Now that Fed won't do the calendar slam, respect to good ol'Rod Laver [Archive] - MensTennisForums.com

Now that Fed won't do the calendar slam, respect to good ol'Rod Laver

TheMightyFed
01-30-2008, 02:09 PM
Honestly Roger will certainly win more slams but you have to be delusionnal to think he will have another shot at the calendar Grand Slam. And this in my opinion, speaks volume on Laver's achievement. OK it was a different time etc. but still, to put up together 4 slam vicories in 12 months including clay and grass, the 2 opposite surfaces, is a huge achievement. If Roger wasn't able to make it (he was 2 sets away from it in 2006 and 2007...), that has to be very tough. I don't see him do this one with more slam contenders and time taking its toll. Your thoughts ?

bokehlicious
01-30-2008, 02:11 PM
CmonAussie will love this thread... :o

Merton
01-30-2008, 04:23 PM
I thought Djokovic was a certainty to win the golden slam this year.

tennizen
01-30-2008, 04:39 PM
I thought Djokovic was a certainty to win the golden slam this year.

He is. Anybody who thinks otherwise is seriously deluded.

scarecrows
01-30-2008, 06:29 PM
Djoko this year will make the golden slam, will win the Davis Cup and the most important of them all, The Battle of Surfaces

ReturnWinner
01-30-2008, 06:33 PM
Djoko this year will make the golden slam, will win the Davis Cup and the most important of them all, The Battle of Surfaces

he will the TMC,the battle of fakers and the challenge of keep bouncing the ball the most time you can too

jonny84
01-30-2008, 08:35 PM
Rafael will dominate on clay for at least the next three years. I can't see Roger losing at Wimbledon in the next two.

I think the next calendar Grand Slam will happen to an unknown up-and-coming player or someone who is yet to pick up their first racquet.

Cant see it happening in this generation of players.

tennis2tennis
01-30-2008, 08:39 PM
rod laver played against guys who wouldn't make a challanger tournament by today's standard

Corey Feldman
01-30-2008, 09:01 PM
Black & White tennis doesnt count

cannot compare the game back then to now

Lee
01-30-2008, 09:04 PM
Black & White tennis doesnt count

cannot compare the game back then to now

:woohoo: Finally something to agree with Mikey on GM!

Richard_from_Cal
01-30-2008, 09:08 PM
:wavey: Mr. Laver.

Love your sig, TheMightyFed!

Corey Feldman
01-30-2008, 09:08 PM
finally Lee :woohoo:

i'm sure you would also agree that Rod Laver from the black and white era with a wooden racquet would beat Djokovic as well !!

Lee
01-30-2008, 09:10 PM
finally Lee :woohoo:

i'm sure you would also agree that Rod Laver from the black and white era with a wooden racquet would beat Djokovic as well !!


Sure if Djokovic has to play with a wooden racquet. :devil:

JediFed
01-30-2008, 09:25 PM
Laver? Pfft.

Beating scrubs like Roche, Rosewell, Newcombe and Ashe!

Mug era. :angel:

MrMarble
01-30-2008, 09:40 PM
Honestly Roger will certainly win more slams

Way less majors.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tennis_male_players_statistics#Most_major_singles_ titles.2C_including_major_professional_titles_befo re_the_open_era

Burrow
01-30-2008, 09:55 PM
Black & White tennis doesnt count

cannot compare the game back then to now

Well the thing is, those guys never had the opportunity to play tennis like guys like Agassi, Sampras, Federer etc. because of the technology, change in balls obviously so you always have to include them in a discussion like this although they played nothing like the guys in this era.

TheMightyFed
01-30-2008, 10:29 PM
Some things are still comparable: the time frame is the same (12 mnths), you still have to win RG and Wimby back-to-back, and clay and grass were much more opposite than today. Laver must have had a huge pressure when US Open started. It was Open era. Still a freaking achievement in my book. I thought Fed could do it with such versatility and dominance, but we will wait a couple more decades.

