Rod Laver has the right to the all time crown

[Rabbit]

Laver is no taller than 5'8"

Maybe now. Do you not see the picture? Geeze.....the lengths some folks will go to. Laver is not that much shorter than Sampras and that is a recent picture around 2 - 3 years ago. Sampras is listed at 6'1". The top of Laver's head, at 70-something (not to mention a joint replacement or two), is even with Sampras' eye. So you're actually going to say that Sampras has a 6" forehead?


To those who say a shorter player can't serve on the ATP, not so many years ago, Marcelo Rios played on the tour. Not only did he have a more than adequate serve, he also had one of if not the best return games in the business. His hands and talent were the likes you don't see that often; McEnroe, Laver? He lacked other qualities like singleness of purpose, drive, and givinig a crap and still he rose to #1 albeit briefly.

Point being, in today's game yes it helps to be taller....to a point. Too tall is not good either. But a talented player can make it and win regardless of height.

I have, more than once, posted the height of pros in Laver's day and today. There is a 3" difference. As procoach said, Stan Smith is 6'4" and Laver was 6 - 6 with him despite giving up 8 years. Arthur Ashe was 6'2" and Laver was 12 - 2 with him despite giving up 5 years.

There is no silver bullet in this discussion, but denigrating Laver's ability and discounting his achievements is Bravo Sierra. And what raises the ire of so many old farts around here is the "evidence" and "research" conducted by some whose only exposure to Laver is Youtube. Please.....

 

[urban]

To bring on Masters like tournaments and then compare the stats of Federer and Laver, is not such a good idea for Federer-Fans. Federer has 16, Laver has something around 45 (15 alone on open era, when he was 30 plus). If one-like some Fedfans do- counts those stats together, then Federer has 32 and Laver 66.

 

[Tina]

.......

Rabbit, It's kind of late now. Friday is a better day for all of us followed by an exciting weekend. Have a pleasant evening! -Tina

 

[Chopin]

To bring on Masters like tournaments and then compare the stats of Federer and Laver, is not such a good idea for Federer-Fans. Federer has 16, Laver has something around 45 (15 alone on open era, when he was 30 plus). If one-like some Fedfans do- counts those stats together, then Federer has 32 and Laver 66.

Yes, have your cake and eat it too.

As other posters have pointed out, the standards continually change to keep your man on top. What were the draw sizes in some of Laver's Australian Open wins, huh?

 

[drakulie]

The old guys can hit the ball. Don't kid yourself. I know this. I've seen it and been part of it first hand.

I have no doubt about this, as I've seen it first hand myself, including Harold Solomon who has his academy where I live. He could flat out hit.

I watched a 40 year old Jimmy Brown who was never ranked higher than 42 in the world in the 80's lay waste to Pete Sampras 5 or 6 times on the claycourts. Score was 6-0, 6-1 once or twice. Embarrassed Pete and Pete had a couple of tantrums because of it.

I find this extremely hard to believe. You're saying that a retired pro who was nothing to brag about on the pro tour when he was at his peak, did better aganst Pete, than the pros Pete played against on clay? I believe you are seriously exaggerating here.

 

[Chopin]

Maybe now. Do you not see the picture? Geeze.....the lengths some folks will go to. Laver is not that much shorter than Sampras and that is a recent picture around 2 - 3 years ago. Sampras is listed at 6'1". The top of Laver's head, at 70-something (not to mention a joint replacement or two), is even with Sampras' eye. So you're actually going to say that Sampras has a 6" forehead?


To those who say a shorter player can't serve on the ATP, not so many years ago, Marcelo Rios played on the tour. Not only did he have a more than adequate serve, he also had one of if not the best return games in the business. His hands and talent were the likes you don't see that often; McEnroe, Laver? He lacked other qualities like singleness of purpose, drive, and givinig a crap and still he rose to #1 albeit briefly.

Point being, in today's game yes it helps to be taller....to a point. Too tall is not good either. But a talented player can make it and win regardless of height.

I have, more than once, posted the height of pros in Laver's day and today. There is a 3" difference. As procoach said, Stan Smith is 6'4" and Laver was 6 - 6 with him despite giving up 8 years. Arthur Ashe was 6'2" and Laver was 12 - 2 with him despite giving up 5 years.

