Rod Laver has the right to the all time crown

[pc1]

I want a tennis couch!

I need a tennis couch.

I'll be using my tennis couch to teach me the basics of watching Wimbledon this week.

I understand now why I occasionally find a tennis ball between the cushions. It's not an ordinary couch, it's a tennis couch.

I should ask the tennis couch to work on my second serve. I need it to kick a little better.

I believe you can find some tennis couches that if you remove the cushions, can open up a doorway to Wimbledon or any of the majors. Just hop in the couch and you will be transported to court side seats. I hope to find one someday.

I misssed most of the middle part of Sampras career, so this is pure speculation on my part. It seems to me that Sampras did have an excellent ground game from the start and the ability to rally well with anyone (except perhaps on clay), and that he gradually stopped using this ability for the reason that he simply did not need to use it, especially as he became more skillful at net. I mean, with the kind of serve he had it would have been absurd for him not to follow it to the net from the early days, unless his net game had been hopeless. It is in the return games that he seemed to become more aggressive and less patient as time went by, relying on those explosive approach shots that he could hit off both wings and from almost anywhere the moment he got a slightly short ball, missing a lot and getting passed, but knowing that sooner or later he would get the break, and that he himself was unlikely to get broken.

Federer seems to have followed a kind of opposite path in the sense that he reduced rather than increased, his net approaches as he matured. As if the highly unpredictable nature of unclear forays to the net became distasteful to his sense of control and perfection.

But these opposite tendencies are more than a matter of personal approach to the game. I think they both went in the direction that made the most sense given their abilities. Yet at the peak of their games early in their career, I believe Sampras could handle the baseline with more assurance and ease than Federer could handle the net. The opposite is probably true for the later stages in their careers, and this is probably what influences our assessment most: We remember older Sampras and can´t quite see him playing a baseline game at that stage. But he could earlier on.

Benhur,

One advantage Sampras does have over a lot of baseliners is his exceptional speed. Remember the man was a baseliner until his teen years until he changed his style because his coach (or was it his couch?) changed his style of game. While great baseliners like Agassi and Federer obviously would have an advantage over him from the baseline, there was also the constant pressure that Sampras would impose on many players that on any short ball, Sampras would probably approach the net where generally the odds favored him.

When he was younger they used to rave about his beautiful topspin backhand but he tended to slice it a lot more when he got older in my opinion.

Sampras is obviously a gifted athlete and I think even if he stayed as a baseliner with a two handed backhand he would have been very successful. You figure he still would have that awesome serve. He may not have won as many Wimbledons but who knows, he may have won a French early in his career.

Federer I would think decided to play the percentages and stay at the baseline unless it was necessary to approach the net. Obviously you cannot complain about his results. So obviously if you rarely volley you are going to decline in volleying skills. It's a pity players don't play double much now. It certainly would help their skills at the net.

 

[Limpinhitter]

I'll be using my tennis couch to teach me the basics of watching Wimbledon this week.

I understand now why I occasionally find a tennis ball between the cushions. It's not an ordinary couch, it's a tennis couch.

I should ask the tennis couch to work on my second serve. I need it to kick a little better.

I believe you can find some tennis couches that if you remove the cushions, can open up a doorway to Wimbledon or any of the majors. Just hop in the couch and you will be transported to court side seats. I hope to find one someday.

Benhur,

One advantage Sampras does have over a lot of baseliners is his exceptional speed. Remember the man was a baseliner until his teen years until he changed his style because his coach (or was it his couch?) changed his style of game. While great baseliners like Agassi and Federer obviously would have an advantage over him from the baseline, there was also the constant pressure that Sampras would impose on many players that on any short ball, Sampras would probably approach the net where generally the odds favored him.

When he was younger they used to rave about his beautiful topspin backhand but he tended to slice it a lot more when he got older in my opinion.

Sampras is obviously a gifted athlete and I think even if he stayed as a baseliner with a two handed backhand he would have been very successful. You figure he still would have that awesome serve. He may not have won as many Wimbledons but who knows, he may have won a French early in his career.

Federer I would think decided to play the percentages and stay at the baseline unless it was necessary to approach the net. Obviously you cannot complain about his results. So obviously if you rarely volley you are going to decline in volleying skills. It's a pity players don't play double much now. It certainly would help their skills at the net.

The issue of putting pressure on baseliners to keep their shots deep is well put and exactly why, in addition to his blistering forehand - especially his running forehand - Sampras was a great baseliner on hard and grass courts. IMO, Sampras had as big or bigger a forehand as Federer. What makes Federer's forehand so great is his ability to hit it from anywhere to anywhere at any time. Neither Sampras' nor anyone else's forehand was as versatile as Federer's. Sampras didn't handle inside out, short and high balls as well as Federer. I maintain, however, that Sampras' biggest weakness, like many aggressive players before him, was his lack of patience. That's why he didn't have as much success on clay.