CmonAussie
01-30-2008, 10:44 PM
CmonAussie will love this thread... :o


:wavey:
:cool:
Yes, i like it:angel:

Rod Laver highlights:

1962: Amateur SLAM~ all 4 amateur majors

1967: Pro SLAM~ all 3 pro majors

1969: Open SLAM~ all 4 open majors


:worship::worship::worship:

gogogirl
01-30-2008, 11:01 PM
Hey All,

Mr. Laver speaks. And he deserves respect. It wasn't his fault he had to play w/a wooden racket. LOL!

http://www.stuff.co.nz/4382345a10393.html

Corey Feldman
01-30-2008, 11:03 PM
It wasn't his fault he had to play w/a wooden racket. LOL!Tough, i'm blaming him :lol:

David Kenzie
01-31-2008, 12:30 AM
Pointless discussion. Tennis was a different sport back then.

Federerhingis
01-31-2008, 01:09 AM
Rafael will dominate on clay for at least the next three years. I can't see Roger losing at Wimbledon in the next two.

I think the next calendar Grand Slam will happen to an unknown up-and-coming player or someone who is yet to pick up their first racquet.

Cant see it happening in this generation of players.


I totally agree, Rafa's dominance on clay is still very much alive until proven otherwise this season. Federer should be a very strong force on grass especially this season, it's his most treasured slam and the "surface" that best suits his game, the low bounce and the fact that grass allows him to half volley from the most impossibles spots. Nevertheless, the grass courts at the all england are proggressively getting slower especially in '07, any good baseliner with a decent serve could cause damage on grass.

Personally I don't see anyone in this generation winning the calendar Slam, too much competition and it's the toughest thing to do and accomplish in todays day of modern tennis.

Rommella
01-31-2008, 10:21 AM
If the hardcourt slams revert to grass, you'd have to give Federer very good chances of doing a Laver.

TheMightyFed
01-31-2008, 10:54 AM
If the hardcourt slams revert to grass, you'd have to give Federer very good chances of doing a Laver.
I think you're joking because then Nadal would be a threat not only in RG but in all slams ! It would be worse IMO...

kronus12
01-31-2008, 11:28 AM
who gives a shit about laver he was the best in his era great but to compare him to roger in this era is completely useless.

tennisvideos
01-31-2008, 12:21 PM
You can't compare different eras, but the fact is a Grand Slam was almost as tough to achieve in the good old days as it is now ... with a few exceptions, namely that 3 of the 4 slams used to be on grass. BUT - if it was so easy then why weren't more people able to achieve it back then?

I don't really rate Laver's Grand Slam in the amateur era as the best players in the world (Gonzales & Rosewall et all) were off playing the pro circuit. However, his 1969 Grand Slam is indeed worthy of it's status as it was during the Open era when all men were eligible to compete.

And the youngsters shouldn't fool themselves that 1969 wasn't a strong generation - you had such greats as Rosewall, Newcombe, Roche, Ashe, Riessen, as well as an ageing Gonzales all competing for glory.

I actually rate Rosewall greater than Laver myself. Laver had more brilliance and his star shone brighter for a shorter period of time, but nobody has had a career to compare to that of Rosewall - 8 singles Grand Slams and consider that he was ineligible to compete in the Slams for 11 of his peak years (1957-1968) missing 44 Grand Slams. And yet he still won GS titles as a teenager and again in his 40s!!! Not only that, he won a slew of Pro Slams against the very best - and if you added them together his total Slam haul would be close to 20 - ahead of everyone including Laver, Gonzales, Kramer, Sampras ... the lot.

To me, Roger Federer is the most brilliant player I have seen since Rod Laver in terms of his shotmaking ability. Laver had every shot in the book, just like Federer - topspin off both sides, slice, magnificent volleys etc. And to be able to produce topspin off a single handed backhand with a wooden racket was indeed something to behold. Very few were ever able to pull that off, McEnroe had the talent to do that as well.

It will be interesting to see if Federer gets another shot at a calendar Slam - or indeed if he can ever win the French. I think he will bounce back from this Aussie Open just fine - he was still recovering from his illness. But it may be too late now with Djokovic such a big improver. Still, it is a pleasure to watch the brilliance of Federer in action. Sorry for raving, but I just wanted to write down my thoughts when I saw this thread ...

PS: Laver is a wonderful gentlemen as well as a great and humble champion. Fed does possess many similar qualities ... he is certainly the modern day Laver of our tour, a throwback to the great stylists of the grasscourt era.

sports freak
01-31-2008, 12:42 PM
Omg Jokervic to win the Golden Slam,yeah no worries over Roger's dead body literally!!God wont be breathing if the Serb has any chance,only in his fantasy dreams!!

