The Raw Talent of Rod Laver

[CHillTennis]

It's difficult to overstate the significance of Rod Laver's brilliant tennis career.

He was the first and only player to have achieved the calendar year grand slam (on the men's side.)

He also dominated the amateur circuit, during the short period of time, when he competed for the amateur grand slam titles. Defeating Neale Fraser at the Australian Open in 1960; Chuck McKinley at Wimbledon in 1961. Before sweeping them all in 1962.

I find it surprising that so many of the older pros (from before Laver's time) did not consider him to be the greatest ever.

Instead, he seems to have been considered like a second tier GOAT candidate.

Jack Kramer, once said that he ranked Pancho Gonzales ahead of Rod Laver, due to Pancho's ability to remain competitive with the much younger Rod Laver (they were 10 years apart.)

I have also read that several other pros ranked Ellsworth Vines ahead of Rod Laver.

In fact Rod, himself, admitted that he considered Lew Hoad to be perhaps the greatest professional tennis player of all time.

Where would you rank Rod Laver among the greats of the pre-open era or pre-graphite era?

 

[TheFifthSet]

I can’t help but think Kramer had a vested interest in pushing Gonzales as Laver’s superior, since it indirectly made him look a whole lot better.

 

[kevin qmto]

I can’t help but think Kramer had a vested interest in pushing Gonzales as Laver’s superior, since it indirectly makes him look a whole lot better.

Kramer was a businessman first and foremost after all.

 

[Dan Lobb]

It's difficult to overstate the significance of Rod Laver's brilliant tennis career.

He was the first and only player to have achieved the calendar year grand slam (on the men's side.)

He also dominated the amateur circuit, during the short period of time, when he competed for the amateur grand slam titles. Defeating Neale Fraser at the Australian Open in 1960; Chuck McKinley at Wimbledon in 1961. Before sweeping them all in 1962.

I find it surprising that so many of the older pros (from before Laver's time) did not consider him to be the greatest ever.

Instead, he seems to have been considered like a second tier GOAT candidate.

Jack Kramer, once said that he ranked Pancho Gonzales ahead of Rod Laver, due to Pancho's ability to remain competitive with the much younger Rod Laver (they were 10 years apart.)

I have also read that several other pros ranked Ellsworth Vines ahead of Rod Laver.

In fact Rod, himself, admitted that he considered Lew Hoad to be perhaps the greatest professional tennis player of all time.

Where would you rank Rod Laver among the greats of the pre-open era or pre-graphite era?

Hoad himself stated that Laver would have dominated a hypothetical hth tour against Borg.

 

[Dan Lobb]

I can’t help but think Kramer had a vested interest in pushing Gonzales as Laver’s superior, since it indirectly makes him look a whole lot better.

You got that right.

 

[Mustard]

I wish I could watch his 1959 Wimbledon semi final against Barry MacKay. Laver beat MacKay 11-13, 11-9, 10-8, 7-9, 6-3.

I can’t help but think Kramer had a vested interest in pushing Gonzales as Laver’s superior, since it indirectly makes him look a whole lot better.

Gonzales was dominant for a long time, although Hoad was clearly a very tough opponent for him.

 

[CHillTennis]

I wish I could watch his 1959 Wimbledon semi final against Barry MacKay. Laver beat MacKay 11-13, 11-9, 10-8, 7-9, 6-3.


Gonzales was dominant for a long time, although Hoad was clearly a very tough opponent for him.

Hoad was a little bit older than Laver and he was lethal when he was at his best.

Unfortunately, he never had the same type of career as Rod Laver or Ken Rosewall, due to suffering from a persistent back injury that started in 1958.

This injury would change the trajectory of Hoad's career.

It no doubt contributed to Laver's dominance over the pro tour in the mid to late 1960s.

 

[CHillTennis]

I wish I could watch his 1959 Wimbledon semi final against Barry MacKay. Laver beat MacKay 11-13, 11-9, 10-8, 7-9, 6-3.


Gonzales was dominant for a long time, although Hoad was clearly a very tough opponent for him.

Hoad was a little bit older than Laver and he was lethal when he was at his best.

