Rod Laver has the right to the all time crown

[Limpinhitter]

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"?

ABSOLUTLEY! Are you kidding! And I was as guilty as anyone. When I went to Budge's camp I had already seen several pro events, including several Laver matches when he was still considered #1. I had no idea how good Budge was. There was no internet. No information superhighway. I would have laughed at the idea that Budge could even compete with Laver, much less take a set off of him. Well, Budge told me himself how much he admired Laver, and what a great champion he was. That was right before he mentioned that he split sets with Laver in an exo match the year before, 1972. Laver would have been 34 and Budge would have been 58, with a double chin, pot belly and skinny legs. This conversation occurred after I'd seen Budge dismantle a couple of his young, hard hitting, coaches in practice sets. Budge's groundies and serve were brutal. So, I didn't doubt what he said was true.

BTW, Budge was using a 16oz, 5 1/4 all wood handle (with a leather strip around the butt as a butt cap), Rawlings, custom made to be exactly like the frame he used in his prime. His groundies were classic, textbook Eastern drives, and the result was very much like Connors' groundies - hard, low clearance over the net, and always very deep and penetrating. The difference was that Budge hit a bit more topspin on both sides. His serve was equally textbook perfect. The timing and tempo of all of his shots was poetic. And the sound of the ball coming off of that wood racquet with natural gut strings was CRRRRRACK! All around, an amazing experience and education about the history of tennis.

 

[borg number one]

 

[borg number one]

 

[borg number one]

Images of great players Laver, Vines, Budge, Tilden, Gonzalez, Rosewall, and Hoad.

 

[Limpinhitter]

BN1, I don't know about anyone else, but, those images aren't displaying for me. I'm just getting red x's.

 

[hoodjem]

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 bet someone would have brought all the technological progress that made the then present game so much more advanced: the bare wooden handle versus the technologically more advanced leather grip, along with thinner gut strings.

 

[Limpinhitter]

I bet somone would have brought all the technological progress that made the then present game so much more advanced: the bare wooden handle versus the technologically more advanced leather grip, along with thinner gut strings.

I'm not so sure the leather grip was an improvement.

 

[borg number one]

BN1, I don't know about anyone else, but, those images aren't displaying for me. I'm just getting red x's.

Ok, got it, you mean when you try and post images? Perhaps contact the TT Forum Admin. I had to try it a few times before I started posting images. When you say they "aren't displaying", I'm not certain. You can email me as I'll try and see if I can find a solution. Thanks.

 

[Limpinhitter]

Ok, got it, you mean when you try and post images? Perhaps contact the TT Forum Admin. I had to try it a few times before I started posting images. When you say they "aren't displaying", I'm not certain. You can email me as I'll try and see if I can find a solution. Thanks.

No, I'm talking about the images in your last three posts aren't displaying, for me anyway.

 

[krosero]

I can't see them either.

 

[pc1]

Neither can I.

 

[borg number one]

Ok very strange on the pictures. I see them on my computer for my last few posts.

Can y'all see this one (#1)?

How about this one (#2)?

 

[krosero]

Can only see #1

 

[borg number one]

Ok, got it...I think this is some sort of Getty Images difference, because both appear on my screen for some reason. The first one, I got off the web, but the second one is from this website below. You can search for pictures here for players such as Rosewall and Borg.

Rosewall:

http://www.gettyimages.com/Search/S...ial&assetType=image&p=ken rosewall and tennis

Borg:

http://www.gettyimages.com/Search/S...mily=editorial&assetType=image&p=bjorn borg #

 

[hoodjem]

Odd. I can see all of them fine. Nice one of Hoad hitting a backhand lob, it appears.

 

[Limpinhitter]

Can only see #1

Same here!

 

[hoodjem]

Nice one of Laver's steely tenacity and laser focus.

During a match he put everything into it, every shot, every angle, every spin, every strategy, and never gave up--never conceded. After the last point, he was your oldest friend and biggest fan, and the humblest of champions.

How often he said he had just been lucky, or that he'd had a good day.

 

[Mustard]

Same here!