TheMightyFed
01-31-2008, 12:46 PM
You can't compare different eras, but the fact is a Grand Slam was almost as tough to achieve in the good old days as it is now ... with a few exceptions, namely that 3 of the 4 slams used to be on grass. BUT - if it was so easy then why weren't more people able to achieve it back then?

And the youngsters shouldn't fool themselves that 1969 wasn't a strong generation - you had such greats as Rosewall, Newcombe, Roche, Ashe, Riessen, as well as an ageing Gonzales all competing for glory.


Agree 100% mate;)
I still think this was pretty rough to achieve, whatever the period.

TheMightyFed
01-31-2008, 12:48 PM
Omg Jokervic to win the Golden Slam,yeah no worries over Roger's dead body literally!!God wont be breathing if the Serb has any chance,only in his fantasy dreams!!

I really hope this won't happen, I can't imagine what his ugly family will come up with in terms of public comments and celebrations...:rolleyes:

CyBorg
01-31-2008, 02:44 PM
You can't compare different eras, but the fact is a Grand Slam was almost as tough to achieve in the good old days as it is now ... with a few exceptions, namely that 3 of the 4 slams used to be on grass. BUT - if it was so easy then why weren't more people able to achieve it back then?

I don't really rate Laver's Grand Slam in the amateur era as the best players in the world (Gonzales & Rosewall et all) were off playing the pro circuit. However, his 1969 Grand Slam is indeed worthy of it's status as it was during the Open era when all men were eligible to compete.

And the youngsters shouldn't fool themselves that 1969 wasn't a strong generation - you had such greats as Rosewall, Newcombe, Roche, Ashe, Riessen, as well as an ageing Gonzales all competing for glory.

I actually rate Rosewall greater than Laver myself. Laver had more brilliance and his star shone brighter for a shorter period of time, but nobody has had a career to compare to that of Rosewall - 8 singles Grand Slams and consider that he was ineligible to compete in the Slams for 11 of his peak years (1957-1968) missing 44 Grand Slams. And yet he still won GS titles as a teenager and again in his 40s!!! Not only that, he won a slew of Pro Slams against the very best - and if you added them together his total Slam haul would be close to 20 - ahead of everyone including Laver, Gonzales, Kramer, Sampras ... the lot.

Rosewall did not win grand slam titles in his 40s. But, yes, in terms of a sheer volume of accomplishments Rosewall probably won the most important events. But he never had years like what Laver had in 67 and 69.

CyBorg
01-31-2008, 02:45 PM
If the hardcourt slams revert to grass, you'd have to give Federer very good chances of doing a Laver.

Roger is just as good, and probably better, on hardcourts as he is on grass.

CyBorg
01-31-2008, 02:48 PM
Personally I don't see anyone in this generation winning the calendar Slam, too much competition and it's the toughest thing to do and accomplish in todays day of modern tennis.

Tennis was every bit as competitive in past eras. In the 70s it wasn't uncommon for a major to have eight rounds, such as that of US Open in 1972, which was extended to a 148-man field due to the sheer depth of talent.

Mechlan
01-31-2008, 05:37 PM
Tennis was every bit as competitive in past eras. In the 70s it wasn't uncommon for a major to have eight rounds, such as that of US Open in 1972, which was extended to a 148-man field due to the sheer depth of talent.

How is the number of players in the field indicative of depth of talent? The women's tour could easily have 512 player draws in the game today, doesn't mean the top players won't stroll through to the later rounds.

platinum
01-31-2008, 06:06 PM
Laver IS the man. And he did it twice, in 1962 and 1969... Wow....

CyBorg
01-31-2008, 06:36 PM
How is the number of players in the field indicative of depth of talent? The women's tour could easily have 512 player draws in the game today, doesn't mean the top players won't stroll through to the later rounds.

The women have a 128-person draw because of political corectness.

As for the 1972 draw, you can find it and look for yourself.

guy in sf
01-31-2008, 09:02 PM
The importance of the calendar year grand slam is a bit overblown in my opinion, to the point that even an astonishing feat of winning 6 straight slams in 2 yrs, as in the cast of Navratilova, is not viewed as important as a calendar year grand slam. Winning the year grand slam just means you were very dominant in that year and you have to prove that you can last beyond a grand slam to be even considered one of the greatest. What Roger Federer has done is amazing enough already. He doesn't at all need to win the calendar year slam but he should at least push for a career slam with the French title under his belt. If he ends up with the most slams and continues to break records like most weeks at number one, "consecutive" records, winning streaks, then the only thing Laver has an advantage over Federer would be just the calendar year slams but Federer would be on top with all other records and in that case, I would pick Federer over Laver.