There is no silver bullet in this discussion, but denigrating Laver's ability and discounting his achievements is Bravo Sierra. And what raises the ire of so many old farts around here is the "evidence" and "research" conducted by some whose only exposure to Laver is Youtube. Please.....

I've watched entire matches of Laver. I watched one recently on the TTC in which Laver foot-faulted. I made a thread about it, but many of the Historians refused to participate. The guy was good, but not good enough that he'd be "dominating" anyone today. It's really quite simple.

Tell me, how tall is he? 6'0"?

Rabbit, I want you to get back to win a short player starts winning multiple slams and dominating the game again.

 

[CyBorg]

Yes, have your cake and eat it too.

As other posters have pointed out, the standards continually change to keep your man on top. What were the draw sizes in some of Laver's Australian Open wins, huh?

He's using the contemporary atp standard, you dunce.

 

[Chopin]

http://www2.tennisserver.com/images/photofeed/2007/hall-of-fame/070717/IMG_3841sm.jpg

Sampras is not even standing up straight. He's obviously at least at 5 inches taller than Laver though.

 

[Chopin]

He's using the contemporary atp standard, you dunce.

No, he's not. He's comparing rotten mangoes to fine papaya.

 

[piece]

Chopin knows better than a trained coach. Amazing.

If we're going to judge people's opinions on who the GOAT is based entirely on their tennis credentials then this debate is done and dusted. It's Federer by a landslide - almost every past pro/great/coach who has publicly commented on this issue has come down in favour of Federer.

Now I'm not saying this is the right way to go about it, but if you're going to invest expert opinions with so much credence, might as well carry that method to its logical conclusion...

 

[CyBorg]

http://www2.tennisserver.com/images/photofeed/2007/hall-of-fame/070717/IMG_3841sm.jpg

Sampras is not even standing up straight. He's obviously at least at 5 inches taller than Laver though.

Yeah, we get it. Laver is no good. You know better than everyone, including people who saw him play up close and coach tennis.

In case everyone missed it. Chopin knows better than everyone and defies all logic.

If the mods were doing their job you'd be thrown out of here a long time ago for this dumb trolling.

 

[Chopin]

If we're going to judge people's opinions on who the GOAT is based entirely on their tennis credentials then this debate is done and dusted. It's Federer by a landslide - almost every past pro/great/coach who has publicly commented on this issue has come down in favour of Federer.

Now I'm not saying this is the right way to go about it, but if you're going to invest expert opinions with so much credence, might as well carry that method to its logical conclusion...

I just don't get why these people are so convinced that Laver would dominate today, even if he had to play with a modern racquets, on the modern courts. It's asinine.

I'm not making threads arguing that Nadal would be dominating with wood.

...

Laver was a great champion of his day and his strokes and strategies were very effective for his day. However, the game has changed so much that I seriously doubt Laver would be troubling a prime Vincent Spadea, let alone Federer.

 

[CyBorg]

If we're going to judge people's opinions on who the GOAT is based entirely on their tennis credentials then this debate is done and dusted. It's Federer by a landslide - almost every past pro/great/coach who has publicly commented on this issue has come down in favour of Federer.

Now I'm not saying this is the right way to go about it, but if you're going to invest expert opinions with so much credence, might as well carry that method to its logical conclusion...

Um - exactly where were you when the logical fallacy of appeal to authority was committed by the likes of Chopin?

The irony is the double standard of appealing to authority when it's convenient, which I've made fairly explicit - though it went way over your head.

Obviously, no one's opinion is ironclad simply because of what they do. But am I to believe that you see some kind credence to the posts of a troll over that someone who actually puts some thought into what he posts?

Also, it's entirely untrue that "almost every past pro/great/coach who has publicly commented on this issue has come down in favour of Federer" - you have completely pulled this out of your rear end.

 

[Chopin]

Yeah, we get it. Laver is no good. You know better than everyone, including people who saw him play up close and coach tennis.

In case everyone missed it. Chopin knows better than everyone and defies all logic.

If the mods were doing their job you'd be thrown out of here a long time ago for this dumb trolling.

I've never said he was no good. He was great. He was the best of his day and I love watching him play.

I do think that he would not "dominate" players of today playing within the confines of today's tennis realities. It's not a particulary radical argument.

