Roger Federer is not the Greatest of All Time.

[wangs78]

The thing has pushed the envelope in tennis over time has been technology. Each succeeding generation uses technology that allows them to push the threshold for speed or power. I saw they implement strict equipment rules in tennis NOW (on materials used for racquets and strings, on weight etc.) so that the game doesn't change so much. I think some change is fine. But the current game is significantly different from the game played until the mid 80s. I think from mid 80s through late 90s, the game hasn't changed THAT much. Racquets are still largely made of some kind of graphite however strings have changed a lot, allowing for players to take huge cuts at the ball. But still, I think the best players from the 90s could probably be at least competitive against today's top players.

 

[BullDogTennis]

id go as far as say. you take federer back in time, give him a wood racquet, let him play his game (no continental forehand, and ONLY slice backhand) hed kill all those players.

 

[ambro]

Sorry Ambro...just can't agree. As I said, "all things being equal" which they are not I know....but you have no idea what kind of athlete Laver was. I also said he would give Fed all he wanted not that he would beat him. It simply is not a "given" Fed would crush Laver with equal equipment. Please go do some homework and listen to what people who have seen both players have to say.

That's fine with me. Opinions are fine, but i just think that athletes get better and better every year, every generation. At some point, it catches up and there is a huge difference. This isn't just tennis, either. In all sports, this type of thing happens. Take a look at the NHL, for example. Goalies, specifically. If a current goalie, even the worst one in the NHL, played back in the 1960s, he wouldn't get scored on. Now, admittedly, a lot of it has to do with equipment, but still. They are better athletes. I'll also say that "all things being equal" argements are futile to begin with, but for the sake of the argument, people are just better athletes now than when Laver was playing. That's really all there is to it.

 

[EPaps]

Roger Federer is not the Greatest of All Time.

He isn't... the game is too different and there are too many variables when you stack him up against greats like Laver.

He is, however, the most accomplished player of all time, at least for the moment. I wish that all these threads about a GOAT and whatnot would get the terminology right. There will never be a greatest of all time because the discussion is far too subjective. We can, however, compare numbers.

You've had too much

 

[JeMar]

You didn't have enough

 

[EPaps]

You didn't have enough

nice try man.

 

[hoodjem]

He has the most slams, a career slam, and the most weeks at #1...what more do you want for him to be GOAT? Let me know, thanks.

How about a Grand Slam?

You're welcome.

 

[hoodjem]

That's fine with me. Opinions are fine, but i just think that athletes get better and better every year, every generation. At some point, it catches up and there is a huge difference.

Well, I guess the GOAT has yet to be born.

 

[S H O W S T O P P E R !]

What is hard about comparing to previous generations??

It's hard because over time, tennis has evolved. The rules have relatively been unchanged since its inception (major exception being the tiebreak) while the entire game has evolved around it. Wood rackets to steel to the graphite sticks. The surfaces have changed in composition and speed over the years and athletes are better. If there is a GOAT (and there is none,) then it can't be any recent player like Fed or Sampras because they had better tech to use rather than the wood players in their rackets.

Now, I'm not trying to bash Fed. His career has been brilliant and he is one of the greatest players to step on a court. But he isn't the best. The best player has to be the best in EVERY WAY POSSIBLE, which means a GOAT has to be able to dominate with wood, steel, graphite rackets, etc. on a vast variety of surfaces (fast/slow grass, f/s hardcourts, f/s clay, carpet, etc.) No one has ever done that and no one ever will.

Finally, I'll make one last argument: who said the GOAT has to be a pro player? What if there's a guy somewhere who is better than any GOAT candidate but no one's ever heard of him? What if he didn't want to play professionally even though he had the skills to?

 

[Bilbo]

That's why we look at numbers and surfaces and the level of competition because it's the only way to avoid being subjective. Federer has some very stiff, mean, talented, comeptition to deal with. Much much tougher than Laver's era and Fed has won all 4 Slams. Something the great Sampras could not do. I admire Rod Laver, but I really believe the players are far more talented nowadays then Laver's era, just take a look at some of the ole film clips. You can't honestly say that Laver would have been in the top 10 even. So many players can blow Laver off the court, it would be embarrasing. I agree that Federer is the GOAT for right now, but his reign may be for a long time.

