TheTruth
G.O.A.T.
Your entire post just seems like you want to argue, which in itself is pointless. If you believe your post, good on ya. It's all unfounded speculation imo.
Your entire post just seems like you want to argue, which in itself is pointless. If you believe your post, good on ya. It's all unfounded speculation imo.
TheTruth
G.O.A.T.
You have no way of knowing his mindset, motivation or reasons for saying what he said. I think it was unnecessary, and nothing you or anyone else says will change that. And no, I don't need a tissue because it's not that deep. You people seem to take things too seriously, imo. Especially as it comes to mind reading and knowing the thoughts of strangers.
Manus Domini
Hall of Fame
1} His game was one of the best ever. No way it could be boring to watch...
2} I've played soccer on different types of grass, it is a huge difference.
3} that's 1/3 of what I was talking about. So if you choose to disregard facts, like typical *******s, you are just a troll
4} I'm going with the creater of the term, which is from Bridge, meaning all in one hand. Well the year is the hand and the four slams are the cards. Don't forget that the ITF would be the only governing sports body defining it a certain way contrary to its original definition. I am going with the original definition here.
And if we go with the ITF, Don Budge has 3 Grand Slams. Just so you know.
TheTruth
G.O.A.T.
This is my point exactly. Why isn't Budge considered the greatest then? How did Rod leapfrog over him? Simply because those with the mike and pen say so? This is exactly why I think such things are bogus, just so you know where I'm coming from as well.
Manus Domini
Hall of Fame
1] that is a widely respected opinion in the tennis world
2] No, I present facts as facts. The fact is that he won 1 Grand Slam as an amateur, 1 as a pro (pro-grand-slam), and 1 in the open era. It is a fact he was a top pro player.
3] And I'll take the creator of the term over an interpreter of it any day. As I said, it is a mischaracterization to call a ncyGS the Grand Slam. It comes from the game Bridge. If you won 13 tricks over two hands in bridge it isn't the Grand Slam; it only is if you win 13 tricks in one hand. That is a fact. And that is where the term comes from. It is a fact that it is all in one year, an opinion it should not be.
btw dictionary claims this is definition of Grand Slam "Sports: the winning by a single player of several designated major championship contests in one season, as in golf or tennis."
in response to Budge, he wasn't super-dominant like Laver was. He is credited with one of the finest backhands to ever exist however
He was actually. Most would put him on a level pegging with Laver.
And the kid is Australian and Laver is a patriotic Australian for goodness sake. Storm in a teacup.
veroniquem
Bionic Poster
Both Laver and Rosewall are biassed toward Fed. Maybe partly because Fed's first coach was Australian? Don't know and don't really care as long as they behave appropriately if they have to give Rafa the trophy. Other than that, it doesn't matter what they think. Rafa doesn't lack admirers and doesn't need those guys to build his own legend (and have his own arena one day somewhere in the world, I have no doubt...)
TheTruth
G.O.A.T.
An opinion is just that, an opinion, it's not a fact. Plus, I was referring to you saying that Laver had the best game to watch ever. That's opinion, period.
We disagree because 1.) I don't give anyone's opinion credence over my own personal opinion.
2.) amateur means amateur to me.
3.) I don't play Bridge, but there are currently several different ways to define it, a career grand slam, meaning winning all four in your career, a calendar grand slam, winning them all in one year, and what we haven't defined yet, the grand slam where you hold all four successively. When Serena did it, they didn't necessarily bother to define it, maybe because it was on the women's tour and not as rare as on the men's side.
To me, holding all four successively is no different, if anything stalling your momentum and trying to regain it after a break is just as difficult, but that's just how I see it, and have no problem with you seeing it differently.
I do appreciate you making your points, because it helps me to understand where you are coming from, but that doesn't mean I have to agree with you, or you with me. It's just interesting.
ruerooo
Legend
My first thought is the same one I had every time Borg got a little snippy when Roger or Rafa was threatening to break one of his Wimbledon or RG records. Even Borg. These guys have enormous egos, and to think someone is going to break their records really seems to upset them enough to get a little insistent about how it isn't that big a deal, or how the other guy can't do it, in the press.
My other thought -- even though all I want is a FEDAL final and then may the best man win -- is that he really, really, really, really, really wants Roger to win.
Remember in 09 how shell-shocked he looked standing up on the podium with the cup? Like he was in the middle of the wrong movie, and not sure how to get out? How long it took him to hand Rafa the trophy? It looked to me like he still really wanted to hand it to Roger even though Rafa had won the tournament.