And if the mods throw me out, it only after they ban you for your rude attacks on posters.

Best,
Chopin

 

[CyBorg]

I just don't get why these people are so convinced that Laver would dominate today

No one is saying this, you dumb troll. The OP is not saying this. Did you read his post?

 

[CyBorg]

I've never said he was no good. He was great. He was the best of his day and I love watching him play.

I do think that he would not "dominate" players of today playing within the confines of today's tennis realities. It's not a particulary radical argument.

And if the mods throw me out, it only after they ban you for your rude attacks on posters.

Best,
Chopin

There's no argument. You have no argument. All that you do is throw a red herring and pretend that there is an argument.

You deserve all the attacks that you get. One can only hope that you're doing this on purpose to rile people up.

Alternatively, you can only be extremely and troublingly stupid.

 

[drakulie]

Yes, have your cake and eat it too.

As other posters have pointed out, the standards continually change to keep your man on top. What were the draw sizes in some of Laver's Australian Open wins, huh?

yes, the standards keep changing. fact is, that not until the open era began, did all the best players in the world play, or have the chance to compete in one cirtcuit. Before that, many of the best players in the world were playing amatuer, and many were playing Pro. So there was never a slam or pro tournament during Lavers time (62-68 ) that Laver faced a field with all the best players.


But they would have us believe, that only when Laver played, ironically, were all the best players competing against him in every draw. :roll:

But anyway, going by their logic, there was about 8 slams a year (amateur and pro combined). since everyone was awesome, and always faced the best players, even though this would be an impossibility.

One more thing, if Laver, whom I greatly admire, and acknowlegde his talent, played against the players today, he would get his ass kicked. For all the great technique he had, footwork, etc, his racquet head speed compared to today was super slow. He would not be able to attack or defend the shots of today with his swing.

 

[Chopin]

No one is saying this, you dumb troll. The OP is not saying this. Did you read his post?

Some people are saying this directly, and others have implied as much with their rhetoric. I have nothing against the OP, btw.

CyBorg: you actually believe that Laver could beat a guy like Federer on a regular basis playing today?

 

[CyBorg]

No, he's not. He's comparing rotten mangoes to fine papaya.

It's simple and obvious logic. Or it should be obvious.

Any adjustment to account for masters-quality events favours Laver. This is all he is saying.

The adjustment is only necessary if one is interested in applying contemporary atp tour-based abstraction.

Considering that people are willing to do it and base their arguments on it, urban is correctly saying that their argument falls flat when considering the adjustment for masters-equivalent events.

I know that you don't get it. You're too dumb to get it.

 

[Chopin]

It's simple and obvious logic. Or it should be obvious.

Any adjustment to account for masters-quality events favours Laver. This is all he is saying.

The adjustment is only necessary if one is interested in applying contemporary atp tour-based abstraction.

Considering that people are willing to do it and base their arguments on it, urban is correctly saying that their argument falls flat when considering the adjustment for masters-equivalent events.

I know that you don't get it. You're too dumb to get it.

Yes, and what I was pointing out was that counting these other pro-open era tournaments towards Laver's slam count would be like applying Federer's Masters tournaments (which are a lot more competitive and have larger draws than many of Laver's Masters) as slams. I'm not arguing that it actually makes sense to do so.

 

[ProCoach]

If we're going to judge people's opinions on who the GOAT is based entirely on their tennis credentials then this debate is done and dusted. It's Federer by a landslide - almost every past pro/great/coach who has publicly commented on this issue has come down in favour of Federer.

Now I'm not saying this is the right way to go about it, but if you're going to invest expert opinions with so much credence, might as well carry that method to its logical conclusion...

Please realize that most of the coaches you speak of are younger.

 

[CyBorg]

Some people are saying this directly, and others have implied as much with their rhetoric. I have nothing against the OP, btw.

CyBorg: you actually believe that Laver could beat a guy like Federer on a regular basis playing today?

You are pretty delusional. I am not seeing any people imply anything of the sort.

Any argument about a hypothetical 'time machine' matchup involving Laver and a contemporary player is entirely irrelevant.

People admire Laver for his skill and impressive domination over his peers. And yes, people do believe that his accomplishments are every bit and possibly more impressive than Federer's.

