Why is the Roland Garros even an issue in Fed's GOAT consideration?

[bluetrain4]

The primary guy he is chasing (Sampras) never won there, and didn't even make the finals (though he did make the semis, which people seem to forget).

Fed's made a semi and 2 finals, made a lot of Masters Series clay finals and won a few clay Masters, so it's not like there is any issue about his proficiency on clay.

And, almost all the other contenders for GOAT have surface gaps in their Slams (Borg - Hard) (Laver - hard, since the other three majors were on grass) (Sampras - clay).

 

[er00si]

Roger is chasing down everything. My 2c.

 

[mdhubert]

You're right, in relative terms there shouldn't be any issue, but in absolute term a slam missing in his resume means another guy could be even better than him by doing the same he does plus winning RG.
But this is quite unfair for Fed: he beats everybody but one guy on the dirt and his ability is questionned on this surface. Which other great player had such a record on his least favourite surface ? Fed please win the damn thing at least once !

 

[Naomi]

I don’t know, it’s strange to me too. Federer not winning the FO doesn’t matter to me in the slightest; mainly because he’s playing in the same era as Rafa who is considered by many to be the greatest clay courter of all time. To me what makes him one of the GOATs is his 10 consecutive grand slam finals… that’s just an insane, out of this world record!!

 

[mdhubert]

I don’t know, it’s strange to me too. Federer not winning the FO doesn’t matter to me in the slightest; mainly because he’s playing in the same era as Rafa who is considered by many to be the greatest clay courter of all time. To me what makes him one of the GOATs is his 10 consecutive grand slam finals… that’s just an insane, out of this world record!!

I agree this one (still counting) will stay for the ages. Imagine that by winning 4 more little tiny sets in 2 years he would have done two calendar slams in a row ! Our kids won't believe that !

 

[ninman]

I don’t know, it’s strange to me too. Federer not winning the FO doesn’t matter to me in the slightest; mainly because he’s playing in the same era as Rafa who is considered by many to be the greatest clay courter of all time. To me what makes him one of the GOATs is his 10 consecutive grand slam finals… that’s just an insane, out of this world record!!

Exactly, in his last 10 clay court tournaments he's been in 7 finals, what more does he need to do to prove he can play on clay? Obviously winning RG would be great, but to me the fact that he has been more consistent than any other player ever makes him the greatest of all time. I mean consider this, Federer made 17 finals in a row winning 12, and went 24 for 25 winning something like 18 or 19. That's incredible, and to me those are the kind of records that will stand for a long long time. Hell how many players can go for four years and lose only 21 matches?

 

[AAAA]

Performance on all available slam surfaces matter which is why Pete can never be the greatest of all time because he never reached(edit: never won) the FO final which is played on his weakest surface. So far Fed has been in two FO finals which is far more impressive than Sampras's semi final placing but it's still not a FO title.

 

[natasha_nana]

it matters because people will always look for reasons to deny him the status...and so if he plugs all the main criteria (i.e. career Slam, and most number of GS titles, number 1 ranking) it will mostly be an indisputable slam dunk. But should he even leave one of them open I can see him having 18 GS and no FO, and people saying he isnt the greatest. :roll:

though I definitely agree that as far as I am concerned he has more than proven his ability on clay. As Rafa rues that he was born in the Federer era...roger can feel the same way regarding the FO.

 

[AndrewD]

And, almost all the other contenders for GOAT have surface gaps in their Slams (Borg - Hard) (Laver - hard, since the other three majors were on grass) (Sampras - clay).

Laver most certainly doesn't have any surface 'gaps'. That's just a load of BS some moron dreamed up to down-play Laver's accomplishments. The guy won 2 Grand Slams and would have done so regardless of the surface, as he proved by winning the Professional World Championship - Wembley- 4 times, all on hardcourt.

Simply put, if Federer can't win the French Open he can't be the 'greatest of all time' because the greatest wins on all surfaces, regardless of the opposition. If Federer has any claims to being the greatest he'll win the French and if he wants to put it beyond doubt, he'll be able to win the Grand Slam. Without them he's only ever going to be #2.

Perhaps you can call him 'the greatest of all time, except for when he had to play Nadal on clay at the French,when it really mattered'. LOL

 

[urban]

In most former players and experts minds, it counts quite heavily. See recent interviews with Lendl, Arias, Emerson, Collins, Birley, McEnroe and others. Some like Mac or Borg (i don't know about Sampras, but his mentor Pete Fischer stated it) have nightmares about that missing link, the one they failed to win. If someone is really the best of all time, he should beat anybody anywhere on every surface.