Although i agree that federer's competition is better than laver's, it's definently not tougher than Sampras'. Hell, i'd have goran ivanisevic over any of today's players with the exception of... Federer and Nadal. When we look at the players who won slams in Sampras' era the list of the ones that have won in today's game are as follows: Federer, Nadal, Djokovic... um... Safin if u wanna count him, and Hewitt too (both of those guys are past their prime). I mean, here is the list of Sampras' contemparies who won slams off the top of my head:

Goran Ivanisevic
Andre Agassi
Jim Courier
Richard Krajicek
Sergi Bruguera
Gustavo Kuerten
Patrick Rafter
Michael Chang
Yevgeny Kafelnikov
Petr Korda
Thomas Muster
etc. etc.

I understand that the list can go even farther than that, however this is off the top of my head, without surfing the web. If we strictly look at the stats Sampras' competition was far steeper than Federer's.

 

[CyBorg]

Infidel! Jihad!

 

[jimbo333]

Although i agree that federer's competition is better than laver's, it's definently not tougher than Sampras'. Hell, i'd have goran ivanisevic over any of today's players with the exception of... Federer and Nadal. When we look at the players who won slams in Sampras' era the list of the ones that have won in today's game are as follows: Federer, Nadal, Djokovic... um... Safin if u wanna count him, and Hewitt too (both of those guys are past their prime). I mean, here is the list of Sampras' contemparies who won slams off the top of my head:

Goran Ivanisevic
Andre Agassi
Jim Courier
Richard Krajicek
Sergi Bruguera
Gustavo Kuerten
Patrick Rafter
Michael Chang
Yevgeny Kafelnikov
Petr Korda
Thomas Muster
etc. etc.

I understand that the list can go even farther than that, however this is off the top of my head, without surfing the web. If we strictly look at the stats Sampras' competition was far steeper than Federer's.

I'm really hoping you are joking, either way this is really funny

By the way LAVER is the GOAT!!!

 

[BounceHitBounceHit]

It seems to me that durability and consistency have to be taken strongly in to account when one considers a 'GOAT' argument. On these fronts FedEx has NO peer.

Why did so many other players win Slams in Sampras' era? Because he couldn't DOMINATE them the way Fed has his (EQUALLY TALENTED) competition. And part of that is mental.

Fed is the GOAT. Ask Pete Sampras, who said so this week during an interview with CNN.

BHBH

 

[jimbo333]

This is a good point, has Federer made at least 20 Grand Slam Semis or better in a row? Or something impressive like that! If so that is great consistency, but only for 5 years. He needs to do it for another 2 or 3 to be up there with LAVER the true GOAT, in my opinion

 

[bakla]

Let's face it guys, back in Laver's day they had to stuff the draws with club players just to make 128. The first week of the tournament was a walkover.

Even today's qualifiers would have a shot at title if they played back then.

No contest, Fed is the GOAT!

 

[thalivest]

The top 100 probably wasnt as deep in Laver's day but his top 10 competition was far superior to either Federer or Sampras.

 

[MT319]

In terms of everyone citing the equipment circa 1960’s as a disadvantage compared to the equipment nowadays it goes both ways…sure the wooden framed smaller head racquets are more difficult to hit a ball with than todays racquets but Laver’s “inferior equipment” was also only capable of hitting the ball lets say 90mph on serves and 60 mph on groundstrokes compared to the 130+ today on serves and 90-100 mph groundstrokes …due to that it puts a lesser premium on athleticism in Laver’s day compared to today’s game and at greater ball speeds (aside from obviously being much more difficult to play the game at higher ball speeds on the same sized court) it also causes the different surfaces to have a more significant impact on the ball than would be the case in lavers generation (not to mention laver’s generation played 3 of 4 majors on grass and none on hardcourts) so sure playing with wooden racquets and smaller frames are more difficult than playing with todays racquets in terms of just raw ball striking capacity, but today’s racquets also allow for much greater ball speed and spin in today’s game compared to previous generations which has it’s own sets of inherent difficulties therefore Laver’s “equipment inferiority” has both it’s advantages as well as disadvantages.

 

[bakla]

The top 100 probably wasnt as deep in Laver's day but his top 10 competition was far superior to either Federer or Sampras.

Haha, no.

The top 10 of Laver's era would struggle to make the top 100 today.

 

[thalivest]

Haha, no.

The top 10 of Laver's era would struggle to make the top 100 today.