It has nothing to do with the hypothetical you project upon this thread. Please go project your insecurities elsewhere.

 

[CyBorg]

Yes, and what I was pointing out was that counting these other pro-open era tournaments towards Laver's slam count would be like applying Federer's Masters tournaments (which are a lot more competitive and have larger draws than many of Laver's Masters) as slams. I'm not arguing that it actually makes sense to do so.

Nor is he. If you actually bothered to read and interpret.

 

[Chopin]

yes, the standards keep changing. fact is, that not until the open era began, did all the best players in the world play, or have the chance to compete in one cirtcuit. Before that, many of the best players in the world were playing amatuer, and many were playing Pro. So there was never a slam or pro tournament during Lavers time (62-68 ) that Laver faced a field with all the best players.


But they would have us believe, that only when Laver played, ironically, were all the best players competing against him in every draw. :roll:

But anyway, going by their logic, there was about 8 slams a year (amateur and pro combined). since everyone was awesome, and always faced the best players, even though this would be an impossibility.

One more thing, if Laver, whom I greatly admire, and acknowlegde his talent, played against the players today, he would get his ass kicked. For all the great technique he had, footwork, etc, his racquet head speed compared to today was super slow. He would not be able to attack or defend the shots of today with his swing.

Agreed. I don't think there is anything as a GOAT, to be honest, and I don't see why all these posters want to keep Laver on top by any means possible. Isn't it enough to say he was the best of his era and that Federer is the best of his? Why do we have to keep on comparing eras that can't be compared and styles of tennis that are so different?

 

[Chopin]

You are pretty delusional. I am not seeing any people imply anything of the sort.

Any argument about a hypothetical 'time machine' matchup involving Laver and a contemporary player is entirely irrelevant.

People admire Laver for his skill and impressive domination over his peers. And yes, people do believe that his accomplishments are every bit and possibly more impressive than Federer's.

It has nothing to do with the hypothetical you project upon this thread. Please go project your insecurities elsewhere.

CyBorg, old buddy, the ProCoach mentions Laver playing Federer today.

 

[Chopin]

Please realize that most of the coaches you speak of are younger. Period. Laver is a 70 plus year old man. Most of the generation that was older than him when he was playing has moved on to the greener pastures. I know very few professional coaches older than 60 who are still part of the game. Most of the people asked are the ones of my generation and younger. Federer is a great player. Will he ever win a calendar year Grand Slam? No. Never. He has one French Open. Laver has two calendar year Grand Slams and another one in 1967 in the pro league. 5 years where he was not allowed to compete in the actual Grand Slams because they were for amatuers. As all of us know, we will be able to argue this point until hell freezes over and then we still will be jawing. I say a best 3 of 5 paper, rock, scissors between Laver and Federer to see who takes home the trophy!!!!!! Oh yes, and Chopin, I will ask Stan about his thoughts on the subject. He very well may side with Federer and he may side with Laver. However, something tells me he will find a way to be neutral on the subject. Stay tuned. Hopefully he will be at practice tomorrow. I will let you know and I promise to be honest on his answer.........

Thanks for your reply, good sir! It's great to have you on the boards. Please don't mind the bickering around here: it's the norm.

 

[CyBorg]

CyBorg, old buddy, the ProCoach mentions Laver playing Federer today.

Quote him. Taking things out of context is your speciality.

 

[Chopin]

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.

This one is for you, CyBorg. Anyways, I don't want to drive ProCoach into our argument, as he seems like such a nice guy and a great poster to have around.

There is still hope for people like you and me, old friend. We can make peace, if you desire it.

Best,
Chopin

 

[piece]

Um - exactly where were you when the logical fallacy of appeal to authority was committed by the likes of Chopin?

The irony is the double standard of appealing to authority when it's convenient, which I've made fairly explicit - though it went way over your head.

Obviously, no one's opinion is ironclad simply because of what they do. But am I to believe that you see some kind credence to the posts of a troll over that someone who actually puts some thought into what he posts?

Also, it's entirely untrue that "almost every past pro/great/coach who has publicly commented on this issue has come down in favour of Federer" - you have completely pulled this out of your rear end.