TheMightyFed
01-31-2008, 09:47 PM
If he ends up with the most slams and continues to break records like most weeks at number one, "consecutive" records, winning streaks, then the only thing Laver has an advantage over Federer would be just the calendar year slams but Federer would be on top with all other records and in that case, I would pick Federer over Laver.

Sure but the calendar grand slam, as well as the 3 doubles RG-Wimby by Borg, will always elude Roger, so these two guys will always be in the GOAT discussion. Sampras's records, although of high standards, will be broken, and by several players IMO. Those of Laver and Borg are much more difficult to replicate.
If Fed wins RG and wins more breaks the slams record, it would be something unique.

theDreamer
02-01-2008, 12:22 AM
The importance of the calendar year grand slam is a bit overblown in my opinion, to the point that even an astonishing feat of winning 6 straight slams in 2 yrs, as in the cast of Navratilova, is not viewed as important as a calendar year grand slam. Winning the year grand slam just means you were very dominant in that year and you have to prove that you can last beyond a grand slam to be even considered one of the greatest. What Roger Federer has done is amazing enough already. He doesn't at all need to win the calendar year slam but he should at least push for a career slam with the French title under his belt. If he ends up with the most slams and continues to break records like most weeks at number one, "consecutive" records, winning streaks, then the only thing Laver has an advantage over Federer would be just the calendar year slams but Federer would be on top with all other records and in that case, I would pick Federer over Laver.

Totally agree. There are so many other unique and extremely impressive records that have been
acheived by the greats and you really can't judge a player because they didn't acheive one specific
record. The circumstances within which the most impressive records were achieved are unique and in general can never be replicated.

Federerhingis
02-01-2008, 12:29 AM
Tennis was every bit as competitive in past eras. In the 70s it wasn't uncommon for a major to have eight rounds, such as that of US Open in 1972, which was extended to a 148-man field due to the sheer depth of talent.

I don't completely disagree however, Laver was so far above the rest of the field. He was too good an athlete, as was Rosewall. The strings today even out the field so it's tougher to complete this remarkable feat.

theDreamer
02-01-2008, 12:32 AM
Sure but the calendar grand slam, as well as the 3 doubles RG-Wimby by Borg, will always elude Roger, so these two guys will always be in the GOAT discussion. Sampras's records, although of high standards, will be broken, and by several players IMO. Those of Laver and Borg are much more difficult to replicate.
If Fed wins RG and wins more breaks the slams record, it would be something unique.

Just like the Wimby-USO always eluded Borg. In fact, he never won a USO.

Going by the logic that Fed can't be GOAT if he doesn't win the French, Borg can't
be either since he never won a USO (we'll ignore the Australian since he didn't bother
to play in it).

ubky
02-01-2008, 01:32 AM
I find it interesting that anyone would want to diminish the feats of past champions.
There have only been 2 players to win a calendar slam and only 5 who have won career slams.

If it was so much easier in the past, why weren't there more calendar or career slams won? The fact is that it was difficult then, as it is difficult now.

Reminds me of discussions surrounding the great Don Bradman, an Australian cricketer who averaged 99.94 runs an innings. (For those who aren't cricket savvy, the next highest average is 60.97. A decent batsman is considered to have an average of above 40, a champion batsman usually above 50) According to some Bradman was able to achieve his numbers because conditions and opposition were easier back then. However no one else in his era got close to his achievement.

Same thing with Budge and Laver. No one else managed their feats in their eras. Despite his dominance, even Laver only managed it twice.

theDreamer
02-01-2008, 02:01 AM
I find it interesting that anyone would want to diminish the feats of past champions.
There have only been 2 players to win a calendar slam and only 5 who have won career slams.

If it was so much easier in the past, why weren't there more calendar or career slams won? The fact is that it was difficult then, as it is difficult now.


I also find it interesting that anyone would want to diminish the feats of a current champion (i.e. Fed) by saying, for example, that if he doesnt win the french, then he's not as great as laver or borg.
He himself has achieved many records that they never did, so it works both ways.

