's or ladies doubles at all the majors and lesser tournaments. How many doubles did Laver win?

 

[CyBorg]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K8IJ0F01IiU

These highlights are illustrative of Laver's (and Rosewall's) skill level. These guys are doing the kinds of things we no longer see players do.

 

[slice bh compliment]

“Rod Laver has the right to the all time crown”

..

Yeah, but he'd never take it.

Too humble. Too much class. Too much game, too, but he'd be quick to point out that his chances against a Pete or a Rog would be slim. It's just different.

 

[pc1]

No, absolutely not.

1. Roger is more familiar with the graphite racquets, he's used them his whole life, Laver has not.

2. Roger is taller than Laver, and hit's with more power than Laver did (not just because of the technology either.) Roger has served in the 130s before, the average fast serve back in the 60s was around 100 mph.

3. Laver used a continental grip when playing from the baseline. A grip which is more popular among serve and volleyers, but it makes it very difficult to get topspin on the ball. Roger uses a semi-western on both groundstrokes, (sometimes he flattens it out) the advantage to the semi-western is that it gives Roger spin (safety) while not sacrificing too much power.

Roger, would have the edge over Laver if they played.

Just a quick question Josh. Venus Williams, Serena Williams and a number of other Women have been timed in the high 120 mph range, don't you think Laver, with the rackets of today could serve more powerfully than that?

Laver could flick his wrist with a wood racket and the ball could go zooming pass his opponent so I think he had a lot of power and strength so don't make the assumption Laver cannot hit the ball as powerfully as Federer. If you just use height, Karlovic would hit his groundies harder than Federer.

Pancho Gonzalez was 6'3 1/2" tall and Laver could hit his strokes (not the serve) much more powerfully than Gonzalez in general.

I'm not going to argue about who is better but please compare apples with apples and assume Laver is using the same equipment. Laver would not serve 100 mph with today's equipment.

Another question for you Josh. How would Federer do against Laver with a wood racket?

If you say Federer's better than Laver, that's fine with me Josh but compare apples with apples.

 

[egn]

3. Laver used a continental grip when playing from the baseline. A grip which is more popular among serve and volleyers, but it makes it very difficult to get topspin on the ball.

Tell that to Rod Laver's backhand. Had some of the sickest topspin for a wood racket era shot and is still used as a reference point when hitting topspin with a one hander.

 

[ProCoach]

No, absolutely not.

1. Roger is more familiar with the graphite racquets, he's used them his whole life, Laver has not.

2. Roger is taller than Laver, and hit's with more power than Laver did (not just because of the technology either.) Roger has served in the 130s before, the average fast serve back in the 60s was around 100 mph.

3. Laver used a continental grip when playing from the baseline. A grip which is more popular among serve and volleyers, but it makes it very difficult to get topspin on the ball. Roger uses a semi-western on both groundstrokes, (sometimes he flattens it out) the advantage to the semi-western is that it gives Roger spin (safety) while not sacrificing too much power.

Roger, would have the edge over Laver if they played.

Understand, Laver could play with anything. That wouldn't be an issue with a little time. I have seen him hit at an older age with a graphite racquet and he wielded it like a toy.

 

[JoshDragon]

Just a quick question Josh. Venus Williams, Serena Williams and a number of other Women have been timed in the high 120 mph range, don't you think Laver, with the rackets of today could serve more powerfully than that?

Laver could flick his wrist with a wood racket and the ball could go zooming pass his opponent so I think he had a lot of power and strength so don't make the assumption Laver cannot hit the ball as powerfully as Federer. If you just use height, Karlovic would hit his groundies harder than Federer.

Pancho Gonzalez was 6'3 1/2" tall and Laver could hit his strokes (not the serve) much more powerfully than Gonzalez in general.

I'm not going to argue about who is better but please compare apples with apples and assume Laver is using the same equipment. Laver would not serve 100 mph with today's equipment.

Another question for you Josh. How would Federer do against Laver with a wood racket?

If you say Federer's better than Laver, that's fine with me Josh but compare apples with apples.

Venus, Williams had 1 serve that was clocked at about 120 or 121. I believe Roger's fastest ever was 140 but on average he served in the 110s and 120s during his prime.

Let me explain what I mean by a height advantage. Roger Federer is 6'1" tall. Laver, is 5'7", Roger probably has a better trajectory on the serve and if he were able to pin Laver, behind the baseline, he could keep the balls up high to his backhand side. Given that Laver, uses a continental grip, it would be more difficult for him to generate the top spin, needed to win the points against Roger.

I don't know how quickly Laver, would be able to master the graphites or the new strings. It probably wouldn't take that long to get the hang of it and yes he'd eventually be able to serve in the 110s just like anyone else.

But Roger, has played with a graphite racquet his whole life. It would take Laver, a while before he'd get to the point where he could seriously challenge Roger with it.

To answer your last question, if Roger played a match against Rod Laver, using wood racquets, Rod Laver, would win. Roger's backhand would be even less consistent due to the smaller head size and I think Laver would be able to work it over and win the match from Roger's UEs.

Wood racquets from the 60s are much smaller than the ones today. About 25 square inches smaller than Roger's current frame.

 

[Talker]

I respect Laver but his time is well past, players today could take that man apart like no tomorrow.
The subject shouldn't even be brought up. It's history, something that was accomplished a long time ago but has no place in todays game, only a novice would get confused and only at first.
Just watch the difference in the game for god's sake.
This is as close to trolling as anything.