Unfortunately, Hoad never had the career of Laver or Rosewall due to suffering from a persistent back injury that started in 1958.

Sadly, this injury changed the trajectory of Hoad's career.

Hoad himself stated that Laver would have dominated a hypothetical hth tour against Borg.

I think it would depend on the surface.

If we take grass, for instance, Rod Laver would have a definite advantage over Bjorn Borg, due to his superior firepower and net game.

I would give Borg the edge on clay. No question about that.

Although, I could see Laver remaining competitive with Borg and winning some of their matches.

 

[Dan Lobb]

I wish I could watch his 1959 Wimbledon semi final against Barry MacKay. Laver beat MacKay 11-13, 11-9, 10-8, 7-9, 6-3.


Gonzales was dominant for a long time, although Hoad was clearly a very tough opponent for him.

Hoad held the edge over Gonzales in 1959, 24-23 and was the official No. 1 for that year. However, Gonzales had several years at No. 1 in the late fifties.

Laver was No. 1 from 1964 to 1970 and was probably even more dominant than Gonzales in tournament play.

 

[Dan Lobb]

Hoad was a little bit older than Laver and he was lethal when he was at his best.

Unfortunately, he never had the same type of career as Rod Laver or Ken Rosewall, due to suffering from a persistent back injury that started in 1958.

This injury would change the trajectory of Hoad's career.

It no doubt contributed to Laver's dominance over the pro tour in the mid to late 1960s.

Actually, Hoad's back injury was caused in 1954 and caused him to be bedridden in 1956 right after Wimbledon.

Hoad was usually able to pace his back problem in tournament play, although he had trouble with Rosewall's low-ball style in 1958 Roland Garros final, 1960 Tokyo final, 1961 Wembley final.

 

[Dan Lobb]

Hoad was a little bit older than Laver and he was lethal when he was at his best.

Unfortunately, Hoad never had the career of Laver or Rosewall due to suffering from a persistent back injury that started in 1958.

Sadly, this injury changed the trajectory of Hoad's career.



I think it would depend on the surface.

If we take grass, for instance, Rod Laver would have a definite advantage over Bjorn Borg, due to his superior firepower and net game.

I would give Borg the edge on clay. No question about that.

Although, I could see Laver remaining competitive with Borg and winning some of their matches.

The pro series were usually indoor and avoided both grass and clay.

 

[CHillTennis]

The pro series were usually indoor and avoided both grass and clay.

Which would also favor Rod Laver.

I like Laver's chances against Borg on every surface but clay.

 

[thrust]

I can’t help but think Kramer had a vested interest in pushing Gonzales as Laver’s superior, since it indirectly makes him look a whole lot better.

Pancho was 36-37 when he first played Laver in 64 or 65. Both are definitely in my GOAT level. Pancho was born in 1927, Laver in 1938

 

[thrust]

Hoad held the edge over Gonzales in 1959, 24-23 and was the official No. 1 for that year. However, Gonzales had several years at No. 1 in the late fifties.

Laver was No. 1 from 1964 to 1970 and was probably even more dominant than Gonzales in tournament play.

According to Laver, Rosewall was #1 in 64 being the more consistent against the other players, than he was.

 

[Dan Lobb]

According to Laver, Rosewall was #1 in 64 being the more consistent against the other players, than he was.

Laver in 1964 had better numbers than Rosewall in the large part of the season which was not included in the world championships series of tournaments. Laver held a huge hth edge over Rosewall in 1964, like about 17-7. Laver won the two most important tournaments at Longwood and Wembley.
Rosewall won the tournament ranking series on points and was the official No. 1.

 

[thrust]

Laver in 1964 had better numbers than Rosewall in the large part of the season which was not included in the world championships series of tournaments. Laver held a huge hth edge over Rosewall in 1964, like about 17-7. Laver won the two most important tournaments at Longwood and Wembley.
Rosewall won the tournament ranking series on points and was the official No. 1.

The tour rankings in 64 ended about June or July. During that most important ranking time, Rosewall came out on top. That is according to the pro tour officials and Laver. Ken already had the #1 ranking, so probably did not try as hard as he did earlier. True, Rod did become the #1 at the end of 64.

 

[Dan Lobb]

The tour rankings in 64 ended about June or July. During that most important ranking time, Rosewall came out on top. That is according to the pro tour officials and Laver. Ken already had the #1 ranking, so probably did not try as hard as he did earlier. True, Rod did become the #1 at the end of 64.

Well, the 1964 tournament points series consisted of 17 events in North America and Europe, and was conceieved only partway through the season by Kramer, who persuaded the pros to adopt this idea. The early 1964 tournaments and tours in Australia and New Zealand were therefore not included in the tournament series, nor were the South African or Mediterranean tournaments included.

However, I agree that Rosewall was the official No. 1 for 1964 based on the tournament points series, which concept was first developed in 1946 by Tilden (Riggs won in 1946), and then rejuvenated by Kramer for the 1959 season (Hoad was the official No. 1 for 1959). So I guess that you now see the light and accept the tournament points as the official ranking for some years, Thrust.

Rosewall did not win a world championship title until 1963, and a second in 1964. That was it for Rosewall, as far as world championship titles goes.

The 1960 tournament points series was apparently cancelled before it concluded when both Gonzales and Hoad withdrew from the series. But starting in 1964, tournament points were used thereafter to determine the No. 1 or, beginning in 1968, a small group of eight players who would contest the No. 1 spot in a season-ending tournament. This approach is still ongoing today.

 

[RS]

I agree extremely hard to compare.

 

[Dan Lobb]

I agree extremely hard to compare.

It all depends on the standard being used.

Some weight should be given to the tournament points systems when they existed, which were designed to establish a world No. 1.

 

[Mustard]

Hoad himself stated that Laver would have dominated a hypothetical hth tour against Borg.

I completely disagree with that.

 

[Dan Lobb]

I completely disagree with that.

Would you have bought tickets to see it? I would have.

 

[thrust]

I can’t help but think Kramer had a vested interest in pushing Gonzales as Laver’s superior, since it indirectly makes him look a whole lot better.P

Pancho was Laver's equal, at least. Laver was 11 years younger than Pancho and did not play against him until Pancho was 35 or 36 years old.

 

[thrust]

I completely disagree with that.

Me too!

 

[Martin J]

Would you have bought tickets to see it? I would have.

Who wouldn't...

 

[Dan Lobb]

Me too!

Borg would probably give Laver a tough fight on clay, although Laver actually held a lifetime hth edge over Rosewall on clay, showing that he could play on the surface.

On grass, with the racquets of the day, Laver had a classic S&V game while Borg still used a mixture of S&V and remaining on the baseline for his weaker second serve. That would have worked to Laver's advantage on the faster surfaces of the time.

 

[Martin J]

Borg would probably give Laver a tough fight on clay, although Laver actually held a lifetime hth edge over Rosewall on clay, showing that he could play on the surface.

On grass, with the racquets of the day, Laver had a classic S&V game while Borg still used a mixture of S&V and remaining on the baseline for his weaker second serve. That would have worked to Laver's advantage on the faster surfaces of the time.

That's an understatement, knowing how much troubles Laver had with a player like Santana on clay, who is obviously inferior to Borg on the surface.

Would love to see their battle on grass, though, Laver had the tools to challenge/beat Borg, so the dynamics would be interesting. Borg had a solid return on grass, would be interesting to see him countering Laver's aggression right after the serve.

 

[Dan Lobb]

That's an understatement, knowing how much troubles Laver had with a player like Santana on clay, who is obviously inferior to Borg on the surface.

Would love to see their battle on grass, though, Laver had the tools to challenge/beat Borg, so the dynamics would be interesting. Borg had a solid return on grass, would be interesting to see him countering Laver's aggression right after the serve.

Laver won matches against Santana on clay, and held a lifetime edge over Rosewall on clay, a greater clay player than Santana, so I would not concede anything there.

Laver–Rosewall rivalry - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Borg would have to improve his second serve to stand up against Laver on grass or any fast surface.

 

[TheFifthSet]

Pancho was Laver's equal, at least. Laver was 11 years younger than Pancho and did not play against him until Pancho was 35 or 36 years old.

That could be, but I still think Kramer was exaggerating the discrepancy to big-up himself.

 

[Martin J]

Laver won matches against Santana on clay, and held a lifetime edge over Rosewall on clay, a greater clay player than Santana, so I would not concede anything there.

Laver–Rosewall rivalry - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Borg would have to improve his second serve to stand up against Laver on grass or any fast surface.

The point is that Borg rarely lost matches on clay and is obviously much better player on the surface than either of Rosewall/Santana, so I can't agree with the statement that he "would probably trouble Laver". He'll have the clear edge I think. Laver's talent is unquestionable, but his offense is neutralized by the dirt to some extent and when you play someone who's built for the surface (like Borg), it's hard to expect anything but a decisive H2H lead.

 

[Dan Lobb]

That could be, but I still think Kramer was exaggerating the discrepancy to big-up himself.

Kramer's rankings were all suspect for that reason. Kramer ranked Riggs above Gonzales, suggesting that Kramer should be ranked above Pancho.

 

[Dan Lobb]

The point is that Borg rarely lost matches on clay and is obviously much better player on the surface than either of Rosewall/Santana, so I can't agree with the statement that he "would probably trouble Laver". He'll have the clear edge I think. Laver's talent is unquestionable, but his offense is neutralized by the dirt to some extent and when you play someone who's built for the surface (like Borg), it's hard to expect anything but a decisive H2H lead.

What do you mean by "obviously better"? It is difficult to rank Rosewall above or below Borg given the lack of play between them.

 

[Martin J]

What do you mean by "obviously better"? It is difficult to rank Rosewall above or below Borg given the lack of play between them.

Hmm...is it difficult to rank Federer over Edberg on grass (remember, we're talking about clay only) because they never played against each other?

To me it's pretty clear that Borg's achievements on the surface (number of important titles, winning streaks, overall domination, very few losses) surpass Rosewall's and it's not really close.

 

[Dan Lobb]

Hmm...is it difficult to rank Federer over Edberg on grass (remember, we're talking about clay only) because they never played against each other?

To me it's pretty clear that Borg's achievements on the surface (number of important titles, winning streaks, overall domination, very few losses) surpass Rosewall's and it's not really close.

Rosewall won at Roland Garros in 1953, 1958, 1960, 1961, 1962, and 1968. So that is six major clay titles.
Borg won at Roland Garros in 1974, 1975, 1978, 1979, 1980, 1981. Also six times.
Nothing to choose, except that Rosewall played in a tougher clay era.

Most of the hth series were not on clay, and Laver would have the edge on the faster surfaces over Borg.

 

[Martin J]

Rosewall won at Roland Garros in 1953, 1958, 1960, 1961, 1962, and 1968. So that is six major clay titles.
Borg won at Roland Garros in 1974, 1975, 1978, 1979, 1980, 1981. Also six times.
Nothing to choose, except that Rosewall played in a tougher clay era.

Most of the hth series were not on clay, and Laver would have the edge on the faster surfaces over Borg.

Pro Majors, with a limited competition (no amateurs like Santana and Okker for example) and with less matches (3-4 instead of 7) required to play, cannot be equivalent of the Grand Slam tournaments against the best possible competition (like in Borg's time). Even as an amateur or as a pro, Rosewell couldn't establish the same level of dominance over his peers as Bjorn, who barely lost matches per year on the dirt for a long period on time, winning even the biggest tournaments without losing sets.

Ken's RG title in 1968 over Laver and Gimeno is impressive, especially at that age, I'll give you that, but he's not as good as Borg on the surface.

 

[Dan Lobb]

Pro Majors, with a limited competition (no amateurs like Santana and Okker for example) and with less matches (3-4 instead of 7) required to play, cannot be equivalent of the Grand Slam tournaments against the best possible competition (like in Borg's time). Even as an amateur or as a pro, Rosewell couldn't establish the same level of dominance over his peers as Bjorn, who barely lost matches per year on the dirt for a long period on time, winning even the biggest tournaments without losing sets.

Ken's RG title in 1968 over Laver and Gimeno is impressive, especially at that age, I'll give you that, but he's not as good as Borg on the surface.

The Pros had a strong clay player group, including Rosewall, Segura (who won at RG in 1952), Hoad, Gonzales, Trabert (who won four times at Roland Garros), Gimeno, Cooper, Ayala. Tough to win a pro RG event.
Borg played in an era when the clay skills were declining, his toughest opposition was Lendl, Orantes, Vilas, Panatta.

The pros did have major events with very tough fields, played at Roland Garros, Forest Hills (grass), Wimbledon in 1967, Kooyong several times. I regard all those events as majors.

 

[Martin J]

The Pros had a strong clay player group, including Rosewall, Segura (who won at RG in 1952), Hoad, Gonzales, Trabert (who won four times at Roland Garros), Gimeno, Cooper. Tough to win a pro RG event.
Borg played in an era when the clay skills were declining, his toughest opposition was Lendl, Orantes, Vilas.

The pros did have major events with very tough fields, played at Roland Garros, Forest Hills (grass), Wimbledon in 1967, Kooyong several times. I regard all those events as majors.

Don't necessarily agree with this, but I appreciate the context.

 

[sandy mayer]

I believe Laver is the greatest after Djokovic, Nadal and Federer. Laver's achievements I think surpass anyone before Federer. Where the big 3 of modern times out do Laver is in their amazing longevity.

 

[Mustard]

Borg was certainly more highly rated than Laver in the 1990s. The 1990s was the era of peak surface polarization, so Borg's achievement of winning 6 French Opens and 5 Wimbledons (and in the open era) was otherworldly, even more so when considering that Borg played his last match in a major when he was just 25 years old.

Nowadays, because of the Grand Slam, and the fact that Djokovic, Federer and Nadal never achieved it, Laver's reputation is very high again relatively speaking.

 

[Mustard]

Borg played in an era when the clay skills were declining, his toughest opposition was Lendl, Orantes, Vilas, Panatta.

There were many very good clay-court players in Borg's time. There's also Ramirez, Pecci, Dibbs, Gerulaitis, Solomon, Barazzutti etc. Let's be honest, Borg towered over them all on clay because he was the Nadal of his time on the surface.

 

[Dan Lobb]

There were many very good clay-court players in Borg's time. There's also Ramirez, Pecci, Dibbs, Gerulaitis, Solomon, Barazzutti etc. Let's be honest, Borg towered over them all on clay because he was the Nadal of his time on the surface.

It was even tougher to win a clay major in the fifties and sixties. In those days the big names all developed clay ability.

 

[Mustard]

It was even tougher to win a clay major in the fifties and sixties. In those days the big names all developed clay ability.

The 1960s was nearly all serve and volley, or at least a lot of net play, in men's tennis. That started to change a bit in the 1970s. Borg and Vilas especially represented grinders on clay. The 1978 French Open final, in particular, is played more like a modern clay match, minus the racquet and string technology.

 

[Dan Lobb]

The 1960s was nearly all serve and volley, or at least a lot of net play, in men's tennis. That started to change a bit in the 1970s. Borg and Vilas especially represented grinders on clay. The 1978 French Open final, in particular, is played more like a modern clay match, minus the racquet and string technology.

Check the footage of the Laver-Rosewall RG finals or the Laver-Emerson RG final...there was lots of baseline play in the sixties.

 

[urban]

i had this discussion some years ago with the very fine poster borgforever, we both agreed, that on fast courts, prime laver would probably have a slight advantage. it depends on lavers serve, which in his later years after 1971 declined due to his serious back problems. but in his prime, his lefthanded wide out serve, his bread and butter serve, in combo with his great backhand volley would have given borg problems. Borg had always problems with lefthanders like Mac, Tanner, Pilic, Taylor or El Shafei. I have seen the matchup live in an exhibition in 1978 at Essen, grugahalle. Borg was in his prime, Laver 40 and over the hill, semiretired. Although the rock-steady Borg dominated from the baseline, Laver woke up for a few games with some thunderous backhands down the line. he even the, had the more variable game without question.

On clay, Borg would maybe would have a slight edge. But Rocket was no slouch on clay himself. just a few infos. he had over 60 clay court tournament wins. In 1962, he had a muster-like string on clay winning among his 22 tournaments half of them on clay. It included French, Italian, german, the famous European triple, plus BHC. Swiss, Dutch, Norwegian, Houston, you name them, and had wins over very competent clay courters like Santana (final at Hamburg in 3 straight sets), Emerson, Mulliagn, Lundquist, Darmon, Bungert, Krishnan and others. In the pros, Laver had his breakthrought in summer1963 on clay. In his open career, the older Laver had clay wins over almost all clay champs and contenders of the 1970s, including, Rosewall, Emerson, Gimeno, Okker, Newcombe, Borg himself, Kodes, Orantes, Panatta, Solomon, Vilas, Gerulaitis and others. In 1974, he beat Borg at Houston on red clay in 2 straight sets, outfoxing him. Borg was young, but already winning FO and Italian that year. Laver, who grew up on clay-like antbed courts, played topspin himself, but he mixed it up with silce, dropshots, and offensive netplay. When Borg had some problems on clay, then against offensive players like Panatta or later Pecci.

One last remark on the all time polls of the 1980s and 90s, whatever they mean. Even in the 80s, and 90s, Laver was leading those polls, like the Inside tennis computer tournament of 1986 based on 37 experts, or the AP poll from 1999 for player of the century. Borg ended 6th resp. 5th in those polls, if ia am correct., Nothing against Borg, he was a ultra-fine player, his 3 year dominance 1978-1980 was outstanding and among the very best of a ll time.

 

[Dan Lobb]

Most of the pro series were played predominantly on indoor canvas or carpet or wood, or outdoor cement, where Laver would have the edge over Borg because of a superior second serve which he followed to the net.

There were relatively few pro tournaments or series on grass or clay. Hoad and Gonzales played about 182 matches against each other during their pro careers, of which only 35 matches were played on grass, mainly at major stadiums. There were a number of matches played on clay, but they were mostly minor pro events in Europe which lacked a world title. I doubt that Borg could have succeeded in that era. He might have had a career similar to Gimeno, who adjusted his game into a S&V style.

The pro tours used a portable canvas court which favoured the S&V style of play. This was a big disadvantage for the European players. The pro tournament series of 1946 and 1959 used existing tennis stadiums except for the portable plywood court in the first five events of the 1959 tournaments.

 

[thrust]

There were many very good clay-court players in Borg's time. There's also Ramirez, Pecci, Dibbs, Gerulaitis, Solomon, Barazzutti etc. Let's be honest, Borg towered over them all on clay because he was the Nadal of his time on the surface.

None of the players mentioned above other than Borg, achievement wise, compare to: Laver, Rosewall, Trabert, Gonzalez or Gimeno on clay. At nearly 35, Gimeno won the FO in the open era.

 

[Dan Lobb]

None of the players mentioned above other than Borg, achievement wise, compare to: Laver, Rosewall, Trabert, Gonzalez or Gimeno on clay. At nearly 35, Gimeno won the FO in the open era.

Both Kramer and Gonzales were excellent clay players, but neither won at Roland Garros, both finishing as a runner-up (1952 for Kramer, 1956 and 1961 for Gonzales). Kramer lost on clay at Cleveland in 1950 in the U.S. Pro in a long semifinal against Segura.

The clay competition in the fifties and early sixties was very strong. Kramer arranged the world pro championship tours to avoid the clay courts of Europe or U.S.., except in 1959 when the RG title was part of the world series points system.

 

[thrust]

You got that right.

I believe that Pancho was 36 years old when he first played against Laver who was 26 and at his best or near best. Peak for peak I think Gonzalez was Laver's equal, at least.

 

[Dan Lobb]

I believe that Pancho was 36 years old when he first played against Laver who was 26 and at his best or near best. Peak for peak I think Gonzalez was Laver's equal, at least.

Depends on the circumstances, I would favour Laver on clay.