And whether you accept it or not, conditions were different back then:
I believe even Laver has said that the overall depth of the field was much lower back then.
Also, the slams were only played on two surfaces (clay and grass) - less adjustments to be made
by players.
etc.
Surely, all these little differences together would definitely make a difference as to difficulty
of say, achieving a calendar/career slam.

Winning a calendar slam was difficult back then (and definitely a worthy achievement),
but it is arguably even more difficult now.

CyBorg
02-01-2008, 05:40 AM
I don't completely disagree however, Laver was so far above the rest of the field. He was too good an athlete, as was Rosewall. The strings today even out the field so it's tougher to complete this remarkable feat.

Roger's inability to beat Rafa on clay has nothing to do with the strings. But whatever helps you sleep at night.

TheMightyFed
02-01-2008, 07:31 AM
I also find it interesting that anyone would want to diminish the feats of a current champion (i.e. Fed) by saying, for example, that if he doesnt win the french, then he's not as great as laver or borg.
He himself has achieved many records that they never did, so it works both ways.
I didn't say that, I love Fed and his game and style only place him up there with the greatest. Contrary to what you think, this thread emphasises his greatness; it indeed says that despite this greatness, Fed won't beat all the records.

What I meant was that achieving a record where requiring versatility and/or pressure of a short time span, is much more difficult to replicate than piling up slams over the course of a career. Sampras' achivements are great but we know that his slam record will be beaten sooner or later. Exceptionnal circumstances like the pro ban for Laver (and Rosewall), or the early retirement/non participation to the AO for Borg prevented them to win more slams. But with the dedication of current pro players, this record is not as secured as the calendar slam or the 3 RG-Wimby combo.

Roger has great records, his 3 Wimby-USO is mind-blowing. Now I think he would go up another level in history by winning RG. He's been so close, and he has the game for that.

theDreamer
02-01-2008, 09:34 AM
I didn't say that, I love Fed and his game and style only place him up there with the greatest. Contrary to what you think, this thread emphasises his greatness; it indeed says that despite this greatness, Fed won't beat all the records.


That would seem to me to go without saying. :shrug:



What I meant was that achieving a record where requiring versatility and/or pressure of a short time span, is much more difficult to replicate than piling up slams over the course of a career. Sampras' achivements are great but we know that his slam record will be beaten sooner or later. Exceptionnal circumstances like the pro ban for Laver (and Rosewall), or the early retirement/non participation to the AO for Borg prevented them to win more slams. But with the dedication of current pro players, this record is not as secured as the calendar slam or the 3 RG-Wimby combo.


I would say achieving a "timed" record is also a bit more dependent on luck and the circumstances in general at the time, than a "career-spanning" record which is a better gauge for the player's dominance(and skill) over his generation.

Roger has great records, his 3 Wimby-USO is mind-blowing. Now I think he would go up another level in history by winning RG. He's been so close, and he has the game for that.

I agree it would be nice for him to get that elusive RG.

David Kenzie
02-01-2008, 11:19 AM
Records in the pre-Open era should be erased or at least never mentioned when comparing them to those of the Open era. Will you guys stop saying Laver won the calendar Slam "twice" ? How silly is that when the pros weren't even allowed to play in '62 ?

CmonAussie
02-01-2008, 11:41 AM
Records in the pre-Open era should be erased or at least never mentioned when comparing them to those of the Open era. Will you guys stop saying Laver won the calendar Slam "twice" ? How silly is that when the pros weren't even allowed to play in '62 ?


:rolleyes::rolleyes:
...
you obviously don`t have any respect for history:(

<>^^<>
1962: Rod Laver wins- AO, FO, Wimbledon, USO [proved he was the best amateur];)
...
1967: Rod Laver wins- French Pro, British Pro, USA Pro [proved he was the best pro]:worship:
...
1969: Rod Laver wins- AO, FO, Wimbledon, USO [proved he was the best in the Open Era]:angel:


~~~~
#@@#
Honestly what more did Laver have to do to `prove` himself, he beat all the competition at every level- amateur, pro, open:p

theDreamer
02-01-2008, 01:32 PM
Winning a calendar slam was difficult back then (and definitely a worthy achievement),
but it is arguably even more difficult now.

That said, considering Fed has come within a set or 2 from doing it a couple of times,
it would seem it's not impossible and that the calendar slam will eventually be
achieved by another tennis player. (Tsonga maybe? ;))