 

[Benhur]

I

Benhur,

One advantage Sampras does have over a lot of baseliners is his exceptional speed. Remember the man was a baseliner until his teen years until he changed his style because his coach (or was it his couch?) changed his style of game.

I´ve been trying to find clips from his 1990 win over Lendl at the USO but it seems everything has been removed. A pity. I wanted to confirm my impression that Sampras played a lot from the baselline in that match (haven´t seen the match since I saw it live).
Well, I found this old thread talking about that particular match and it seems to confirm my memories that Sampras was superb from the back of the court then, and that he was beating everybody with his ground game in those days. I´ve just realized that the previous year he had defeated the defending champion (Wilander) in the second round.

http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showthread.php?t=2412

 

[Tina]

LOL-Tennis Couch! You all are funny. Have a nice day!

 

[kiki]

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.........

As much unbelievable his stats are, I judge Rod´s greatness for even a bigger thing: he put tennis in the map and defined the modern player.

Borg´s top spin, Sampras go for it game, Federer shootmaking all were in Laver´s game.Might be racket conditions, court conditions and training conditions have changed pretty much but he had it all inside.¿Wonder by all of them say he was their model? Borg was born in 1956,Pete in 1970,Fed in 1982...they belong to a complete different generation and..¿ who is their model? ¡ a man born in 1938¡

end of discussion about who is the GOAT - at least in open tennis-

 

[hoodjem]

One advantage Sampras does have over a lot of baseliners is his exceptional speed. Remember the man was a baseliner until his teen years until he changed his style because his coach (or was it his couch?) changed his style of game.

Ha, ha. Good one!

 

[kiki]

[Continued from previous post]

IMHO, there are 5 players that dominated tennis for an extended period of time, all of whom it could be argued were the greatest: Pancho, Laver, Borg, Pete and Roger. Among them, Laver had the most complete game, and was the most complete, best conditioned athlete. Every one of Laver's shots were among the best ever. He was one of the biggest hitters ever, with a wood racquet. Laver's backhand was the best one handed backhand ever. The fact that he was 5'8" was more of an advantage than a deficit. His quickness and athleticism are unmatched in tennis history. His serve was as big and as lethal as humanly possible for someone 5'8". In fact, it was often said by eye witnesses that when watching Laver play, it was easy to forget he was human. On the other hand, Roger's forehand may be the single greatest shot in the history of the game. His serve is one of the best ever, behind Pete and Pancho, not for power but for placement and deception. But, his backhand can, and has, been exploited. And, yes, I'll say it, Roger Federer is not a great net player. He can hit great volleys. But, he is clearly not comfortable at net and looses points because he doesn't play net correctly. That's why he doesn't play serve and volley. Bjorn Borg had great groundies, a big serve, an excellent net game, and was the second most mentally tough athlete, of any sport, ever, behind only Chris Evert, and ahead of all time competators such as Michael Jordan, Joe Dimaggio, Pete Rose, Bill Russell and Jack Niclaus. Pancho had the best serve in the history of the game until Pete. He was a great serve and volleyer, moved like a big cat, covered the court almost as well as Laver, and covered the net better than anyone, including Edberg. Pete had the best serve ever, the best running forehand ever (even better than Laver's), also moved like a big cat, had great volleys and knew how to play at the net, and had a very good, if not great backhand.

In the final analysis, they were all "all timers" with some basis to the claim of best ever. IMHO, if they were all in their prime today, with today's equipment, I think there's a good chance that Laver would still be ranked at the top.

Again, all JMHO! Hope you found this interesting!

A very long and perfect description to what I´ll say in a few words:

Laver is the most complete player of all time and the greatest to watch - since I am not a pro neither a statistics fanatic, but a very deep tennis watcher, this counts for me as much as any argument anyone can play-.If this is not enough, I´ll add that the Rocket has the best attack-deffense and deffense-attack transition ever in this game and this weapon made him win many, many matches.

And stroke by stroke, he can resist the comparison with players from Tilde nad Budge to Federer and Sampras.

I used this argument before and no one ever dared to answer.¿How much would you pay to see a player play his best for you? No one would rate higher than Rod at Rod´s best.It is not by chance that Borg,Mc,Pete and Roger take him as their chilhood model...and look that they are so different from each other¡¡¡

You know why? there is only one answer: Greatness.The GOAT say he was the GOAT.

¿Do not you think they know what they talk about ? .Just greatness, no matter size, height, training conditions,racket frames and all those stupid arguments the stupid people talk about.SIMPLE AS THAT

 

[Limpinhitter]

. . . ¿Do not you think they know what they talk about ? .Just greatness, no matter size, height, training conditions,racket frames and all those stupid arguments the stupid people talk about.SIMPLE AS THAT

I'm not sure what this means, but, I can assure you that greatness occurs when: 1) natural ability meets up with 2) complete devotion, 3) sacrifice and 4) dogged determination. Remove a single element and all you will have is unrealized greatness.