 

[NamRanger]

This won't be an issue next year, Nadal has lost a step obviously. His knees and legs are starting to give out.

 

[CyBorg]

The primary guy he is chasing (Sampras) never won there, and didn't even make the finals (though he did make the semis, which people seem to forget).

Fed's made a semi and 2 finals, made a lot of Masters Series clay finals and won a few clay Masters, so it's not like there is any issue about his proficiency on clay.

And, almost all the other contenders for GOAT have surface gaps in their Slams (Borg - Hard) (Laver - hard, since the other three majors were on grass) (Sampras - clay).

So... Laver has a hard court "gap" despite the fact he excelled on hard courts?

Fascinating reasoning.

Does Federer have a green clay "gap"?

 

[daddy]

I think its more about him being so domingnt that he does nto want to be considered goat or probably or 55% goat but GOAT with capital letters. In order to do this, he needs a couple of more years on nr1 spot to reach sampras, a couple or at least one Rolland Garros and lets say 15+ slams.

This is all in his mind people , not ours.

IMO, not gonna be easy may happen but I dont see that being easy now. I am unplesently surprised how unapreciative he was of djokovic after the final and how unapreciative eevryone on this board is of 20yr olds achievement, as if he had no chances at all. This is nr12 but could not have been that way if fed was 0 -2 down, and chance was therem both sets ..

 

[sureshs]

And, almost all the other contenders for GOAT have surface gaps in their Slams (Borg - Hard) (Laver - hard, since the other three majors were on grass) (Sampras - clay).

Difference is, Laver couldn't do anything about it. But Roger doesn't have that excuse. Plus, Agassi has already won all 4 Slams. So, again no excuse.

He has to win the French, otherwise he is not GOAT worthy.

 

[Dimonator133]

This won't be an issue next year, Nadal has lost a step obviously. His knees and legs are starting to give out.

lol. Nobody is even close to Nadal on clay. If Federer is already vulnerable on hard courts, he'll have no chance against Nadal on clay.


and why SHOULDN'T Roland Garros be a factor in the GOAT discussion?? It's no less important than any other major. I think Fed will end up the GOAT whether or not he ever wins RG, but it should still be considered a factor.

 

[bluetrain4]

So... Laver has a hard court "gap" despite the fact he excelled on hard courts?

Fascinating reasoning.

Does Federer have a green clay "gap"?

It's not "reasoning." The post wasn't a conclusion that Fed is the GOAT, just an invitation to discuss the one point made against him, which, as many have made perfectly clear, has some resonance.

I said "gap" in regards to Slams, not in general. We get it, you think Laver is a better candidate for GOAT, and I wouldn't necessarily argue against that at this point.

So, before painting me as some robotic Fed troll or anti-Laver advocate, try actually reading the post before jumpting to conclusions.

 

[teneighty]

I personally do not think Federer needs to win the french to be considered the GOAT...

1) Laver won the calendar slam when there were not 4 different surfaces, and he didn't win as many slams as Federer already has...

2) Sampras only got to the semis ONCE...

3) Federer has gotten to the semis, final, and final... losing to the eventual champion all three times.

4) The only reason Federer has yet to win the french is because he is likely facing the greatest clay court player of all time... Sampras did not win the french because he just wasn't good on clay. Federer is the absolute best on all surfaces and one definitely one of the greats on clay.

 

[bluetrain4]

I personally do not think Federer needs to win the french to be considered the GOAT...

1) Laver won the calendar slam when there were not 4 different surfaces, and he didn't win as many slams as Federer already has...

2) Sampras only got to the semis ONCE...

3) Federer has gotten to the semis, final, and final... losing to the eventual champion all three times.

4) The only reason Federer has yet to win the french is because he is likely facing the greatest clay court player of all time... Sampras did not win the french because he just wasn't good on clay. Federer is the absolute best on all surfaces and one definitely one of the greats on clay.

Nadal is a great clay courter, certainly the best of his generation, but I don't think he's the greatest clay courter of all time just yet. He could be in a few years in my opinion, but not yet.

 

[2 Cent]

winning all 4 slams is the ultimate goal of every tennis player.

 

[teneighty]

Nadal is a great clay courter, certainly the best of his generation, but I don't think he's the greatest clay courter of all time just yet. He could be in a few years in my opinion, but not yet.

Completely agree. That's why I said likely. It's been awhile since anyone has dominated clay like Nadal, which makes me believe he could become the greatest clay courter.