I can see #2. It's a picture of McEnroe, Borg and Connors.

 

[kiki]

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"?

great point.People not only lacks respect but IMHO they even lack even more game´s knowledge.

I´dlike to see them in 10 years, when someone pisses off Nadal or Federer or Murray with arguments liked used here.

 

[hoodjem]

Even more odd. Now, more than half of BNo.1 photos are simply red Xs.

 

[krosero]

Now I can see all the photos, including the ones on the previous page.

 

[Limpinhitter]

Now I can see all the photos, including the ones on the previous page.

All of the red x's yesterday are still red x's today.

 

[kiki]

Chopin this actually is very well written. So my only question is as you say you can't compare across eras why must you always say the modern players are superior to those in the past? If we can not compare across eras can't we not compare both ways?

Yes, this is the final point.We cannot compare eras so we cannot compare the greatest players of those different eras.

But we can choose which era we enjoy most, be it for the players, the style,the level,the courts or any personal feeling...after all, why we like some women more than the other ? Do we compare them? I mean, who is sexiest Lauren Bacall,Rita or Marylin compared to Scarlett,Cruz or Roberts?

The great think about tennis - and women- is that it is so subjective any opinion is worthy.

For those bright minds, ¿What would Lincoln do in the era of internet? ¿ What would Clinton do in the civil war? ¿Is greatness a matter of time or a matter of personnal value?

LOL

 

[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.

of course.And do not forget that Connors´serve was more varied and with better spin than Agassi´s and, finally, Connors endned up many points at the net, being able to move from the backcourt to the net superbly.Agassi looks like a penguin every time he comses up to the net - which is , may be, 10 times in his whole career-....

 

[Limpinhitter]

Yes, this is the final point.We cannot compare eras so we cannot compare the greatest players of those different eras.

But we can choose which era we enjoy most, be it for the players, the style,the level,the courts or any personal feeling...after all, why we like some women more than the other ? Do we compare them? I mean, who is sexiest Lauren Bacall,Rita or Marylin compared to Scarlett,Cruz or Roberts?

The great think about tennis - and women- is that it is so subjective any opinion is worthy.

For those bright minds, ¿What would Lincoln do in the era of internet? ¿ What would Clinton do in the civil war? ¿Is greatness a matter of time or a matter of personnal value?

LOL

Eva Gardner! Very well said about timeless values!

 

[Limpinhitter]

of course.And do not forget that Connors´serve was more varied and with better spin than Agassi´s and, finally, Connors endned up many points at the net, being able to move from the backcourt to the net superbly.Agassi looks like a penguin every time he comses up to the net - which is , may be, 10 times in his whole career-....

Kiki, I agree with most of your posts. But, this one is an exception. I had the privilege of seeing Connors play in 74, 82 and 90. Connors did have great groundstrokes. And he was one of the all time great competitors. But, Agassi's groundstrokes were probably the best groundstrokes of all time. He hit harder AND more consistently than Connors, and that's saying a lot. And Agassi's serve was better than Connors' in every respect. Agassi's serve remains underrated, even all these years after his retirement. JMHO! Where Connors was better than Agassi was his mobility, ability to hit on the stretch, and his volleying skill and overall net game. In their primes, H2H, I would pick Agassi to win 6 of 10 against Connors on hard and grass, and 3 of 4 on clay.

 

[kiki]

Kiki, I agree with most of your posts. But, this one is an exception. I had the privilege of seeing Connors play in 74, 82 and 90. Connors did have great groundstrokes. And he was one of the all time great competitors. But, Agassi's groundstrokes were probably the best groundstrokes of all time. He hit harder AND more consistently than Connors, and that's saying a lot. And Agassi's serve was better than Connors' in every respect. Agassi's serve remains underrated, even all these years after his retirement. JMHO! Where Connors was better than Agassi was his mobility, ability to hit on the stretch, and his volleying skill and overall net game. In their primes, H2H, I would pick Agassi to win 6 of 10 against Connors on hard and grass, and 3 of 4 on clay.

