Why is Laver being such a hater?

[SBD]

How many grand slams does Laver even have, I think it's 11 but some were as an amateur.Nadal has 9 grandslams as well as the Olympic gold medal for singles and he is only 24, without doubt Federer is greater than Rod Laver but so is Nadal.I think the amount of grandslams is far more important than having a career grandslam.

 

[nereis]

Some people should do well to remember that he did not play grand slams in the majority of his prime years, from 1962 to 1968. In those six years he won the majority of the pro equivalents against his most bitter rivals. If you count those he has close to 20 slams.

 

[Forehand Avenger]

Laver is just being very partial to Tomic, and that is to be expected. However, I would have thought Laver would know to use different terminology than the one he used. "Embarrassed" is a little harsh.

 

[Manus Domini]

Why are there so many new posters all saying same thing? Multi-accounting much?

anyway, Laver's accomplishment is great, no matter how I see it. Considering when he won the pro-slam it was between indoor wood and grass (which are FAR more different than clay and grass imo) and the Grand Slam the following year on the original RG clay (which was far slower than it is now) then Wimby on the original grass (which was far faster and less-accurate bounces than it is now) while doing it on USO grass and AO grass which were more different than the USO and AO today I think. Anyway, they were radically different slams back then, no matter if it was grass. Grass isn't grass isn't grass the way hard is hard is hard. There are many different kinds and the hemisphere, amount of sunlight, type all change it, unlike hard court. Plus, if they were so similar in types of grass, how come Borg couldn't win USO?

 

[mcenroefan]

Why are there so many new posters all saying same thing? Multi-accounting much?

anyway, Laver's accomplishment is great, no matter how I see it. Considering when he won the pro-slam it was between indoor wood and grass (which are FAR more different than clay and grass imo) and the Grand Slam the following year on the original RG clay (which was far slower than it is now) then Wimby on the original grass (which was far faster and less-accurate bounces than it is now) while doing it on USO grass and AO grass which were more different than the USO and AO today I think. Anyway, they were radically different slams back then, no matter if it was grass. Grass isn't grass isn't grass the way hard is hard is hard. There are many different kinds and the hemisphere, amount of sunlight, type all change it, unlike hard court. Plus, if they were so similar in types of grass, how come Borg couldn't win USO?

Agreed....the surfaces are probably more similar today than they were in Laver's era. I wonder if alot of these posters were watching tennis from 1970-1990? Borg going back to back at FO and Wimby was, IMO, far more impressive than it is today.....the surfaces were very different in those days.

In any case, lay off Laver. His legend status is well earned.

 

[mtommer]

How is it embarrassing to go down 0-4 and then come roaring back to win 6 of the next 7 games to wrap up the set?

You answer your own question here. If one can come "roaring back" then one should have never of been down in the first place. The number one in the world has no business being down 0-4 to anyone outside of the top 50, maybe even only the top 25. Further, the #199 player is "supposed" to show up on court, knowing he has no chance, and should stand around in awe and be grateful for the, probably, only chance he'll ever have to play against the number one player. In short, how dare that 199 player go up 0-4!

 

[Forehand Avenger]

You answer your own question here. If one can come "roaring back" then one should have never of been down in the first place. The number one in the world has no business being down 0-4 to anyone outside of the top 50, maybe even only the top 25. Further, the #199 player is "supposed" to show up on court, knowing he has no chance, and should stand around in awe and be grateful for the, probably, only chance he'll ever have to play against the number one player. In short, how dare that 199 player go up 0-4!

Reality check:

Miami 2004. Nadal (aged 17 and ranked 40) vs Federer (aged 22 and ranked 1)
Nadal def Federer 6-3, 6-3.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tbFPE1NYFr8

Laver probably didn't see that one.

 

[TennisD]

I don't know if he's being a hater or not, but he is right about one thing; even if he does win four in a row, it's not a Grand Slam unless it's a proper Grand Slam. I don't think he's saying it to be petty, or because he doesn't want his achievements to be diminished, it's just a cut and dry fact. Grand Slam = all four in one season, always has, always will. I think it'll be an incredible achievement if Nadal pulls off four in a row, but even calling it a "Rafa Slam" is nothing but pure sensationalism. As for being embarrassed by Tomic, it's tough to say; sure, he came back to win the set and dominated the rest of the match, but is it embarrassing to go down 4-0 to a guy who a) is ranked around 200, and b) hasn't really done all that much up to that point, regardless of the fact that he's very talented? Well, for a player such as Rafa, whose entire game and persona revolve around dominance and intimidation, it certainly doesn't look great. Perhaps not an embarrassment per se, but you never want to allow someone ranked 199 places lower than you make you look shaky at a slam, even if for only half a set.