 

[Challenger]

I'm among the crowd who see winning on all surfaces a key criterion for being considered GOAT. I mean, how can you be GOAT, if you're not even the contemporary greatest on a particular court? Seems weird to me.

 

[fastdunn]

FO is a definitely a factor but smaller factor, IMHO, than the total number of
slams and duration of dominations.
Winning all slams used to be very important but as you know surface conditions kept changed. Well, then again clay is always clay.

Tennis is ever changing sports. It becomes moot to compare different eras.
The bottom line of measuring greatness always
comes down to: duration of dominations and total number of slams.

 

[Dimonator133]

winning all 4 slams is the ultimate goal of every tennis player.

no.


10 characters

 

[2 Cent]

i would say the #1 goal is to win all 4 grand slams. and the #2 goal is to win the most grand slams.

with that said, i would assume that Agassi probably feels more satisfied and fulfilled with his accomplishments, then Sampras would.

 

[CyBorg]

It's not "reasoning." The post wasn't a conclusion that Fed is the GOAT, just an invitation to discuss the one point made against him, which, as many have made perfectly clear, has some resonance.

I said "gap" in regards to Slams, not in general. We get it, you think Laver is a better candidate for GOAT, and I wouldn't necessarily argue against that at this point.

So, before painting me as some robotic Fed troll or anti-Laver advocate, try actually reading the post before jumpting to conclusions.

I understand exactly what you're saying, which is why I brought up green clay - a surface that used to be used in a major but isn't anymore.

I don't know, nor do I care, whether you are a Fed-troll or anything else.

 

[Dimonator133]

i would say the #1 goal is to win all 4 grand slams. and the #2 goal is to win the most grand slams.

with that said, i would assume that Agassi probably feels more satisfied and fulfilled with his accomplishments, then Sampras would.

i was disagreeing with what was said in that "every single player's goal is to win all 4 grand slams." That's blatantly false.

I also disagree somewhat with the comment quoted above, but not even close to as strongly as I disagree with the "every single player's goal" comment.

 

[2 Cent]

the more i've thought about it. i used to think heavily that having the most slams defines greatness. but, with seeing Federer pretty much cruise on through and inevitably tie and overtake Sampras' 14 slam record, it doesn't seem as such a great feat to me now. for instance, let's say Federer already won his 15th grand slam, setting the total record. now, there's really nothing left for him to do BUT to win the French Open. therefore, i think his most impressive achievement would be to win the illusive French Open.
then he'd have won all 4 slams. and won broke Sampras record.
now, then he'd have to win a Gold Medal at the Olympics.
and win Davis Cup.

heh.

 

[tbini87]

fed can be the GOAT without winning a FO. if he does that might make him the best player to EVER play the game. if he doesn't, someone could come later and take the Goat label from fed. say fed won 16 GS and none on clay. if someone comes along and wins 16 GS with 4 on each surface i think that person will then be considered the GOAT.

 

[Naomi]

the more i've thought about it. i used to think heavily that having the most slams defines greatness. but, with seeing Federer pretty much cruise on through and inevitably tie and overtake Sampras' 14 slam record, it doesn't seem as such a great feat to me now.

WOW!!! It doesn't seem as such a great feat? That's just an insane statement, IMO. Just because Federer makes it seem easy doesn't mean it is easy.

Sure I can understand if you said that winning the FO would make him the undisputed GOAT in your opinion, but to say what he’s accomplished so far is ‘no big thing’ is just crazy. We are all privileged to see this mans greatness and brilliance on the tennis court as were we when we got to see Pete play. And like I said earlier, just that fact that he’s been in 10 consecutive grand slam finals puts him up there (top 3) in the GOAT category for me.

 

[daddy]

I'm among the crowd who see winning on all surfaces a key criterion for being considered GOAT. I mean, how can you be GOAT, if you're not even the contemporary greatest on a particular court? Seems weird to me.

Ill say it again, he thinks himself that HE NEEDS to win the FO to be the goat.

 

[daddy]

the more i've thought about it. i used to think heavily that having the most slams defines greatness. but, with seeing Federer pretty much cruise on through and inevitably tie and overtake Sampras' 14 slam record, it doesn't seem as such a great feat to me now. for instance, let's say Federer already won his 15th grand slam, setting the total record. now, there's really nothing left for him to do BUT to win the French Open. therefore, i think his most impressive achievement would be to win the illusive French Open.
then he'd have won all 4 slams. and won broke Sampras record.
now, then he'd have to win a Gold Medal at the Olympics.
and win Davis Cup.

heh.