Yeah the likes of Ken Rosewall, Roy Emerson, Pancho Gonzales, John Newcombe, Arthur Ashe, Stan Smith, woud all struggle to even make the top 100 today. :roll: They would also never stack up to some of the amazing names you pulled from the Sampras era like Kafelnikov, Chang, grass/carpet only players like Krajicek and Ivanisevic, clay only players like Bruguera and Muster, Rafter, young Kuerten, Korda. :lol:

 

[JeMar]

Although i agree that federer's competition is better than laver's, it's definently not tougher than Sampras'. Hell, i'd have goran ivanisevic over any of today's players with the exception of... Federer and Nadal. When we look at the players who won slams in Sampras' era the list of the ones that have won in today's game are as follows: Federer, Nadal, Djokovic... um... Safin if u wanna count him, and Hewitt too (both of those guys are past their prime). I mean, here is the list of Sampras' contemparies who won slams off the top of my head:

Goran Ivanisevic
Andre Agassi
Jim Courier
Richard Krajicek
Sergi Bruguera
Gustavo Kuerten
Patrick Rafter
Michael Chang
Yevgeny Kafelnikov
Petr Korda
Thomas Muster
etc. etc.

I understand that the list can go even farther than that, however this is off the top of my head, without surfing the web. If we strictly look at the stats Sampras' competition was far steeper than Federer's.

It's cool that those guys won slams and all, but it might also mean that Sampras wasn't as dominant as Federer and Nadal. It might speak to Federer's greatness that he and one more person were able to have an iron grip on practically all slams between 2004 and 2009.

 

[jimbo333]

Let's face it guys, back in Laver's day they had to stuff the draws with club players just to make 128. The first week of the tournament was a walkover.

Even today's qualifiers would have a shot at title if they played back then.

No contest, Fed is the GOAT!

And what about:-
Sitting down and having a 2 minute break when changing ends.
Taking 30 seconds between points.
Having Graphite racquets.
Having training team.
Having a dietician.
Having computer analysis of opponents.
etc etc etc.
It's easier now for sure!!!

LAVER is the GOAT

Federer may be in the future, once he has retired, we will see!!!

 

[imalil2gangsta4u]

Most accomplished of all time? yes

Best of all time? you can argue yes and no

 

[thalivest]

It's cool that those guys won slams and all, but it might also mean that Sampras wasn't as dominant as Federer and Nadal. It might speak to Federer's greatness that he and one more person were able to have an iron grip on practically all slams between 2004 and 2009.

Exactly. Those arent amazing players. Chang is a weaker version of prime Hewitt. Kafelnikov is a Davydenko clone of sorts. Rafter is a lightweight serve/volleyer who was a total journeyman until his mid 20s. Krajicek and Ivanisevic are Roddick clones with more natural talent but weaker minds and weaker health. Bruguera was an absolutely nothing outside of his favorite turf, couldnt even made a single quarterfinal in his career at any of the other 3 slams. One would think this was a field of legends the way some people go on, LOL!

 

[bakla]

And what about:-
Sitting down and having a 2 minute break when changing ends.
Taking 30 seconds between points.
Having Graphite racquets.
Having training team.
Having a dietician.
Having computer analysis of opponents.
etc etc etc.
It's easier now for sure!!!

LAVER is the GOAT

Federer may be in the future, once he has retired, we will see!!!

That's some backwards logic. So because Laver rolled outta bed and went out for a quick beatdown of a club player he'd never heard of somehow he had a tougher time than today's players?

All of those things you listed must be done by all players just to even stand a chance! The amount of training done in one week just to make it into today's top 100 is more work than any of those old casual players put in over an entire year.

We're talking about a bunch of 5'7", cardigan-wearing, country club, weekend warriors against today's full-time, 52 weeks a year professional athletes.

Sorry, it's no contest.

 

[Bilbo]

I'm really hoping you are joking, either way this is really funny

By the way LAVER is the GOAT!!!

alright, that's all good and well, but say what u want, i'd take ivanisevic in his prime over djokovic, murray, or any of those other top ten suckers in todays game (except federer and nadal).Although u say that the players i mentioned only specialized in one surface, they still one more grand slams than todays players who i suppose u would consider "rennaissance men" today like andy roddick or novak djokovic :lol:. You also conveniently overlooked the fact that Ivanisevic made it to 3 french open quarterfinals,and lost to the likes of Thomas Muster, Jim Courier, and (my boy) Alberto Berasategui. Each of whom would own any of today's clay court specialist like Nicolas Almagro, or um... Nikolay Davydenko:lol: (except Nadal). Hey, it was a nice ran though...