I really do think that as long as Roger plays, he really doesn't want anyone winning the AO except Roger. Ever.
Just my little theory.
As is yours. So why is your opinion worth stating and mine isn't? And I'd say my knowledge of Laver, both first-hand and from friends who genuinely know him, trumps your opinion of Laver's supposed pettiness easily. Personally, anyone who calls himself TheTruth is setting himself up to be questioned, if you ask me. I love posts like this, where a response to an opinion with a conflicting one is dismissed because "it's just your opinion." Brilliant.
mtommer
Hall of Fame
)
D
Deleted member 21996
Guest
i could do it. I could quote all the Nards and have a blast at them for disrespecting such a legend as Laver and but im not a ****. so i will just say...
assumption is the mother of all...
assumption is the mother of all...
Cup8489
G.O.A.T.
You're wrong here. Pancho Gonzalez is regarded almost universally as the most purely talented player of all time. Did he win a record number of majors? No, but this guy was top ten into his 40s, and almost everyone except the new watchers of tennis would agree that Pancho, given today's equipment and training methods, would give Federer more than his share of trouble. The guy was an absolute beast. I dont know why he's not talked about more in the grand scheme of things, he was just awesome to see.
And the level of tennis was not low. just because theyre not hitting 140 mph serves and 100 mph groundstrokes doesnt in any way mean that the tennis quality was low. If you've ever played with a wood frame youd be that much more impressed by what they could do with their equipment.. which was nothing shot of awesome, especially the passing shots of say a laver who could really curl the ball around his opponent if he needed to. These guys were incredible players, and you're being highly disrespectful by discounting that.
Boy, this is just about perfect in its imperfection. First off, you have to appreciate someone so willing to consider another's opinion - very open-minded of you. Second, your definition of amateur fails to take into account the most important factors - that none of the majors were open to professionals at that time, and "pro tennis" was nothing more than a handful of guys barnstorming around from city to city . So the majority of players were - you guessed it! - amateurs. Third, there is an accepted definition of the Grand Slam in tennis - four majors in the same calendar year. There may be some who want to broaden that definition, but, for now, that's it. Fourth, this conversation isn't new; it goes at least as far back as Navratilova's accomplishment of what your "guy I like to watch play" (not your hero, though he's your avatar) failed to do. Fifth, you show your ignorance again when you say the Grand Slam is less rare on the women's side - it's actually happened less for women than for men (twice for women, three times for men). You are correct when you say opinions are opinions - but some opinions are better-informed than others. Yours, sadly, fall into the latter category. Sorry, but that's not opinion - that is TheTruth.
Eternally_damned
Banned
I guess Laver got into Nadal's head and prevented his little mini slam.
fednad
Hall of Fame
Boy, this is just about perfect in its imperfection. First off, you have to appreciate someone so willing to consider another's opinion - very open-minded of you. Second, your definition of amateur fails to take into account the most important factors - that none of the majors were open to professionals at that time, and "pro tennis" was nothing more than a handful of guys barnstorming around from city to city . So the majority of players were - you guessed it! - amateurs. Third, there is an accepted definition of the Grand Slam in tennis - four majors in the same calendar year. There may be some who want to broaden that definition, but, for now, that's it. Fourth, this conversation isn't new; it goes at least as far back as Navratilova's accomplishment of what your "guy I like to watch play" (not your hero, though he's your avatar) failed to do. Fifth, you show your ignorance again when you say the Grand Slam is less rare on the women's side - it's actually happened less for women than for men (twice for women, three times for men). You are correct when you say opinions are opinions - but some opinions are better-informed than others. Yours, sadly, fall into the latter category. Sorry, but that's not opinion - that is TheTruth.
You are wasting time. Arguing with him/her is like trying to teach a buffalo to read Shakespeare.
And guess what - NadsyBoy is out now. (S)he and the veronica guy/gal will not show up until the clay season.
Good point. I'll get back to teaching ol' Mr. Bison the soliloquy from Macbeth...he's getting reeeeeeeeally close.