Borg, Sampras, Mcenroe, Mcenroe, Roche, Kramer, Austin, Blake, Roddick, Murray, Nadal, Soderling, Agassi, billie jean king, santoro, bolletieri, Becker, shriver.

All of them have said Federer's the greatest ever. Even Laver has come close to saying it. He said "Federer could be the greatest player of all time".

And I'm sorry, I didn't realise it was my responsibility to point out every poster's reasoning flaws in this entire forum. The rationale behind your comment was inconsistent with your apparent opinions on this subject, I was just pointing that out.

Oh, and just so you know, there is no such thing as the "logical fallacy of appeal to authority". It's an informal fallacy. And informal fallacies are not to be dismissed as poor reasoning in all circumstances. For example, academic papers cite authorities for the claims they make and there is not necessarily anything fallacious about this. I think citing tennis experts is typically a well justified appeal to authority.

 

[ProCoach]

CyBorg, old buddy, the ProCoach mentions Laver playing Federer today.

Hypothetically and both being the same age and same equipment if it were to happen, and again, hypothetically. As for the paper, rock, scissors tournament between the two of them, it could happen. However, that Laver fist and forearm would be one helluva paper, rock, or set of scissors! Wow. This definitely got everyone's blood flowing! And, by the way, someone questioned my honesty on the Jimmy Brown vs. Pete Sampras score. I am sorry , but it was 2001 when it happened, so Jimmy was 37 and Pete was much younger. It happened that way 5 or 6 times on the clay courts of Saddlebrook. Pete had a serious hissy after the 0,1 drubbing and fired a ball at the fence that hit right in front of a little girls face and caused her to cry. No apology came from his mouth either.

 

[piece]

Please realize that most of the coaches you speak of are younger. Period. Laver is a 70 plus year old man. Most of the generation that was older than him when he was playing has moved on to the greener pastures. I know very few professional coaches older than 60 who are still part of the game. Most of the people asked are the ones of my generation and younger. Federer is a great player. Will he ever win a calendar year Grand Slam? No. Never. He has one French Open. Laver has two calendar year Grand Slams and another one in 1967 in the pro league. 5 years where he was not allowed to compete in the actual Grand Slams because they were for amatuers. As all of us know, we will be able to argue this point until hell freezes over and then we still will be jawing. I say a best 3 of 5 paper, rock, scissors between Laver and Federer to see who takes home the trophy!!!!!! Oh yes, and Chopin, I will ask Stan about his thoughts on the subject. He very well may side with Federer and he may side with Laver. However, something tells me he will find a way to be neutral on the subject. Stay tuned. Hopefully he will be at practice tomorrow. I will let you know and I promise to be honest on his answer.........

Fair enough. But as you must surely realise, being younger isn't necessarily a barrier to declaring laver the greatest over Federer. You, for instance, seem to favour Laver slightly and are only 37.

Also, Borg played with Laver and he gives it to Federer. The Mcenroe's give it to Federer and they would have seen Laver play. Roche and Kramer give it to Federer, both played with Laver. Billie Jean King gives it to Federer too, she would've seen Laver play. That's a fair few experts with big reputations from around Laver's era. Can you point to any from the same approximate generation unequivocally calling Laver the best?

 

[Tina]

Pete had a serious hissy after the 0,1 drubbing and fired a ball at the fence that hit right in front of a little girls face and caused her to cry. No apology came from his mouth either.

That's not very nice of him. Thanks for sharing, Procoach.

 

[drakulie]

Federer is a great player. Will he ever win a calendar year Grand Slam? No. Never.

I agree, Fed may never win a calendar slam, but since he is still playing, there is always a possibility. To add, if he or any other pro of today were to do it, it would absolutely trump what Laver did, being they would have to do it on 3 different surfaces, vs. Lavers 2.

Now, did Laver ever win a calendar slam on 3 or 4 different surfaces, like Fed had to face? No, and he will never do it. Ever.

Laver has two calendar year Grand Slams

Yes, and the first one (62), the "Pros" weren't allowed to compete as you keep pointing out in your argument to put Laver on a higher platform. or does this not apply to his 62 slam???

Now tell me, what year has Fed played in during his career, where he had to face amatuers for the entire year???

and another one in 1967 in the pro league.