 

[nfor304]

totally agree. In fact I'm willing to bet that even a strong 5.5 player of today would be able to take on Laver and players from older generations. Tennis in today's world has evolved amongst players, they have access to strong coaching, better health choices, improved fitness routines, in-depth analysis of what to play, when to play and how to play.

I know a few 5.5s and they are nowhere near as impressive as this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SptdffCeVmM
And thats a 36 year old laver

He has the most slams, a career slam, and the most weeks at #1...what more do you want for him to be GOAT? Let me know, thanks.

He has not had the most weeks at number 1. Connors, Lendl and Sampras all had more weeks at number 1.


Whats with the height argument? tall people DID exist 30-40 years ago, and they DID play tennis. And I dont see Karlovic or Isner dominating the tour today, and by this height arguments logic, they should be.

Fed cant be called the greatest of all time but he's definately a one of the main contenders

 

[JeMar]

That's some backwards logic. So because Laver rolled outta bed and went out for a quick beatdown of a club player he'd never heard of somehow he had a tougher time than today's players?

All of those things you listed must be done by all players just to even stand a chance! The amount of training done in one week just to make it into today's top 100 is more work than any of those old casual players put in over an entire year.

We're talking about a bunch of 5'7", cardigan-wearing, country club, weekend warriors against today's full-time, 52 weeks a year professional athletes.

Sorry, it's no contest.

Sir Federer would like a word with you.

 

[jimbo333]

That's some backwards logic. So because Laver rolled outta bed and went out for a quick beatdown of a club player he'd never heard of somehow he had a tougher time than today's players?

All of those things you listed must be done by all players just to even stand a chance! The amount of training done in one week just to make it into today's top 100 is more work than any of those old casual players put in over an entire year.

We're talking about a bunch of 5'7", cardigan-wearing, country club, weekend warriors against today's full-time, 52 weeks a year professional athletes.

Sorry, it's no contest.

Hahahahahahahaha Seriously are you joking?

Laver had it way harder in his day! Todays players at the top of the game are pampered beyond belief!

You are aware that top seeds have byes in all the early rounds of tournaments now, and Grand Slams have 32 Seeds to ensure they don't meet a difficult player in the early rounds!!!

Get real mate

 

[nfor304]

The amount of training done in one week just to make it into today's top 100 is more work than any of those old casual players put in over an entire year.

We're talking about a bunch of 5'7", cardigan-wearing, country club, weekend warriors against today's full-time, 52 weeks a year professional athletes.

Sorry, it's no contest.

Sorry, but you have very little knowledge of what players did years ago. On the pro tour the best players would play each other over a hundred times in a year, and would play year round except for xmas. There was alot less cash and therefore alot more pressure to win. Players like emerson, Borg and laver trained harder than most pros do today. In Newcombes Biography for example he says he went to train with emerson for a few weeks and wasnt able to keep up for more than a few days. These guys used to train 8 hours a day when they werent playing, and just about the only players I've heard of doing that recently are nadal and Magnus Norman.
I have an article from a magazine written in the 70s about the world no. 1 junior at the time, Ivan Lendl. In it he states that he runs 20 miles a day on top of training 10 hours. And this is a junior in the 70's....

 

[jimbo333]

Sorry, but you have very little knowledge of what players did years ago. On the pro tour the best players would play each other over a hundred times in a year, and would play year round except for xmas. There was alot less cash and therefore alot more pressure to win. Players like emerson, Borg and laver trained harder than most pros do today. In Newcombes Biography for example he says he went to train with emerson for a few weeks and wasnt able to keep up for more than a few days. These guys used to train 8 hours a day when they werent playing, and just about the only players I've heard of doing that recently are nadal and Magnus Norman.
I have an article from a magazine written in the 70s about the world no. 1 junior at the time, Ivan Lendl. In it he states that he runs 20 miles a day on top of training 10 hours. And this is a junior in the 70's....

Indeed mate

I think that bakla chap was joking, either that or he really just needs to read a few books

 

[Bilbo]

And what about:-
Sitting down and having a 2 minute break when changing ends.
Taking 30 seconds between points.
Having Graphite racquets.
Having training team.
Having a dietician.
Having computer analysis of opponents.
etc etc etc.
It's easier now for sure!!!