 

[Chopin]

A very long and perfect description to what I´ll say in a few words:

Laver is the most complete player of all time and the greatest to watch - since I am not a pro neither a statistics fanatic, but a very deep tennis watcher, this counts for me as much as any argument anyone can play-.If this is not enough, I´ll add that the Rocket has the best attack-deffense and deffense-attack transition ever in this game and this weapon made him win many, many matches.

And stroke by stroke, he can resist the comparison with players from Tilde nad Budge to Federer and Sampras.

I used this argument before and no one ever dared to answer.¿How much would you pay to see a player play his best for you? No one would rate higher than Rod at Rod´s best.It is not by chance that Borg,Mc,Pete and Roger take him as their chilhood model...and look that they are so different from each other¡¡¡

You know why? there is only one answer: Greatness.The GOAT say he was the GOAT.

¿Do not you think they know what they talk about ? .Just greatness, no matter size, height, training conditions,racket frames and all those stupid arguments the stupid people talk about.SIMPLE AS THAT

Laver was more fun to watch than Sampras, in my opinion, but not as much fun as watching Federer. Pound for pound, I give Sampras the edge over Laver on all surfaces except clay, while I give Federer the edge on every surface. Also, Sampras has said that Federer is the "greatest ever," as has Laver, and most of the other past champions including Mac. Really though, there's no such thing as a "GOAT" and we will never come to any conclusion.

Best,
Chopin

 

[hoodjem]

I'm not sure what this means, but, I can assure you that greatness occurs when: 1) natural ability meets up with 2) complete devotion, 3) sacrifice and 4) dogged determination. Remove a single element and all you will have is unrealized greatness.

And then there's that massive left forearm (born of devotion and determination in squeezing a tennis ball for hours a day for years).

 

[Mustard]

1. Laver got six slams before he turned pro, eleven "pro slam" titles, and five slams in the open era.

Laver had 8 pro slams.

1. 1964 Wembley Pro
2. 1964 US Pro
3. 1965 Wembley Pro
4. 1966 Wembley Pro
5. 1966 US Pro
6. 1967 French Pro
7. 1967 Wembley Pro
8. 1967 US Pro

Add that to Laver's 6 amateur slams and 5 open slams, and you get 19.

If you total up Ken Rosewall's 4 amateur slams, 15 pro slams and 4 open slams, you get 23. People talk about how many more slams Laver could have won between 1963-1967 if he hadn't been barred because he was a professional, but it's almost certain that Laver's 1962 Grand Slam is entirely due to the absence of professional players like Rosewall, Hoad, Gonzales, Buchholz and Segura. The best player of 1962 was Ken Rosewall, not Rod Laver.

 

[pc1]

Just a short summary of some of Rod Laver's accomplishments.
1. Three Grand Slams
1962 Amateur Grand Slam
1967 Pro Grand Slam
1969 Open Grand Slam

No one else has more than one Grand Slam. Budge had one in 1938 and Rosewall had a Pro Grand Slam in 1963. Tilden probably could have won a few Grand Slams if transportation was like it is now. I doubt Budge would have had his Grand Slam if there was Open Tennis as would be the case for Laver in 1962. Nevertheless Laver won his Grand Slam in 1962 and it is impressive.

2. 199 Total Tournaments won. Current count
Far ahead of Connors "official" 109 which is actually very stupid because I think they only count the Open Era eliminating other greats like Gonzalez, Tilden, Rosewall and of course Laver. There was also a lot of confusion on whether to count WCT, ATP tournaments and other legit tournaments. I think Tilden is second with a number in the 160's but it could be a bit lower for Tilden. Connors and Lendl are actually in the 140's. Rosewall is I believe at 136 and Borg in his very short career had 100 by age 25

3. 19 total majors won-Second only to Ken Rosewall.

Yes I believe Laver has a pretty good resume.

 

[Mustard]

But you would agree that in 1962, the best professional player, Ken Rosewall, was better than the best amateur player, Rod Laver?

Listening to some of the experts though, and you'd think that Laver was the dominant tennis player on the planet in 1962 and that he would have won "20 slams" but for the fact that he was robbed of the chance to win more slams between 1963-1967 because he turned professional.

They don't seem to see the other side of the argument, that Rosewall was the best player in 1962 and that Laver almost certainly would not have won the Grand Slam that year if the professional players had been able to play.

The fact of the matter is that until the open era, there just wasn't a level playing field, and even then, politics ensured that the Australian Open, and even the French Open, had some years of weakened fields. It wasn't until 1987-1990, that the tour as we know it today, was brought into order.

 

[pc1]

But you would agree that in 1962, the best professional player, Ken Rosewall, was better than the best amateur player, Rod Laver?

.