Raiden
Hall of Fame
Yea rrrrrright... cuz Laver might likely say "Mr Nadal, you don't deserve this, but the buggers made me give it to you, so here, take it and get out of my face"
DragonBlaze
Hall of Fame
Haven't seen you post in a while! It's always good to hear your opinions (your bias is much less than most on here).
cork_screw
Hall of Fame
I don't know what you mean by "hater." But Rod obviously has some australian pride (he is australian) and the fact that Tomic is also australian just shows that he shows compassion for his countryman. All his points were correct. Tomic did push him around and force nadal to run and make some very pressured shots, this was also mentioned by the ESPN commentary crew and it was no secret that Nadal was sweating a lot. So what's your point... ????????? Rod didn't mis-construe any information to slander Nadal or show any bias that wasn't perceived by everyone watching. I don't understand you people.
TheTruth
G.O.A.T.
Where you get it wrong, is that I never questioned your opinion. You told me Laver's game was the best ever and stated it as a fact, not an opinion.
You're right to take your opinion over mine. I take mine over yours too. I still think it was a petty comment, so nothing's changed.
Just wondering, do you have a problem with monikers like Fed the Savior, Fed is God? If not, why would the truth bother you? I don't understand your moniker either, but I don't question it. You have a right to call yourself whatever you want to. I can't imagine even mentioning something like that.
What I think is funny is how Person A has an opinion, and Person B quotes them telling them their opinion is wrong, then try to turn the tables in the process. Even more brilliant!
TheTruth
G.O.A.T.
Boy, this is just about perfect in its imperfection. First off, you have to appreciate someone so willing to consider another's opinion - very open-minded of you. Second, your definition of amateur fails to take into account the most important factors - that none of the majors were open to professionals at that time, and "pro tennis" was nothing more than a handful of guys barnstorming around from city to city . So the majority of players were - you guessed it! - amateurs. Third, there is an accepted definition of the Grand Slam in tennis - four majors in the same calendar year. There may be some who want to broaden that definition, but, for now, that's it. Fourth, this conversation isn't new; it goes at least as far back as Navratilova's accomplishment of what your "guy I like to watch play" (not your hero, though he's your avatar) failed to do. Fifth, you show your ignorance again when you say the Grand Slam is less rare on the women's side - it's actually happened less for women than for men (twice for women, three times for men). You are correct when you say opinions are opinions - but some opinions are better-informed than others. Yours, sadly, fall into the latter category. Sorry, but that's not opinion - that is TheTruth.
You telling me Laver was the best ever to watch qualifies as an informed opinion? You still don't realize that that is a subjective opinion, do you? You can try to spin it all you want, but the bottom line is, you're wasting your time. I don't think Laver is the best ever to watch, and I think his comment was petty, nothing you say is going to change that, so you can write all day and all night and the results will still be the same.
I don't have heroes. I have a favorite player, not that that's any of your concern.
As to the bolded, I'll take the ITF over your well informed opinion anytime.
aphex
Banned
The true sign of an idiot.
TheTruth
G.O.A.T.
Boy, this is just about perfect in its imperfection. First off, you have to appreciate someone so willing to consider another's opinion - very open-minded of you. Second, your definition of amateur fails to take into account the most important factors - that none of the majors were open to professionals at that time, and "pro tennis" was nothing more than a handful of guys barnstorming around from city to city . So the majority of players were - you guessed it! - amateurs. Third, there is an accepted definition of the Grand Slam in tennis - four majors in the same calendar year. There may be some who want to broaden that definition, but, for now, that's it. Fourth, this conversation isn't new; it goes at least as far back as Navratilova's accomplishment of what your "guy I like to watch play" (not your hero, though he's your avatar) failed to do. Fifth, you show your ignorance again when you say the Grand Slam is less rare on the women's side - it's actually happened less for women than for men (twice for women, three times for men). You are correct when you say opinions are opinions - but some opinions are better-informed than others. Yours, sadly, fall into the latter category. Sorry, but that's not opinion - that is TheTruth.
OK. Some opinions are better informed than others. I agree with you, but you have given me nothing except that you think Rod had the best game to watch ever. I happen not to see Laver as the greatest ever, going by reports written by others, not those in the commentary booth.
As to opinions, which you said were the consensus, it appears that many others disagreee.
The article is very long, but definitely worth a read.
http://www.neta.com/~1stbooks/PG_.htm
S. L. Price in Sports Illustrated ("The Lone Wolf," June 24, 2002) writes: "Pancho Gonzalez may have been the best tennis player of all time . . . Kramer rates Gonzalez a better player than Sampras or Laver. Ashe called Gonzalez the only idol he ever had. Segura, Olmedo and Ralston say Gonzalez was the best player in history. Connors said once that if he needed someone to play for his life, he’d pick Gonzalez. Pasarell agrees: ‘He was the toughest competitor who ever played. He just fought and fought until he died. . . . [In 1971] the 43-year old Gonzalez beat a 19-year-old Connors from the base-line in the Pacific Southwest Open."