LAVER is the GOAT

Federer may be in the future, once he has retired, we will see!!!

Bruh, you've got to understand... EVERYONE IN THE SIXTIES used wooden rackets and played under the same conditions as laver, just like EVERYONE now plays under the same conditions as federer and has the same advantages he does, and, therefore they're not advantages it's just the way things are. It's like Billy Van Egbul says, if everyone's cheating, than no one has the advantage do they (and know, the conditions u posted above are not unfair)? EV

 

[Bilbo]

He certainly had the weakest field of competition with the only genuine threats and of reasonable talent were of Safin and Hewitt. Roddick was a flame who could only shine at Wimby 04. It was only until pre-prime Nadal came along, where he was challenged.

EXACTLY, thank you...

 

[jimbo333]

Bruh, you've got to understand... EVERYONE IN THE SIXTIES used wooden rackets and played under the same conditions as laver, just like EVERYONE now plays under the same conditions as federer and has the same advantages he does, and, therefore they're not advantages it's just the way things are. It's like Billy Van Egbul says, if everyone's cheating, than no one has the advantage do they (and know, the conditions u posted above are not unfair)? EV

What's your point? I agree with the above!

So far in their careers LAVER the true GOAT has far better results than Federer. If Federer continues like this for another 3 years then we will see, until then, it's not even close, honestly mate

 

[jimbo333]

Just put it this way, imagine Federer didn't play any Grand Slam tournaments between 2004-2009, how many Grand Slams would he have at end of his career?

That's what Laver did! At his peak, he missed 6 years of Grand Slam tournaments in a row, but still won 11!!!

LAVER is the GOAT

 

[mcenroefan]

Different equipment, different athletes, different preparation...comparing them doesn't seem fair.

To those who think equipment doesn't make a difference, consider the cross-over years when McEnroe's reign was abruptly ended by Lendl's power tennis. No way Lendl could hit those forehands with a wooden racket. If wood rackets had remained the only option, McEnroe would have put together another few dominant years (IMO). The technology has been changing the game at a rapid pace.

That said, Federer is by far and away my favorite player to watch...his movement is sublime and graceful.

 

[TiradPass]

I can't believe that so many people are under the illusion that players of Laver's era would be superior or even close to the level of players today (even when nullifying factors such as equipment, nutrition etc).

Tennis, like basically every professional sport in the world, is played at a significantly higher level than it was decades ago. There are MUCH more people playing tennis today than there were in Laver's era, due to various factors (population growth, more people being able to "afford" playing tennis in the first place, and of course the fact that as tennis became more and more lucrative, more and more talented people were able to embark on tennis from the beginning as a full-time career). Hence, the competition is clearly much greater today and as a result being a top 10 or top 100 player today means a LOT more than it did in Laver's day.

I would agree with others that the top 10 in Laver's day would probably struggle to break into the top 100 now. In fact I'd even be tempted to say that the top 20 women today would have them beat...

 

[CyBorg]

I can't believe that so many people are under the illusion that players of Laver's era would be superior or even close to the level of players today (even when nullifying factors such as equipment, nutrition etc).

Tennis, like basically every professional sport in the world, is played at a significantly higher level than it was decades ago. There are MUCH more people playing tennis today than there were in Laver's era, due to various factors (population growth, more people being able to "afford" playing tennis in the first place, and of course the fact that as tennis became more and more lucrative, more and more talented people were able to embark on tennis from the beginning as a full-time career). Hence, the competition is clearly much greater today and as a result being a top 10 or top 100 player today means a LOT more than it did in Laver's day.

I would agree with others that the top 10 in Laver's day would probably struggle to break into the top 100 now. In fact I'd even be tempted to say that the top 20 women today would have them beat...

Your perception of human evolution is hilarious. Sandy Koufax threw like a girl.