Limpinhitter.Agassi did possibly hit harder than Jimbo, but the pressure and precision of Connors attacking from the backcourt has never been matched by Andre.If Agassi would have had mobility to come to the net and a volleying skill he would have been better.But his game was so sidelined: he just would move in lateral movements but not attacking in the net.

Also, the flat Connors strokes made him more prompt to error, but that is why he was, IMHO quite flashier. if not much flashier than Agassi

 

[kiki]

Eva Gardner! Very well said about timeless values!

yes, Eva Gardner was Hoad´s contemporary, yet she was able to do so much harm¡¡

tell me about my president´s question...is it bright or not?

 

[borg number one]

Frankly, I don't think that Agassi was quite the player Connors was. Agassi was great at times, and he did have some very impressive results. Yet, comparing them both at their best, I'd go with Connors. Agassi was a hard hitter, as was Connors. I've seen both play live several times. I saw Connors in the late 70's and Agassi in Houston at the Masters tournament several years ago. Connors was a better mover overall. He had superb footwork. Agassi was not as fast as Connors. Both had superb reflexes and eye hand coordination, as well as seemingly "great eyes". Of course, both had superb returns.

 

[kiki]

^^Frew McMillan was a great doubles player. He's in the Hall of Fame, largely due to all the wins he racked up with Bob Hewitt. I believe that both were from South Africa.

http://www.atpworldtour.com/Tennis/Players/Mc/F/Frew-D-Mcmillan.aspx

Hewitt was an Australian original who was SAfrican naturalized.Mc Millan was born in SAfrica.

 

[kiki]

I love Ashe's perspective PC1. He had a very high Tennis I.Q. and was so well spoken. Those excerpts describe Hewitt and McMillan perfectly. I only saw them play in the late 1970's, but they did reach #1.

wonderful team and great doubles era back then.There were like 10-15 teams that really attracted people to the stands.After Mc and Fleming and Mc namara and Mc Namee doubles lost speed and today is hardly followed by people.A real pitty

 

[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.

... and most important, playing many times in conditions that would make current players call the police before stepping in... or call an ambulance, for that matter.Talked with Gimeno and confirmed me those points.

 

[kiki]

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

a question, gentlemen ¿ How many GS would Emerson have won if tennis would be Open during his amateur years? ¿ How many Santana? and we talked about the 2 best amateur players of the mid 60´s.

 

[timnz]

Emerson

a question, gentlemen ¿ How many GS would Emerson have won if tennis would be Open during his amateur years? ¿ How many Santana? and we talked about the 2 best amateur players of the mid 60´s.

I think Emerson would have won some. When he was past his best at the age of 31 he beat a peak Laver 4 times in 1968 - every one of those matches in straight sets. That tells me at his peak he would have been extremely competitive with the pros.

 

[Limpinhitter]

I think Emerson would have won some. When he was past his best at the age of 31 he beat a peak Laver 4 times in 1968 - every one of those matches in straight sets. That tells me at his peak he would have been extremely competitive with the pros.

Emmo is widely overlooked and underappreciated on TT.

 

[timnz]

Height

Quite a number of posters make an issue of Rod Lavers height - 5' 8". They say two things:

1/ He couldn't compete with the tall players of today

2/ He couldn't generate enough power and particularly service speed.

Now of course that is totally wrong on both counts.

Regarding point 1 - Rod Laver played plenty of players during his years - 6' or taller - Newcombe, Arthur Ashe (6' 1"), Gonzales (6' 3"), Stan Smith (6' 4") etc - and faired very well.

Regarding point 2 - M. Rios at only 1" taller than Rod could serve in the 130mph range (when he wanted to) given more modern rackets, at the same height Michael Chang has served 130 mph. So if Rod had todays rackets I am sure his speed would be getting up there as well.

 

[TMF]

Quite a number of posters make an issue of Rod Lavers height - 5' 8". They say two things:

1/ He couldn't compete with the tall players of today

2/ He couldn't generate enough power and particularly service speed.

Now of course that is totally wrong on both counts.

Regarding point 1 - Rod Laver played plenty of players during his years - 6' or taller - Newcombe, Arthur Ashe (6' 1"), Gonzales (6' 3"), Stan Smith (6' 4") etc - and faired very well.

Regarding point 2 - M. Rios at only 1" taller than Rod could serve in the 130mph range (when he wanted to) given more modern rackets, at the same height Michael Chang has served 130 mph. So if Rod had todays rackets I am sure his speed would be getting up there as well.

David Ferrer has 2 inches advantage over Laver, who is the top ten player. Yet, he doesn't power and big serve. All players today that are undersize lacks power, and that is a clear disadvantage for them. Did Laver have a bionic arm?

The player 6' in the past didn't hit as hard as today's player. Unless you want to believe Tilden serve 163mph or Limpinhitter claimed Rosewall can slice 80mph, then there's no point going furher with this discussion.

Rios...tremendous talent. He can reach 130mph, but was he ever considered a big server? Didn't think so. Same question for Chang, was he also a big server?

There shouldn't be any doubt here that a taller and bigger players have more power over a smaller players. I know some of you want to throw in Justine Henin, who is a small player. but who is another Henin in the ATP? None!

 

[Limpinhitter]

David Ferrer has 2 inches advantage over Laver, who is the top ten player. Yet, he doesn't power and big serve. All players today that are undersize lacks power, and that is a clear disadvantage for them. Did Laver have a bionic arm?

The player 6' in the past didn't hit as hard as today's player. Unless you want to believe Tilden serve 163mph or Limpinhitter claimed Rosewall can slice 80mph, then there's no point going furher with this discussion.

Rios...tremendous talent. He can reach 130mph, but was he ever considered a big server? Didn't think so. Same question for Chang, was he also a big server?

There shouldn't be any doubt here that a taller and bigger players have more power over a smaller players. I know some of you want to throw in Justine Henin, who is a small player. but who is another Henin in the ATP? None!

Of course this is all irrelevant, blather, and has nothing to do with Laver, who was irrefutably the biggest hitter to ever play with a wood racquet, even though he was one of the smallest players on the tour, even in his era. On that basis, you are correct that there's no point in going further with this discussion.

NEXT!!!

 

[drakulie]

David Ferrer has 2 inches advantage over Laver, who is the top ten player. Yet, he doesn't power and big serve. All players today that are undersize lacks power, and that is a clear disadvantage for them. Did Laver have a bionic arm?

The player 6' in the past didn't hit as hard as today's player. Unless you want to believe Tilden serve 163mph or Limpinhitter claimed Rosewall can slice 80mph, then there's no point going furher with this discussion.

Rios...tremendous talent. He can reach 130mph, but was he ever considered a big server? Didn't think so. Same question for Chang, was he also a big server?

There shouldn't be any doubt here that a taller and bigger players have more power over a smaller players. I know some of you want to throw in Justine Henin, who is a small player. but who is another Henin in the ATP? None!

Nuff said. Laver wouldn't be able to compete today, at the same level he competed at during his time.

 

[drakulie]

Quite a number of posters make an issue of Rod Lavers height - 5' 8". They say two things:

1/ He couldn't compete with the tall players of today

2/ He couldn't generate enough power and particularly service speed.

Now of course that is totally wrong on both counts.

Regarding point 1 - Rod Laver played plenty of players during his years - 6' or taller - Newcombe, Arthur Ashe (6' 1"), Gonzales (6' 3"), Stan Smith (6' 4") etc - and faired very well.

Regarding point 2 - M. Rios at only 1" taller than Rod could serve in the 130mph range (when he wanted to) given more modern rackets, at the same height Michael Chang has served 130 mph. So if Rod had todays rackets I am sure his speed would be getting up there as well.

1. None of the players you menitoned, even though they ar 6 feet or taller, generated the same amount of speed on their swings that players do today.

2. Laver's service motion would have to be changed to generate the same swing that players do today. Remember, his feet never left the ground during his playing days. Although this was first a rule (that feet couldn't leave the ground), it was later changed, and Laver didn't bother changing.

 

[TMF]

Nuff said. Laver wouldn't be able to compete today, at the same level he competed at during his time.

I was being nice to say Laver can compete today(but not reach top tier). However, Limpinhitter and kiki can’t even see how generous I was, except making kiddy jokes.

 

[adidasman]

Did Laver have a bionic arm?

Yes, he did.

 

[timnz]

Okay why then?

I was being nice to say Laver can compete today(but not reach top tier). However, Limpinhitter and kiki can’t even see how generous I was, except making kiddy jokes.

Question is: Why do you think that? Because of his height? I have just mentioned how Rios and Chang did well (reached number 1 and 2 respectively) with more modern rackets - admittidely during the 90's. Okay, if not his height, some other factor? Skill - sorry Lavers skill levels were just so above 99.9% of players today its not funny.

 

[adidasman]

Nuff said. Laver wouldn't be able to compete today, at the same level he competed at during his time.

That's just wrong; there's no way you (or anyone else) can say that definitively. I happen to think you're mistaken about Laver, but that's based on opinion and observation - not fact. Why must you speak as if you were some kind of authority on anything other than making inflammatory comments?

 

[drb]

Again, very interesting discussion. How tall is Andre Agassi? Under six feet, if memory serves. How could he compete at the top level if the height argument is completely valid?

A champion in any era would most likely be a champion in any other era. The commonality is the mindset... the psychology of an individual who climbs to the top of his or her game until there is no other person standing with them. Something innate drives such people and I wish we could bottle it!

Give modern equipment and training to Bill Tilden, Don Budge, Lew Hoad, Rod Laver, Stan Smith, John Newcombe, Ken Rosewall IN THEIR PRIME and what would you see? My hypothesis is that you would see champions equal to or better than those who play the game today. These individuals were driven to be the absolute best and they would not be intimidated by Rafa or Fed or Pete or Andre or anyone from the modern era.

Having watched everyone I've named (in person) except Tilden, Budge, and Hoad, I can make some comparisons. As I stated in another post, Laver at 36 was the quickest athlete I've ever seen. He had amazing hand-eye coordination and simply bludgeoned a tennis ball from both sides using a wood racquet. Give him a Babolat with modern strings? His game would fit perfectly in our time. He was ruthless on a tennis court.

Who is the best of all time? We can't possibly know the answer to this question. However, I would not bet against Laver in an "all-time" tournament (unless he met Rosewall in the final... then?).

It is fun to argue, though...

 

[hoodjem]

David Ferrer has 2 inches advantage over Laver, who is the top ten player. Yet, he doesn't power and big serve. All players today that are undersize lacks power, and that is a clear disadvantage for them. Did Laver have a bionic arm?

Laver's left forearm was quite oversized because of the ball-squeezing exercises Hopman had him doing for hours a day, every single day. I guess the answer to your question is a qualified yes.

Laver also did play a power game with a wooden racquet and gut strings, so I believe it requires no exaggeration to say that he could play a power game with poly strings and graphite frames of 100 sq. inches. (He himself has said that when playing with today's frames, it is so easy that he feels like it is cheating.)

 

[drakulie]

Again, very interesting discussion. How tall is Andre Agassi? Under six feet, if memory serves. How could he compete at the top level if the height argument is completely valid?

Because Agassi hit way harder than Laver ever did.

 

[drakulie]

Laver also did play a power game with a wooden racquet and gut strings, so I believe it requires no exaggeration to say that he could play a power game with poly strings and graphite frames of 100 sq. inches.

Natural Gut strings are way more powerful than poly strings.

 

[hoodjem]

Natural Gut strings are way more powerful than poly strings.

That's true (my elbow knows). But (as I am sure you know also) with poly you can take bigger swings at the ball and have it stay in--because the poly has less power. So, ironically, one can swing and hit harder (thus play more of a power game) with lower powered strings.

(Of course Laver would use a modern frame today.) Would Laver use poly or gut if he were playing today?

 

[drakulie]

^^Laver would most likely use a hybrid (gut in mains, poly in crosses).