He really made it look easy thats why I dont think you are right. 12 slams by now is really really hard to achieve. I think NOW its getting hard mentally, and otherwise, more people contesting him.

I hope at least.

 

[Dimonator133]

Ill say it again, he thinks himself that HE NEEDS to win the FO to be the goat.

disagree. Federer is just one Nadal (the potentially eventual greatest clay-courter of all time) away from having not one but TWO French Open titles. He also won a massive clay-court Masters Series this summer. He's great on clay, he's just never overcome one of he best ever on the surface when it counts.

Sampras was wretched on clay. Just because they both have zero Grand Slams on clay doesn't mean they're equal on the surface.

 

[daddy]

disagree. Federer is just one Nadal (the potentially eventual greatest clay-courter of all time) away from having not one but TWO French Open titles. He also won a massive clay-court Masters Series this summer. He's great on clay, he's just never overcome one of he best ever on the surface when it counts.

Sampras was wretched on clay. Just because they both have zero Grand Slams on clay doesn't mean they're equal on the surface.

I said FEDERER THINKS he has to win it. I dont. I think hes better than Sampras on clay, waaaaay better. But HE THINKS he needs that one because thats the kind of guy he is, wants to beat as many records as possible and this is the most obvoios title he does not have ..

 

[caulcano]

Difference is, Laver couldn't do anything about it. But Roger doesn't have that excuse. Plus, Agassi has already won all 4 Slams. So, again no excuse.

He has to win the French, otherwise he is not GOAT worthy.

Are you saying Agassi is greater than Sampras just because he won all 4 slams? No? I didn't think so.

Federer does not have to win the French to be considered GOAT. To be undisputed GOAT? Yes. But they'll be a helluva lot of people who would think otherwise.

 

[West Coast Ace]

Roger is chasing down everything. My 2c.

Good point. Better avatar.

Performance on all available slam surfaces matter which is why Pete can never be the greatest of all time because he never reached(edit: never won) the FO final which is played on his weakest surface. So far Fed has been in two FO finals which is far more impressive than Sampras's semi final placing but it's still not a FO title.

You were right the 1st time. Never made the final - got schooled by Kafelnikov in the semis.

it matters because people will always look for reasons to deny him the status...

And we call those people 'Sampras jock sniffers'

4) The only reason Federer has yet to win the french is because he is likely facing the greatest clay court player of all time... Sampras did not win the french because he just wasn't good on clay. Federer is the absolute best on all surfaces and one definitely one of the greats on clay.

Exactly! Where was Sampras when Agassi was beating the Medvedev? And I don't want to hear anyone say Kuerten is as good as Nadal - won as an unknown 17 yr old, then won his 2nd when Magnus Norman caved in in the 4th set tie-break (it was obvious he would have won the match if he'd won the tie-break - Kuerten was totally out of gas). And Kuerten won his 3rd off Corretja - who was just happy to be there.

So nice to see a newbie who has some common sense.

 

[hoodjem]

Laver.

Two true Grand Slams.

 

[hoodjem]

greatest clay-courter of all time???

Nadal (the potentially eventual greatest clay-courter of all time)

This I don't get. It's too early to say: Borg won 6 FO titles; Max Decugis won 29 French Championship titles: 8 singles, 14 doubles, 7 mixed doubles.

Who's Rafa play with?

Give him a chance; let's talk about it again in 10 years.

Everyone seems rather too eager and premature to anoint Fed as the GOAT and Rafa as the GCCOAT.

Is there some kind of mass psychological need out there?

 

[Eviscerator]

The primary guy he is chasing (Sampras)

If you consider Sampras the GOAT, then I guess you have a point. However many knowledgeable tennis historians feel Laver is the GOAT, therefore he needs at least one French to even be mentioned in the same breath as someone who won it twice, both during his Grand Slam years.

 

[federerfanatic]

If depends who you consider the current GOAT. If that individual is Sampras then less of an issue. If that individual is Laver then more of an issue. If it someone else, well it depends who that player is, but in most cases they havent won all the slams either so still less.

 

[koopa_troopa]

Just imagine if Nadal was not a great clay courter. Federer would have already surpassed Sampras by now by winning the last three French Opens and would have had 3 calendar grand slams.

Personally I don't think it is an issue for GOAT, but I think its become an issue (in the media and among fans) because of the fact that he has come so close to it so many times.