Of course. I think Hoad, Gimeno were better also. I wrote that I doubt Laver would have won the Grand Slam in 1962 in my previous post if there was Open tennis. However to give Laver credit, by the end of 1963, his first Pro year he was the second best pro behind Rosewall.

Ironically Laver's Grand Slam of 1962 overshadowed a great year by Rosewall in 1962. Rosewall's year in 1962 may have been even better than Rosewall's Pro Slam year in 1963.

 

[hoodjem]

And by the end of 1964, Laver had just edged past Rosewall as the world no. 1.

 

[timnz]

Late 1962 and early 1963

A lot has been said on the fact that Laver's 1962 Grand Slam is devalued, because of how he played against the Pro's in early 1963. And that if you were to add Majors to him for the years he was out in the Pro circuit - then you should take away majors from pre-1963 since the Pro's like Hoad and Rosewall and Gonzales would have beaten him.

I definitely think the Pro's were tougher. However, Laver was so talented, I think if he entered against the Pro's earlier - he would have adapted earlier. The fact that he was beaten by a teenage Newcombe in late 1962 I feel shows his form dropped off dramatically at the end of 1962 (fatigue?) and I think it took him time to get into his stride in 1963. By mid-1963 was competing hard with the top guys (was beating Rosewall in some matches and pushing Rosewall to the limit at the French Pro on Wood).

Tennis narrowly lost out in going open in the 1960/1961 year (lost by 5 votes - boy what a really bad decision that was).. If it had gone open then - a lot of differences would have happened. You would have seen Rosewall as Wimbledon champion in 1962 or 1963 and you might have seen Gonzales bag a Wimbledon or US Championships in 1961.

 

[hoodjem]

^^^Correct.

We had this very same discussion about a year ago. If tennis had been open throughout the 1950s, then Laver would have been required to play everyone (including the pros) earlier. He would thus have raised the level of his game (as he was required to do in 1963) earlier.

I agree that he probably would not have won a Grand Slam in 1962, but he would have a few slams 1959-63, before he really started dominating. He obviously would have won a Grand Slam in 1967 (his peak year), and still would have won his Grand Slam of 1969.

So, in my opinion, Laver would have at least two Grand Slams, and he would certainly have more than 11 actual slam titles.

You can take away the 1962 Grand Slam, but it remains a net gain for Laver.

 

[pc1]

^^^Correct.

We had this very same discussion about a year ago. If tennis had been open throughout the 1950s, then Laver would have been required to play everyone (including the pros) earlier. He would thus have raised the level of his game (as he was required to do in 1963) earlier.

I agree that he probably would not have won a Grand Slam in 1962, but he would have a few slams 1959-63, before he really started dominating. He obviously would have won a Grand Slam in 1967 (his peak year), and still would have won his Grand Slam of 1969.

So, in my opinion, Laver would have at least two Grand Slams, and he would certainly have more than 11 actual slam titles.

You can take away the 1962 Grand Slam, but it remains a net gain for Laver.

I've thought about that numerous times and I would tend to agree with you and timnz.

One thing however, when Laver went into the Pro Ranks I believe the average level of competition was beyond anything today. Laver was playing legends like Hoad, Rosewall at the beginning and later great players like Gonzalez, Gimeno. Sedgman, Trabert and Segura were pretty tremendous also. To compete at this level you have to raise your game higher because you are playing Hall of Famers even in the first round. I'm not sure if Laver would have reached his great level if Open Tennis was always around. Rosewall implied that the average level of play for him declined when Open Tennis started. I don't think it was a coincidence that Laver's winning percentage went up when Open Tennis started.

So in a way while perhaps Laver would have won a few more majors and perhaps several Grand Slams I'm sort of glad it was the way it was because it improved Laver's skill level to compete regularly against the likes of Rosewall, Hoad, Gonzalez, Sedgman, Gimeno.

 

[timnz]

Hoad - late 1957 = Laver - early 1963

Hoad was like Laver. When he turned Pro in late 1957 he was losing the majority of his matches. Then from 1958 is was a great player dominating the first 1/2 of the head to head tour with Gonzales.

 

[Limpinhitter]

Hoad was like Laver. When he turned Pro in late 1957 he was losing the majority of his matches. Then from 1958 is was a great player dominating the first 1/2 of the head to head tour with Gonzales.

A little OT, but, Hoad was Laver's idol.

 

[urban]

I agree with the above posts. Its very difficult to calculate exact major wins for people like Gonzalez, Rosewall, Hoad or Laver. The pro majors were only 3 each year, and even at the outset of open era, many majors (like Australia 1968) were not played by many top pros. Under open conditions you have to imagine big draws for majors, not the head to head series of the pro tour. And instead of the prevalence of indoor and hard court events, you would have mainly grass and clay tournaments. Players would have to go at another earlier, and would have evolved in an adaption-process, which would not have this big gap between the amateur and pro tour. In retrospect of thge real situation, you have to evaluate the amateur and pro components of a career. All the great pros were amateurs beforehand, and have decent records in that department.