Anyone who is even a little conversant with tennis knows that "open tennis" began in 1968. That is, before then, only amateurs could play slam tournaments, like little, unsea-soned boys, while the professional tennis players, barred from these tournaments, could only compete in the professional circuits. And, as Bud Elsie said, ". . . there isn’t an ama-teur to be found who can beat any of the top pros." In short, there was virtually no com-petition between the amateurs playing the slam tournaments and the pros playing on the pro tours. It would seem obvious to conclude that the winners of slam titles before the open era were inferior players, while winning those titles, to the pros playing in the pro tours. Therefore, neither the slam titles nor the amateur players winning them should be given anywhere near the same value before 1968 that we have given them since then, the beginning of the open era.
Our concern here, then, is the question of greatness of play and not the misunderstand-ing and distortion of the value of amateur "slam" titles. We can begin by assessing the play of Roy Emerson, king of amateurs, who won 12 slam titles before 1968 but was a wholesale flop on the professional level, where he failed to win even one championship and was crushed by Gonzalez when they met on the pro tour. Yet when Sampras was challenging Emerson’s twelve (amateur) titles, much was made of the fact that Sampras, as a pro, had the chance of tying, and later breaking, that record of slam titles, as if Emer-son’s titles were the equal of those Sampras had won.
Cas Fish describes the debacle in Tennis Today: "Contracted to play Hoad 13 best-of-five set matches, Laver won the first set of the first match, but was unable to win another. It doesn’t take a mathematical genius to work out that this meant that Hoad won 39 con-secutive sets from Laver. . . . Hoad at that time had virtually retired from the game, was suffering with a chronically bad back, and had had only three weeks to practice before the match. . . . It rather makes nonsense of Laver’s first grand slam."
These impressions give the necessary perspective to Laver’s first "grand slam": the excellent play of an amateur, who cannot give a top pro a decent game. Laver himself says he needs "to learn how to play tennis all over again" if he hopes to compete with the pros. As good as Laver was during his relatively short professional run, he was not in any strict sense dominant from 1963 to 1969, the latter year when he won his only pro-fessional grand slam and also the last year he ever won a singles slam title, at age 31. Perhaps his major claim to fame is the two grand slams no one else has been able to match. But as we have seen, his first grand slam (in amateur competition) should not be given nearly the same weight as the one he won as a pro.
Collins put it in broader perspective when he added: "For a decade Gonzalez and pro tennis were synonymous. A promoter couldn’t hope to rally crowds unless Pancho was on the bill. The other names [Trabert, Rosewall, Hoad, Laver, Cooper, Segura, Ander-son, Sedgman, Olmedo, Parker, MacKay] meant little."
Laver (often thumped by Gonzalez despite differences in age) joins the chorus: "We hoped he [Gonzalez] wouldn’t get upset; it just made him tougher." And though Laver could at one point say, "He [Gonzalez] was ungracious to say the least, a loner, and an jerk on court," he could still appreciate the beauty of Pancho’s play. "I was find-ing myself enthralled to watch him [Gonzalez], just like any other spectator."
In the clutch Pancho simply did not miss! He never lost his serve while serving for a set or match! What other tennis player can lay claim to such adulation?
We have employed various criteria for measuring the greatness of Pancho Gonzalez in contrast to other tennis players proclaimed the best, and in a few cases incorrectly consi-dered the best in history. We have seen how the record shows that Gonzalez has won hands down. Not only have we seen his dominance over all the competition but also for a much longer span than anyone else can boast, as well as ranking No. 1 many more times than anyone else.
However, we might add another dimension that cannot be attributed to anyone else in history: winning at the highest level of tennis longer than anyone else. Unlike other top players who fizzled out at a relatively early age, Gonzalez could still beat the top players on any given day and win pro tournaments well into his 40s. Borg retired in his twenties and was unable to compete against top players when he tried a come-back within just a few years. McEnroe was another washout when he retired young and could not compete a few months later. Neither Budge nor Laver was at all effective as top competitors by the age of 37. For all practical purposes Laver was burnt out after he won his pro grand slam in ’69 at age 31. Budge retired and tried a come-back at age 37 in an attempt to re-place Jack Kramer as King of the Court in 1953 only to be crushed by Gonzalez, who had already unofficially dethroned Kramer in ’51.