OK, so in 1967, I suppose you are trying to suggest there was 8 slams (4 amateur, and 4 pro). Which one is it, and please do tell which one had the best players, or is it s given that the best players were all pro by this time, which would then mean anyone who won a amatuer slam in 67, should be dicredited???

 

[Chopin]

Hypothetically and both being the same age and same equipment if it were to happen, and again, hypothetically. As for the paper, rock, scissors tournament between the two of them, it could happen. However, that Laver fist and forearm would be one helluva paper, rock, or set of scissors! Wow. This definitely got everyone's blood flowing! And, by the way, someone questioned my honesty on the Jimmy Brown vs. Pete Sampras score. I am sorry , but it was 2001 when it happened, so Jimmy was 37 and Pete was much younger. It happened that way 5 or 6 times on the clay courts of Saddlebrook. Pete had a serious hissy after the 0,1 drubbing and fired a ball at the fence that hit right in front of a little girls face and caused her to cry. No apology came from his mouth either.

OK, so just to be clear, Pete was 30 then.

 

[ProCoach]

Fair enough. But as you must surely realise, being younger isn't necessarily a barrier to declaring laver the greatest over Federer. You, for instance, seem to favour Laver slightly and are only 37.

Also, Borg played with Laver and he gives it to Federer. The Mcenroe's give it to Federer and they would have seen Laver play. Roche and Kramer give it to Federer, both played with Laver. Billie Jean King gives it to Federer too, she would've seen Laver play. That's a fair few experts with big reputations from around Laver's era. Can you point to any from the same approximate generation unequivocally calling Laver the best?

LOL! Most of them are dead. I haven't seen where those guys have said that about Federer. I know on the ATP website that Laver is call possibly the greatest of all time in his biography. I've heard McEnroe say that about both players. Roche and Kramer would surprise me hearing them say that. Laver murdered Roche too many times. That would be quite a surprise to me.......

 

[CyBorg]

This one is for you, CyBorg. Anyways, I don't want to drive ProCoach into our argument, as he seems like such a nice guy and a great poster to have around.

I don't know exactly what the argument is, whether he's adjusting for certain variables, or what kinds of conditions are implied. But it takes a lot of cherrypicking to take someone's apparent defense of a player's abilities and twist that to imply a 'time machine' argument. Not to mention ignoring his other points that have absolutely nothing to do with some hypothesizing.

You're just looking to butt heads over nothing.

 

[JoshDragon]

Fair enough. But as you must surely realise, being younger isn't necessarily a barrier to declaring laver the greatest over Federer. You, for instance, seem to favour Laver slightly and are only 37.

Also, Borg played with Laver and he gives it to Federer. The Mcenroe's give it to Federer and they would have seen Laver play. Roche and Kramer give it to Federer, both played with Laver. Billie Jean King gives it to Federer too, she would've seen Laver play. That's a fair few experts with big reputations from around Laver's era. Can you point to any from the same approximate generation unequivocally calling Laver the best?

It's hard to call someone the GOAT, if you've never seen them play. There's some footage of Laver out there but it's limited. Not like with Roger, where there's lots of videos and you can watch him year by year to determine which years were his best years and why he played great.

Laver, is just not as well known, especially among the current generation of tennis players, who may never have seen him to begin with.

 

[CyBorg]

Borg, Sampras, Mcenroe, Mcenroe, Roche, Kramer, Austin, Blake, Roddick, Murray, Nadal, Soderling, Agassi, billie jean king, santoro, bolletieri, Becker, shriver.

All of them have said Federer's the greatest ever. Even Laver has come close to saying it. He said "Federer could be the greatest player of all time".

Nah, you're misleading. Most of these people have not said anything of the sort. Some have said one thing and then turned back and said another. Most of them were at most vague.

This list is not representative of anything. You have not done any research on the matter. You're picking out names out of sensationalist media articles. No more.

Laver himself has been very careful with his wording and I have a number of quotes from him where he is extremely careful not to single out a 'greatest of all time'.

And I'm sorry, I didn't realise it was my responsibility to point out every poster's reasoning flaws in this entire forum. The rationale behind your comment was inconsistent with your apparent opinions on this subject, I was just pointing that out.

Irony falls on deaf ears and small brains.

Oh, and just so you know, there is no such thing as the "logical fallacy of appeal to authority". It's an informal fallacy. And informal fallacies are not to be dismissed as poor reasoning in all circumstances. For example, academic papers cite authorities for the claims they make and there is not necessarily anything fallacious about this. I think citing tennis experts is typically a well justified appeal to authority.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority

I have written academic papers. Citing sources does not prove an argument. The point of citing sources is to refer to an argument, not a person.

So when you refer to someone like Soderling to back up your weak non-argument you are appealing to authority.

These are basics that every person should understand before engaging in an argument.

 

[ProCoach]

OK, so just to be clear, Pete was 30 then.

That would be about right. Jimmy may have been 35, about to be 36, as the French was coming up and I think Pete was 29. God knows I haven't seen either one of those guys in so long it's hard to recall. Jimmy was born in April of '65 I think as he was around the same age as my coach Lawson Duncan. Pete was a year older than me. Honestly though, Jimmy was laying waste to Mardy Fish and James Blake when they first turned pro as well and they were quite young. He embarrassed them quite a few times. The guy could flat play and, still, his highest ranking was 42 in the world.

 

[JoshDragon]

That would be about right. Jimmy may have been 35, about to be 36, as the French was coming up and I think Pete was 29. God knows I haven't seen either one of those guys in so long it's hard to recall. Jimmy was born in April of '65 I think as he was around the same age as my coach Lawson Duncan. Pete was a year older than me. Honestly though, Jimmy was laying waste to Mardy Fish and James Blake when they first turned pro as well and they were quite young. He embarrassed them quite a few times. The guy could flat play and, still, his highest ranking was 42 in the world.

Some players mature faster than others. He would not have done that to Nadal, Becker, or Borg for that matter.

Just curious, when did you start watching tennis?

 

[ProCoach]

Give Laver a break! We still call Pele the best of all time don't we? God knows he's been gone from the game of soccer for years. However, at 50 years old, he made a one time return and played in a major club game and scored 3 goals! Seriously, I remember reading the article. It should be out there somewhere if someone tried to find it. Don't count the legends out.

 

[piece]

LOL! Most of them are dead. I haven't seen where those guys have said that about Federer. I know on the ATP website that Laver is call possibly the greatest of all time in his biography. I've heard McEnroe say that about both players. Roche and Kramer would surprise me hearing them say that. Laver murdered Roche too many times. That would be quite a surprise to me.......

I couldn't find a direct quote from Roche, which I thought I'd seen. But at this link http://www.goroger.net/news/2007/0701jan.html near the bottom of the page in a herald sun article the reporter states that Roche has said Roger is the best he's ever seen, even above Hoad and Laver.

And Kramer said: "I thought Ellsworth Vines and Don Budge were pretty good. And Gonzalez and Hoad could play a bit, too, but I have never seen anyone play the game better than Federer. He serves well and has a great half-volley. I've never known anyone who can do as many things on a court as he can. "

Linke: http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Roger_Federer

 

[drakulie]

Don't count the legends out.

We won't. Oh, and this Jimmy guy, obviously doesn't play anymore because he would be bored double bageling every player today, even though he was only 42 in the world in his prime 20 years ago. Imagine what the # 24 player in the World back then like Pablo Arraya (whom I know), would do to these guys today. he wouldn't lose a point. :roll:

 

[ProCoach]

Some players mature faster than others. He would not have done that to Nadal, Becker, or Borg for that matter.

Just curious, when did you start watching tennis?

I remember the first match I ever watched was Becker vs. Curren in the Wimbledon final of 1985. I was 12.

 

[drakulie]

I couldn't find a direct quote from Roche, which I thought I'd seen. But at this link http://www.goroger.net/news/2007/0701jan.html near the bottom of the page in a herald sun article the reporter states that Roche has said Roger is the best he's ever seen, even above Hoad and Laver.

And Kramer said: "I thought Ellsworth Vines and Don Budge were pretty good. And Gonzalez and Hoad could play a bit, too, but I have never seen anyone play the game better than Federer. He serves well and has a great half-volley. I've never known anyone who can do as many things on a court as he can. "

Linke: http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Roger_Federer

These guys are too old. Only 37 year old coaches whom have never seen Laver play could determine who is the best (laver), even though he never saw him play in his prime.