 

[Dean]

I personally do not think Federer needs to win the french to be considered the GOAT...

1) Laver won the calendar slam when there were not 4 different surfaces, and he didn't win as many slams as Federer already has...

Laver didnt win as many slams...ru serious lol. It's obvious most people have no idea what happened longer than a few years in the past. Laver wasn't allowed to play in the majors in his best years and even after tennis went open he was barred from several slams in the late 60's and early 70's. He wasn't even allowed defend the '69 Australian and French Open wins.. at his absolute best.

Add the fact that he won more than 180 tourneys during his career. He won on everything, Hard,clay,grass,wood and he would have won on ice if they let play on it.

 

[keithchircop]

Laver didnt win as many slams...ru serious lol. It's obvious most people have no idea what happened longer than a few years in the past. Laver wasn't allowed to play in the majors in his best years and even after tennis went open he was barred from several slams in the late 60's and early 70's. He wasn't even allowed defend the '69 Australian and French Open wins.. at his absolute best.

Add the fact that he won more than 180 tourneys during his career. He won on everything, Hard,clay,grass,wood and he would have won on ice if they let play on it.

Laver was a God, not the GOAT, a God.

 

[djones]

It will always be a subjective opinion who's the Goat.
As Federer didn't have to compete with the same players Sampras had to compete with.
It's just a useless discussion.
Federer may win 15 Grand Slams, but that's it.
That just says he won the most Grand Slams.
Because we will never know if Federer was truly a better player than Sampras.



Really, nowadays, there aren't any greats playing tennis, besides Federer, Nadal and an upcoming Djokovic.

 

[BluBarry]

I personally do not think Federer needs to win the french to be considered the GOAT...

1) Laver won the calendar slam when there were not 4 different surfaces, and he didn't win as many slams as Federer already has...

2) Sampras only got to the semis ONCE...

3) Federer has gotten to the semis, final, and final... losing to the eventual champion all three times.

4) The only reason Federer has yet to win the french is because he is likely facing the greatest clay court player of all time... Sampras did not win the french because he just wasn't good on clay. Federer is the absolute best on all surfaces and one definitely one of the greats on clay.

To finally once & for all put that damn question to bed, it would be absolutely necessary for Roger to win the French in order to be considered the GOAT and I will also include, if / when he does, I sure hope it's against a strong, healthy Nadal, after 5 Sets of grueling competition. Anyone else and there will still be an asterisk next to that win. If Rafa say got injured and couldn't compete in the French and bcuz of that Roger wins, I wouldn't be happy with that.

I agree with you about Rafa being the greatest Clay Courter of all times. When I think of all the Clay Court matches this guy has ever played professionally, unless I'm missing something, wasn't the Masters just B4 the French the only time he ever lost on Clay against Federer?

If so, flipping the pages back to our past Clay Greats and none can lay claim to that level of accomplishment.

 

[Grimjack]

Laver didnt win as many slams...ru serious lol. It's obvious most people have no idea what happened longer than a few years in the past. Laver wasn't allowed to play in the majors in his best years and even after tennis went open he was barred from several slams in the late 60's and early 70's. He wasn't even allowed defend the '69 Australian and French Open wins.. at his absolute best.

Add the fact that he won more than 180 tourneys during his career. He won on everything, Hard,clay,grass,wood and he would have won on ice if they let play on it.

Why do people embarrass themselves like this?

If you're so up on your history, surely you understand the demographics of the game, right?

Laver didn't have any resume gaps, and he didn't have any "surface" gaps. What he had, relative to Borg, relative to Sampras, and most of all relative to Federer, is a HUGE competition gap.

You know how many genuinely world-class athletes were playing professional tennis in the Laver era?

Zero.

Laver himself, the dominant force in pro-level tennis (along, arguably, with Gonzalez) through that era, was a bow-legged shrimp. Doesn't mean he wasn't a *great* athlete. But in a context where the best athletes from all over the world were competing for lucrative endorsement contracts in an individual sport? Laver would be a qualie today. He simply wasn't made of the physical stuff to be a legit world-class athlete. He could only fake it in an era when "world-class" was a striking misnomer.

In Laver's era the pro tennis "competition" ran a few dozen deep. He dominated by being a medium fish in a tiny, tiny pond. The Jim Thorpe of professional tennis. In today's era of sharks, he'd be gobbled alive. I'm aware you can't compare era to era directly -- and it's certainly not Laver's fault he played in an era when tennis was a professional joke to the world's great athletes. But to ignore this fact completely when evaluating him is nuts. His resume for GOAT is 100x flimsier than any modern player's.