TheTruth
G.O.A.T.
Read the heavily researched article above before spouting your usual nonsense, since it's obvious you do not understand the difference between a subjective opinion and a fact.
It's not a bother being called an idiot by you. I wouldn't expect a reasonable response from you anyway, bandwagoner.
aphex
Banned
I'm sorry, but someone who closes his ears and does not at least give the other person a chance to convince him is exactly that.
D
Deleted member 21996
Guest
Hence you disrespecting the opinion of a Tennis Legend of the caliber of Laver.
oh my god....
TheTruth
G.O.A.T.
You're wrong on both counts, unless you haven't been following it correctly.
1. Adidasman is telling me that Laver had the best game to watch-I disagree. No one can give you an opinion like that and state it as fact.
2. He also disagrees with my opinion that Rod made a petty comment.
How can someone convince you to change your opinion based on what they think is the best? Using your logic, we would have to agree with whatever someone says. I didn't see any expert opinions coming from him. He just said it was a popular opinion, but even then he didn't back it up.
How can he convince me that Rod's game is the best ever?
How can he change my mind about what I feel is a petty comment?
I don't understand where you're coming from.
D
Deleted member 77403
Guest
Hey Truth - You were expecting a Blood Bath at the AO this year, and we got one! Good call.
This is just the typical garbage from Kramer who was a noted Laver hater. He even called him a 2nd tier player. The Jealous *****.
Not dominant from 63-69??? More drivel here. 1967 Pro Slam anyone??? The main reason why he didn't win after 69 was that he wasn't allowed to play in most of the majors. he couldn't defend 2 of his tiles in 1970 and played only a handful of majors from 1970-1975.
Extraordinary. it was Laver who often thumped Gonzales not the other way around.
Overall he was still the best player in 70 and 71 and was winning more money than anyone else. He smashed French open winner kodes at the itlalian and hammered Borg on clay in 1974.
At he end of day he owns the record for most tourney's won in season as an Amateur, Pro and Open era.
Last edited:
Show me where I said that Laver's game was objectively the best to watch. I want to see the quote. Go ahead, I'll wait. You know, I think your Wooden "signature" is excellent; perhaps you should try to learn a bit more from that wise, talented, God-fearing man. We all could learn a lot from him. I will tell you that my online name only tells you what brand I prefer; it doesn't make any claims about what I do or do not know. Yours just raises lots of questions about you and how you view yourself - which is fine if that's what you want to do. But don't call yourself TheTruth and then try to backpedal away from the connotations of that kind of moniker. In any case, based on how others are reacting to you, it seems I'm wasting my time trying to engage you in an actual conversation. All I can tell you is that I think you're wrong about Laver's intentions, and I believe I know a bit more about the kind of man he is than do you. If you told me you'd spent time with Nadal and knew something about his true character, I'd take your word for it. I have no need to contradict you just because your facts might get in the way of my suppositions.
Note that the "heavily researched article" fails to take into account the realities of Laver's situation; he was young, out on tour with a bunch of guys far more comfortable with the grind of the pro tour, and he was almost certainly intimidated by his heroes (especially his countryman Hoad, I'd wager). Saying that his failures at the beginning of his pro career meant the other guys were simply better than Laver was is, to me, a bit simplistic.
jackson vile
G.O.A.T.
Really good post, Laver is not the end all be all. There are so so many other players from the past that are simply amazing. Their achievments are even more amazing due to the fact that they worked other jobs at times and had virtually no technology, sports training, supplements, etc to speak of.
TheTruth
G.O.A.T.
Hey Truth - You were expecting a Blood Bath at the AO this year, and we got one! Good call.
It's just tennis.
It's weird, before this tournament I had a feeling Nadal and Fed wouldn't be in the final, and I was okay with that. I didn't think it would be an injury to take Nadal out, but stuff happens. I'm just glad it's not a serious one. But, it's nice to see someone else on the big stage. Even with some people's disappointments, I think this is going to be a great final. I'm pumped, and happy for both of these fine competitors.
TheTruth
G.O.A.T.
My apologies. It wasn't you who said he had the best game ever to watch. It was another poster. It's hard to keep up with the number of posters who jump into the fray.
