Why do journalists lean towards Laver as GOAT?

[jhhachamp]

Again I did not imply he was not competitive with any of the best players, but I certainly implied he would have a hard time winning anywhere near 12 slams with 3 or 4 players clearly favored over him. I fail to see how his record in 1969 upon the return of some of those players does anything but strengthen that, even at the point in his career he was at. A player who typicaly loses to his main rivals in 4 set struggles, and occasionaly wins vs each, does well to garner 2 or 3 slams over a long career.

I agree with you in this debate and I think the above quote is a very accurate one. While Emerson was winning slams in the amatuer ranks, there were a few guys who would more than likely be able to beat him fairly consistently. He would probably have been ranked #3 or so in the world during the years he was dominating the amatuers, so he would obviously have won considerably less slams if the top 2 players also played all the grand slam tournys.

I do not think Federhoogerband (whatever the hell his name is) is trying to slight Emerson's career as you feel Rabbit . I think he is simply trying to point out that one cannot value each of Emerson's slams as much as other player's slams, which I agree with. Emerson would almost definitely have won considerably less slams if the pros had played the grand slams.

Just imagine if Agassi played amatuers while guys like Sampras Becker, Edberg, and Rafter played pros. I bet Agassi would win a lot more than 8 grand slams, but those grand slams would have to be taken with a grain of salt just as Emerson's are because they are not quite as special as a grand slam won with all the top players competing.

 

[Rabbit]

Steve, so the fact that Emerson beat players like Laver (two years his junior), Stolle, Ashe, and Roche in the finals of Grand Slams lessens that achievement. This is in complete disregard for the careers each of these players was to have? Point being that the players in the amateur ranks were the pros of Open tennis. They didn't all disappear and go away. Emerson was not the walk over that Federerhoogenbandfand (davey) is making him out to be. Remember that Stolle, Ashe, Newcombe, and a host of other players were not on Kramer's tour as it was by invitation. Those players retained their 'amateur' status and played the regular tour. I submit that it is not feasible for all of these players to still be developing as davey would have us believe.

Sorry, Davey, but tennis is a young man's sport. 24 is middle aged at best for a tennis pro. Players like Gonzalez, Laver, Connors, Rosewall and Agassi don't come along very often. Most guys are out of the game way before 30. So yes, you can tell a great deal by a player's age in the pro game. Other than those players, I defy you to name as many more in Open tennis who have gone past 30 to win Slams past that age. Gomez & Korda won one each and faded.

You have yet to answer the development question. It continues to be your primary argument and foundation of every argument. He/she was still developing as a player. I don't get it. How can you tell? Laver made the finals of two Grand Slams and he's still developing as a player? McEnroe and Becker make/win Wimbledon as boys and they're not developing but Federer in his 4th(?) attempt as a profesisonal beats Sampras and is developing? You seem to keep gravitating to his position relative to the top ten, but McEnroe and Becker were even further out of the top ten when they had their success. If you listen to coaches like Gilbert, you can't develop a player once they're past the age of 21. They're pretty much where they're going to be with respect to their game. You'll understand if between you and Gilbert I defer to Gilbert. I've named my source, you name yours.

I'm also still waiting on your evidence of the 1963 season. Other than Gonzalez, who everyone from here to Chicago agrees was hands down better than anyone else on the tour, who did Laver struggle with? What was his record?

I went and pulled Emerson's record in the pros. He was as competitive as anyone else. That, along with his over 30 age status would lead one to believe that maybe there should be more than a grain of salt taken with his amateur career.

I don't think Emerson is in the running for GOAT, but your complete dismissal of an era in tennis that you are not even vaguley familiar with is more than disingenuous. You love to put forth these things as fact when, when indisputable facts are presented, you defer to tennis chronicles of some imaginary source. Likewise with your imaginary facts. They just don't hold water when you look the facts up.

I could use the same argument about any player who's won more than 5 Grand Slams. Why didn't Sampras win two or three more after he won 14? He was worn out, same as Emerson. Maybe physically, maybe mentally, but worn out.

 

[Yours!05]

Emerson has said that he preferred to play as an amateur and that he did not want to play professional. I can only take that to mean that the under the table money he made as an amateur was enough to support him.

Not necessarily. You had to be here. There was no greater social faux pas than to be a professional sportsman in those days. As standard bearers for punching-above-our-weight Australian sport the tennis players, particularly Hoad as the first, were regarded as traitors. I believe Hoad was so stung by this that it was the main reason he lived out his life in Spain.
The attitude to professionalism came from cricket, from the Olympics, from England. It was ingrained in the national psyche. Kramer's personality did not help, and nobody knew then that professional tennis would ever be more than a slightly sordid sideshow.
But Emerson stayed, basking in glory and appreciation, doing the "right thing".

 

[urban]

i think, some good points are made on both sides. I would agree, that one cannot discredit the amateur tours of the pre open era. The older pros had always the advantage over the fresh pros, because they were accostumed to the head-to-head matches, smaller tournaments and the indoor play. As amateurs the aussies had never played indoors.In open tennis the pros would have had to play big draws and grass and clay surfaces.To the 62/63 situation is to say, that Gonzales didn't play on the pro circuit. He came back in 1964, and ranked as Nr.3 pro. His last big win on the pro tour was the US pro 1961 over Sedgman. In 1963 Rosewall was clearly the Nr. 1 pro with 7 titles. Laver ranked 2nd with 3 titles (Kitzbühel, Cannes, Scheveningen all on clay or indoors). Hoad beat Laver on a head to head tour in January 1963, but won no tournament title. Then came players like Gimeno, Buchholz, Mackay and Olmedo.I would think, that in 1962 on grass in the big draws the amateurs Laver and Emerson would have held their own against Rosewall and talented, but physically labile Hoad.

 

[Aykhan Mammadov]

What does the word " goat" mean here? I have looked at the dictionary and it's translation is the animal. Has this word another meaning ?

 

[urban]

Good point, yours. I think Hopman in particular was a fierce enemy of Kramer and the pro concept. And Hoads wife, Jenny tells the story in her book, that Hoad was expelled from the White City Club in Sydney, when he turned pro.

 

[Rabbit]

Not necessarily. You had to be here. There was no greater social faux pas than to be a professional sportsman in those days. As standard bearers for punching-above-our-weight Australian sport the tennis players, particularly Hoad as the first, were regarded as traitors. I believe Hoad was so stung by this that it was the main reason he lived out his life in Spain.
The attitude to professionalism came from cricket, from the Olympics, from England. It was ingrained in the national psyche. Kramer's personality did not help, and nobody knew then that professional tennis would ever be more than a slightly sordid sideshow.
But Emerson stayed, basking in glory and appreciation, doing the "right thing".

Thanks for the correction. That's a great insight. Now that you mention it, I did see a retrospective on the Tennis Channel that detailed the Hoad/Rosewall Davis Cup win and subsequent defection to Kramer's tour. The retrospective did not emphasize the discontent with Aussie fans, but I can understand it.

 

[spinbalz]

What does the word " goat" mean here? I have looked at the dictionary and it's translation is the animal. Has this word another meaning ?

"Greatest Of All Times" I think.

By the way, what animal is the goat?

 

[jhhachamp]

Steve, so the fact that Emerson beat players like Laver (two years his junior), Stolle, Ashe, and Roche in the finals of Grand Slams lessens that achievement.

Yes I feel these slams are not quite as impressive as a normal slam because at the time he beat these players, they were not the best players in the world.

You have yet to answer the development question. It continues to be your primary argument and foundation of every argument. He/she was still developing as a player. I don't get it. How can you tell? Laver made the finals of two Grand Slams and he's still developing as a player?

I know you are not adressing me here, but I will take a stab at it anyway. Sure he got to two slam finals, but that year if all the players were ranked as in open tennis now, he would probably be ranked what, #5 maybe? So sure he was a great player, but he was far from his best. It was in 1964 that he made huge improvements to go from one of the best to a clear and dominant #1.

 

[Rabbit]

Yes I feel these slams are not quite as impressive as a normal slam because at the time he beat these players, they were not the best players in the world.



I know you are not adressing me here, but I will take a stab at it anyway. Sure he got to two slam finals, but that year if all the players were ranked as in open tennis now, he would probably be ranked what, #5 maybe? So sure he was a great player, but he was far from his best. It was in 1964 that he made huge improvements to go from one of the best to a clear and dominant #1.

The only evidence we have is the tournament results. I haven't looked for the complete draw, but here are the results of the slams from '67 and '68. These years represent the last amateur and first open.

1967
A - Emerson d Ashe - 6-4 6-1 6-4
F - Emerson d Roche - 6-1 6-4 2-6 6-2
W - Newcombe d Bungert - 6-3 6-1 6-1
U - Newcombe d Graebner 6-4 6-4 8-6

1968
A - Bowery d Gisbert - 7-5 2-6 9-7 6-4
F - Rosewall d Laver - 6-3 6-1 2-6 6-2
W - Laver d Roche - 6-3 6-4 6-2
U - Ashe d Okker - 14-12 5-7 6-3 3-6 6-3

If the amateur field was so weak, then why wasn't 1968 dominated by pros? The only all pro final was the French. What I mean by this is that the amateurs from '67 availed themselves well. I don't think Bower, Gisbert, Roche, Ashe, or Okker were on Kramer's tour prior to '68. This can be ascertained by the results from pre-68. It would be very interesting to pull the draws from the slams and see where the pros fell. Hmmmm...homework.

In any event, it doesn't appear from results that the pro tour was that far advanced over the amateur side of the house. Otherwise, there would have been professionals in '67 contesting every one of these finals.

Post Mortum

OK, I found both results. The U.S. Open in 68 had a draw beginning in the 64's. Here are how the pros fared:

R16 Cliff Drysdale d Rod Laver 4-6 6-4 3-6 6-1 6-1
QF Tom Okker d Pancho Gonzalez 14-16 6-3 10-8 6-3
SF Tom Okker d Ken Rosewall 8-6 6-4 6-8 6-1


68 Wimbledon, here is the link to the story:

http://www.wimbledon.org/en_GB/about/history/1968.html

It directly references that by the Quarterfinals, the only two left from the old pro tour were Laver and Buchholz with Laver being the only one from the old pro tour to make it to the semis.

2R Gonzalez lost to Alex Metrevelli
4R Rosewall lost to Tony Roche
4R Newcombe lost to Ashe (Newcombe went pro after his '67 Wimbledon victory)

 

[urban]

The question is indeed intriguing, to weight the old Kramer pro tour to their counterparts on the amateur tour. As i said, there were different tours with different formats and surfaces. Like the amateurs had always difficulties to adjust to the rigours of the pro tours, it was in reverse difficult in 1968 at the beginning of the open era for the older pros, to return to the bigger draws, the younger opponents and the continous best of 5 set format. For the first case two examples from 1967: That year two of the best amateurs of 1966 turned pro, Fred Stolle, who was the Forest Hills champ and in some arnkings the Nr. 1 amateur of 1966, and Dennis Ralston, Wimbledon finalist and Nr. 5 amateur f 1966. On the pro tour in 1967 they didn't win a tournament and came in at the end of the year as Nr. 5 and 6.
In 1968 with the advent of open tennis at RG (Australia wasn't yet open, so a mediocre player like Bowrey could win it) the older pros had to face new, younger opponents on the terms and conditions of the amateur circuit. Despite their relative advanced age the old Kramer pros did pretty well: Out of the 9 majors they played between 1968-1970, Laver and Rosewall won 7. Gimeno was in the top ten until 1970 and won RG 1972, Gonzales still despite his age had impressive performances. So it seems, the standard of the pro tours was high, but one cannot disregard the amateurs as flukes. And the pros wer all amateurs, before they turned pro.

 

[spirit]

Not necessarily. You had to be here. There was no greater social faux pas than to be a professional sportsman in those days. As standard bearers for punching-above-our-weight Australian sport the tennis players, particularly Hoad as the first, were regarded as traitors. I believe Hoad was so stung by this that it was the main reason he lived out his life in Spain.
The attitude to professionalism came from cricket, from the Olympics, from England. It was ingrained in the national psyche. Kramer's personality did not help, and nobody knew then that professional tennis would ever be more than a slightly sordid sideshow.
But Emerson stayed, basking in glory and appreciation, doing the "right thing".

What was the right thing for a tennis player to do in those days, remain an amateur (really a shamateur) and take money under the table (how was that "honorable?") or come out an honestly be a professional tennis player, earning your money honestly and openly? I vote for those who resisted the under the table fake amateurism filled with hypocrisy, and blazed the trail for true and honorable professionalism in tennis. Men like Kramer and Gonzalez were the true honorable men, and on the women's side, ladies like Billie Jean King were the true honorable ladies of tennis.

Now tennis has to get rid of the last vistages of "money under the table." Appearance fees and guarantees at "competitive" tennis tournaments must be announced and made readily available to the fans and the rest of the public. No more money under the table.

 

[Rabbit]

Don't be so quick to ascribe those noble qualities to the Kramer tour. Much like Jimmy Connors' Senior Tour in the early days, Kramer's #1 was predicated mainly on who the crowd would pay to see. I watched the Gonzalez hour long special not long ago and Kramer refused to give Gonzalez the billing he deserved. At one point Gonzalez left the pro tour because he felt he wasn't getting the credit, the #1 ranking, or the money that he deserved. He went back to racing in the interim.

Also, the guys on the Kramer tour went on the pro tour because they thought they could make more money than as an amateur, they didn't do it out of shame for taking money under the table. I'm not faulting them, I'd have probably done the same thing.

I can make an equally strong case for Emerson. He thought he was doing the right thing by staying an amateur. He was eligible for Davis Cup and while making money playing tennis, was also a sports hero in Australia. The Aussies were dominating Davis Cup, along with America, and who wouldn't want to be #1 in their country and a sports hero/legend?

Unfortunately for Emerson, the climate completely changed in 1968 when Open tennis came into being. He, IMO, was left in a lurch. At 32, he wasn't a young player by any stretch. There was a whole new batch of players behind him, Ashe, Tanner, Stockton, Newcombe, Roche, etc. who were probably hungrier and for sure younger.

With regard to appearance money, it's part of the sport. I have seen cases in Memphis where guys like Todd Martin and Mal Washington lost in the early rounds and actually gave the appearance money back because they didn't feel that they had earned it. Todd Martin actually used to hang around Memphis after a loss. He is reported to have liked Memphis and its atmosphere.

 

[spirit]

With regard to appearance money, it's part of the sport. I have seen cases in Memphis where guys like Todd Martin and Mal Washington lost in the early rounds and actually gave the appearance money back because they didn't feel that they had earned it. Todd Martin actually used to hang around Memphis after a loss. He is reported to have liked Memphis and its atmosphere.

I agree it is part of the sport, but it should be more openly acknowledged and the fees and guarantees should be reported in the press and in the promotional material that is used to sell tickets. If this were done, some changes might evolve, like guarantees more tightly tied to how far in the tournamnet a player actually plays. But even if it doesn't, the fans, even the casual fan, should be made aware of who is being paid for what, so they can judge for themselves whether they have got thier ticket money's worth.


But by now, regular readers of the board know my view on this, and they are not worth much. The tennis powers that be, have to agree on it, and I have no clout with them.

 

[Aykhan Mammadov]

"Greatest Of All Times" I think.

By the way, what animal is the goat?

It is difficult to describe that animal again in English and especially with my weak. It is of size between dog and sheep. Also it produces milk and it is not wild and doesn't attack on people. I can't tell it's meat in big use as with sheeps but sometimes it is used also. Shrotly, it is worthy representative of animals' family.

 

[Rabbit]

Goat - a farm animal roughly the size of a sheep. They are chiefly used for milk, cheese, meat, and as pets. Goats are used to keep fields cut down as they will eat just about anything that doesn't eat them. Goats are intelligent yet stubborn animals. They are curious and display a high level of intelligence. They also taste good when roasted over a spit.

Goat - also a loser. Commonly referred to a team member who fails or duffs a play at a critical time in the game and is blamed for the loss.

Goatee - small triangular shaped hair on a man's chin, so named for the resemblance to the hair on a goat's lower mandible.


Kid - a baby goat

Nanny - a female goat

Billy - a male goat

 

[Yours!05]

Goat - a farm animal roughly the size of a sheep. They are chiefly used for milk, cheese, meat, and as pets. Goats are used to keep fields cut down as they will eat just about anything that doesn't eat them. Goats are intelligent yet stubborn animals. They are curious and display a high level of intelligence. They also taste good when roasted over a spit.

Goat - also a loser. Commonly referred to a team member who fails or duffs a play at a critical time in the game and is blamed for the loss.

Goatee - small triangular shaped hair on a man's chin, so named for the resemblance to the hair on a goat's lower mandible.


Kid - a baby goat

Nanny - a female goat

Billy - a male goat

"Doe a deer, a female deer..."

 

[Yours!05]

[edited]..

 

[jhhachamp]

Rabbit, that is interesting stuff there. It seems it is not so clear that the pros were actually better than the top amateurs. Emerson may have actually been as good as Laver and Rosewall had he played the pro tour, though I doubt it. I still weight Emerson's 12 slams slightly less than a typical slam because I think had it been open tennis like now, Laver Rosewall and Gonzalez would have won some of those Grand Slams instead of Emerson. Just my opinion though, as I really do not know much about tennis from before the mid 90s.

 

[jhhachamp]

What does the word " goat" mean here? I have looked at the dictionary and it's translation is the animal. Has this word another meaning ?

Haha! I nominate this for funniest post of the year!

 

[Rabbit]

Rabbit, that is interesting stuff there. It seems it is not so clear that the pros were actually better than the top amateurs. Emerson may have actually been as good as Laver and Rosewall had he played the pro tour, though I doubt it. I still weight Emerson's 12 slams slightly less than a typical slam because I think had it been open tennis like now, Laver Rosewall and Gonzalez would have won some of those Grand Slams instead of Emerson. Just my opinion though, as I really do not know much about tennis from before the mid 90s.

And you know what? I agree with you. What got my goat (sorry, couldn't resist) was the "grain of salt" comment. It was clearly based on an opinion that was pulled from thin air or out of someone's arse with no facts to back it up.

I really think that a champion from any era would be a top competitor today. Clearly, the 10 best champions from the last ten generations of tennis players can't all be #1 at the same time, but I guarantee that they'd all be in the top ten and fighting like hell, Emerson included.

 

[Yours!05]

Emmo - quotable quotes

He exemplified the Aussie code of sportsmanship and competitiveness, stating it as, "You should never complain about an injury. We believe that if you play, then you aren't injured, and that's that."

Laver said, "My old friend and rival has plagued me every step of the way because he never considers losing."
http://www.tennisfame.org/enshrinees/roy_emerson.html

 

[stormholloway]

So what? Agassi is the only player to win the career slam on 4 different surfaces AND win the olympic gold medal. There's nothing the man didn't do. Sampras never reached the French final. Agassi reached several. Agassi also reached a couple Wimbledon finals. There's no argument for "fluke". Agassi is the most versatile player of all time. He just wasn't consistent. It's like he didn't become great until he was over the hill. Though I don't think many doubt that Federer will win the French at some point, but I guess it's possible that it might elude him. Doubt it though.

 

[MTXR]

GOAT? Is that an acrynim(sp?)

Or you actually talking about a real mamaml the goat.

 

[Yours!05]

GOAT? Is that an acrynim(sp?)

Or you actually talking about a real mamaml the goat.

Acronym for Greatest Of All Time.