 

[Mustard]

The pro majors were only 3 each year, and even at the outset of open era, many majors (like Australia 1968) were not played by many top pros.

The 1968 Australian Championships was amateurs only. It wasn't until April 1968 that the open era started. The first open slam was the 1968 French Open, where Rosewall beat Laver in the final.

 

[urban]

I know, i wrote about Australia, not Australian Open. All top Australians, like Emmo, Newk or Roche had turned pro end 1967. The winner, Bill Bowrey, was a journeyman, he was more famous for being the husband of Lesley Turner.

 

[Mustard]

I know, i wrote about Australia, not Australian Open. All top Australians, like Emmo, Newk or Roche had turned pro end 1967. The winner, Bill Bowrey, was a journeyman, he was more famous for being the husband of Lesley Turner.

Had Emerson actually turned professional at the end of 1967? I thought he was still amateur until after the 1968 Australian Championships, even though he didn't play in that tournament.

 

[timnz]

About 4 Months

A little OT, but, Hoad was Laver's idol.

Simply trying to explain that like Hoad, Laver took around 4 months to adjust to being a pro. and the standards of that level.

 

[pc1]

Simply trying to explain that like Hoad, Laver took around 4 months to adjust to being a pro. and the standards of that level.

Jack Kramer and Segura, among others tried to help Hoad adjust to the Pro game. Kramer's master plan was to have Hoad defeat Gonzalez so he (Kramer) would have a champion that was easier to deal with.

 

[urban]

Hoad's summer of 1957 is still an enigma for me. At Wim he beat Cooper in - what most viewers say - his all time best performance. On the evening of the Wim dance ball, he told the press of turning pro. And 7 days later, he won his first pro matches at Forest Hills, only to lose the next 14. Maybe it wasn't the talent and form factor alone, and more the psychological factor to face top competition all the time day after day, that made it difficult for the new pros.

 

[pc1]

Hoad's summer of 1957 is still an enigma for me. At Wim he beat Cooper in - what most viewers say - his all time best performance. On the evening of the Wim dance ball, he told the press of turning pro. And 7 days later, he won his first pro matches at Forest Hills, only to lose the next 14. Maybe it wasn't the talent and form factor alone, and more the psychological factor to face top competition all the time day after day, that made it difficult for the new pros.

According to Kramer's book Hoad played too much of a risky style for the pros. I think among other things, they worked on him to play a better percentage style because he went for winners off of everything.

It just shows the difference in level between the amateurs and pros in those days. You wonder how a player like Segura, who is perhaps not as well known because he was in the pros would have done if he was allowed to play against the amateurs in the majors in those days. Segura and Sedgman used to play virtually even and Sedgman was dominant in the amateurs.

 

[kiki]

Laver was more fun to watch than Sampras, in my opinion, but not as much fun as watching Federer. Pound for pound, I give Sampras the edge over Laver on all surfaces except clay, while I give Federer the edge on every surface. Also, Sampras has said that Federer is the "greatest ever," as has Laver, and most of the other past champions including Mac. Really though, there's no such thing as a "GOAT" and we will never come to any conclusion.

Best,
Chopin

I respect your poitn, tough I do not share it.After all, we are talking about subjective opinions and that is the great part of it.

I agree we´ll never - ¡¡ fortunately¡¡- come down to who is the GOAT.

Further than that, there is a point where modern champs converge and this is attributing Laver his fatherhood on modern game.To me, it is a measure of greatness and mark in a human activity.Others might have been better but...¿ More important to the game?.We need to take a perspective and deep analisis to set up what the rocket has given to this game.That is what I really would like to settle, besides private taste.

I do not want to sound exagerated but, as much as western civilization owns the greek and the roman their bases, modern tennis does the same in regard of the rocket.

And, yes, Federer is wonderful to watch, as was Pete or John at their top.One thing has nothing to do with the other one

 

[kiki]

I'm not sure what this means, but, I can assure you that greatness occurs when: 1) natural ability meets up with 2) complete devotion, 3) sacrifice and 4) dogged determination. Remove a single element and all you will have is unrealized greatness.

... this is why he is the GOAT, you made it right

 

[kiki]

Laver had 8 pro slams.

1. 1964 Wembley Pro
2. 1964 US Pro
3. 1965 Wembley Pro
4. 1966 Wembley Pro
5. 1966 US Pro
6. 1967 French Pro
7. 1967 Wembley Pro
8. 1967 US Pro

Add that to Laver's 6 amateur slams and 5 open slams, and you get 19.

If you total up Ken Rosewall's 4 amateur slams, 15 pro slams and 4 open slams, you get 23. People talk about how many more slams Laver could have won between 1963-1967 if he hadn't been barred because he was a professional, but it's almost certain that Laver's 1962 Grand Slam is entirely due to the absence of professional players like Rosewall, Hoad, Gonzales, Buchholz and Segura. The best player of 1962 was Ken Rosewall, not Rod Laver.