 

[urban]

Top Forty in the late 60s and early 70s:
Rod Laver
Ken Rosewall
John Newcombe
Tony Roche
Arthur Ashe
Tom Okker
Stan Smith
Roy Emerson
Andres Gimeno
Manuel Santana
Cliff Drysdale
Pancho Gonzales
Dennis Ralston
Fred Stolle
Butch Buchholz
Jan Kodes
Ilie Nastase
Marty Riessen
Clark Graebner
Nikki Pilic
Roger Taylor
Charlie Pasarell
Manuel Orantes
Alex Metreweli
Bob Lutz
Bob Hewitt
John Alexander
Dick Crealy
Mark Cox
Colin Dibley
Thomas Koch
Raul Ramirez
Nicola Pietrangeli
Ove Bengtsson
Jaime Fillol
Zejlko Franulovic

Maybe i forgot some, buts its quite a good bunch of players, two thirds of them hall of famers

 

[TiradPass]

In fact I'd even be tempted to say that the top 20 women today would have them beat...

I meant to say top 2 women. Top 20 is probably stretching it!

Put it this way I think the likes of the Williams sisters, Safina etc would be able to break into the top 35 list back in Laver's day without a huge problem. Try saying that with the men's top 35 list today!

 

[CyBorg]

I meant to say top 2 women. Top 20 is probably stretching it!

Put it this way I think the likes of the Williams sisters, Safina etc would be able to break into the top 35 list back in Laver's day without a huge problem. Try saying that with the men's top 35 list today!

Yeah - that makes perfect sense. Thanks for making it easy for me to ignore you in the future.

 

[Purostaff]

lol @ OP

how stubborn can ppl be?

14 GS on all surfaces? That's a definite GOAT.

 

[nfor304]

I can't believe that so many people are under the illusion that players of Laver's era would be superior or even close to the level of players today (even when nullifying factors such as equipment, nutrition etc).

Tennis, like basically every professional sport in the world, is played at a significantly higher level than it was decades ago. There are MUCH more people playing tennis today than there were in Laver's era, due to various factors (population growth, more people being able to "afford" playing tennis in the first place, and of course the fact that as tennis became more and more lucrative, more and more talented people were able to embark on tennis from the beginning as a full-time career). Hence, the competition is clearly much greater today and as a result being a top 10 or top 100 player today means a LOT more than it did in Laver's day.

I would agree with others that the top 10 in Laver's day would probably struggle to break into the top 100 now. In fact I'd even be tempted to say that the top 20 women today would have them beat...

Ok, so I guess if you took a player from say the late 70's, 80's and asked them to play at the same level today they wouldnt succeed?
Then why did McEnroe win an Atp doubles tournament when he was 48 years old? He accomplished the same thing he did in the 70's and 80's in 2006 as a much older, less athletic version of himself. I would say thats pretty competetive.
McEnroes great rival was Borg, Borg had a few difficult matches with Laver when Laver was in his late 30's, such as this one:

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

Logic dictates that if Laver can be competitive with Borg at a relatively advanced age, he could have been competitive with McEnroe, and McEnroe playing even now would be a top 10 doubles player.

Prime laver, with equipment etc being equal as any peers, would be close to the top in ANY era.

 

[FiveO]

Okay, let's compare Federer's slice backhand to the supposed "gold standard" Kenny Rosewall slice backhand. Federer accelerates through the slice and the ball comes back with a ridiculous curve that is not defensive in the least instead it is an offensive weapon that keeps his opponent back and allows Fed to be on the agressive. Ken Rosewall hit a nice clean well-slice backhand, but it was not a weapon. And as far as a clear, pure drive Feds slice backhand looks more correct and textbook. No comparison, and also Rosewall hit only slice because he couldn't even hit a topspin backhand. Imagine that a top tennis professional today not being able to hit topspin off both sides, lights out, man!!

No offense but the description of Rosewall's sliced backhand and the conclusion drawn from a comparison made to Fed's couldn't possibly be further from reality.

5

 

[DownTheLine]

You can't compare generations but you can compare resumes and Federer has probably the GOAT so since you can't compare generations looks like Federer is the GOAT!

 

[MT319]

What's also being overlooked is Laver played 3 of his 4 slams on grass since hardcourts didn't exist at the time...if Sampras and Fed played 3 out of 4 majors on grass I'm sure they'd both certainly have well above 14 majors a piece.

 

[nfor304]

What's also being overlooked is Laver played 3 of his 4 slams on grass since hardcourts didn't exist at the time...if Sampras and Fed played 3 out of 4 majors on grass I'm sure they'd both certainly have well above 14 majors a piece.