 

[ronalditop]

Aww all you Rafapompoms, you liked Laver when he said something favorable for Rafa then this, he becomes a hater, a grouch , blah bleh blah. Just go back to your Nadal news thread so you can get a group hug.

LMAO best post on this ridiculous thread.

 

[namelessone]

I don't see why the hate for Laver. Dude is just hyping Tomic up. You think Laver didn't see that Nadal was sweating buckets and moving sluggish? But he is saying positive things about Bernard to give him confidence for the future. You don't actually expect an australian to side with the spaniard on this one, do you?

If anyone should be embarrassed it's Tomic. He met a guy who was still sick from the flu he had in Doha and he still got straight setted, wasting a double break in the second.

 

[TheTruth]

You answer your own question here. If one can come "roaring back" then one should have never of been down in the first place. The number one in the world has no business being down 0-4 to anyone outside of the top 50, maybe even only the top 25. Further, the #199 player is "supposed" to show up on court, knowing he has no chance, and should stand around in awe and be grateful for the, probably, only chance he'll ever have to play against the number one player. In short, how dare that 199 player go up 0-4!

I disagree considering a 17 year old Rafa beat the #1 player himself. Using your logic that should have never happened.

Anyway, any player can get down in a set, what matters is the end result.

 

[TheTruth]

I don't see why the hate for Laver. Dude is just hyping Tomic up. You think Laver didn't see that Nadal was sweating buckets and moving sluggish? But he is saying positive things about Bernard to give him confidence for the future. You don't actually expect an australian to side with the spaniard on this one, do you?

If anyone should be embarrassed it's Tomic. He met a guy who was still sick from the flu he had in Doha and he still got straight setted, wasting a double break in the second.

Which makes it even dumber, imo.

There's nothing wrong with hyping his hometown compatriot, you just find a way to say what you need to say without saying something that harsh. He's been around. He's seen a lot worse. I know he has, because I have.

 

[DMan]

Like I get that he's arguing that it's not a true grand slam, and that's true, but no one is calling it that. Four in a row is impressive, regardless.

About the bolded part, how exactly did he "embarrass" Nadal? Nadal took him out in straights. He came back and won the 2nd from being down 4-0. Tomic held up well, and props to him for that, but I'd hardly say Nadal was embarrassed.

A Nadal-****'s definition of a hater is anyone who doesn't agree with their understanding of the world.

 

[Messarger]

Well for sure Laver was an unbelivable player when he was on the tour no? What he has accomplish is fantastic and will be almost impossible to be the same as him. Everybody has an opinion, including him so cannot say that he is trying to say bad things for me. Tomic match was a difficult match but that is over no? Right now i am only focus on my match with Marin Cilic because it will be a difficult match. He is playing great and if i want to have chances for the quarter final i need to play aggressive and serve well.

 

[mtommer]

Miami 2004. Nadal (aged 17 and ranked 40) vs Federer (aged 22 and ranked 1)
Nadal def Federer 6-3, 6-3.

The number one in the world has no business being down 0-4 to anyone outside of the top 50

At any rate, understand I wasn't making an actual argument. It's merely reflecting the typical arrogance of any top ranked player in any sport. If players really said how they felt during on-court after match interviews.......
Commentator: "So, Nadal, you were down 0-4. How did you find the will to come back so strong."

Nadal: "Find the will? Seriously? I said to myself that I'll be **mned if I was going to let some impudent little whelp go up 0-4 on me. I'm number one in the world and I will kick that little **tche's @ss, rub it in by breaking him and destroy him for the rest of the match."

 

[sureshs]

Laver knows his one remaining claim to fame is going to be taken away by the King this month. After this, he will just be way down on every list.

 

[Xemi666]

At any rate, understand I wasn't making an actual argument. It's merely reflecting the typical arrogance of any top ranked player in any sport. If players really said how they felt during on-court after match interviews.......
Commentator: "So, Nadal, you were down 0-4. How did you find the will to come back so strong."

Nadal: "Find the will? Seriously? I said to myself that I'll be **mned if I was going to let some impudent little whelp go up 0-4 on me. I'm number one in the world and I will kick that little **tche's @ss, rub it in by breaking him and destroy him for the rest of the match."

LMAO 10 chars

 

[fedtastic]

Like I get that he's arguing that it's not a true grand slam, and that's true, but .

 

[adidasman]

Laver knows his one remaining claim to fame is going to be taken away by the King this month. After this, he will just be way down on every list.

"One remaining claim to fame"??? Laver won TWO Grand Slams. TWO. Rafa winning or not winning the Australian Open does nothing - repeat, NOTHING - to Laver's reputation or his achievements. Nadal would probably be the first to say that. Why must you Nadal fans be so offended by a comment made to an Australian newspaper by an Australian athlete about another Australian? A little home cooking shouldn't upset you so much, unless you're a trifle insecure about your boy and how he'll look at the end of his career next to the real giants of the game...

 

[adidasman]

Which makes it even dumber, imo.

There's nothing wrong with hyping his hometown compatriot, you just find a way to say what you need to say without saying something that harsh. He's been around. He's seen a lot worse. I know he has, because I have.

Maybe Laver used the word "embarrassed" because he would have been had he been in Nadal's shoes. If anyone would know what's it's like to be in that position, it's Laver. (Of course, Laver would never actually be in Nadal's shoes - since Nadal wears a vastly inferior brand to the ones worn by the Rocket. )

 

[Deleted member 60695]

If anyone should be embarrassed it's Tomic. He met a guy who was still sick from the flu he had in Doha and he still got straight setted, wasting a double break in the second.

That nagging flu, which will continue all the way until Nadal wins another tournament (perhaps this one!), and then will magically disappear.

 

[el sergento]

 

[Manus Domini]

I disagree considering a 17 year old Rafa beat the #1 player himself. Using your logic that should have never happened.

Anyway, any player can get down in a set, what matters is the end result.

That being said, young Rafa at 17 had more spin than anyone before or since and Federer didn't train to handle it. I don't think Tomic had something that hasn't ever been seen in the game, just something that hasn't been seen in quite a long time.

Still, Rafa is the King of Clay, and anyone like him is going to do well from an early age.

 

[The_Question]

Tee hee hee @ all of the *******s united here and gather the hate on Laver...

 

[Julien_Ross]

Laver has soft hands too but Macenroe is number 1. Nadal is okay but not to soft at net.

 

[forzamilan90]

Laver ain't a hater, he epitomizes the venerable legendary gentleman

 

[timnz]

Golly

If you watch any interviews with Laver, 100% of the time he is the most humble, self-effacing ie a real gentleman. He of anyone would have reason to toot his own horn - but instead he does everything but.

Its clear he must have mean that being down in one set was 0-4 was a little embarrasing.

Base your opinion on someone on a long history. Laver has a long history of being an exemplary gentleman. Give him some credit.

 

[Manus Domini]

and is it just me or has Nadal been in the top 2 far longer this year than Fed was in 2004?

 

[Cup8489]

If you watch any interviews with Laver, 100% of the time he is the most humble, self-effacing ie a real gentleman. He of anyone would have reason to toot his own horn - but instead he does everything but.

Its clear he must have mean that being down in one set was 0-4 was a little embarrasing.

Base your opinion on someone on a long history. Laver has a long history of being an exemplary gentleman. Give him some credit.

basic understanding of human emotions and emotional patterns is entirely beyond the *******s who are freaking out about what Laver said. any reasonable person would agree with you on this, Laver is as much a role model for an aspiring player as Federer is. Point in fact, I think he's awesome. He's not my favorite player, but whenever you come across an old match of his it's always good stuff.

I'm also laughing at the fact that so many of those in this thread are saying Nadal is better than Laver and blah blah blah and how he won his 2 CYGS on only two surfaces or w/e but, if it was to be properly analyzed in a fair way we'd need to take away 6 years of Nadal's prime, however long it would be. If we took away his prime in the way that Laver lost his *in terms of winning majors* then Nadal would have 0 Slams! Laver still managed 11 even with a 6 year gap! Nadal could never hope to do such a thing at this point in his career! That's why personally I think Federer needs a CYGS and at least 19 majors in order to really put himself ahead of Laver in any way, because Laver's major-winning potential is huge, and he still managed to win 11 despite his prime being completely irrelevant in his major count..

 

[Cup8489]

and is it just me or has Nadal been in the top 2 far longer this year than Fed was in 2004?

not sure i understand what you're saying.. could you clarify?

 

[forzamilan90]

basic understanding of human emotions and emotional patterns is entirely beyond the *******s who are freaking out about what Laver said. any reasonable person would agree with you on this, Laver is as much a role model for an aspiring player as Federer is. Point in fact, I think he's awesome. He's not my favorite player, but whenever you come across an old match of his it's always good stuff.

I'm also laughing at the fact that so many of those in this thread are saying Nadal is better than Laver and blah blah blah and how he won his 2 CYGS on only two surfaces or w/e but, if it was to be properly analyzed in a fair way we'd need to take away 6 years of Nadal's prime, however long it would be. If we took away his prime in the way that Laver lost his *in terms of winning majors* then Nadal would have 0 Slams! Laver still managed 11 even with a 6 year gap! Nadal could never hope to do such a thing at this point in his career! That's why personally I think Federer needs a CYGS and at least 19 majors in order to really put himself ahead of Laver in any way, because Laver's major-winning potential is huge, and he still managed to win 11 despite his prime being completely irrelevant in his major count..

good stuff, Federer is my fave and a popular consensus for GOAT, but the more you read about what Laver did (even in the years he wasn't in contention for Grand Slams he was absolutely owning left and right) the dude makes a case for a legendary player, one such i cannot even compare to any other sport

 

[Manus Domini]

not sure i understand what you're saying.. could you clarify?

that the argument about Nadal beating Federer in 2004 is irrelevant because Federer received #1 for first time in 2004 while Nadal did in 2008, and so was #1 longer by the time of his match with Tomic than Federer with his match with Nadal.

 

[Manus Domini]

good stuff, Federer is my fave and a popular consensus for GOAT, but the more you read about what Laver did (even in the years he wasn't in contention for Grand Slams he was absolutely owning left and right) the dude makes a case for a legendary player, one such i cannot even compare to any other sport

what about Rosewall? He has claim to fame too. One Pro-Grand-slam in 1963, 4 RG-Wembley doubles (super slow clay to super fast indoor wood, except for one year which were both indoor wood) in a row (he didn't play US Pro Championships until 1963 as far as I can tell)

he has 19 slams total not including his amateur slams, which is pretty good, and was the best at clay undisputed for years

 

[Forehand Avenger]

that the argument about Nadal beating Federer in 2004 is irrelevant because Federer received #1 for first time in 2004 while Nadal did in 2008, and so was #1 longer by the time of his match with Tomic than Federer with his match with Nadal.

You are clutching at straws. Nadal came from being behind 0-4 to winning the set. Federer lost to Nadal in straight sets when Nadal was 17 and #40. Look the definition of "embarrassed" and tell me which one fits better. I don't blame Laver for the use of the word, because he is just siding with Tomic, since he is the great Australian hope of tennis. But for people here to maintain that he was being literal is just stretching the truth a little.

 

[Nadalfan89]

Rosewall played in a time where half the athletes were playing in a completely different league. The draws were much smaller and the calibre of tennis was a joke.

 

[Forehand Avenger]

Rosewall played in a time where half the athletes were playing in a completely different league. The draws were much smaller and the calibre of tennis was a joke.

I'm sorry, but you can't disrespect the achievements of these legendary players that easily. You obviously have never seen these guys play. The fact that the draws were smaller doesn't mean a thing. They also played with inferior technology (wooden rackets, gut strings, archaic shoe technology, etc.) So what? When you watch some of the old matches, you'll understand.

 

[Nadalfan89]

Rosewall, Gonzalez and Laver played with such inferior technology that it's not their fault that the level of tennis was low.

Back then, an 80mph serve was considered extremely fast; almost unreturnable.

 

[Forehand Avenger]

Rosewall, Gonzalez and Laver played with such inferior technology that it's not their fault that the level of tennis was low.

Back then, an 80mph serve was considered extremely fast; almost unreturnable.

The level of tennis was not low. Pancho Gonzalez, for example, has one of the best services ever, probably the best until Sampras came around.

The technology available dictates what the game is like. The fact that a 80mph serve was much harder to return than a 110mph serve is today doesn't mean the level of tennis was lower. The ball was slower on serves. But comparatively it's much harder to return with a wooden racket.

It's like saying that Babe Ruth was a loser compared to Barry Bonds. Utter nonsense.

 

[Manus Domini]

Rosewall played in a time where half the athletes were playing in a completely different league. The draws were much smaller and the calibre of tennis was a joke.

Correction, only a few of the athletes were in a different league. It's like if the tourneys were hihg level players like the WTFs. Not easy if you are only against the top 10 in slams. Smaller draws but greater players.

And callibre of tennis a joke? They were great athletes. Have you seen Rosewall or Laver highlight clips? I have (have not seen them play full matches though), and they are amazing. They have perfect anticipation, perfect timing. That is not a low calibre of tennis, and calling it such is just plain stupid.

Rosewall, Gonzalez and Laver played with such inferior technology that it's not their fault that the level of tennis was low.

Back then, an 80mph serve was considered extremely fast; almost unreturnable.

considering some served at 130+ mph, 80mph was not extremely fast. Maybe you should get your stats right? Considering their "technology" and the rules limited their speed of serves, that's pretty good.

And the serves were not unreturnable. Laver's super slow serve (probably 80mph) cost him big when he transferred from amateur to pro and he had to change it. They did not play with super-inferior technology, as you claim. They could play with these rackets very well. If you played them when they had woodies at their prime and you had your APD, they would most likely triple bagle you.

Same with Borg, JMac, Don Budge, Tilden, etc.

 

[adidasman]

The level of tennis was not low. Pancho Gonzalez, for example, has one of the best services ever, probably the best until Sampras came around.

The technology available dictates what the game is like. The fact that a 80mph serve was much harder to return than a 110mph serve is today doesn't mean the level of tennis was lower. The ball was slower on serves. But comparatively it's much harder to return with a wooden racket.

It's like saying that Babe Ruth was a loser compared to Barry Bonds. Utter nonsense.

And 80 mph serves might have been more common, but there were still guys bringing it with the wood racquets. I guarantee you that Stan Smith and Pancho and Newk and guys like Colin Dibley (who hit serves well over 130) weren't serving at 80 mph.

 

[LuckyR]

... because he's short?

 

[TheTruth]

Maybe Laver used the word "embarrassed" because he would have been had he been in Nadal's shoes. If anyone would know what's it's like to be in that position, it's Laver. (Of course, Laver would never actually be in Nadal's shoes - since Nadal wears a vastly inferior brand to the ones worn by the Rocket. )

Here's my take.

I wasn't around when Laver played so I don't presume to know anything about him. A million commentators, sports writers, etc. can tell me that he's so classy, great, etc. and it doesn't mean a thing because I judge those things for myself.

I mean, c'mon, there are twenty year olds claiming Laver was, is a great. How would they know? Because someone told them?

That he would be in the limelight all these years and say something that stupid whether it be for national pride, or whatever reason, doesn't mean I have to give him a pass.

He won one amateur grand slam, sorry, but that doesn't count imo. Why does he get credit for two grandslams, when one was amatuer? Just more spin, I think.

He won on two surfaces, while if Rafa did it, it would be on three surfaces in the modern game, so that trumps it for me.

The ITF disagrees with Laver, and I happen to side with the ITF, because 4 in a row, holding all the slams at the same time is grand slam, to me.

I watched one of his old matches last month, for about 20 minutes. That's all I could take it was so boring.

Some feel he meant no harm. Some feel he did.

 

[President]

Some feel he meant no harm. Some feel he did.

Seems like the one's who think he did mean harm are all fans of a certain player....

 

[Eternally_damned]

Seems like the one's who think he did mean harm are all fans of a certain player....

True dat.....

 

[TheTruth]

Seems like the one's who think he did mean harm are all fans of a certain player....

Well, I for one do. I've read many articles where Rod was quoted and usually he's pretty impartial. It seems weird to me as they go onward and Rafa has a chance to win some people some to be getting squeamish.

I'd feel the same way if Borg, Sampras, or any other great came out and said something unneccesary when someone was approaching "their" record. It just comes off as petty.

Rafa may not even win this Australian Open, so people need to chill and not say things that put them in an unfavorable light.

 

[adidasman]

Here's my take.

I wasn't around when Laver played so I don't presume to know anything about him. A million commentators, sports writers, etc. can tell me that he's so classy, great, etc. and it doesn't mean a thing because I judge those things for myself.

I mean, c'mon, there are twenty year olds claiming Laver was, is a great. How would they know? Because someone told them?

That he would be in the limelight all these years and say something that stupid whether it be for national pride, or whatever reason, doesn't mean I have to give him a pass.

He won one amateur grand slam, sorry, but that doesn't count imo. Why does he get credit for two grandslams, when one was amatuer? Just more spin, I think.

He won on two surfaces, while if Rafa did it, it would be on three surfaces in the modern game, so that trumps it for me.

The ITF disagrees with Laver, and I happen to side with the ITF, because 4 in a row, holding all the slams at the same time is grand slam, to me.

I watched one of his old matches last month, for about 20 minutes. That's all I could take it was so boring.

Some feel he meant no harm. Some feel he did.

I have met Laver on several occasions and I have played with him twice. He was not only, by far, the most gracious and humble celebrity I've ever been exposed to personally, but truly one of the nicest men I've ever met, period. I also happen to know people who are far better acquainted than I am with him, and they have all said nothing but kind and positive things about him. The worst I've heard was from a good friend of mine who's a tennis writer; he just interviewed Rocket recently about the floods in Queensland, his home state, and my friend said Laver seemed "slightly annoyed." That is literally the worst thing I've ever heard about him.

Your naivete about Laver's two Slams is more concerning. Laver's first Slam was as an amateur, yes. But professional tennis was not what it is today; only a handful of players were pros at that point. The competition was still plenty good, and he still had to face most of the best players of his day. Besides, if Laver's feat was so inconsequential, why wasn't it done more frequently? Because it was extremely difficult then, as it was for Laver as a pro in 1969 and as it is today. And who exactly is it that's applying this "spin" you're talking about? Your foolishness is both embarrassing (there, I said it) and irritating.

Finally, as for your closing remark about the quality of Laver's game - all I have to say is that, if 20 minutes of watching Laver is "all (you) could take it was so boring," you're not much of a tennis fan, and you clearly lack appreciation for the subleties of the sport. I guarantee your hero Nadal has a much higher opinion of Laver, and of the other greats from that era, than you do.

 

[adidasman]

Well, I for one do. I've read many articles where Rod was quoted and usually he's pretty impartial. It seems weird to me as they go onward and Rafa has a chance to win some people some to be getting squeamish.

I'd feel the same way if Borg, Sampras, or any other great came out and said something unneccesary when someone was approaching "their" record. It just comes off as petty.

Rafa may not even win this Australian Open, so people need to chill and not say things that put them in an unfavorable light.

Gadzooks. Rafa is nowhere near Laver's record, and Laver's "embarrassed" comment only relates to the whole "is it a Grand Slam or isn't it?" debate because people like you are choosing to see it that way. You said it yourself - Laver is usually "pretty impartial." Perhaps Laver isn't the one who's being partial here, eh? You're just so upset that Laver dared to say that Rafa's four-in-a-row isn't a Grand Slam - and I guarantee you 100% that Rocket would have said the same thing about any other player in Nadal's situation, as would most of the tennis community - that you're making this into a personal issue between Laver and Nadal. That's just stupid, really.

 

[Manus Domini]

Here's my take.

I wasn't around when Laver played so I don't presume to know anything about him. A million commentators, sports writers, etc. can tell me that he's so classy, great, etc. and it doesn't mean a thing because I judge those things for myself.

I mean, c'mon, there are twenty year olds claiming Laver was, is a great. How would they know? Because someone told them?

That he would be in the limelight all these years and say something that stupid whether it be for national pride, or whatever reason, doesn't mean I have to give him a pass.

He won one amateur grand slam, sorry, but that doesn't count imo. Why does he get credit for two grandslams, when one was amatuer? Just more spin, I think.

He won on two surfaces, while if Rafa did it, it would be on three surfaces in the modern game, so that trumps it for me.

The ITF disagrees with Laver, and I happen to side with the ITF, because 4 in a row, holding all the slams at the same time is grand slam, to me.

I watched one of his old matches last month, for about 20 minutes. That's all I could take it was so boring.

Some feel he meant no harm. Some feel he did.

A few things wrong with your argument:

1} His game is far more interesting than Rafa's imo, at least he was an all-court player who wasn't afraid to go in. Someone that thinks he was boring to watch needs to tell me why, because I don't get it

2} Those same "two surfaces" play radically different depending on the type of grass and climate and location. However, these three surfaces are very similar in speed and bounce.

3} He also won the pro-grand-slam in 1967. He and Rosewall were the Federer and Nadal of that era, or more like the Federer and lefty-Federer (because Nadal isn't at all like them in playing style whereas Federer is). so that is 1 Amateur grand slam, 1 pro-grand slam, and one open era grand slam

4} NCYGS and the Grand Slam are very different. Grand Slam has no rest period of a month of off-season, NCYGS does, and there is not as much pressure

5} He meant no harm to Rafa. He merely wanted to up his fellow Australian. How does that mean any harm? You *******s are really touchy...want a tissue?

 

[TheTruth]

I have met Laver on several occasions and I have played with him twice. He was not only, by far, the most gracious and humble celebrity I've ever been exposed to personally, but truly one of the nicest men I've ever met, period. I also happen to know people who are far better acquainted than I am with him, and they have all said nothing but kind and positive things about him. The worst I've heard was from a good friend of mine who's a tennis writer; he just interviewed Rocket recently about the floods in Queensland, his home state, and my friend said Laver seemed "slightly annoyed." That is literally the worst thing I've ever heard about him.

Your naivete about Laver's two Slams is more concerning. Laver's first Slam was as an amateur, yes. But professional tennis was not what it is today; only a handful of players were pros at that point. The competition was still plenty good, and he still had to face most of the best players of his day. Besides, if Laver's feat was so inconsequential, why wasn't it done more frequently? Because it was extremely difficult then, as it was for Laver as a pro in 1969 and as it is today. And who exactly is it that's applying this "spin" you're talking about? Your foolishness is both embarrassing (there, I said it) and irritating.

Finally, as for your closing remark about the quality of Laver's game - all I have to say is that, if 20 minutes of watching Laver is "all (you) could take it was so boring," you're not much of a tennis fan, and you clearly lack appreciation for the subleties of the sport. I guarantee your hero Nadal has a much higher opinion of Laver, and of the other greats from that era, than you do.

They've told me for years that Agassi was so great. I didn't believe it then, and I don't believe it now. Just because a lot of people agree, doesn't mean it's right, nor should it sway one's opinion.

I wasn't around when Laver played, so I don't know anything except what's told to me. That's not my way of reasoning. I find that to be extremely gullible, to take the words of those I don't even know as gospel. I don't know you either, so you saying you met Rod means nothing.

If it's amateur and not professional it doesn't mean anything to me. We may as well take Monfils three majors in the juniors and proclaim him to be better than Djokovic who won his one on the professional tour. Again, I don't understand your reasoning, or what I see as lack of reasoning personally. If it wasn't in the pros, it doesn't count. The spin is that many collectively have anointed Rod the GOAT, and most people believe it. There are many other historians who point to Pancho, Hoad, and others. It depends on the vastness of your sources.

Yep. The game was slow and boring, and I have a right to that opinion. Nadal is not my hero I just like watching him play. Who he esteems is of no interest to me.

I am a tennis fan, but I feel that you have taken a very condescending tone where everything that doesn't fit what you think makes one irritating, naive, and unworthy.

If you feel the way that you've stated in your post, that's OK with me. I don't see you as dumb, ignorant, or anything else. You have reasons to support your opinion and I have reasons to support mine.

It's all about different strokes for different folks, and that's one area where I'm definitely not naive. I expect that, and roll with it.

 

[Manus Domini]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K8IJ0F01IiU That's too slow paced?

Your argument forgets he won a great deal of pro slams and his second grand Slam was in the open era. Those aren't amateur...

btw here is Laver and Hewitt in exho. Not saying anything about quality of play, just as a fun and interesting thing

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z2IP9jz48xc&feature=related