Sorry you don't like my name, but that's not my problem.
The people on this board who have a problem with me? You mean the instigators? Wow!
I think Rod's comments were petty and uncalled for. I'm sorry, but that's my opinion.
TheTruth
G.O.A.T.
I didn't write the article. But, I find it hard to believe he could say all that without fear of slander.
CyBorg
Legend
There's a problem with using other opinions to support one's opinion. Opinions are nothing more than what they are - they should not take on an aura of superiority simply because they are expressed by someone of authority.
The rhetoric of anyone in authority is only as good as the facts espoused.
Kramer indeed underrated Laver. I don't know whether it was any kind of "deep seeded hate" necessarily. It may have been the fact that he produced those rankings while Laver was still an active player (a pretty typical bias for older players in expense of the younger ones). It should not be surprising to see Kramer prefer his contemporary Gonzales. If one truly thinks about it, Kramer's lauding of Gonzales makes his own accomplishments (including some of his victories over Pancho) seem more impressive by extension.
Only facts matter. It's the only objective evidence. And the facts are on Laver's side. They confirm that he was one of the true great players.
The rhetoric of anyone in authority is only as good as the facts espoused.
Kramer indeed underrated Laver. I don't know whether it was any kind of "deep seeded hate" necessarily. It may have been the fact that he produced those rankings while Laver was still an active player (a pretty typical bias for older players in expense of the younger ones). It should not be surprising to see Kramer prefer his contemporary Gonzales. If one truly thinks about it, Kramer's lauding of Gonzales makes his own accomplishments (including some of his victories over Pancho) seem more impressive by extension.
Only facts matter. It's the only objective evidence. And the facts are on Laver's side. They confirm that he was one of the true great players.
CyBorg
Legend
And this opinion isn't worth squat to any person who reads the comments and draws conclusions reasonably based on the contents of what is said.
There's nothing inflammatory in the comments. People with a victim complex will choose to project their own insecurities of course.
TheTruth
G.O.A.T.
I'm not a victim. I'm simply a person with her own opinion and own mind. Followers seem to resent original thinkers on this board.
The fact that you can't handle a difference of opinion, or a person's right to one doesn't speak well of you, imo.
You think I have a victim complex. I think you're a follower getting on a bandwagon for no reason and spouting lies you've heard from other people. You're not even original in your approach. But you know what they say, cowards always band together.
Unfortunately, that only works on the playground. I speak my mind. You don't like it? Tough.
Your opinion isn't worth squat to me either, but you don't see me questioning your right to it. See how that works? You say someone's opinion isn't valid, while offering your own invalid opinion. It's a circular argument and nothing you or weak minded followers say will change my opinion, or my stance.
I am so tired of mindless followers.
Too funny.
mandy01
G.O.A.T.
Just out of curiosity-What is so original about your view point? You've voiced what many of your fellow Nadal fans have already said.Unless you want to say that all Nadal fans are 'original thinkers' which is a highly subjective and one-sided view to begin with I don't see what's so original about taking issue with what Laver had to say.
The fact that you happen to disagree with some posters on this board-I can understand.But the originality part is what I really don't get.
TheTruth
G.O.A.T.
There wasn't anything original about it. I think some people were just trying to make a mountain out of a molehill.
Manus Domini
Hall of Fame
considering the article is flawed. Those who say Laver is the GOAT also take into account his dominance on the pro-tour (which Pancho Gonzales was playing), his ability to defeat younger players, his only weakness being his mentality, and more.
Laver was the Rafa where Rosewall was the Federer. Even their recorded ATP H2H shows that: http://www.atpworldtour.com/Players/Head-To-Head.aspx?pId=R075&oId=L058
Laver won slams against the best of the best, the cream of the crop. He has as full a right to the GOAT candidacy race as Rosewell (19+ slams, one of the best backhands ever, perfect footwork/anticipation, records set as a pro), Federer, Sampras, Pancho Gonzales, Budge, Tillden, Rafa, Vines, Hoad, you name it.
Someone like you, who can't enjoy the tennis of the greats of the past, cannot possibly think of him as a GOAT candidate, because, subconsciously, you think of him as too boring. He had three grand slams: an amateur grand slam (which you consider to be irrelevant), a pro-grand-slam (he won all three pro slams in 1967, which is more significant than the amateur grand slam by far considering whom he had to beat to get it), and the open grand slam in 1969. That's definately a great resume
Similar threads