A Gran Slam happens once in a year.I mean, who wins the big 4 in the same year.¿what does it weight against a longer, more widespread career? I do not know.Laver did something uncredible in ´69 and Ken was as much uncredible playing his first wimbledon final in 54 and his last in 74.

 

[kiki]

I've thought about that numerous times and I would tend to agree with you and timnz.

One thing however, when Laver went into the Pro Ranks I believe the average level of competition was beyond anything today. Laver was playing legends like Hoad, Rosewall at the beginning and later great players like Gonzalez, Gimeno. Sedgman, Trabert and Segura were pretty tremendous also. To compete at this level you have to raise your game higher because you are playing Hall of Famers even in the first round. I'm not sure if Laver would have reached his great level if Open Tennis was always around. Rosewall implied that the average level of play for him declined when Open Tennis started. I don't think it was a coincidence that Laver's winning percentage went up when Open Tennis started.

So in a way while perhaps Laver would have won a few more majors and perhaps several Grand Slams I'm sort of glad it was the way it was because it improved Laver's skill level to compete regularly against the likes of Rosewall, Hoad, Gonzalez, Sedgman, Gimeno.

True.Imagine you have to play day in day out a hall of famer or, at least a gran slam champion.And they played in parkings, highway roads, airport stances and, well, I´m sure they playe dplaces I cannot imagine - or cannot writte them out here-.Never did we have that level of day to day competitiveness in tennis.¿ Is it the same Laver playing Gimeno,Segura or Hoad on a bad monday than Federer or Nadal playing Istomin,Chela or Ramirez Hidalgo? c´mon baby¡¡¡

 

[kiki]

And you're absolutely correct. Folks around here need to watch the '76 Connors/Borg final at Forest Hills on clay. Both men were absolutely murdering the ball.



You bring up a great point. When Sampras was an up and comer, who flew him to Connecticut to practice? None other than Ivan Lendl. I think Sampras learnt quite a bit about being a professional from Lendl. He also probably had to rally quite a bit with Lendl. And, there aren't many pros who ever played who hit harder than Lendl.



Yep. Connors laced 'em. He hit the ball so hard the majority of pros in 1975 tried or played with the T2000 to try and get the same edge as Connors.

And he played with almost a 90% risk - one inch over the net, one inch inside the court-.That made him so attractive to play.Nadal, as hard as he hits the ball, will never have 25% of Jimbo´s " eye catching" game...

 

[kiki]

It's really hard to say that Agassi was a better baseliner than Connors. I suppose you can argue return since we don't have the stats but I think Connors may have it there also.

I think we can all agree both Agassi and Connors have great groundstrokes. But we have to put speed and mobility into the equation also and that's when Connors is much better than even a young Agassi. Mobility was never one of Agassi's strong points.

Being a great defensive player is also a part of being a great baseliner and I would say Connors was superior there also. Connors mobility and lob was superb.

Remember Connors won over 100 tournaments in his career and was very competitive up into the early 1990's. He didn't do it by serve and volleying but by his great baseline play.

I'd have to go with Connors as the better baseliner for his career and at his peak versus Agassi's peak.

There is no pint in comparing them.Connors was quite more feared at his prime than Agassi.And he did not take drugs, did he?.The only field Agassi leads is in marrying a former champ.Jimbo never performed as well with Chrissie than Andre did with Steffi.

 

[kiki]

Connors would be a top 20 player in the modern game, for sure. Still, a guy like Hewitt would beat Connor the majority of the time (superior all around from the baseline) and Federer and Nadal would beat him the vast majority of the time.

Borg, Connors & Mac would be very good players in the modern game, but I doubt any one of them would win more than a couple of slams. I like Mac's chances would the best of all three. Borg would get beat at his own game (Borg is kind of like Windows 95 and the baseliner's today are like Windows 7), where Connors is probably the least talented of the three. Mac could have some success on the fast hard courts and at Wimbledon I think though the slower conditions would do his serve and volley play no favors.

Mock Rankings

1 Nadal, Rafael (ESP)
2 Federer, Roger (SUI)
3 Djokovic, Novak (SRB)
4 Murray, Andy (GBR)
5 Davydenko, Nikolay (RUS)
6 Soderling, Robin (SWE)
7 Roddick, Andy (USA)
8 Del Potro, Juan Martin (ARG)
9 Verdasco, Fernando (ESP)
10 Tsonga, Jo-Wilfried (FRA)
11 Ferrer, David (ESP)
12 Cilic, Marin (CRO)
13 Berdych, Tomas (CZE)
14 Youzhny, Mikhail (RUS)
15 MAC
16 Ljubicic, Ivan (CRO)
17 Melzer, Jurgen (AUT) 2,125 0 27
18 BORG
19 Almagro, Nicolas (ESP) 1,960 0 27
20 CONNORS 1,925 0 26

30 Laver

40 Rosewall

I agree, Chopin.But, then, ¿ How much money would you pay to see a Berdich vs Cilic game in comparison to a Laver vs Rosewall? or, to give you a second chance, ¿ how much money would you pay to see a Lubjicic vs Youhzny match compared to a Connors vs Borg?.... ¿Do you want me to continue ?...