 

[ProCoach]

We won't. Oh, and this Jimmy guy, obviously doesn't play anymore because he would be bored double bageling every player today, even though he was only 42 in the world in his prime 20 years ago. Imagine what the # 24 player in the World back then like Pablo Arraya (whom I know), would do to these guys today. he wouldn't lose a point. :roll:

Quite the condescending guy aren't you? Is stringing racquets your profession? I would stick with it and leave the tennis to others......

 

[piece]

Nah, you're misleading. Most of these people have not said anything of the sort. Some have said one thing and then turned back and said another. Most of them were at most vague.

This list is not representative of anything. You have not done any research on the matter. You're picking out names out of sensationalist media articles. No more.

Laver himself has been very careful with his wording and I have a number of quotes from him where he is extremely careful not to single out a 'greatest of all time'.



Irony falls on deaf ears and small brains.



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority

I have written academic papers. Citing sources does not prove an argument. The point of citing sources is to refer to an argument, not a person.

So when you refer to someone like Soderling to back up your weak non-argument you are appealing to authority.

These are basics that every person should understand before engaging in an argument.

Read this link: http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Roger_Federer

It has Borg, Mcenroe, Kramer, King etc. stating unequivocally those opinions I have attributed to them.

Citing sources in academic papers is citing authority, and the person is often (though not always) an important part of this. This is why, for example, wikipedia is not an acceptable academic source - it's article writers are often not appropriate authorities. I admit that I am appealing to authority, but all I'm saying is that it is not always illegitimate to do so, especially when the authority being appealed to is an expert authority.

Appeal to authority is an informal fallacy. Informal fallacies are fallacies of inductive reasoning. To refer you back to wikipedia " It is controversial whether a logic of induction is even possible." (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inductive_reasoning)
There are numerous problems with a logical treatment of induction, such as Hume's famous problem of induction.

It is for these reasons that I pointed out that Appeal to Authority should not strictly be called a logical fallacy, as it is a fallacy of induction and induction is not logic, in the strictest sense.

 

[piece]

It's hard to call someone the GOAT, if you've never seen them play. There's some footage of Laver out there but it's limited. Not like with Roger, where there's lots of videos and you can watch him year by year to determine which years were his best years and why he played great.

Laver, is just not as well known, especially among the current generation of tennis players, who may never have seen him to begin with.

But my point was that of those experts who have seen him and Federer play and who have commented on who's the greatest of all time, I'm only aware of them coming down on Federer's side. I was wondering if he had examples of experts in a similar position who had, instead, come down on Laver's side. Bud Collins might be one, not sure if he's explicitly called Laver the greatest though. I think he's a bit of a Pancho fan.

 

[drakulie]

Quite the condescending guy aren't you? Is stringing racquets your profession? I would stick with it and leave the tennis to others......

yeah, but at least I don't apply double standards when making an argument. Now tell me, cause you have yet to answer the question.......

you've already pointed out, Laver would have won more slams had he been able to play them, but unfortunately turned pro. So, what does this do to his 1962 slam, being there were Pros at the time who weren't allowed to play in 1962 Grand Slams???????

Also, I saw Solomon who reached number 4 in the world, and played in the French Open finals, play against a guy a few years back and he lost in two competitive sets. The guy he played was 400??? in the world. Now, you're still going to say that this Jmmy guy (42 in the world 20+ years ago) beat Pete Sampras, one of the best players of all time, and still playing at a high level in 2001, 6-0, 6-1???

yeah, OK. I'm going to go back to stringing racquets, while you dream up some other BS.

 

[Chopin]

That would be about right. Jimmy may have been 35, about to be 36, as the French was coming up and I think Pete was 29. God knows I haven't seen either one of those guys in so long it's hard to recall. Jimmy was born in April of '65 I think as he was around the same age as my coach Lawson Duncan. Pete was a year older than me. Honestly though, Jimmy was laying waste to Mardy Fish and James Blake when they first turned pro as well and they were quite young. He embarrassed them quite a few times. The guy could flat play and, still, his highest ranking was 42 in the world.

I see. It says a lot about the depth of the game, I'd say. Still did the guy ever win a title? I can't help but think Sampras would be the one serving the bagels most of the time! Certainly Sampras beat many great champions from Jimmy's day.