That is true that Laver played 3 of the 4 on grass, but so did every other player from that period. If sampras and Federer did that they wouldnt be playing a bunch of hardcourt and claycourt specialists, they would be playing the same players they always have, only much better on grass.

Today there is maybe 3 or 4 players who play better on grass than any other surface, if 3 of the 4 slams were played on grass than the majority of players on the tour would have grown up with a game developed on grass rather than hard and would have grass as their best surface.

There's just as much reason to think if that was the case it would be less likely that sampras and fed (especially) would dominate Wimbledon the way they have.

 

[nfor304]

As much as I like him, Sampras saying that Federer is the GOAT doesnt really hold that much weight. Just because he himself is a contender for the GOAT doesnt make him some kind of tennis historian. The guy had never even heard of Pancho Gonzalez until his early 20's because Gonzalez had never won Wimbledon, and Sampras only knew the former Wimbledon champs.

And no I do not think I am more qualified to give my opinion, I'm just saying Sampras stating that doesnt influence my thinking much.

 

[edmondsm]

What's your point? I agree with the above!

So far in their careers LAVER the true GOAT has far better results than Federer. If Federer continues like this for another 3 years then we will see, until then, it's not even close, honestly mate

The point is Laver was a pro among amatuers. Federer is a pro among pros. Look it up. 95% of the guys that Laver played did not make their livings competing on a tennis court. Noone can debate this.

 

[MT319]

If 3 of the 4 slams were played on grass than the majority of players on the tour would have grown up with a game developed on grass rather than hard and would have grass as their best surface.

Yes but then Federer and Sampras would also have games specifically suited for grass like that same majority...since Federer and Sampras are of superior skill to the rest of their competition (ie; they were better than the hardcourt specialist on hardcourts and they were better than the grasscourt specialists on grass) then how does taking all the hardcourt specialists and turning them into grasscourt specialists change the negative result received against Federer or Sampras if Federer and Sampras are now Grass court specialists as well...in other words if Federer and Sampras are of superior skill to the rest of the competition and now only have to specialize on one surface then how do you make the deduction that they would not be more dominant when someone like Federer who is a dominant all-court specialist (ie; dominates Grass court specialists on grass as an all-court specialist, dominates Clay court specialists on clay as an all-court specialist, and dominates hard court specialists on hardcourts as an all-court specialist) therefore how does Federer not dominate Grass court specialists as a grass court specialist to a greater extent when he is of superior skill to the competition and now only has to focus and mold his game for one surface instead of three?

 

[FiveO]

Yes but then Federer and Sampras would also have games specifically suited for grass like that same majority...since Federer and Sampras are of superior skill to the rest of their competition (ie; they were better than the hardcourt specialist on hardcourts and they were better than the grasscourt specialists on grass) then how does taking all the hardcourt specialists and turning them into grasscourt specialists change the negative result received against Federer or Sampras if Federer and Sampras are now Grass court specialists as well...in other words if Federer and Sampras are of superior skill to the rest of the competition and now only have to specialize on one surface then how do you make the deduction that they would not be more dominant when someone like Federer who is a dominant all-court specialist (ie; dominates Grass court specialists on grass as an all-court specialist, dominates Clay court specialists on clay as an all-court specialist, and dominates hard court specialists on hardcourts as an all-court specialist) therefore how does Federer not dominate Grass court specialists as a grass court specialist to a greater extent when he is of superior skill to the competition and now only has to focus and mold his game for one surface instead of three?

Because the speed of surfaces almost to the end of Sampras's career and before the emergence of Fed was much more disparate than it is today. Today Wimbledon's grass is playing slower than the US Open which itself has been made slower in 2001 and then again in 2003. Grass was slick through Sampras's career and in prior decades. It's not anymore. The speeds are homogenized now, resulting in the players not being forced to alter their playing styles from surface to surface as drastically as for instance Borg did in his era. In short there are very, very, very few surface specialists any more as compared to during Sampras's time when if you ranked by surface there was a ton of movement in those rankings from grass to clay to hardcourts and even to indoor carpet. That was different in Laver's day when there were relatively few contract pros, and the majority of the "shamateurs" held in high esteem the Majors and Davis Cup which were predominantly played on grass or clay and groomed their games for same. So the reality was that those who did go pro prior to and during Laver's days, had been groomed for and had proven themselves while amateurs winning on one or both of those two surfaces. Even still some were much better suited and/or limited and prepared for one. Either clay or grass.

5