¿ Is there a limit to stupid mankind ? I doubt there is.You are just the prove

 

[Chopin]

I agree, Chopin.But, then, ¿ How much money would you pay to see a Berdich vs Cilic game in comparison to a Laver vs Rosewall? or, to give you a second chance, ¿ how much money would you pay to see a Lubjicic vs Youhzny match compared to a Connors vs Borg?.... ¿Do you want me to continue ?...

¿ Is there a limit to stupid mankind ? I doubt there is.You are just the prove

I'm not sure what you're talking about.

I'd rather watch Laver versus Rosewall, but then again, I'd rather watch Federer versus Sampras.

 

[hoodjem]

Connors would be a top 20 player in the modern game, for sure. Still, a guy like Hewitt would beat Connor the majority of the time . . .
Mock Rankings
1 Nadal, Rafael (ESP)
2 Federer, Roger (SUI)
3 Djokovic, Novak (SRB)
4 Murray, Andy (GBR)
. . .
15 MAC
. . .
20 CONNORS
. . .
30 Laver
40 Rosewall

¿ Is there a limit to stupid mankind ? I doubt there is.You are just the prove

Hint, hint, nudge, nudge, wink, wink.

 

[Limpinhitter]

I'm not sure what you're talking about.

I'd rather watch Laver versus Rosewall, but then again, I'd rather watch Federer versus Sampras.

I've already seen those matchups. I'd rather see Laver vs. Fed and/or Pete, and Rosewall vs. Fed and/or Pete . . . . all using the same equipment, of course. Or, perhaps a round robin tournament between them. I'd pick Laver to win the whole thing with Fed or Pete second and Rosewall 4th. JMHO, of course.

PS: Throw Pancho and Borg into the mix and all bets are off.

 

[hoodjem]

Of course he does, even Chopin concedes this.

 

[Texastennis]

I think it's perfectly likely Connors did do some rec drugs like Agassi (and Borg, McEnroe and who knows who else - rec drug use of various kinds has been very widespread). Connors was quite a party guy there in the mid-late 70s - dated a Miss World, married a Playboy Playmate of the year. No reason to think there's any superiority on that particular score!

 

[Limpinhitter]

I think it's perfectly likely Connors did do some rec drugs like Agassi (and Borg, McEnroe and who knows who else - rec drug use of various kinds has been very widespread). Connors was quite a party guy there in the mid-late 70s - dated a Miss World, married a Playboy Playmate of the year. No reason to think there's any superiority on that particular score!

Mac's drug problems are well known and had a significant negative impact on his tennis career. But, know of no evidence that either Connors or Borg used recreational drugs. Certainly, there was no observable impact of drug use on their games. If you have any reliable sources please share them.

 

[Texastennis]

Mac said in his book that he and Borg did rec drugs together with Gerulaitis etc. Never heard anything about Connors but just pointed out that his lifestyle at that time put him in plenty of company with lots of casual rec drug use.

 

[kiki]

I think it's perfectly likely Connors did do some rec drugs like Agassi (and Borg, McEnroe and who knows who else - rec drug use of various kinds has been very widespread). Connors was quite a party guy there in the mid-late 70s - dated a Miss World, married a Playboy Playmate of the year. No reason to think there's any superiority on that particular score!

Let me talk you about the 70´s and early 80´s.You are probably too young to fix it up.

Drugs taken there were much more of a personal decision than a widespread sistem.If connors took drugs , as Mc and Borg probably did also, it did not affect theirn game in the way that an Agassi did, which is more medically tested and proven - or might i say approved ?-.

yes, Jimmy married a playmate woman like Patty, who is a very strong, inspiring personality.I love Patty to give Jimmy what he needed to be the greatest man in tennis for the 1982-1983 period.She is not just a wonderful human being and probably, one of the most attractive women I have ever seen...I mean, she is much over you...

Bjorn and Mc had all a bad taste of their marriage women.It is only them to blame, but they have much more human dignity than Agassi, because they never took drugs when atop, while your Las Vegas Kid did.

To end it up, it is a decent act that Agassi recognised his drug´s problems.I do not think one single player today would.But , please, do not pease me off, with stupid comparisons.

 

[borg number one]

I thought I'd share some nice Laver pictures here. I like the magazine title, that he is "rushing the immortals". That helps keep the "GOAT" arguments in perspective for me. It makes me wonder if, for example Tilden fans and supporters of other players, such as Gonzalez, Budge, etc. were arguing with Laver fans during the 1960's about who in fact was the "greatest".

 

[Limpinhitter]

Let me talk you about the 70´s and early 80´s.You are probably too young to fix it up.

Drugs taken there were much more of a personal decision than a widespread sistem.If connors took drugs , as Mc and Borg probably did also, it did not affect theirn game in the way that an Agassi did, which is more medically tested and proven - or might i say approved ?-.

yes, Jimmy married a playmate woman like Patty, who is a very strong, inspiring personality.I love Patty to give Jimmy what he needed to be the greatest man in tennis for the 1982-1983 period.She is not just a wonderful human being and probably, one of the most attractive women I have ever seen...I mean, she is much over you...

Bjorn and Mc had all a bad taste of their marriage women.It is only them to blame, but they have much more human dignity than Agassi, because they never took drugs when atop, while your Las Vegas Kid did.

To end it up, it is a decent act that Agassi recognised his drug´s problems.I do not think one single player today would.But , please, do not pease me off, with stupid comparisons.

I have to disagree with you about Mac. I never saw any evidence of drug abuse from Borg or Connors, or their games. But, I remember the dark circles under Mac's eyes and the look of total exhaustion in his interviews. He was coked up and it almost ended his career. That's why he ran out of gas at the 84' FO final. If not for that, he would have won at least several more majors, and it would have pushed Lendl's run back at least 2-3 years. JMHO, of course!

 

[Limpinhitter]

I thought I'd share some nice Laver pictures here. I like the magazine title, that he is "rushing the immortals". That helps keep the "GOAT" arguments in perspective for me. It makes me wonder if, for example Tilden fans and supporters of other players, such as Gonzalez, Budge, etc. were arguing with Laver fans during the 1960's about who in fact was the "greatest".

SI used to be a great magazine! [Sigh]! As for whether old timers argued about the greatest, YOU BET YOUR ASS THEY DID! Budge definitely thought he was the greatest of all time when I went to his camp. And so did his coaches. And after watching him play at the age of 59, and pound his D1 level coaches senseless, I agree that he was up there.

I have some pretty cool pics of Laver and others. But, I'm a IT moron. Any advice on how to go about posting them would be appreciated by me, and a few others on TT I would think.

 

[borg number one]

I have some pretty cool pics of Laver and others. But, I'm a IT moron. Any advice on how to go about posting them would be appreciated by me, and a few others on TT I would think.

LH, getting images off the web is pretty straightforward, but I haven't posted images directly off my computer.

For posting an image from the internet:

When you see a image on the internet, right click on it. Then choose "copy image location". Then, in the box where you "post" (the reply box your typing in), click on the box for "insert image", to the left of the "quote" box. When you press that box, it will allow you to "enter the URL" of your image location. There, you can just do a "paste" by right clicking. Clicking paste will drop in the webpage location of that image that you located. Then, when you hit enter, that will put in the image location in the reply box and your image will go along with whatever you are posting. Just send me an email if you still have issues. I can also look for some instructions for you. Remember, this is for images off the web as opposed to your own, but it's really nice to be able to do. Thanks.

 

[borg number one]

SI used to be a great magazine! [Sigh]! As for whether old timers argued about the greatest, YOU BET YOUR ASS THEY DID! Budge definitely thought he was the greatest of all time when I went to his camp. And so did his coaches. And after watching him play at the age of 59, and pound his D1 level coaches senseless, I agree that he was up there.

Fascinating LH. That's what I thought to be the case, but its good getting that verification from you. In Tennis, I guess "the more things change, the more the stay the same" so to speak. I love how certain things just operate in cycles in terms of Tennis history.

 

[hoodjem]

SI used to be a great magazine! [Sigh]! As for whether old timers argued about the greatest, YOU BET YOUR ASS THEY DID! Budge definitely thought he was the greatest of all time when I went to his camp. And so did his coaches. And after watching him play at the age of 59, and pound his D1 level coaches senseless, I agree that he was up there.

I wonder if Budge or Vines or Tilden fans got dissed in the 60s by Laver fans with statements like "They played a wimpy game," or "Laver would triple-bagel any of those country club geezers," or "Laver hits with so much more spin, those oldsters couldn't even keep up"?

 

[pc1]

I wonder if Budge or Vines or Tilden fans got dissed in the 60s by Laver fans with statements like "They played a wimpy game," or "Laver would triple-bagel any of those country club geezers," or "Laver hits with so much more spin, those oldsters couldn't even keep up"?

I doubt it happened as much. I'm sure it did to a degree because that's the nature of the beast but I think it was a different time and obviously everyone played with wood rackets in those days so a better comparison can be made because of the similar equipment. There was a poll by sportswriters in 1969 in which Tilden finished first, Budge second and Laver third.

I wonder what would happen nowadays. Would the sportswriter pick Federer numero uno or maybe Nadal? Would Tilden be even in the running or would he do well?