 

[BluBarry]

Why do people embarrass themselves like this?

If you're so up on your history, surely you understand the demographics of the game, right?

Laver didn't have any resume gaps, and he didn't have any "surface" gaps. What he had, relative to Borg, relative to Sampras, and most of all relative to Federer, is a HUGE competition gap.

You know how many genuinely world-class athletes were playing professional tennis in the Laver era?

Zero.

Laver himself, the dominant force in pro-level tennis (along, arguably, with Gonzalez) through that era, was a bow-legged shrimp. Doesn't mean he wasn't a *great* athlete. But in a context where the best athletes from all over the world were competing for lucrative endorsement contracts in an individual sport? Laver would be a qualie today. He simply wasn't made of the physical stuff to be a legit world-class athlete. He could only fake it in an era when "world-class" was a striking misnomer.

In Laver's era the pro tennis "competition" ran a few dozen deep. He dominated by being a medium fish in a tiny, tiny pond. The Jim Thorpe of professional tennis. In today's era of sharks, he'd be gobbled alive. I'm aware you can't compare era to era directly -- and it's certainly not Laver's fault he played in an era when tennis was a professional joke to the world's great athletes. But to ignore this fact completely when evaluating him is nuts. His resume for GOAT is 100x flimsier than any modern player's.

I truly enjoy the sentiments of your Post however when you say He was a medium size fish in a tiny Pond, I take that of course to refer to the numbers of guys who were actually capable of competing on an equal level with Rod Laver.

Well let's see .. hope I don't forget someone but I seem to recall guys like:

John Newcome - Ken Rosewall - Pancho Gonzales - Roy Emerson - Lew Hoad - Tony Roche - Fred Stolle - Stan Smith - Arthur Ashe - Mulligan

I'm sure I'm forgetting some but those guys at least were all capable Players in their own right. The sheer numbers is what I see immediately lacking.
A Slam in those days probably couldn't put together 128 Top Ranked Professionals. And they certainly didn't pull an 1/8 of the Audience we see today.

 

[Marius_Hancu]

In Laver's era the pro tennis "competition" ran a few dozen deep. He dominated by being a medium fish in a tiny, tiny pond. The Jim Thorpe of professional tennis. In today's era of sharks, he'd be gobbled alive. I'm aware you can't compare era to era directly -- and it's certainly not Laver's fault he played in an era when tennis was a professional joke to the world's great athletes. But to ignore this fact completely when evaluating him is nuts. His resume for GOAT is 100x flimsier than any modern player's.

This is GARBAGE.

Laver was at the end of his career when the US was beaten on home court by Australia 5-0.

And the US Team contained one of the most spectacular athletes/specimens of tennis history: Stan Smith (all 6'4'' of him), whom Laver beat 3-1.

http://www.daviscup.com/results/tieresult.asp?tie=10000746

Or look at:

Ashe vs. Laver
http://www.atptennis.com/3/en/players/headtohead/default.asp?playernum1=A063&playernum2=L058

 

[Marius_Hancu]

The answer to the OP is simple:

- because RG exists

- because Laver got it, and he's the gold standard

 

[Eviscerator]

Why do people embarrass themselves like this?

If you're so up on your history, surely you understand the demographics of the game, right?

Laver didn't have any resume gaps, and he didn't have any "surface" gaps. What he had, relative to Borg, relative to Sampras, and most of all relative to Federer, is a HUGE competition gap.

You know how many genuinely world-class athletes were playing professional tennis in the Laver era?

Zero.

Laver himself, the dominant force in pro-level tennis (along, arguably, with Gonzalez) through that era, was a bow-legged shrimp. Doesn't mean he wasn't a *great* athlete. But in a context where the best athletes from all over the world were competing for lucrative endorsement contracts in an individual sport? Laver would be a qualie today. He simply wasn't made of the physical stuff to be a legit world-class athlete. He could only fake it in an era when "world-class" was a striking misnomer.

In Laver's era the pro tennis "competition" ran a few dozen deep. He dominated by being a medium fish in a tiny, tiny pond. The Jim Thorpe of professional tennis. In today's era of sharks, he'd be gobbled alive. I'm aware you can't compare era to era directly -- and it's certainly not Laver's fault he played in an era when tennis was a professional joke to the world's great athletes. But to ignore this fact completely when evaluating him is nuts. His resume for GOAT is 100x flimsier than any modern player's.[/QUOTE]

:roll: :roll: :roll: